Posted by dr Walther Heipertz on July 9, 2023 at 12:08 p.m

Here you will find my announcement text for the discussion group: "Europe Now - Encounter"

The population has to see the politicians in the countries ... and we the population just so that you can do that with Europe as a survival issue, like the anti-nuclear movement and the current climate people have managed and can do with something else, but also not just nonthrilling.

Seminars on constitutional law don't help, nor do requests for concerts in the federalist sandcastle of democracy, rather the topic of survival, such as now especially with the climate as the basic melody. Europe must continue to grow as and what it will, it just has to get faster, more dynamic and more contoured than it already is. How can we “reverse our polarity” so that we don't just strangle it procedurally. What was good about "Pulse of Europe" and how can you make it permanent? 

Posted by Heinrich Kuemmerle on July 9, 2023 at 12:48 p.m

Unfortunately, from what was announced above Europe ball -- an affair of the heart of my better half and me -- nothing came of this time. A few couples willing to dance were missing to be able to use the harmony halfway.

But our EUROPA-UNION member and dance teacher has decided to do this Klaus Brenner agreed to hold a European party at the Brenner dance school. The big advantage: even self-confessed non-dancers will have fun!

And here is the link to the 7th Hertenstein Talks.

Posted by John Marsia on September 18, 2023 at 23:52 p.m

Here you can find my keynote speech in advance. I'm already looking forward to the discussion!

The elections around European Parliament 2024. On the way to the Constituent Assembly?

On May 9th I celebrated Europe Day with other federalists, which commemorates all the positive things that the European Union (EU) has achieved for Europeans, such as the internal market and currency, open borders and the Erasmus exchange . But that doesn't mean we shouldn't stay clear. That is why I denounced the fact that the EU remains insignificant and powerless on the international stage. It has failed to reduce tensions between Russia and Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Israel and Palestine, Algeria and Morocco, Libya, Syria, the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, Senegal and Central Africa , the former Belgian Congo, Venezuela and Colombia, including China and some of its neighbors, for example. I have accused the heads of state and government of our Member States and the European institutions of being on the wrong track for 73 years because of the Robert Schuman The European federation proclaimed on May 9, 1950 still does not exist.

Is the European Political Community, the Was stillborn in 1954, resurrected?

With a view to the European Council meeting on June 23 and 24, 2022, President Macron proposed the creation of a European Political Community (EPC) to quickly bring together European states that share our democratic values, which the EU cannot do want to contribute to the security, stability and prosperity of our continent. On October 6, 2022, about fifty heads of state and government met in Prague to create this EPG, with no concrete result other than the promise to meet again and a souvenir photo of an extremely costly and environmentally damaging meeting, given the mass of greenhouse gases that for the transport of the participants.

On June 1, 2023, the EPG met near Chisinau, just a few kilometers from the Russian soldiers stationed in Transnistria and just 20 kilometers from the Ukrainian border. Moldovans welcomed this moral support and the fact that the previous day the European Council had increased financial support to their country from EUR 145 million to EUR 295 million. The EPG supported the demands of the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine to join NATO with Russia after the end of the war and to begin accession negotiations with the EU. The Commission will make its recommendations in October so that the European Council can take a decision in December.

Does this mediocre report justify EPG? The participants think yes. Zelensky was once again able to outline his plan to end Russian aggression. The Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and the United Kingdom coordinated their contribution to the training of Ukrainian fighter pilots and mechanics. The leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan were able to start a dialogue, as were the leaders of Serbia and Kosovo. Macron called for expanding EU support to other EPC members in the areas of cybersecurity, protecting critical infrastructure and public opinion from information manipulation, and for the EU to be expanded to include Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Moldova, Serbia and Ukraine to pacify the Western Balkans and its eastern neighbors. The EPG will meet in Granada on October 5th, in London in spring 2024 and in Budapest in the second half of the year. Belgrade has signed up to host the next meeting.[1]

A quarter of a century of powerlessness

Since February 24, 2022, Russia's war against Ukraine has finally made the European public aware of the extreme weakness of our armed forces, including in France and the United Kingdom. We know that our leaders are just as capable of dealing with today's threats as they were with those of the 1910s, 1930s and 1990s during the Balkan and World Wars, the Spanish Civil War or the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. The European institutions are increasingly discredited by petty questions of precedence between authorities, by suspicions of corruption or by their inability to deal with crises.

They have been numerous in a quarter of a century: finance in 2008, money in 2010, migration in 2015, health in 2020 and 2021, geopolitics in 2022 with the intensification of the war between Russia and Ukraine. Our failures clearly show that our economic, budgetary, employment, environmental, migration, health, security and defense policies will only be effective if they become European, provided that Europe adopts the only form of government that suits him: federalism. Only in this way can Europeans speak with one voice and bear their full weight on the international stage, but also be effective and efficient.

How can we move towards federalism, towards democracy?

The European Parliament, founded in 1952 and ultimately directly elected since 1979, has always neglected its first task: to provide Europe with a constitution. It should have established the fundamental rights of citizens, established the principles on which the legitimacy of political power is based, outlined the general architecture of federal institutions and the division of competences between Europe, its States, their regions and local authorities and, finally, the equality of the European citizens must guarantee.

In its judgment of June 30, 2009, the Federal Court of Karlsruhe decided: "The representation of citizens in the European Parliament is not linked to the equality of Union citizens (Article 9 of the EU Treaty), but to nationality, a distinguishing criterion that is in the EU is absolutely forbidden. The Union contradicts the idea that it makes itself a union of citizens, and this contradiction can only be explained by its status as an association of sovereign states" and that: "If it is measured against the requirements of the rule of law, "The EU lacks a political decision-making body, is constituted on the basis of general elections and is endowed with the ability to represent the will of the people in a unified manner."

Two paths could lead to a federal constitution: either an initiative by EU MPs or a decision by some governments.

How can we make the European Parliament a legitimate assembly?

After the European elections in 2024, the European Parliament must finally assume its natural role and declare itself a Constituent Assembly and then draft and vote on a European federal constitution.

Before the 2024 European elections, the European Parliament should put an end to the situation denounced by the Federal Court of Justice of Karlsruhe by reaffirming the provisions of Article 21(3) of the Treaty on the European Coal and Steel Community of 1950 and Article 138(3) of the Treaty on the European Economic Community of Electoral law announced in 1957 passed. These articles provided that its Parliamentary Assembly "shall prepare proposals to enable direct universal suffrage according to a uniform procedure in all Member States".

This did not happen. In 1976, governments passed the law that enabled the first universal suffrage of the European Parliament in 1979, which made the representation of citizens degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per member state and a maximum of 96 seats. This provision, which relates to Article 14(2) of the Treaty on European Union[2] does not meet the requirements of Article 9 of the EC Treaty: "The Union shall, in all its actions, respect the principle of equality of its citizens, which shall be equally respected by its institutions, bodies and other bodies. A citizen of the Union is any person who has the nationality of a Member State. Union citizenship complements national citizenship and does not replace it. ».

This Article 14 paragraph 2 perpetuates the fact that the electoral weight of a Maltese or a Luxembourger is twelve times greater than that of a German when he reaches voting age, because the right to vote is acquired at the age of 18 everywhere, except in Austria, and soon in Belgium , it seems, where it is at 16 years old.

In 14 Member States, people aged 18 and over are eligible. on 21 of 10 others; up to 23 in Romania and 25 in Italy and Greece.

Pursuant to Article 20(2b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Council Directive 93/109/EC, citizenship of the Union allows the right to vote in the country of residence, if it is part of the Union, in accordance with the rules applicable therein. Nationals living abroad can vote in their own country, by post and/or at the embassy or even electronically, but Bulgarians, Greeks and Italians can only do so from an EU member state, as do Czechs, Slovaks, Irish and Maltese is prohibited.

Voting is compulsory in Belgium, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Greece and Cyprus, but not elsewhere.

Article 14(2) does not provide for a threshold, but Cyprus has introduced a threshold of 1,8%, Greece 3%, Italy, Austria and Sweden 4%. 10 countries apply a 5% threshold.

In most Member States, but not in France, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Romania and Portugal, the lists of different parties compete and voters only have to vote for one candidate. In Luxembourg, multiple candidates can be elected from competing lists. In Belgium, Ireland, Italy and Poland, the electoral college is divided into constituencies. Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Malta use transferable vote voting in elections for multi-member constituencies.[3]

This unequal situation is unacceptable in a democracy. It took at least 45 years.

To put an end to this, the European Parliament elected in 2019 should adopt a European law with a view to the 2024 elections that sets at least the age for acquiring the right to vote, the threshold clause, the electoral system and a criterion for equal representation of citizens to improve the legitimacy of his successor. This law could, for example, provide that each region, federal state or canton sends one representative to the European Parliament if it has 1 to 1 citizens or residents, two if it has 000 to 000 residents, etc .

To date, the date for the European Parliament elections is set by the European Council on the basis of a proposal from the European Parliament in May or early June. For 2024 this will be from June 6th to 9th.

So there is still time to have an influence.

A new core of European states is needed

Since the 1950s, it has been unlikely that all European states will immediately agree on a scenario or project. There was no shortage of examples, as the Soviets were opposed to the countries they occupied in Central and Eastern Europe benefiting from the Marshall Plan and becoming members of the Atlantic Alliance or the European Communities.

With patience, however, it is possible for 28 states, for example, to adhere to a common definition of European values ​​despite their linguistic, religious and other differences. This was achieved by the Treaty of Nice in 2000 thanks to the support of Jacques Chirac, a proponent of secularism. These values ​​can be summarized in three words: humanism, universalism, progressivism.

In order to gradually reach consensus, it is necessary to build a core of states that is more motivated, more realistic or freer than others. The BENELUX countries paved the way for the Six, who were and are 27 years old since Brexit. The BENELUX countries abolished their internal borders in 1975. Ten years later, France and Germany jointly created the Schengen area, which today includes 23 EU member states, 4 associated states and Gibraltar. The Eurozone was created by 1999 states in 9, and since January 1, 2023 there have been 20.

An expandable core could strengthen Europe's sovereignty by developing a European pillar of NATO and increasing our military capabilities through more efficient defense spending. It could better bear our share of the burden of our defense and better mitigate the risks that are greater if we only follow our US allies. A European pillar of NATO could better balance the alliance geopolitically and thus strengthen our sovereignty. It would complement the EU institutions, because the EU will always be unable to build a European defense: it is not a state, but an association of states. States have had a monopoly on violence since 1648.

Why and how can we influence our leaders?

Unfortunately, European leaders do not want to lose any of their powers, even if they have difficulty exercising them, while the President of the US[4] and Russia[5] on September 11, 2018, declared that they had agreed to the creation of a European army.

We must therefore increase pressure on our leaders to better respond to our desire for good governance, greater security and efficient defense. If they do not change course, they should be sanctioned as early as 2024.

The European Defense Society INPV (S€D), founded in 2015[6] has been supported by the European Defense Society in Central and Eastern Europe (S€DCEE) based in Warsaw since March 7, 2023. Since March 21st they have been joined by Avenir de l'Europe (Future of Europe), Associazione Mazziniana Italiana, Citoyen d'Europe M3E (Europe, Ethics, Equality), Europe Unie dans sa Diversité (Europe united in its diversity), EUROPA-UNION Heilbronn, Union of European Federalists (UEF) Europe Group, UEF-Belgium, UEF in the Czech Republic, UEF-Luxembourg and Movimento Federalista Europeo (MFE) Sezione Ezio Vedovelli Valtellina Valchiavenna. Together they have drawn up a manifesto and are disseminating it for a more democratic European election in 2024.[7] This text responds to the observation that the Conference on the Future of Europe, which began on May 9, 2021 and ended a year later, drew up a list of 49 changes to be made as soon as possible in governance and therefore in the European institutions should be implemented. Although the European Parliament has supported these calls for changes, neither the Council of the European Union nor the European Council have responded.

