Category: Europe

European unity and how it might be possible to build a fairly resilient European federation

I am firmly convinced that if we Europeans form a federation, at some point the result could be the most advanced and powerful civilization in history. We obviously have our differences, but if we develop our ability to utilize our collective cultural richness as a resource, it would increasingly foster greater understanding and innovation. It seems equally obvious that we could fairly dependably build on what we have in common and that we might be able to utilize the strength of facts to overcome the difficulties created by our differences.

It would appear to be fairly clear that we need to be able to work together much more efficiently if we don’t want to be to a very significant degree subject to the influence of people who don’t exactly consider our well-being the highest of priorities. Greater unity would thus seem to be exactly what we need going forward, and given how much we have in common already, it might be surprisingly readily achievable, provided that we focus primarily on what we have in common and all of the other things that truly matter most. To me it seems rather clear that there is so much more beyond a veil of fear and confusion: a new, more concerted kind of Europe awaiting its birth. Building a properly functioning European federation would, of course, be a fairly challenging endeavour, but it would seem to be possible with the right kind of approach.

Since it would appear that a system of government built on strong distrust is relatively likely to be well-functioning and prosocial, it seems most appropriate to seek to build the foundations of a European federation with the same principle in mind, or in other words, to build the whole system around checks and balances that are as strong as reasonably possible without being excessively burdensome. Establishing this kind of a system that has a very clear emphasis on the safeguarding of the rights and liberties of the people and that operates in a relatively sensible fashion is in my opinion most likely the only way in which a European federation can be built, since it would seem that any people with its own sovereign state is rather unlikely to relinquish its national sovereignty if they perceive that there is a substantial chance that such a decision would make their prospects worse, and especially so if they think that it is possible that they might end up being oppressed as a result of such a change, and obviously extremely so if it seems even a little likely that the possible oppression would be totalitarian in nature.

Accomplishing the establishment of a European federation with a top-down approach, i.e. turning the European Union into a federation seems rather implausible, since entering into an unproven system of such nature would seem to be intolerably risky for the vast majority of the people involved. Therefore it would appear to be fairly clear that the only way in which at least most of Europe can reasonably be expected to become a federation without the use of military force is with a bottom-up approach, i.e. via a state (or maybe up to a few states) becoming a federation with a constitution with the necessary checks and balances and then fairly conclusively proving that the system actually works properly and that joining the federation is the superior alternative to keeping national sovereignty and then enlarging it piece by piece at a pace that allows the federal government to function properly without exception. Ideally the states or parts thereof joining the federation should border it or be readily accessible by sea through domestic and international waters, but exceptions could obviously be made in situations that demand it.

Prior to settling on a final draft of the federal constitution, substantial effort should, of course, be put into studying what solutions have been successful in other federations and naturally also what they have failed at, with a particular focus on studying the oldest federation in existence: the United States of America is obviously a deeply flawed country, but it is still quite clearly worthy of emulation in many ways, and I am reasonably confident that it is possible for us to create a superb federation in Europe if we put sufficient effort into the process of crafting the constitution and legislation in general and take a very deliberately eclectic approach to both.

If the state is genuinely highly prosocial, it seems likely that its citizens would be on average fairly supportive of it and that a very considerable proportion of them might be quite motivated to fight for it as well.

The legacy of the Franks

History has been shaped to a relatively significant degree by the Franks and the continuums that they started. But who were these people, where did they come from, and what became of them and the aforementioned continuums?

Originally the Franks were not an ethnic group per se, but rather a group of Germanic tribes or maybe rather a tribal confederation that lived in an area on the right side of the Rhine stretching roughly from the Lahn to the IJsselmeer during late antiquity.
It seems that *frank most likely meant “free” and “brave” in proto-West Germanic and that it was derived from proto-Germanic *frankaz (which could also have been borrowed into proto-Finnic and become Finnish rankka, which means “arduous”, “tough”, “intense”, “harsh”, and “rough”; also compare to the Finnish word for a Frank, Frankki), which seems to have meant ”fierce”, “wild”, and “made to be ‘wild'”, i.e. ”made to be thrown”. It also seems that the word *frankô (“javelin”) was derived from a longer word for javelin via the javelin part of the term (seemingly most likely *gaizaz) becoming omitted, and that the term for a brave and/or free-spirited person would have been simplified in a similar fashion and obviously later become the ethnonym *Franko.

Little by little, the Frankish tribes formed a more cohesive group with an increasingly significant common identity, which over time turned into their new ethnic identity. The first time they were united under one ruler was under the first Merovingian king, Clovis I. They then expanded this Frankish Kingdom greatly under the rule of the Merovingian dynasty, also becoming gradually more Romanized in the process. During the last century of Merovingian rule the power of the kings had been greatly reduced, and the kingdom was in practice controlled by the mayors of the palace, the most notable of whom was Charles Martel, who also held the title of Duke and Prince of the Franks and whose second son Pepin the Short became the first Carolingian king. Forces under Martel’s command defeated the invading forces of the Umayyad Caliphate at the Battle of Tours, and the Franks later expelled the last of the Umayyads from their territory with the assistance of the Lombards. Under the rule of Pepin’s son Charlemagne, the Franks conquered the Lombards, 26 years after which he was crowned Emperor of the Romans by the pope. The territory of the empire ended up getting divided into West Francia, Middle Francia and East Francia between the surviving sons of his son Louis the Pious.

