Pro and Contra

Question determined answer. No opinion and market research that does not know that questions intend answers and eliminate others. If one wants to demand certain answers, it is necessary to formulate adequate questions. This happens continuously. If one wants to achieve a defined result in the market of votes, it is appropriate to ventilate corresponding questions. Whoever dictates the questions dictates the answers.

More relevant than who answers the questions? who decides the questions? So who has the competence to create questions? These can by no means be legitimized" democratically". How would that be implemented? Answers depend on questions, they perpetuate them. So it is directly the questions that often seek the answers, at least determine their variance. Question and answer equal supply and demand.

Pro and Contra

The audience is always asked for an answer, but not for a question. It should answer questions, but not ask. There are others for that. Customers are consumers are consumers, they choose from an assortment of goods. Do you buy it from me? is the characteristic everyday phrase that reflects precisely this circumstance. More than ever, mine is a form of buying, not of knowing or even of being able. This thinking of the so-called mature citizens is extremely limited, solely because of the living conditions of the people, which systematically restrict their possibilities of reflection.

Before questions are to be answered, ask for the questions. Otherwise, questions are trick questions and in fact they often are. Before questions have to be answered, the questions have to be conquered. Criticism would mean: we give answers to questions that are not even asked. This is easier said than done, but there is no emancipation to be made under this burden. Those who receive the forays carefully will easily discover that not only the answers, but the questions we propose are different from the conventional ones. Real Opposition deconstructs the prevailing discourse, denies its implications or at least makes them recognizable. We try that. In this respect, we have also fallen out of the conventional debate. This has its disadvantages, but the unique advantage of not being part of the obligatory communication.

More Europe? Less Europe?

“Are you for or against the EU?“this great question has always seemed to me (since the end of the Eighties) to be an imposition, an attack on my, I hope, awake mind. I behaved in the question, if I had to, tactically, never at the level of confessions. So I could not find myself in either an endorsement or a rejection. The ardent European seems to me like an inflammation like the ardent Austrian. I did not glow, and I do not want to glow, either for the dull-cheeked Austria or for the big-mouthed project of the Union, the United States of Europe or a European Republic. As a Patriot, and even as a European, I am not available. The small as well as the Great Fatherland does not have my love. There is no reason for this.

European patriotism differs from Austrian patriotism only in that it has more space and also wants more space, which on the one hand makes Europe a fortress Frontex, but on the other hand intervenes freely and freely for “our interests” worldwide militarily and economically. The truth of the EU is documented by its reality in the Mediterranean and on the battlefields of the East and South. Refugees are the implicit answer to this drive.

We stand here for the overcoming, even the abolition of nations, but not for the establishment of a transnational national superpower in Europe. We simply do not think of that. The European debate is not ours, and we should not let it be imposed on us. So the question of more or less Europe is settled by itself. The future is not decided on Europe, it is not a question of taking a Position in this discourse, but of rejecting the question altogether. It is not our business to get excited. We don’t have more than cross shots to offer. Our aversion is not only to rampant populism, but also to ruling liberalism, which in recent years, however, has managed to absorb the left almost completely.

Pro and Contra

Saving Europe?

Only Europe can save us? – This idea of an intelligence that has become completely lazy in a double sense of the word is indicative of the Regression of intellectual potentials. The manifesto for the re-establishment of the EU from below is an example. This Pamphlet is signed by Jacques Delors, Joschka Fischer, Anthony Giddens, Jürgen Habermas, György Konrad, Adam Michnik, Robert Menasse, Herta Müller, Martin Pollack, Gesine Schwan, Javier Solana, Helmut Schmidt, among others. An illustrious round, no doubt.

It is teeming with “citizens” in a “civil society”, even the absolute nonsense of John F. Kennedy: “do not ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”, must not be missing. In any case, it is important “to create a Europe of active citizens”.

However, what are the perpetrators of “doing Europe”? Is not enough panelled already? The active citizen is the assassin of capital.

Where does the credit of the European Union come from? Just because the anti-EU Reflex is dull does not say anything about the quality of the EU. Just because a lot of nonsense is being told about the Union does not mean that it makes sense. Anyone who deals with Pro-EU literature could quickly discover their own stubbornness. The dystopian aspects became more in those years, not less.

It dominates the invocation of common but empty formulas. Phrases that have to be repeated over and over again and have a crushing effect on the power of the media mass. These intellectual achievements are serial products of the culture industry. Fast Food in rushed times. For the liberalism of all camps, European unification is unquestionably"the best thing that has happened to Europe in the past millennia”. Or Robert Menasse: “the EU is the coolest of all Hells on Earth.“And Yanis Varoufakis, decidedly not a radical, but a courted and approved leading figure of the left, even thinks that there is currently nothing more to be done than to save capitalism from itself. And Europe with it. So much modesty is not allowed to us.

The left’s love for the EU stems above all from a defeat or rather a capitulation. This is where the final moraines of the completed emancipation of 1968 pass. EU euphoria is also the weak substitute for the disappointed hopes for socialism. The departure ended in the adaptation to the liberal and neo-liberal universe. Who remembers the completely exaggerated anti-EC campaign of the Austrian Greens before accession, spearheaded by Johannes Voggenhuber, who then quickly transformed himself into a fiery propagandist of the EU?

Love Europe?