Let us ensure that the expected changes take place after the election of the new European Parliament at the end of spring 2024. They will not result from a reform of the current Treaties on the European Union (TEU) and its functioning (TFEU). Article 48 TEU requires the unanimous consent of the Member States, which is impossible.

There will be no strong and sovereign Europe if it is not democratic, which requires a constitution approved by our "sovereign people", the European citizens. Like the French MEPs of 1789, the newly elected MEPs of the European Parliament should undertake to redefine their role in the eyes of history through a kind of European "Oath of Jeu de Paume"to perceive:"We swear never to separate and to assemble where circumstances require, until the day on which the assembly takes place [Europe] built and consolidated on a solid foundation."

In order to create a federal, sovereign, strong but peaceful and democratic Europe that respects our natural environment, we must join the first signatories of this manifesto. Let us spend a year campaigning for real democracy to prevail in Europe. Democracy is the first of our shared core values.

Today it seems that the countries that know that they are the least sovereign, having joined the European Union, the Atlantic Alliance, the Schengen area, the Euro area and its deepening, and have modest resources in relation to the Defense budget and the defense industrial and technological base are likely to be the first members of the United States of Europe. The process they must follow to become federated is very simple. A 3-minute video animation shows it, it is online on the website of the European Defense Society INPV, on page https://www.seurod.eu/videos_audios.html.

The United States of Europe would take over the part of Europe's international relations, security and defense that would be ceded by the member states. The responsibilities would be distributed among the levels of government according to the principle of subsidiarity. International relations would be handled like in Canada or Germany. The federal troops would continue to exist alongside the state armies. The current European Council would be followed by a Senate comprising the Member States and the European Senate and the European Parliament would have the power to vote on the budget, raise taxes, adopt the relevant accounts and take legislative initiatives, including most new texts today come from the executive branches and administrations due to the technical nature of the topics.

Gradually, without becoming unbalanced, the United States of Europe, created by a small core of small states, could absorb larger and larger states like Spain and Italy or even Germany if the enlarged core weighed as much as each of these states . The United States of Europe could then integrate France, its nuclear deterrent and its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

It's 73 years ago Robert Schuman gave his founding speech. The dramatic events in Ukraine, Georgia, Asia and Africa, as well as the events we see on the horizon, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, require clear formulation. The European treaties cannot guarantee a good future for us and future generations. There can be no reason to wait any longer.

Without a government capable of creating a federal, strong, sovereign and democratic Europe, tomorrow it will be too late for Europe to regain its rightful place on the international stage.

Therefore, the second phase of our action on May 9th was the proclamation of an appeal to the democratic political parties. It is titled “A PROJECT, A METHOD AND AGENDA FOR BUILDING THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION".

It is supported by the Italian section of the European Movement, Avenir de l'Europe, the Associazione Mazziniana Italiana, Citoyen d'Europe M3E (Europe, Ethics, Equality), Europe Unie dans sa Diversité, EUROPA-UNION Heilbronn, the Union of European Federalists (UEF) - Europe Group, UEF-Belgium, UEF in the Czech Republic, UEF-Luxembourg, European Defense Society INPV (S€D), the European Defense Society in Central and Eastern Europe (S€DCEE) and the Movimento Federalista Europeo (MFE) Sezione Ezio Vedovelli Valtellina Valchiavenna.

Since the signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2007, fifteen and a half years ago, the European Union has faced a series of challenges that have revealed its weak ability to respond and meet the expectations of its citizens. The aggressiveness that Putin claimed in Munich in 2007 and exercised against Georgia in 2008, then in Crimea and Donbass in 2014 remained unanswered, leading him to behave even more horribly in Ukraine from February 24, 2022. Faced with the financial crises of 2008, the currency crisis of 2010, the migration crisis of 2015, the health crisis of 2019 to 2022 and the security crises, whether in Afghanistan, the Sahel or Ukraine, the European Union and its Member States have taken certain measures, but not in the way, like one European Federation With a common foreign and security policy , a common defense and budgetary, monetary, migration, health, social and environmental policies that enable Europe to act effectively in the interests of its citizens, could have made sense. But one is no longer enough European Federation to suggest it must be created.

For this purpose, it is necessary and urgent to establish the basic elements of a PROJECT, a METHOD and an AGENDA that are based on the dozens of federal guidelines that exist around the world, but take into account the cultures, values ​​and history of Europeans. Like the Schengen area or the Euro currency area This federation would be created by the governments that wanted it, together with the European Union of which it would be a part, but this time through an institutional assembly with the mandate to draft and adopt a real initiative. no new international treaty. That's that PROJECT.

The essential elements of this constitutional text must first and foremost be uniform citizenship be that everyone in the European Federation living persons and is guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is then the task of the federal legislature, which will have two chambers Budget of the federal government and from own resources finance. The entire European Federation will use the single European currency. The common one Foreign and Security Policy must include a common defense. Member States are not granted veto rights. The federal government will be accountable to the federal legislature.

The method of the Constituent Assembly in drafting and adopting a federal coalition shall a constant and intensive dialogue with national parliaments and civil society include. It will provide citizens in one pan-European referendum submitted for ratification because of sovereignty belongs to the people. In this way the principles of both the representative democracy as well as that participatory democracy respected. In this sense, it would make sense interparliamentary assemblies as they took place in Rome in November 1990.

The AGENDA is with the Tenth legislative period of the European Parliament (2024-2029) connected to one European Federation for possible further expansion.

It is time to turn to two brief final reflections.

Our leaders want to be more sovereign, but they are increasingly submitting to the United States of America, while the latter's interests differ from ours and the West is losing its influence over Russia, China, etc., mainly because these autocracies only serve their interests and that Consider the balance of power. If Europe wants to promote our values ​​and human rights, it must be stronger than the EU. Its soft power, otherwise so useful in relations with peaceful countries, is useless to people who use hard power.

That is why we call on the European political parties, because there are no truly European, that is, transnational, political parties, to include these ideas in their election manifestos, and we will call to elect only those who have done so.

It is worth reminding voters that political parties only exist at the national level. The European Parliament consists of seven political groups, consisting of at least 23 members and representing at least a quarter of the Member States. The names European People's Party and European Social Democratic Party are misleading. A group's policy positions are the result of internal consultations; no member can be obliged to vote.

The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats consists of 14 parties, 6 of which describe themselves as Christian Democrats. He said he was committed to creating a stronger and more confident Europe that serves its citizens, is more competitive and democratic and where citizens can build the life they want.

The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has as its partner the Party of European Socialists (PES), which brings together 34 socialist, social democratic, workers' and democratic parties from the European Union and Norway. In addition, 12 parties are associated and 12 parties are observers.

The Renew Europe Group is a coalition of 37 vaguely centrist parties.

The Greens/European Free Alliance group consists of 20 parties, including Volt Germany.

The "Identity and Democracy" group includes in particular 3 major right-wing extremist parties.

The Group of European Conservatives and Reformists brings together fifteen parties, some of which are in power, in Poland, Italy and Flanders (N-VA).

The Left Group in the European Parliament consists of 20 left-wing extremist parties.

Finally, it should be remembered that the appointment of Top candidates should be avoided: they are not legitimate outside the constituency in which they were elected.

The few elements of reflection that I have just outlined should lead, after the 2024 European elections, to the creation of an assembly essential for the gradual establishment of federal governance at the European level.

 

[1] See Zarina Zabrisky, Russo-Ukrainian War. Day 465: A ceasefire unacceptable - US Blinken" (Russian-Ukrainian War. Day 465: A ceasefire unacceptable - USA Blinken) in Euromaidan Press, https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/06/03/russo-ukrainian-war-day-465-a-ceasefire-unacceptable-us-blinken/, 3/6/2023.

[2] Article 14(2) of the Treaty on European Union provides:

(1) The European Parliament exercises legislative and budgetary tasks jointly with the Council. It carries out political and advisory control functions in accordance with the conditions set out in the treaties. He elects the President of the Commission.

(2) The European Parliament is composed of representatives of the citizens of the Union. Their number does not exceed seven hundred and fifty, plus the President. The representation of citizens must be ensured in such a way that: it Degressive proportionalwith a minimum threshold of six members per Lid STATE is. To none: Lid-SEs can be allocated more than ninety-six seats.

The European Council, acting unanimously on the initiative of the European Parliament and with its consent, shall adopt a decision on the composition of the European Parliament in accordance with the principles referred to in the first subparagraph.

(3) The Members of the European Parliament are elected in general, direct, free and secret elections for a period of five years.

(4) The European Parliament elects its President and its officers from among its members.

 

The crossed out passage in paragraph 2 is the one that is objected to by the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe.

[3] Elections for multi-member constituencies ensure proportional and independent representation. This electoral system gives voters the assurance that their vote will not go to a candidate they oppose. It allows him to express his secondary preference in favor of a candidate from a party other than the first choice, thus influencing coalition formation. This voting system was introduced in the XIXth century.^e century for thomas hare (1808-1891) in Great Britain and from Carl Andrae (1812-1893) in Denmark. It is practiced in Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Malta. Outside Europe it is used in Australia, New Zealand and Tasmania.

The voter must indicate on their ballot an order of preference between the candidates. After all ballot papers have been counted, the quotient required to elect a candidate, the so-called droop quotient, is determined by dividing the number of valid votes by the number of seats to be filled plus one. Candidates with first votes that are greater than or equal to the droop quotient are elected. The votes received by these candidates above the quotient will be distributed among the unelected candidates who were placed as second choices. The distribution follows a mechanism that may vary from country to country. If no candidate has reached the quotient, the candidate with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated. The votes are then distributed among the candidates who were positioned as the second choice by the voters. The process continues until all [???] are filled.

[4] Fareed Zakaria for CNN on November 11.11.2018, XNUMX, Interview with President Emmanuel Macron,

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/11/10/emmanuel-macron-fareed-zakaria-trump-tweet-sot-gps-vpx.cnn

Fareed Zakaria for CNN on November 11.11.2018, XNUMX Interview with President Donald Trump, https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/11/10/trump-macron-bilateral-meeting-bts-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/intl-latest-world-videos/

[5] Sn « Vladimir Putin only answers France's questions », 11/11/2018, https://francais.rt.com/international/55305-vladimir-poutine-repond-exclusivite-questions-rt-france-video.

[6] The European Defense Society INPV (S€D) has been working tirelessly since 2015: three books have been published in French, the third has been translated into Dutch and English, and the second edition is in preparation. It will be available in English, French, Dutch and German thanks to the support of the Prime Minister of the German-speaking Community - - East Belgium.

[7] The manifesto for more democratic European elections 2024 is available in 23 languages ​​on the websites of Europe Unie dans sa Diversité and the European Defense Society INPV.

Posted by dr Walther Heipertz on September 20, 2023 at 23:08 p.m

As already mentioned by Heinrich Kuemmerle announced, now here is my markup for the “Encounter” discussion group.