As there would still seem to be a relatively strong need to process the history of the Germans, it seems fairly appropriate to focus mostly on it hereinafter: West Francia obviously became France, East Francia eventually absorbed the northern parts of Middle Francia and came to be known as the Kingdom of Germany, and the other parts of Middle Francia became the Kingdom of Burgundy and the Kingdom of Italy. The Kingdom of Germany was the core of the Holy Roman Empire, which was ultimately dissolved by emperor Francis II roughly eight months after its forces had suffered a crushing defeat against Napoleon’s army in the Battle of Austerlitz. This dissolution also happened to take place 1005 years after Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the Romans; this coronation is seen by some as the establishment of the HRE (which is also sometimes referred to as the First Reich), but it seems more reasonable to consider the coronation of Otto I as emperor after a 38-year period without an emperor as the proper founding of the HRE and thus to think that it lasted for 844 years.

Over time, the Frankish language too became divided, and a number of languages that descend at least partially from it are still spoken: Old Low Franconian evolved into Dutch (and thus also into Afrikaans, of course), and the highland dialects of Frankish evolved into the Franconian dialects of Old High German, which along with the other dialects of Old High German evolved into the various dialects of Middle High German, which in turn evolved into, for example, Luxembourgish, Yiddish, Austro-Bavarian, and Standard German, of which the first two are based on Franconian dialects; Standard German is primarily based on East Central and Eastern Upper German dialects.

After the Napoleonic wars the most significant states that controlled parts of the former territory of the HRE were the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia. As is well known, Prussia later became the driving force in the establishment of the North German Confederation and its transition into the German Empire aka. the Second Reich, the demise of which following its defeat in World War I obviously led to a period of history the aftermath of which defines Europe to a large degree to this day. Even though a lot of time has passed since then, and things seem to have somewhat improved in Europe during said time, many people still appear to have at least some issues related to that period of German history they arguably shouldn’t, and as such it seems appropriate to try and address said issues in some fashion:

Considering the history of the Germans in its entirety, it would seem to be quite reasonable to conclude that it doesn’t appear to be very sensible to judge them primarily by the period of it that is overwhelmingly defined by the horrific consequences of Prussian militarism, which, of course, includes the rise and rule of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The national socialist regime was obviously immensely devastating and exceptionally appalling, but why should people who were in no way responsible for its actions be made to suffer in any way because of the actions of the Nazi regime if they don’t enjoy some lasting benefit as a result of said actions? It would seem reasonable to argue that the German people as a collective didn’t gain a net benefit as a result of the actions of the Nazi regime and that they should therefore not be subjected to further collective punishment because of said actions.

A lifetime has passed since the dissolution of the Third Reich, and a lifetime should arguably be a long enough time from said dissolution for people to be able to see the history of the Germans clearly and to put things into proper perspective; all things considered, having a habit of excessively emphasizing or an obsession of some kind with the parts or a part of German history characterized by totalitarianism seems rather bizarre and unhealthy, but unfortunately indoctrination and trauma-induced issues frequently die hard and sadly often only with the recipients thereof and the traumatized, respectively, of course.

A conspicuously dark cloud and the long-term issues it created

This is obviously a relatively sombre topic to start with, but a blog has to start with something, and this might as well be it, considering that it would appear to be best if I wrote about the matters mentioned in this entry and also preferably sooner than later:
It seems to me that a great number of people have found and still find it fairly difficult to fully cope with the idea of democide, especially of the industrialized kind, and the democides carried out by Nazi Germany and its collaborators would appear to be the most problematic in this way.

It can be especially overwhelming to think about such events if one does not truly understand what kinds of misguided ideas led to them, and I don’t think it is very shameful to admit it if one doesn’t: admission of ignorance and confusion is the first step toward true comprehension, and the inability to do so is a far greater shame than incomprehension in itself can ever be, obviously especially if such a crippling personality defect is refractory.

It is fairly typical of me and perhaps even most people to try to find at least thin silver linings even to the darkest clouds as a way to cope or attempt to cope; I think the only effects of the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators I could ever describe as positive were the instillation of an increased awareness of the dangers of incomprehension, disinformation, collective narcissism, misdirected hatred, and totalitarianism in at least most of the groups targeted by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, a very large number of Europeans, and people of European heritage in particular plus as a more indirect effect the especially significant one that fortunately still benefits the group the destruction of which the Nazi regime prioritized, i.e. the Jewish people, of course, and which obviously was the refoundation of their own sovereign state, an incredibly exceptionally bittersweet realization of the hopes and dreams of many generations of Jews, and said state is clearly a fairly durable wellspring of hope for them, at least for the time being.

I hope that we can one day help all of the peoples in the West Asian region by strictly and decisively, but always clearly rationally and justly enforcing a real and lasting peace by whatever means necessary and thus hopefully catalyze the start of a new, more enlightened era of thriving civilization(s) in the region, the peoples of which we Europeans are actually fairly closely related to.
I am reasonably confident that given a relatively high level of security, durable stability, universal proper education, and a sufficient amount of at the very least relatively decent economic opportunities, the peoples of the region just might in time go through their own renaissance periods of various kinds and lengths and come to understand that it is in our mutual interest to forge lasting partnerships, especially considering the scope and difficulty of the challenges facing us all in the foreseeable future.

The most critical prerequisite for the kind of peace described above and its desired consequences would seem to be an enduring just settlement of the Palestinian issue, for which I think I have devised a solution that might actually work as intended if the terms of the treaty are effectively and dispassionately, i.e. very professionally enforced.

I will present my detailed suggestions later this year.