The channels overflow, and the presses run hot. One has the feeling that the intellectuals of the continent are now throwing up in the courtyard of the Brussels Commission. One Sings the Blue canon in the star choir. Criticism only takes place as a Simulation. One pro-European publication follows the next: Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Robert Menasse, Ulrike Guérot, Oskar Negt, Claus Offe, Heribert Prantl, Claus Leggewie, Richard Sennett, Hannes Androsch. “How do you feel about Europe?“is also the name of the latest book by Ulrike Guérot, founder of the Think tank” European Democracy Lab " (EUDEMLAB o. EDL) in Berlin and head of the “Department for European Policy and democracy research” (DED) at Danube University Krems.

“You just have to love Europe!”, says Heribert Prantl. Do you have to? No, you definitely don’t have to light up as an additional Glowworm for Freedom and Democracy, meanwhile it’s quite lucrative to participate in this fair of well-endowed Vanity. Its fixed days in permanence. As soon as a Symposium is over, the next conference begins. We have never had so much advertising.

Ulrike Liebert, a Bremen political scientist close to the Greens, should be mentioned as an example. In her unspeakable book “renew Europe!“if it is once again a question of democratising the Union from below, it should become a “democratic citizens ‘Union”. It is “about the humanist European ideals of human and civil rights, peace, freedom and justice, democracy, prosperity and cosmopolitanism …“It is about” the start of a sustainable European democracy.“We all see ourselves as Democrats and Europe as a haven of democracy.““Democracy means that the citizens are free to participate actively and passively in parliamentary or presidential elections, in popular initiatives and referendums.“What is needed is” a supranational upgrade of democracy”. It calls for a"Democratic transplant into the heart of the Eurozone”. After all, it is about the “defence of Free values”. If this fails, then it is necessary to complain of a “loss of value”. Etc., etc.

It’s all so messed up. No two sentences can be written without praying. The Liberal Christmas tree is cleaned up. All garlands glitter. It already has something liturgical. Here the dominant language swathes. “Citizens”,” democracy”, values”, " all of us!”. Wavering vocabulary same galleried to which all have to get stuck.

Such theory was not upgraded, but downloaded. Documents of mental thin whistle are numerous. While Ulrike Liebert nebulously speaks of a “transnational Republic”, Marcus Koch speaks in his book “nation Europa! Why the European Union must become the European Nation” at least in plain language. Small nations shall give way to a great Nation. The Union known to us is a continuation of what we had.

But the appeals roll over. They hyperventilate. This is where even figures like Friedrich Merz and Jürgen Habermas come together when it comes to praising Europe in the Handelsblatt of 21 October 2018, they advocate “a Europe that protects our way of life and creates prosperity for all”. Is anyone who wants to protect” our way of life " still sane? “We demand a European army,” is the military conclusion. So much renewal was rare.

Europe renew?

Europe is a pop dance of its believers. Without any reality and knowledge, it is staged as a place of longing. Even anti-fascism has recently been added to EU history, as if anti-Communism had not been the formative and driving component of European unification. Robert Menasse is the poet of this play. Even after he almost stumbled upon a Walter Hallstein subverted quote (“the abolition of the Nation is the European idea”), he keeps up the good work. Europe is becoming a liberal operetta. One performance follows the next.

The European Union is a project of the Western European elites. An EU-friendly Agenda is today prescribed as consensus in “enlightened circles”, and anyone who violates it is denounced as a Populist or Nationalist. The authoritarian commitment to pro-Europeism is no longer tolerable. Pro-Europeism as we know it is a nationalist and imperialist concept. The bickering over Brexit, on the other hand, illustrates how the Union and its states tick and how far the self-destructing forces in the EU itself gain space. If the meeting and flight kilometers were not so highly endowed, one would have to feel directly sorry for the staff involved.

The split between pro - and anti-European forces is a pseudo conflict. We should not stop there. It would rather be a strategic matter to put the relevant questions in the centre of attention and to push those unfortunate and stupid pseudo-questions into the background. This does not exclude support such as rejection of concrete plans and measures, but this is something other than surrendering to the prevailing question and even talking their dictates nicely. This is not our Terrain. In the confrontation between national capitalism and international capitalism, we are against capitalism.

If the European Union is at risk, then we should neither defend nor attack it. No lifetime is to be sacrificed for this. We do not stand up for the EU, nor do we support an exit. In both, we see no perspective. We stand neither for nor against Europe, nor for another Europe. Ivan Krastev, a Bulgarian liberal and author of the book” European Twilight “has pointed out that according to"a YouGov survey in 14 member states, the largest group in Europe are those who believe that neither the Union nor its national government work”. That would at least be an approach. In any case, public opinion here is further than the official or even the published.

Europe reforming?

If we observe Europe closely, there is nothing here but bourgeois madness. Of course democratically and according to the rule of law domesticated. But it is the body of capital that organizes itself and thus US: Value, competition, Business, Market, location, labor, performance, money. We can choose whether we want all this or not. But once we accept this framework, our options are extremely limited.

But that is exactly the case, the latest hit will be the henceforth forced black-green commitment to the eco-social market economy, where Environment and economy will find each other quite amicably. But this time, for sure. Work on global Burnout continues.

Our reluctance to engage in the factual discussion is great. Talking along here can only end in partiality. Quickly you are in the cage of market and state and paint the bars. This is wasted and wasted time, not only in the face of imminent ecological disasters. It is not necessary to be constructive at all, but destructive: the System with all its structures and form principles is up for grabs.

Improper, beyond and worthless already has its logic. We do not belong to the phalanx of innovators and reformers. We are not interested in whether the EU can be reformed. Vocabulary such as “renewal and Reform” should be quarantined. These are, to say the least, threats that do not appear as such. It’s about alternatives. We need a different world, a different society, not a continuation of capitalism, be it democratic, populist or openly authoritarian.