“Europe now!” – Encounter

Commencement clause: Today's event is intended to be a kind of "short open encounter", based on professional psychological definitions, corresponding to personal exchange in the best possible openness, honesty and directness, with each individual 'centering' primarily on themselves, i.e. only indirectly on the factual object or “Europe”, but on what “Europe” and the current European discussion or politics in U.S means how all this moves us and how it moves us at a given moment, what others say and show about it, especially in reaction to us.

Many people are not used to this focus and rightly so. It wouldn't be at all compatible with everyday life and life if one were to always immediately and primarily try to capture and communicate the subjective factor. Life predominantly 'lives' precisely by stripping away our objectified messages from our subjectivity. Nevertheless, all messages still have this subjective side, although occasionally this 'automatic' contact with the object can be disturbed, which we do not necessarily have to notice and which, for example, has to do with unconscious inner rejections, aggression, disappointments or fears can. It is even the rule that the constitutively claimed 'congruence of subject and object' is always incomplete and fragile. Life experience shows that.

As a rule, becoming aware - partially or completely, especially on difficult issues - is helpful, of course only insofar as a dangerous activation of strong, previously hidden emotions is avoided, which can be achieved well through intervention, especially since this only happens with a general political issue would be to be expected in exceptional cases (... everyone should try to 'play' it for themselves beforehand, i.e. whether something like this often upsets them too much too quickly!).

However, the activation of relevant personal aspects cannot be easily evoked simply by concentrating on them or by making the corresponding intention. It can therefore be helpful to have an object-related, foreign text that has been previously noted and perhaps resonates with the reader, but in which the author's personal aspects are not addressed 'frontally', but through freer, broader contradictions This diction, which, as it were, 'passes through' and also strongly expresses, allows the - attached, so to speak - subjectivity to be recognized and, if necessary, to be deepened, perhaps also that of the reader!

The present text is intended to serve this purpose and contains, in particular for the author himself, surprising turns and capers, 'back and forth', and incidentally also occasional expletives, especially at the beginning, which are not used intentionally, but then - because of the procedural nature of the text - deliberately has not been 'cleaned up'. Writing itself was a 'not effortless self-experience', just 'once again', but much more noticeable than usual.

Individual positions, especially the more pointed ones, will certainly also be addressed in the matter, but this should be the case - as it were artificially even - not be in the foreground, because every factual position is - as already said - always a synthesis of more or less certain facts and personal perception and evaluation, like this one in particular at the last corresponding discussion group at the 6th Hertenstein Talks based on opposing publications by Edzard Reuter and Klaus von Dohnanyi from 2022 could be shown, although they were based on very comparable basic facts.

That's what makes it interesting and potentially valuable to ventilate hidden subjectivisms that may even be decisive for blockages and contradictions. In this way, they can sometimes be at least partially overcome, which is what people want 'in themselves', at least when they talk to each other in order to communicate.

It would be a success for today if we conclude at the end that, on the whole, we agree on the very broad tableau of positions on Europe that affects our subjectivity in an appropriate and, above all, 'injury-free' way, including the more or less Europe-related, additional topics could be exchanged profitably.

Hunting through the constant loop of European disappointments... “You can safely forget Europe”... war and peace, anger and meaning

Writing process from early July to mid-September 2023

Vaclav Havel, a supporter of the European project beyond any doubt even during the decades of speech bans and imprisonment, said in 1999, ten years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, what in his sense was already the epochal coming true of the “European idea” before the French one Senate:

 “I can't help but feel as if the whole thing is a train ride that started earlier, at a different time and under different conditions, and that it just goes on, without new energies, new spiritual impulses, a renewed sense of direction and that To name the destination of the trip!”
(Quote n. Timothy garton ash, 2023)

Europe as a sad affair

But if there was still hope and disappointment back then - we can continue on this great "train" today - also about the collateral damage of the transition, such as the foudroyant bribery enrichment of the former cadres and the corresponding surrender of the masses who longed and fought, into the new world - the scales, this has continued for many since the turn of the millennium, but a lot of additional things are happening around the world:

The so-called “war on terror” from Nine-Eleven onwards, the missteps there, Islamism, the increase in migration, the climate crisis, the rise of new, seemingly highly efficient, unfree, but for two decades - hidden in the shadow of all this the ruling elites of all precarious countries in the world are finding centers that are all the more attractive. At some point it will also be attractive to the masses who are left behind and ultimately get drunk on simple images of the enemy. But the greatest thing is that we fed these powers ourselves and their junk, which we ordered and then delivered in large quantities, is now clogging our mouths and brains.

All this while the United States of America is increasingly overextended internally and externally, long hyped as the “only remaining” world power, whose teat we Europeans continue to suck on to this day and now and then still believe we can bite on. So far, these Americans continue to pay far more than twice as much as the Europeans for the European war in Ukraine, for the defense of the West in general anyway, and even three to four times as much in relation to the population. But we in Western Europe then make this bigoted and palatable and painless with the mental perversion that somehow it is all the result of American imperialism. It doesn't matter whether some of us actually openly expose ourselves to this point or whether many more of us just listen to it, but even then store it unchecked in the rotten historical memory, something like this: “We didn't provoke anyone with weapons, that is, we were not that one". A self-deception in which they themselves believed and believe, but which the now strengthening South never believed in, because it has always recognized the genetic connection between Europe and America, even with changing roles between evil and good.

The new millennium has not allowed anything to become more internally and externally contoured; in fact, even within Europe - negatively reciprocal to the increasing pressure of problems - it has made us even more oblivious to the world. As terrible as that is, we are not much further along than we were 60 years ago Konrad Adenauer Before his death, he lamented the great failure to achieve better European integration, and also generously lamented his own partial failure. The whole thing just doesn't seem to be progressing - despite decades of prescribed euphoria and repetitive reports of success - like a genetically short person who just can't grow can.

The compensatory inflated value dummies, especially today - as a replacement for the "never again war" that was still sufficient at the time - from which some turn away in disgust and others chew on them all the more, have in any case turned Europe into a crudity: whoever relied on it or sits, is frustrated, feels alone, only finds traitors within Europe and isolates himself or sits in the sandbox and builds in his head - as if hopping around the corner - a 'greater Europe'. But the view from this sandcastle shocks us even harder and makes us stand there in front of the whole world with our phantasms as if watered (whether all the material is correct, even completely, is of no concern in terms of world history, because what counts here is the sentiment, not the calculator or some smartass!).

In short: the states 'next door' that are not yet in want in because they see that those inside are still doing better, because they have no real fear of survival, or are simply too stupid to do so, and at best have cozy prosperity - and peace dividend dispute. Those who are already inside want their very own Europe, no longer the common one, or their own rather than the common one. But none of this deters “Les miserables”. On the other hand, there was already a completely proper state that even left.

The European idea as too ideal an idea.

What's wrong with the whole thing if it's losing more and more internal integrative power? You actually want to drown this bundle of joy in the lake at night. But this ending with horror, instead of a horror without end, doesn't work either, because it keeps coming up, you can't get rid of it, it stays in your head, it's indestructible, not because it isn't broken, but because it's also broken there remains, must be there, not out of self-interest, not for its own sake, not as an ideal idea, but as real ugliness.

There is no 'European Snow White' in a glass coffin, beyond all evil. All internal and external enemies - that is, everyone except oneself - cannot be wiped away from the surface, where it reappears or never sinks. Anyone who 'loves' Europe has to take it as it is, perhaps it is just the bundle of our basis for survival, like water, air and sun, but not a romantic holiday landscape. So since you have to love it, you can leave it alone, but you still have to work for it, no matter what you think and feel. So Europe is rather ugly, not beautiful and noble, and of course neither are you. It was never God, Emperor and Fatherland.

But the Empire is completely incomparable - one would think - but it is not at all. Then, as now, it was 'only' about the current phase Homo sapiens, who lives in the evolving world: a world that has always been exposed to natural stressors, then quickly to those mediated by man-made nature, and finally to purely human or technical stressors, with people themselves also increasingly feeling this stress. Now for the European people - who live in a not so big, but also not so small part of the world, which is not at all uncomfortable for human life itself, at least now and even further compared to others - - In this phase of human history, only recently and after the many 'episodes of alien and self-destruction', the view of more serious threats has widened, but only really in the last 80 years. The Europeans therefore developed the idea of ​​a sufficiently assertive structure of all the 'brothers and sisters' united within it in order not to perish in what is expected to be a very tough fight for survival for resources and self-determination on this planet. In the long term, this will be 'reinforced' at least until it is perhaps possible - perhaps even, one imagines, thanks to 'blessed' and exemplary European cooperation - to make this access to resources more free of fighting (if that even works at some point ).

Seen in this way, the “European idea” is only the calculation of very real forces in Europe and does not stand in a single facet as an idea above this reality, which even breathed life into it as a fuel, no matter how ugly it turns out. An ideal can move minds and hearts, and vice versa, and minds and hearts in turn can also move the real Europe, but the latter can never be without or even against what needs to be moved, but is already equipped with impulse and inertia!

All of us in Europe or in every European country - not just in Germany, but especially there, also in a special way - often personally experience that the European discussions are “just” more disparate, constantly failing and only questionable The interests of the small and large are balanced out, and the 'egg dance' is harmful to some and beneficial to others. All of this is then urbi et orbi in the communiqués - after one head of state has spoken with salute and the other has drooled uninhibitedly - urbi et orbi by some colonel corporal who is pushed to the microphone to invoke Europe in a Solomonic manner.

That's sad, but - more importantly - it's the truth! And this means that it is beyond the emotions of sadness or enthusiasm, and even doesn't want to know anything about it anymore, because otherwise the increasingly ideal idea will 'spit out' the rest of the real ones. Could it be that we don't understand this? Do we have to state that Europe is only a matter of self-image, sometimes sad, sometimes hopeful, i.e. only feeling, no longer reason? However, that would be a mental illness that would make Europe a total failure - for example when it comes to the concrete need for closer cooperation from the perspective of an American administration or secret services, etc. But remember: we need both!

What is also completely absurd is the open or secret approach, which is not even open to oneself, of simply imagining Europe - supposedly starting from the beginning again - as a large, half-hewn stone block on which we can now add more want to bang around violently to make it different, as if we could change something about this reality that has become stone (like perhaps here again at some Heilbronn 'constitutional convention'). Europe is nothing but historical, current reality in exactly the tricky and partially hopeless situation it is in now! It is therefore also infantile and cocky at the same time to insult the actors, gangsters, politicians and leading lights who are 'trying' to compromise and stake claims in this mess as 'un-European'. That's exactly what Europe is and there is no such thing as a 'European' that would be anything other than this stupid hubris in relation to itself, which in turn is anti-European or simply destructive!  

European reality as a bazaar

Of course, it is bitter to see that these 'egg dances' - increasingly acrobatically stalling - only have to bridge interests that are drifting further and further apart. There has obviously been no convergence of interests over the entire decades, not only between the even younger, eastern member states and the West, but - for example with regard to energy policy - also in 'veteran Europe', in 'German -French engine”, where there was only one more time, as always, “consensus anesthesia” when the French recently had Germany – which forces the others into silent tolerance with other goodies – certify nuclear power as sustainable in the medium term , while with us he was the devil's stuff, but the French also liked our decades-long Russian 'bribe gas'.

It makes you wonder that in the countries that lose or win too rarely (whoever determines this) an increasingly shrill, national and anti-European background music plays before and after, but above all the societies become susceptible to it and then too ask for it.

The ideal cost of “big mouth, nothing behind it!”

Where this 'incorrect' anti-Europeanism is not yet as widespread as it is - compared to other countries - especially in Germany, it is only a question of time. But we still figure - externally, but also in our 'correct' self-confidence - as pillars of a Europe that is sometimes even hated. But if the leading political agents continue to only present harmony foils or only concede “certain problems”, but regurgitate that Europe is yes, original tone Andrea Merkel, "pulled together" again and again - and you can easily continue to say that this is only possible without real solutions - then people in Germany no longer believe them, with all the initially subtle consequences. Frustration and rejection turn into Biedermeier and then radicalism or the search for salvation, outside the 'playing field' because the 'in-house offer' is no longer convincing. This 'creeping disillusionment' is very characteristic of our mentality, because trust in the state's care is much more constitutive here than in France, for example. Even if it is actually required even more there, people don't believe in it and always feel cheated, which doesn't happen here at all, at least not loudly, despite evidence to the contrary! Not only do we have to endure the standstill on the train and the traffic jams on the streets, but we also have it in our minds: we do everything we can to not really notice it... because it's already bad enough!

The prerequisite for this, however, is that there is still a - albeit shrinking, but still high - minimum number of citizens who are not yet affected by too much precarious self-experience and material threat, in an internal comparison and then also in comparison with the others in the country. refugees, etc., feels “left behind”. You still listen to a lot of things, including the “Europe talk”, even if it no longer affects you, let alone interests you. So a majority still holds on to the belief and claim that the German governments in Europe can always guarantee satisfaction and calm - even against everyone else out there, who actually don't tick any differently than we do ourselves.

There's something really strong about that, even very strong, and Germany is still strong too. But it also has something strangely camouflage, non-aggressive or defensive about it, showing a Germany that is ambivalently lovable and to be feared, but ultimately 'somehow strikingly peaceful' ("We're really not hurting anyone" ... perhaps also: "We're over that us and have paid for it” … up to: “Let others follow an example!” … and: “We help where we can!”).

Depending on the internal pressure, a new, pertinent note is finally made via the stages of “Now that’s enough!” and “It’s over now!”, and finally against all officials who communicate the “not enough” to the outside world : “We are the people!” This is then the final stop of the sliding downward slide from the edge of a German boat - which nevertheless continues to bob along undaunted - in modern German, that is, “not being taken along”.

But the “losers” still don’t quite have the critical mass that makes you really “rethink” things, especially since there isn’t even a proper language for their behavior yet. They are still 'somehow' to blame themselves, their behavior and also their fate is somehow 'unheard of', at best an industrial accident, especially if they act out. When climate activists rant, it is out of a special commitment, even if it is perhaps 'exaggerated'. That's still part of the community, a very "colorful" one, and in that sense it's still "part of us", especially if you don't want to be a backward idiot. But if the losers make themselves known, then only as an amorphous rumbling from the imaginary decay pool in which everyone who is neither 'mainstream' nor birds of paradise ends up.

Anyone who falls out and is primarily not in the spotlight - especially when they never actually wanted to be there, unlike the birds of paradise - can only look back at the lost future, speechless as usual, but 'unfortunately' they are not silent forever and at a loss, at some point a new language and way of thinking suddenly emerges, loudly and combatively, with the pitiful remnants of empowerment. The less and the longer previously overlooked and misunderstood, the more incomprehensible and threatening now. Or the more they are excluded, the more pride there is in the new Outcasts club. In this heady 'de-differentiation process', every 'future projection', especially a bombshell like Europe, which takes everything away from 'us', is of course a hit. Europe should be abolished completely, see the AfD as the mouthpiece of this abyss. 

Precarious project - but different in every country:

This German neo-Nazi, sympathizer or even just voter, photographed in the media at most during his 'misdeeds', but otherwise ignored and sneakily 'brought up' - with his hysterical rejection of everything non-national - is something completely different than the primarily North African banlieue resident in the French cities, who, over many generations and decades of unchanged politics, always knew, was shown, told or had it made clear to him who he was, although this was 'realized' to him almost from the start and was the essence of his identity in France. The first generations even enjoyed living in these ghettos, no longer at home, but still together, because it also offered the only and precise socio-economic context for the continued internal hostility towards France and the French. Of course, it was only over time that you got to know their world and possibilities and increasingly wanted and wanted more. But there have been 'tried and tested' rituals in political dealings for a long time and there is also a vocabulary that has been practiced for decades. So in every presidential election, without any French being upset or at least surprised, a very eloquent law-and-order bloc faces a somewhat more 'understood' bourgeois bloc that otherwise doesn't think completely differently in this regard.

Not only in France, but rather everywhere - except perhaps in Austria - the breeding ground or the poisonous broth on which Europe grows or dies is different than in Germany. This also applies to the Eastern European member states, although it is all supposed to be one Europe (one would like to ask - naively, of course - who actually came up with this, or did it all just happen because it had to happen, geopolitically and so on …).

In these new member states there were also anti-European currents immediately after accession, the polarization that continued after the fall of the Iron Curtain. To varying degrees, there was and still is a toxic mixture of the inevitable ideal hegemony of the victorious West and the suffering of a highly self-made failure, the trauma of a follow-up revolution of the first hours after the political big bang - which quickly privileged the masses again, turbo-capitalist. There was then no Rhenish corporatism - just slumbering and tried and tested under the rubble - which Germany reactivated despite much resistance even after this total collapse, of course with the all-important 'participation' of the working population, which hardly drifted away.

But neither in France, nor anywhere else where this perfidy of revived and lulling structures does not exist and did not exist, is it - because of the 'clear fronts', for example - 'better'. However, not the other way around either, even if this internal 'quiet pedaling' has actually ensured that the extreme right remains a proper "no go". Simply continuing this as an expectation for the future would no longer just be nostalgic, but rather suicidal, because everything is just beginning to crumble. You just don't know how fast. However, even if they, including their brown swamp, do not really come into their own for the time being, continued, undaunted, 'German-like' silence or demonization - as we also know from history - would not be so much better life insurance than the 'integration' of these Extremes, in France and Italy the communists used to be, today the extreme right or the post-fascists. Despite the most violent conflicts in decades, which have been a variable part of the political culture there, the democratic foundations have never been in greater danger than they now seem to be, at least we 'feel' the case.

But anyway - just like the unspeakable 'Make a Wish for Europe' - this is not a fashion show where you order one collection but discard another. We are already on the street and the collections are all being worn. What style rating we give is even less important than the color of the blazer Angela Merkel it ever was. If we're not careful, we'll soon no longer need to talk about Europe at all, or we'll be allowed to dream for decades - even if that's still possible - about how nice it would have been or how useful it would have been for dealing with this and that. ...if only, yes if only, all Europeans in their countries had not been exactly Europeans in their own national way, as they were and are in the Europe that has just been conditioned.

It is now the case that the danger to Europe is only a subordinate or 'hidden' component of the danger to the Western democracies themselves. However, this danger 'only' comes - which is by no means a consolation - from within, i.e. from the citizens themselves (to paraphrase Polt: “The enemy is within”). As such, they think and feel primarily in a national style, because they are - almost exclusively - affected by nation-related politics. Of everything else - even if it is actually authoritative - the citizens of a state only 'feel' the national consequences and translations, even if only those in which National impositions are conveyed to them as 'Brussels tops'.

The specifically national aspect is once again very much in the foreground, especially in Europe, where it was 'invented' - in our case, the German sensibility!

No matter how much more than elsewhere - and there is much to be said for much more - there is in Germany a strangely strong claim to excellence with regard to German thinking, its proximity to truth and beauty, which has by no means been refuted just because it is so gigantic visitations on our part. The two are actually connected! Currently, this German model boyhood - in Europe, as well as in the whole world, if it knows and understands it - is now taking the form of a penetrating mainstream of the public, correct one, which is not at all dissimilar in terms of the dimension of the implicit claim to the catastrophes just mentioned Thinking about (a new German miracle weapon... but backwards!).

There is absolutely nothing like this in the USA, for example, despite all the hysteria and brutality of the discussion. There, a “creeping brainwashing” in the sense of a universally “somehow unchallenged” claim to validity that “just comes along” across society as a whole would find no breeding ground. On the other hand, unbridled enemy images with bizarrely communicated 'crushing potential' are triumphing, which can hardly be compared with today's German cohesion thinking. Despite all the love for the unpretentious, this can hardly be preferred.

But the proud reliance on our “civilization” that made us look down on these “giant babies” melts in the face of their drastically decreasing binding power: we no longer solve anything with it, but we try to “at least” cancel out the contradictions through correctness in our thinking. We have been doing this for decades Well-behaved media mainstreaming, which was only unleashed after the power-mongers Kohl and Schröder had been 'overcome', sets standards that can no longer be contradicted without the risk of lasting denigration.

In German political speech - with particular effectiveness in public television, the associated overall body choreography of persuasion from the 'chamber of the profoundly true' - there is quiet and quiet, occasionally also hysterical reprimanding, but primarily not intentionally, but rather peculiarly ' of course' -- tries to channel the complex, often excited discussion of existential and symbolic topics, also in the report format of a news program, not just in "hot spots" or similar, where there is often nothing but scandal, even if much of it has been well researched .

But if the reaction to this is increasingly defense by the very people you wanted to reach - because those who already know don't need to be 'enlightened' again - then the question arises, with all the resulting helplessness, whether this So independent and freely researching, public broadcasting actually - which could certainly be measured with great effort - generates more appropriateness and reasonableness in an entire country than, for example, frank and freely professing trend and propaganda stations, such as in the USA, where the People also know that they only tune in to what they want to hear and see, but that there are other things that they watch now and then - if only to deter themselves.

Even if these studies were available, the independent “third force” could not be called into question in this country in accordance with the constitution - ultimately fortunately, but perhaps only for the time being. But it must then radically fulfill this task for everyone (!), i.e. with highly competent, intelligent and vigilant overall editorial teams, nipping in the bud any proselytizing drive that might easily affect anyone who has been working on this topic for a long time, no matter how That sounds drastic.

What moves not only Germany, but all countries and inevitably - because there are always subjective and objective winners and losers - leads to violent disputes (unless the countries are dictatorial) are the epochal, tectonic shifts and earthquakes that result the collision of an ever-insecure basis of prosperity with global, increasingly concrete insecurity. This is currently materializing above all as an 'excessive' empowerment of billions of former onlookers who, thanks to communication technology, world participation and orientation as well as increased mobility, simply come as refugees into our immediate reality of life, some say "pushing in" ("evil-evil", although, but not wrong either!). They compete - not just 'just felt' - with factually limited resources, such as space, infrastructure, institutions, support, but also - mentally extrapolated - water and air, which used to be just 'ours'. Their cultural penetration and performance, where we would primarily have expected at least adaptation, becomes an additional provocation - in person and in matter - although human nature already requires a constant 'being grateful' and the imperceptibility of identity and physical presence. Being, even in a non-traditional environment, excludes, unless I'm just visiting there, usually an educated person or a disenfranchised prisoner!

Almost suddenly, as if without announcement, in world history for the first time after the almost worldwide constitution of sedentary life that lasts for generations, now, in a new age and parallel to this new, fundamental, psychomental instability of large 'ancestral' populations or the broadest strata - because it is about nothing less than the questioning of states as constitutive, delimited, manageable living spaces - on top of all that, 'in return' so to speak, something fundamental but always rather abstract, like the ten commandments, put to the test in a 'large-scale experiment'. Of course, a mere “We can do it!” and a short-lived “welcome culture” certainly don’t fit – perhaps only at second glance, when the first look was under the worst “lighting conditions”.

What none of the countries also affected by this surpasses us in this regard - even if quantitatively significantly less than Germany - is the romantically 'hardened' perfection with which we are relentlessly and comprehensively treated by the elites - which of course are mostly by the obligatory, so not people who are only miles away from observing events, so that they can then 'have their head free' - the further, very concrete self-evidentness of this canon of commandments, as well as all further human progress, should be drummed into us without any hassle. Just thinking about alternatives, especially “containment,” for example, seems taboo.

However, this means that the urgent task - which is admittedly very challenging for everyone who is entrusted with the third power's exquisite public mandate to discuss everything that is important - is missed, contrary to the mandate, through repression and elitist hubris. A supposed security is staged through the continued existence of certainties, as if this society were still just as certain of itself in the face of all these challenges - or should be, because this is now the 'test case' - as For a long time it seemed dreamy and, thanks to 'moral free fortune cookies' in the peace dividend, perhaps real.

However, this ignorance can only be completely implemented - perhaps only 'just now' - because many of us have not yet slipped into the critical position. Most of them are still sitting in the boat - many of them are subjectively or already objectively at risk, so they are all the more anxious - and are upset about this correct language - also in the course of the clearing of expectations towards the established political leadership cadres, which also means the disruption of a commitment oriented towards the common good , as a merely unavoidable, modern 'achievement', or rather a nuisance, no longer even stops. You only shake your head occasionally, even at the profound appeals of a Federal President who continues to preside despite everything, before you switch to the sports show anyway.

Many are fed up, as the saying goes, but don't say anything (to paraphrase Richard Nixon: “the silent majority”). You have to do surveys and they are correspondingly disastrous, but they regularly only lead to even more admonitions and 'faeser' announcements from our senior shepherds. Nevertheless - and this is also the prerequisite for this - the almost 'Chinese promise' of a 'middle class belly' that somehow despite everything continues to grow, accompanied by stability, i.e. freedom from fear and actually a lack of excitement, still applies to Germany for the time being ', so that in Germany, as long as you can still look away, paradise will still appear without loud hallelujah nationalism or as if by itself (... cave: it has to, because we don't want to be the historically bad guys again, but We should still be doing well enough and better than others!).

The fact that this prosperity, for example when it comes to the noble goal of overcoming child poverty, only becomes a reality or pretends to be through questionable budget decisions is simply ignored, foregoing future opportunities, and instead they talk about a new “Germany speed” with which everything can be done in the box of “wish-you”. "what" still works (... it may be that one even tries successfully to take small steps towards speeding up processes, but the euphemistic jazzing up of the whole thing, as if it were already an authoritative reality, is stupid and deliberately wrong, actually irresponsible chatter that shockingly shows how stupid some leaders or their advisors think the governed are!).

Everyone can see through that now, but still hope - whistling in the dark forest - that things will always go well 'again' (to paraphrase Conny: "It's always jut jejange"). For a long time, people have been bombarded with promises and announcements that it is better not to look at closely because they no longer make sense even with basic, banal knowledge, as a common, possibly constitutive, i.e. rotten style, perhaps only emanating from seminars on “good political practice”. inhaled.

In reality, behind this there is a very German conspiracy involving the public, politicians and the press, which is secretly known to everyone involved - strangely 'foamed up' - and disgusts everyone. We also secretly know, at least we hope and have often had it confirmed, that Germany, especially within Europe - in contrast to all the harmony and externally directed peacefulness - massively protects the sensitive German electorate through the soft power of our economically still considerable hardware ( “Germany first” … but no one should notice). The euro area felt this in the financial crisis, just think of Greece!

But if this is now criticized - beautifully morally and with fierce determination - as lousy, secret blackmail of the stronger, which one simply cannot do without, one tends to adhere to the Solomonic-educational commonplace that one should fight "with an open visor", So also honestly state German interests. In reality, interests are not a bad thing. But that's just a rancid ideological salve, because insisting on interests, especially strong ones, requires opposing interests to be kept down, and then also embitters mutual perspectives on one another, including among peoples. Of course - let's say this ultimately meaningless 'empty formula' again - the struggle for compromises is unavoidable, but it is a lie if you massively remove this from the discussion and act as an actually neutral mediator, something like Schäuble did in the financial sector back then. and Greek crisis: as a sort of protector of a very overarching idea, where one can always say and think that the Germans' interest in not having to 'always pay for others' should not actually be understood as selfish (for example as a heartless "Europe for us, not we for Europe"), but only the bitter medicine that is good for everyone.

But this pandering is by no means just a tactic - i.e. pretending to do something that we know is not true - but is anchored in people's minds, even among those involved in politics, if you don't believe in conspiracy theories. All of this only abstracts in a 'salutary' way from the ugly side of the fight for prosperity, which in this country - after all the right actions and words - still comes about 'as if by itself'... or has to stop ("Should the South or... "I'll take Ossis as an example," although this pride is gradually crumbling - that's a good thing!) 

The all-powerful German self-forgetfulness that disqualifies us for Europe!

This brutal German self-forgetfulness also fits with many 'lonely' decisions - in the end, of course, certainly for all the otherwise happy and exemplary ones - decisions in the last decades, beyond a completely opposite, de facto pressure for convergence in Europe and with the shameless claim of one Germany's peace dividend worth hundreds of billions (... should others defend us, we are too big to fail anyway...) was not sought to 'balance the burden', but rather the own, profitable, anti-European stremel was carried through unmoved.

Anyone who didn't follow this path, for example, despite all their morals, didn't give up on nuclear power so quickly, or who wanted to spend more on their own security, found no one who would listen to them, was a backwoodsman or a "militarist". Anyone who, as a less than enthusiastic educated citizen, questioned the course of a society that can no longer do anything with these many incompetent high school graduates was considered reactionary, elitist and evil because he was denying other people their development, even their human rights. Where the “stupid citizen” finally found himself - alongside his other noble goals - no longer even the minimum focus of political welfare, some people then look for themselves - under the stolen heading "We are the people" - a new, a benighted but warming political home that brings new meaning into the darkness for him or her.

In contrast to other countries - except Austria perhaps, but not quite there because it was more 'virtuosic' - this 'fatal self-help' was and is a mentality that has been maintained until the very recent past haughty, although still 'magnanimous', pitied their intellectual poverty, and therefore did not take seriously their substance - which may have yet to be revealed - or believed that they could, let alone had to, take them seriously.

By and large, this stigmatization continues in the media today, without any significant new ideas, which of course seems increasingly artificial and no longer so casual. In interviews with AfD members, they are also surprisingly often the ones who are being criticized because they always want to convict these 'not at all stupid people' of their fundamental evil - understandable enough, but not helpful. The haphazard marginalization of the AfD - which in terms of size and parliamentary terms can no longer be easily ignored - by our affirmative, unimaginative and media-dependent political professionals only causes fear. The increasing 'open heart failure' tends to permeate the inner being of every German, something that is not encountered in other countries because there is more experience with potentially catastrophic conflicts that nevertheless did not lead to catastrophe. You are more experienced and more relaxed as a citizen, but not indifferent, usually even more involved, probably because you don't have to repress things so much in order not to die of fear.

“German Angst” and “German Defetism”

For a long time now there are no longer just doubts about the current governments (which are somehow 'precisely' but still confirmed again and again), but about the setting of the entire system. The democratic opposition no longer benefits from the government's supposed failure; rather, it is waved through and taken into custody, and not unjustly. In Germany this is experienced very categorically, due to a lack of habituation or southern laissez-faire (?) or northern down-to-earthness, however... Every leap year they celebrate the Basic Law very seriously, as if they knew deep down that it was the most complex and Thorough protection of the whole project against the often dormant but then exploding German spirit, i.e. a 'final victory' for good. Then, of course, the dams have to be constantly strengthened against the ravages of time, while in the USA you have a hearty barbecue on “Constitution Day”, in France you can count “les republics” from one to five and in Great Britain and even Israel without it at all.

This anesthesia in the mind, and the fact that our mind is now hanging on this needle, is of course literally eroding not only national security, the preservation of which requires alert flexibility, but also that of Europe, and not just the 'merely German' Europe , but of the whole thing! What is clearly at stake - in a drama that is not new, but is increasing and is now being noticed - is the resilience of the large construct as an important factor in the emerging new world order. The global processes only frighten us; we are no longer able to cope with them, which of course seems unbearably aversive and therefore inevitably nostalgic. Then - precisely because of exactly the same concerns and with reference to tasks that have already been mastered for centuries and achievements made at the time that were only lost again 'unfairly' or 'through one's own fault' - ancient recipes for success in one way or another adapted form become irresistible!

European survivability: perdue for ever?

In order to strengthen Europe, it would be necessary (perhaps one can say this in the indicative mood out of sheer hope, i.e.: it is needed...) something that is currently missing or has only been filled in (or has been resolutely pushed under water out of sheer anger, including the author). ) – materials, tangible and visible Processing Europe: in the form of a functional, progressive interplay between national governments that not only caters to current agitation, but is also routine, skilful and engaging, and - just as visible and lively - between the governments and their populations, via elections, events and the media. But please at least with us! Instead, this interaction is currently being used as a reinforcement mechanism for fears about the future and helplessness, punctuated by whitewashing, with increasing uncertainty among citizens on the one hand and the understandable concern about re-election among political personnel who are impotent to shape things on the other.

Smart political minds - which exist, but which we cannot bake - must be highlighted and - sometimes unreservedly - supported and applauded by us in the European Union, in their sensible, well-founded confident positions, even if they have significant defects. They would have to be rewarded through appropriate, but then also clearly articulated needs and a new ability and willingness to reward a population that is awake after all and that we as the European Union must try to influence.

For this to come true, what would it take? It makes sense, first of all, from ourselves that, for example, the European Union - if it is really factually or potentially important and wants to make that a reality - will become even more "capable of" and "willing to receive" in the sense mentioned above, i.e. the reality, how it is strategically resolutely more approachable (“Side by side…”). We shouldn't just discount most of what's happening out there in desperation, anger or 'harshness', or - whatever happens - conceptualize and fabricate things in a way that is out of touch with reality.

The European Union in Berlin has been doing the former in particular - and full-time leadership is needed there - for a long time, it's just missing - it's also a question of resources - the more comprehensive, continuous, not just individual action-based transmission of this from the Base towards citizens. The central announcements are not “passed on” too much, as if they were just fodder for us, who are already “inside”, which of course also depends on a fundamentally positive mood and hope. But all of this is already clearly happening here in Heilbronn, for example, although the author of course doesn't know much else, but in this respect, perhaps ironically, he represents the citizen's world of experience in a particularly valid way. But maybe we are just - anyway and through no fault of our own - 'unsexy', no matter how attractive we present ourselves. Just like the real parties, who haven't yet got the hang of things that the AfD has, but also because they're handing out so many new crackers. Then of course all you can say is: keep going, stay flexible, come up with something and don't get discouraged!

In order to revitalize this transmission - which is always desirable - what is needed above all is “more insight”, not to be confused with simply “more information”! It's more about a proper 'linguistic and thought police', in the best, emancipatory sense of the 'good police' of the Middle Ages. It is not related or related to the Inquisition or even the more current, but crucially different, still non-violent forms of the much-invoked and much-criticized, but also 'completely horrifying' "wokeness" in its forms of implementation. 

This constant remadur - as a new, supplementary basic attitude, basic vigilance and basic activity - can initially only happen from the German perspective, which is our own, firstly because - as already said, even if we want to be really great Europeans or global citizens - Experience the entire world theater as a German in German. Secondly, because this language and future competence - perhaps precisely because of our German language, which is so 'admired' around the world, allows a lot, but is also very binding and does not quickly 'preform' pragmatically, and therefore also because of our 'thinking' perhaps - - is nowhere more needed than in our country, with its omnipresent, toxic mainstreaming.

One must therefore expressly, i.e. artificially, closely observe and evaluate what is commonly written and said in order to repeatedly demystify the preliminary decisions, demonizations and attempts at discipline hidden in empty words or bring them into discussion. If this were to succeed, access to the disconnected, i.e. self-circulating, indignation of many AfD voters would also be found and the termination of the connection would tend to be reversed.

Samples of the very German art of linguistically virtuoso distortion and shortening of the best knowledge, conscience, ignorance and morality - a thermomix for disinterest or destructive mistrust and even conspiracy theories.

• Headline and subheading in the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung: “The joy of education -- children often hear that the seriousness of life begins when they start school, but learning can be fun.” Here - by singing about an overdue reconciliation - an always irreconcilable contrast is insinuated in the traditional way, even as one that actually never should have existed. This means that it is assumed that this is the case nie has to contradict or has no tension at all. Of course, school used to be sometimes cruel, but the classic formula that now the seriousness of life begins was never intended as a hard throw in the deep end. What's the point of self-assurance of one's own modernity by mindlessly demarcating oneself from an allegedly earlier backwardness!
• Entry Germany Radio: Nancy Faser In view of Lampedusa's new overload with refugees, I had a video conference with the interior ministers of France, Spain and Italy. Nothing has been decided, but she emphasized that Germany has always helped in solidarity and will continue to do so. In this form, this message is a public announcement of continued helplessness in Europe in the face of urgent problems, but with a remarkable nonchalance that establishes a dangerous style. That with the “help” may have always been more or less like this, but as long as it is not yet accepted - for some final reasons that are not yet known to us - that this catastrophe is taking its spontaneous course, there will certainly still be no final consensus on it If there is disagreement, you would have to continue to do so every time zusätzlich explain that (blabla...) elements of the European solution were not just pushed back and forth once again without success, but were discussed with good prospects of an occasional breakthrough. This is exactly what we don't actually want to hear, because it creates the suspicion that we are just glossing over what is completely unfounded, but on the other hand, we must not at all - just to be 'finally a little more honest' - gloss over things acknowledge that you still don't want to say that, but in fact you're actually continuing to do something between giving up and humming around. Although this is most likely not the case - despite all the difficulties and stagnation - this is exactly how it is communicated 'just' so that the citizen must at least deduce from this - explicitly or in an unconscious concept, what exactly is infinite many do - that politicians almost don't care what you think. That destroys trust! Incidentally, it doesn't matter at all whether this actually came directly from the BMI's press release or represents the processing of this communication by press services, since they then only pass on this fatal understanding of hybrid information along with non-information, i.e. not in the Questioning the services of their audience.
• New Zurich newspaper: "Women protect themselves from men's gaze by wearing loose clothing - is this the Western form of veiling?" First of all, there are reports about this increasing practice among some women, for example in the New York subway or in Singapore. It is then explained that a Muslim intellectual explained that this shows that the West has a “need to catch up” because the Muslim world is already doing it. Referring to this, the author of the article calls for people not to take part in such a regression, because women have laboriously fought for their freedom over decades or centuries. Firstly, not a word is made clear that this is not a further, perhaps even wrong, step 'forward', but rather that this alleged progressiveness only corresponds to centuries-old clothing rules - which have been more or less maintained in the Islamic world , as was the case in Christian countries in the past. Furthermore, there is no discussion at all about the extent to which there are reasons for women who want and are progressive to practice this. Of course, you don't have to share these reasons or you can also criticize them harshly. However, an article that deals with this phenomenon, explains a lot about it, but positions the practice described itself as 'per se' a regressive confirmation of the distorted view of these Islamic intellectuals by completely ignoring the discussion of the supposed reasons, occupies progress in a restrictive and stigmatized manner, or rather excludes others, even though he himself wants to be 'progressive' and so beautifully 'inclusive'.
• German medical journal: “Prehabilitation is as important as rehabilitation”. The importance of correct preparation for a rehabilitation measure should be emphasized. Even if this seems obvious and not very problematic, it cannot be overlooked that this linguistic parallelism obscures the clear character of a preparation as preparation for a process that is then the implementation. Both are equally important, but the two cannot be held side by side in the same way as apples and pears. The latter of course benefits from the former, but the former does not exist without the latter, or only in orientation towards the latter. Accordingly, the suffixes “Pre” and “Re” are also incorrectly juggled because this “prehabilitation” does not occur in a process or condition that then requires rehabilitation to follows, but the latter is precisely this process, because the underlying health disorder and its possible hospital treatment, if there was one, were always more or less far in advance anyway and have nothing to do with it. Confusion is created in a playful way, even if it certainly doesn't result in actual misunderstandings. On the other hand, in a serious, scientific style and emphatically - certainly with a 'tongue in cheek' acceptance of a certain vagueness... Humor and word play are also part of it (!?) - the aim is to make this term acceptable, without it actually being anything new. But this is done in such a way that the reader you want to win over tends to 'read over' it - so to speak, misses the gag - so it 'trickles down' into him. It is simply formulated in a very 'factual' way, as if this were an established technical term that perhaps the reader, who is not very up-to-date, doesn't even know.
• German medical journal: “Caring for people with disabilities – paying attention to special needs”. Here it is pretended that there is a very specific problem that requires specific, extensive and important expertise and has only just been discovered, whereby there is also a common understanding in everyday language of what disabilities are in the general sense and how to deal with them - here now in the professional area, i.e. in the more comprehensive sense - is taken into account, is artificially put into question. Of course, in the extensive social legislation, many terms are legally and often unavoidably defined in a 'subtle way', including that of 'people with disabilities', because otherwise administrative action and the allocation of resources are not possible in a fair and generally clear manner. But it is complete madness when, conversely, the normality of life is permeated with terms that are, on the one hand, puzzling and, on the other hand, so close to reality, but deliberately complicate this normality, so that it becomes clear that somehow you can only do this with very special techniques and skills can still take into account what was previously evident. In fact, such a need for expertise only applies to very specific forms, which a prudent doctor can recognize and pass on even without additional courses.
• Rhine Neckar newspaper: “Poor people suffer from cancer more often”. The article is certainly not superfluous or problematic simply because it is obvious. As expected, interesting factors, some of which have been quantified through studies, are mentioned in connection with material and immaterial resources, as well as their mutual causation and reinforcement. However, the dumbing-down game in the title - which is no longer noticeable in view of the flood of comparable banalities and can hardly be revealed - is dangerous and consists in the fact that in a world of explicit and self-evident equality or equal treatment of people, including access to all vital natural and social resources, the increased cancer among poor people scandalized. In this way, morally - as is so often the case - a disadvantage is staged that is, as it were, absurd, contradicts our 'actual' certainty of already achieved human dignity here and now, and is, as it were, not at all necessary and also not permissible, a 'bad industrial accident', so to speak. On the one hand, this allows for affirmative indignation at other people, or at the “system” that is “somehow going wrong” and does not live up to its own demands. On the other hand, it leads to the obfuscation of the fact that the monster of “equality or non-discrimination for the poor” cannot in reality exist. There is no such thing as white black! The disadvantage is already there! The issue of access, for example to education, but also with the very difficult motivational aspects, is only important in relation to the individual becoming, being or remaining poor. However, what is crucial for a reader's mental approach to the topic is that it is not obscured that every society today - including modern ones - constitutively contains the eternal separation of rich and poor, which in the opinion of many is unjust, but in the opinion of many of these many there probably can't be any other way. It is clear that in our societies - which are no longer socialist or communist, but are trying to be human capitalistic - people are given a lot or 'all' opportunities shall. It is also clear that this cannot be completely successful and that many will not or cannot take advantage of the opportunities, however you look at it. This is actually a tragedy that is constitutive for us as humans, more or less pronounced in each case. For human action, including its clarity in difficult situations, it is crucial that, on the one hand, everything is done to keep 'improperties' as small as possible, but also that one does not deceive oneself about their inevitability. This is not just academic, but extremely practical, because it prevents, for example, the morally driven tendency to only focus directly on the symptom where the problem is. Ultimately, such a headline postulates a paradise - which actually already exists on earth and, with good will, can easily arise. This 'presumptuous' 'mentality', which of course always only wants the good, which is spread and affirmed with 'the best will in the world', is the basis for many serious misjudgments, including in international politics!

• An Federal press conference in September: Of the approximately 35 federal government representatives, 5-10 have to do with special groups in society. Under the leadership of the “Commissioner for Migration and Refugees etc.”, they have now presented a regular annual report on the situation of these groups, which shows that attacks and discrimination occur from many special groups - although the list tends to only generally include white men active middle age -- have increased again in the last year, again at a worryingly high rate. What is irritating and also dangerous is that all comments on this are limited to the very detailed descriptions of these undesirable developments in relation to the groups affected and their manner - which are of course absolutely central and rightly so. This makes the abomination even more impressive, but also - contrary to the expected indications of what to do and where to take action against stubborn structures and developments - it also suggests that these are actually 'just' exceptions, exceptions to a situation that is not only desirable , but 'in itself' given, unchanged normality (in the statistical, not normative sense). However, this massively depoliticizes through an intentionally unrealistic 'perception', especially with the assumption of a (pretty much) unanimous public in which such things obviously have no place anywhere. Exactly the opposite is the case: here, not only are the boundaries and therefore also the personal transitions fluid, but the whole society is - always, however, the only new thing is the extent - under stress, which is also becoming more and more common People, if you will also “affected groups”, manifest themselves in corresponding transgressions, which of course cannot be excused. But such reporting, as can Social 'understanding' on the subject is even partly responsible for these developments - of course not decisive, as part of a whole but also not insignificant - because it reinforces the correct perception of the 'perpetrators' (or soon to be 'perpetrators'), that sensitivities like yours are not of interest, despite the inseparable connection to the topic. They only become 'reportable' or relevant to political action again - on the other side of the coin, so to speak, once again falling out of the socio-political framework of reflection - in the equally regular crime statistics, i.e. when people have committed crimes. Only then are group-specific individual developments “lovingly” examined again and appropriate instructions for action, recommendations and plans, for example on prevention, resocialization or sanctions, are discussed. But the intermediate area, where the 'social music' plays, is hidden. There is a taboo to which - completely unrecognized by themselves - politics and the media, less so science, have subjected themselves, inadmissibly but well-meaning (which at least the media should not do at all), because it is an archaic one - but in no way really justified -- is afraid that the associated discussion and the attempt to understand the inadmissible will harm the possible victims or loosen the normative force of the norm. This makes everything taboo, prevents thinking or good orientation or, in individual cases, promotes bad emotions, possibly resulting in further reactive disorientation, i.e. slipping out of the norm.

From anger towards meaning?

So can the mere soft power of “language vigilance” in the broader sense of this world of labeling and self-affirmation, as it continues to increase in the fusion of the electronic-media and moral-media bubbles, “snatch” freer space for thought, especially for this reason an epoch-making, cross-state project like Europe? Can we do that, or did this idea, which generations have wanted to help get off the ground, perhaps just emerge as a wistful positive of already-concluded hopelessness?

After all, even a dream is already a reality and - if it is not a nightmare - possibly also the reality of a strong, perhaps clever will. And there is no doubt that some of the biggest dreams in human history have actually come true, such as the development of North America up to its eventual independence. So, even in the minefield of an overloaded value landscape, you have to 'always' defend yourself and be able to intervene through linguistic vigilance, even against your own reactive impulses and disappointments. That's why people with similar mindsets - as we do today - have to coach each other and not primarily agitate and provoke each other within the framework of the European Union.

There are plenty of annoyances in the intra-European coexistence and opposition between nations, but there is always an explanation or at least an effort to do so, because the 'inexplicable' must be explained. Indignation is only good for a short time, usually only for yourself, but certainly not in a constant loop, especially not in politics. Persistent disappointment inevitably produces failure. At least Scholz and Merkel were probably right in wanting to still find 'something good', even if the comparative lifelessness creates the suspicion that a problem at hand may not even be noticed or taken seriously. It's all in the mix!

The politician Robert Schuman For example, France's post-war foreign minister, had even spoken repeatedly about the "German-French core" of European unification -- in the middle of the Second World War and while fleeing the Nazis. This had substance, so much so that the Nazis who were after him did not destroy him straight away, but released him from the concentration camp and courted him, not of course out of ideological agreement, but out of precarious 'respect'. One cannot and does not want to evade this real power of dreaming, not of spintizing, which here even happens to save lives, but also of moving one's own actions, the power of such prospections, which do not have the weakness of the merely illusory, on the contrary . You can feel it particularly well when you see such 'dreamers' in their real lives, as they are or were, not just as martyrs, hopefully, but as active, committed, but often surprisingly sober people.

Differentiating instead of labeling, the unleashing of a “happy science”, that Conceptualize the matter, with the courage to perhaps take risks if you can do this instead of that Confirm in anger, As can be seen in some opinion leaders who already have weight, or in organizations with similar demands, this should increase again. On the other hand, the scandalous focus on the individual, or even entire excluded states, the “blaming” should decrease.

That may still be a long way from potential success, but more is not possible anyway and you don't want to be responsible to yourself for less. In addition, it is actually a lot, because it makes you self-confident, less demanding, more 'thinking', calm and yet committed, less threatening, and also more encouraging. When it comes to the important but still distant goal of a convincing Europe, one can and must ultimately stay on the ball - calmly, of course, or without constant hassle - and can and must of course also use appropriate, well-founded, but not hysterical warnings and threats warn of the consequences of further stagnation.

Credibility towards others and oneself also includes taking a position in concrete, European policy decision-making situations - taking into account the European and national dimensions - even if you cannot do this on a completely secure basis, for example for or against a national person to promote subsidized “bridge electricity prices” for the energy-intensive industry, and perhaps also for more or less tolerance against notorious violations of the rules of the game by European partners, depending on the severity and consequences. Supporting certain decisions is always a risk, also because the stability - which was still there up to the point in time - begins to falter even when it stagnates. But anyone who calls for responsibility must also do so themselves, because goals cannot be achieved by standing still.

This can, especially in a cross-party organization - if it doesn't suddenly become aloof even though it matters 'now' - and lead to opposing votes. However, as long as these do not endanger the basic consensus and are not hyped up into such a question - due to a lack of practice on the part of everyone involved - this can also rightly be communicated positively for the organizational purpose. However, if questions then turn out to be dichotomous (not only in terms of substance, but also for the organization itself) - for example as a result of the dynamics that they develop in the international, European framework - one side must give in before a complete blockage occurs can represent it 'just now' and that a substantially shared understanding continues to exist even after that (... all of this may sometimes be 'purely tactical', which is just as honorable and unavoidable if there is responsible internal transparency as the equally 'venerable' bazaar if it is not becomes the rule). Otherwise you would have to separate.

Such a situation, for example, could have been (or perhaps was?) a differentiated statement on the alternatives and a decision that was then agreed upon within the organization on the - at the time virulent - topic of “Eurobonds”, which some might “actually” reject , but nevertheless - due to a dynamic that they have also registered and is fundamentally understandable, with which these are increasingly being demanded - join in, even if it still seems critical in the long term, but overall perhaps still justifiable, perhaps even with the Prospect of subsequent corrections, e.g. B. in the sense of a methodologically improved EU financial equalization at some point or something similar. Such an approach - which is fundamentally willing to make concessions and therefore allows a statement to be made within a reasonable period of time - is more responsible for the purpose of the organization than if one passionately discusses what one is doing in ever more granular and polarized ways - thereby losing measure and purpose can and perhaps also must, but compatible with the organizational purpose, i.e to an initial decision internally and externally.

It is also interesting that a decision made in this way, be it at the level of a smaller organization or in major world politics, with its many small or even borderline deficits, from the point of view of one or the other involved, in which there is a lot of will to make the decision, there is an obligation to make a decision and the art of decision-making - in a peculiar interaction with the matter itself on which the decision was made and which moves forward in time, there is often a striking evidence that subsequent fit or correctness 'grows', usually only after a longer period of time and of course only in the Understanding of contemporaries because there is no objective standard. Examples of this include the western ties of the former Federal Republic enforced by Adenauer and the Eastern policy of Willy Brandt. Even today, it is still possible to create meaningful, if possible elegant, i.e. catchy, preferably short, easily comprehensible, non-obfuscating and, in the most essential, 'uncompromising' orientation markers, also for the European unification process!

This was recently paradigmatically reflected in a short ZDF interview by Manfred weber, where he sees as a standard of European participation in his party family that cannot be fallen short of - firstly - the condemnation or non-justification or trivialization of the war of aggression against Ukraine, - secondly - the demand that a state and a member party adhere to the rule of law and - thirdly - - maintained the will to help shape and further develop this Europe, doing so in the substantive sense of the word, not just in a purely verbal, tactical commitment, as the AfD recently described in its spirit with its proposal for a “Europe of Fatherlands”. . That so Manfred weber, is the basis for the continued construction of the Europe we have and is simply the best thing we have in this regard, because there is no other.

Such essentials show that and how Europe can be defined and formulated positively despite all the mess. Europe becomes so catchy, also 'sublime' or replaced by the Brussels-phobic tirades, an actually 'completely normal', real reality, so it already 'represents something', is a player, not just a game, has clear conditions, is not just supplicant or worthless, for example. So there is no need for any 'superhuman' commitment or any idealistic and particularly stubborn sympathy for your beautiful idea. The European Union and the European project - and we actually know that, it's just not enough for us and that's why we often want to throw it out with the bathwater - exist and 'only' have to - not at all dissimilar to the nation states themselves or any alliances -- continue to be built.

So of course all of this is also possible with Europe, or not, or not for now, or not for a long time, or not enough, or whatever. But it will no longer disappear unless a political catastrophe happens. But this cannot be foreseen, because the mere internal attacks of destruction inflate to the extent that they no longer find any impetus from the matter. But a military catastrophe on a world scale, which no one can foresee, will - to the extent that we now imagine it with concern - then affect everything, so to speak, not just 'punched out' Europe. In any case, Weber here 'fart-dry' and calmly cancels the cheaply negative connotation of the European process, thus putting everything - very simply and in one fell swoop - right, so to speak, and rightly ignoring the perverted, enjoyable, self-revealing cacophony that is occurring everywhere heard 'when presentation is required'. 

We should take up such statements resolutely, praise them and highlight them. We should include them in a canon of 'catchy' and yet valid self-evident things that speak for themselves, which is and must be propagated by us, but which 'actually' doesn't need it at all. Europe will thus become the future of progress, a sure-fire successor for which the clock is ticking, just as bright and stricken as the nation states, which can only be distinguished artificially. 

Conclusion and meaning.

Despite the many differences and fragmentation between and within the countries of Europe, which each have reasons for this - somehow always 'compelling', as a result of the total sum of all the actions of other countries - a substantial and robust Europe is still coming about, see also the joint military support for Ukraine, which recently, appropriately and compellingly enough, now exceeds the volume of aid from the USA.

Such messages - of course not just the warlike ones - of successful trade must be spread, so a functioning Europe must be appreciated, although it must not - out of good will - be unrealistically glossed over, but in no way bad. Optimistic, participatory, more supportive, not just demanding criticism is our task, not insulting and condemning. Nothing will be ruined if we let it come off too well in front of ourselves and others every now and then. 

For this purpose, in every European country we need - in addition to or even instead of a 'direct European' approach - above all a national one that places the political events in our own country in the European context and vice versa. The national must not be devalued, not even just 'unfortunately', because every European is initially nothing other than a citizen of his country and is much less concerned with or confronted by the media with what is originally European than with the daily, national realities that are for The living conditions are crucial, even if they are currently only secondary to the really big, vital threats.

But the national interests themselves must do more than before can -- not just something that has to be thought of, but rather 'born' -- 'lever' for the always European interest can be seen or constantly attributed to it. Therefore, if necessary, one must also make an effort to correct shortened views and expressions of national interests, but not in the sense of negatively distilling a supposedly “anti-European” character, but rather by reformulating the underlying, perhaps noticeably less short-lived interests.

For the foreseeable future, the goal - already fantastic and realistic - is a Europe of European nations, and from my point of view also - in the obviously expanding, not retracting sense - a “Europe of fatherlands”. On the one hand, the former is less ambiguous, less pathetic and 'de Gaulle-o-form', but on the other hand it does not have to strictly isolate itself from the other. One cannot hide the fact, even if it is not possible to constantly carry it as a 'purity monstrance', that in the long term, or over the decades, the fate of the European states will change in global development, especially in the expected conflicts. In any case, more and more people will 'join together', so history is already 'working' for a new supranational, European identity, which will of course also fill the entire 'need for identity'.

However, Europe is still necessarily a 'secondary identity' - inevitably more distant from the hearts of even normal pro-Europeans - even if a lot of hopes rest on it, including, of course, anticipatory pride in the chance of becoming, at some point, an unrestricted, self-assertive, non-aggressive, but noteworthy player on an equal footing other 'deciders of world fate'. This parallelism of two identities - perceived as competition by backward-looking fanatics of clarity - naturally fuels their mockery and malice all the more, when Europe is also 'aiming' at people's hearts, even if this mockery is actually aimed at the mocker, who is part of it. falls behind, but of course he doesn't notice it. However, one should not attempt to annul the occasionally precarious “double identity” - that would also be fanatical, namely a fanatical refusal of differentiation - through fervent and whipping “Euromania”, as this would only add to this potential shortcoming - which is constitutive for the time being dragged into the light and solidified.

In a cooperative style - which may also go against individual European decisions - and stands up for one's own country, but as a European one that ideally promotes the European process, i.e. does not just want to benefit itself at the expense of others, then others are also allowed to do so Countries should not be dismissed too quickly as a stumbling block to the longed-for unification process, even if they are currently practicing or appear to be practicing pure cherry-picking (see now, for example, the disputes over wheat imports from Ukraine).

As long as you are not involved and informed full-time, so in our free world you tend to receive a pile of stimulating information in a disorderly manner and are even less able to classify it yourself - which is, however, no reason to wish these freedoms away, because it is annoying, but it is Quantum leaps better, it's you who sorts things out - as a normal pro-European you have to be careful again and again about escalations, especially when they spring from your heart. Because of the ever strong urge to smooth out cognitive dissonances and to regulate the emotional balance, this quickly turns criticism into a 'characteristic' and persistent enemy image, instead of becoming a broader image - for example in the case of actually sustainable national egoisms emotion-free, so that there is a more compromising approach that doesn't allow the matter to freeze.

On the one hand, we citizens cannot classify everything in the same way, but on the other hand, even when it becomes overwhelmingly clear, we should not 'just continue to heat things up', especially if we also have or are looking for a sphere of influence that goes beyond individual dialogues. Last but not least, verdicts are not at all effective in advertising, and at the very most they spark - every now and then - a brief, head-shaking attention, since in the agitation style of the 1968s you can actually not make any positive progress, apart from the extremely private delight in your own lack of compromise.

So, for example, we should also address the - supposedly surprising, late and considerable - Polish demand for German reparations because of the war damage in the Second World War, which initially has been officially cooperating for decades in the 'common European house', up to now in this regard states that are not in conflict at all, but refrain from clear disqualification for as long as possible. That doesn't mean that you agree and you can't say that, even 'just a little'. Rather, this has to be sold as a strength - of course against an unfortunately very human convention of confusing calm with weakness - because you are further defining yourself in the matter, so you don't lose anything, but only on a one-sided and only short-lasting, loud release of tension renounced (... a bit of fiddling around, from which you only benefit as a 'really strong' little man for re-election).

If, instead, one discusses all of this from the perspective of internal Polish conditions or declares this discussion - due to a lack of sufficient knowledge - to be pending together with more in-depth information, in the end one can actually do it, but in a more justified manner, and therefore even more unreservedly and rigorously Certainly reject it in itself, or not. After all, in Poland this topic is not just the agitational invention of a problem that did not arise or does not arise at all, but at best only the unpleasant and excessive whipping up of resentments that still exist, no matter how understandable, but perhaps no longer so understandable Requirements. Only if you remain calm - but this shouldn't give the impression that it doesn't affect you at all - will you be able to argue and separate substance from campaign, and then perhaps open up further avenues of communication. This is perhaps even despite the rejection of a request, because it is difficult for serious opponents, at least, not to weigh an answer at all if it obviously did not just come from the hollow of their hands.

Avoiding any irritation is of course not a value in itself and we - be it in a political association or as an entire nation - are nothing but living beings, not just sober decision-making or experiencing machines, and that's just how things are really difficult to bear. On the other hand, primary irritation does not have to and should not be perpetuated and consequently escalated into mindless self-assurance, where a lot of orientation is still necessary and possible.

The same applies - especially since what has been said is generally valid anyway - to the, with good reason, even harsher criticism of Hungary and Poland regarding violations of the rule of law. It is of course a blessing and a wonderful achievement when institutional Europe - in the way it has already acquired the constitution and strength - can react and act. In the interests of our concerns, we should primarily praise and celebrate a Europe that functions in this way - or that functions to a minimum or is beginning to function - without reservation. Only then can we and perhaps must also propose and demand suitable further measures, and can also audibly regret that Europe itself is not yet able to do this, so that the individual states have to take on what is still possible. This is the appropriate way to deal with the possibilities and limits and this should be soberly propagated and made known by everyone who works for Europe across parties and within the parties.

This also includes recognizing, naming and using arguments to prevent the emergence of harmful spontaneity at an early stage, with which many people like to not only criticize 'haggling' behind closed doors, but morally condemn it. However, as already mentioned, this “haggling” is unavoidable, because simply avoiding loss of face due to too much public attack is not just a nice gesture, nice-to-have, but also mutually beneficial in view of an unannounced intention for further cooperation an irrefutable commandment, as irrefutable as the physical law of gravity in practice.

Hysteria here would also insinuate an - not at all accurate - excess of helplessness in Europe. In addition - especially when there is again talk of a Union that is growing as much as possible, not without reason in terms of world politics, but certainly not clear - the sovereignty, the understanding and the understanding of an 'incomprehensible' national policy, not of course its justification, how already said, the only sovereign way to deal with this situation. It cannot be seen as a sign of weakness - unless we promote it ourselves - as long as harsh reactions to escalating provocations of the community are not categorically excluded: sanctions, for example - instead of an exclusion that is not possible according to the contract – a Europe of differentiated speeds. This is far more than powerlessness, even if we sometimes despair because everything seems too tough, which it is (but that too is only like in 'real life', so obviously it can never be ruled out that success will happen comes late, so it doesn't happen at all, which is why you don't usually throw your life away beforehand).  

It is necessary, but also feasible, that national conflicts - like the one already mentioned between Germany and Poland in recent years, unfortunately not the only one - remain compatible with a pan-European, interstate culture, which is and remains a style-former , but not by putting cotton candy on it (that too!), but due to actual cohesive forces. This also includes verbal disarmament in dialogue, so that solutions can be sought and found behind closed doors, even if the fluffy tone is often increased internally (so that one can later brag about what one has wrested from Brussels). However, this does not usually remain hidden in the country itself, because propaganda in particular is often exposed by the opposition as unworthy and weak (see the current election campaign in Poland).

Even if that's never enough, and everything here is far too tough, there is no real reason for European despair even with loud shouts... or 'not despairing despair' is part of it. You may secretly think for a while that only a 'power word' from outside could help (... from Europe, which is finally powerful). Such a word of power would not only be questionable (even if it doesn't have to give you much of a stomach ache), but also actually impossible or ineffective, even if Europe were much stronger, so the attempt itself, if anything, would be harmful.

Formally, this would only be possible in a European union state and then - perhaps in a few decades - we would have to be very careful that any larger or smaller regions do not permanently lose their interest in Europe again due to too much centralism and perhaps split off again want. Because of the increasing, serious problems for the countries that are constantly isolating themselves within the Union, there is anyway - with all the friction up to that point, from which the rest will have to decouple themselves at some point - more and more internal resistance, which then also ended.

Of course, this can also take longer in the new geopolitical confrontation and can be very critical if these 'breakaway' countries - with all the consequences for their internal constitution, which those in power there are already ruining themselves - are exposed to the consequences of intra-European isolation want to be held harmless by approaching competing power centers, as has already been and is always being done. These global power centers, especially Russia (also China, together with Russia, or separately, but also elsewhere) are currently concentrating - in a campaign against the anno-tobacco imperialist West, especially Europe, which is significantly meaningful for them and disciplines their population - in the closer western 'catchment area' already warlike, methodical and geopolitical but beyond that, Europe apparently, fatally also in popular perception, is still very much in danger of crumbling. Here they are trying to break the resilience of our societies with gleeful malice about the supposed democratic and inner-European dysfunctions, to which the left-behind and destructive among us are susceptible and, in the context of a free society, easily accessible in the media.

Here, too, one can - or even has to - fear a lot of things that are known and still unknown and unfortunately cannot be explained away by any - very quickly reassuring - consideration or happy 'discovery of the facts'. Nevertheless - with ultimately, of course, 'incurable' susceptibility to fate - these powerful anti-European tendencies from outside do not seem to be consolidated with sustainable 'gain of territory' (in the figurative sense) (see also - in view of the gruesomely prolonged attack by the Russians on Ukraine -- in the longer term, a "merely" propagandistic claim that is becoming more and more persistent, i.e. decreasing internal coherence and availability of resources).

So we have to hold Europe up as successful, but we can also do that because it has been moving further and further away from the character of a “Potemkin village” for decades, if it ever actually had one, because it was never shown off with anything that one could even imagine couldn't. It is now a "holey" bastion, albeit one that is still at risk - like Constantinople with fatal consequences at the time - and therefore always at risk, miles superior to a possibly resurgent (or 'weakened') bastion, no longer even to any extent globally Self-determinedly viable nation-state, for example in the - threadbare and misquoted - “Europe of the Fatherlands” by the AfD and other reactionaries.

In view of the European substance that has already been achieved so far, we can and should look after the many remaining Achilles heels with a confidence that is paradoxically stable and at the same time fragile.

End credits:

You can only have confidence in 'greatest moments of humanity' in all its breadth and depth, especially when, in the political sphere, you occasionally turn away from day-to-day business in disgust and sometimes can't do anything else.

On the other hand, this is probably the paradoxical one Prerequisite for healthier relationships with life again: with distance, new strength and new access. Politics - like people themselves, including yourself - is often enough actually disgusting. But 'breathing' motivation - or the interplay between motivation and demotivation - is humane and therefore more efficient than relentless persistence. Fortunately, we can personally afford this in a time (yet) without war and local hardship, depending on our actual personal circumstances, of course.

The fact that some of us in this privileged situation currently only live individualistically is thanks to the opportunity to do so and, of course, the corresponding desire. Those of us gathered here have at least not expressed this wish to such an extent in the context of our social and political interest and commitment, although we ourselves, on the other hand, with our activities that go beyond very personal concerns, exploit the same privilege 'only' in a different direction, not exactly towards 'individualism ' to be forced by a ban on speech.

However, these 'favorable framework conditions' of our free basic order - as we are experiencing again today or beginning to fear, even if that is actually a truism anyway - are not set in stone so that this freedom, including the freedom to do nothing, can at least be enjoyed should also partly be used for their preservation. Obviously, since it is still possible, this should be done with the above-mentioned confidence, because logically one cannot lead a completely stubborn life if at the same time that is exactly the one that one is committed to maintaining in terms of freedom and quality of life.

At the beginning of his work and the preparations for this event, the author of this text was clearly in the spotlight of excessive disgust, which he also aggressively expressed. Only when it was 'enough' did he experience the growing distance within himself from the thing - which had previously been so strongly occupied - and began to look at it differently again, or to want to look at it, also out of an increasingly pressing need, that everything may not be as bad as he sees it.

Maybe that's exactly what this 'just wishing for' - which is not automatically just an illusion, but rather 'better knowledge' - is a completely natural and necessary, and therefore positive, renewal procedure that also brings reorientation and new drive . But if this is actually critical to success, then Europe could, crazy enough, be at risk from too much 'unconditional' love and too little occasional indifference. So let's be careful, let's stay cool, let's not overwhelm it, then we don't have to condemn it, let's just look past it like the Indians, let's just help it consistently, fully confident of success, what else. 

Notabene: the horse is now in the pasture. The rider is also exhausted and leans against the gate. He looks in, but also a little past and forward, but much less enthusiastically than he was outraged before. He's no longer driven at all, he just feels within himself - a little anxiously again, admittedly - the desire for a determination that will hold firm, even if there's a lot of noise around it soon...

Posted by Heinrich Kuemmerle on September 21, 2023 at 15:46 p.m

Both contributions, from Jean and Walther, are a more than successful introduction to this year's Hertensteiner Talks!

And as expected, neither are easy reads.

So that Jean, who has thankfully translated his contribution into German, can be understood correctly in case of doubt, I am attaching his original French text here as an attachment. Unfortunately, due to the system, these attachments are only available for reading and downloading to registered readers.

I can only recommend that anyone interested in the Hertensteiner Talks register here in the forum. All you need is a short email to me and I will activate the sender. Another advantage: you can then write and respond yourself in the forum.