SOLIDARIETA’ CON GL’INTELLETTUALI AMERICANI CONTRO LA DITTATURA DELL’INTOLLERANZA CULTURALE

Il Balch (Bellamy) Salute non fu inventato in Europa, ma in America, e fu modificato solo durante la IIa Guerra Mondiale

Il manifesto di 150 intellettuali americani (fra i quali Chomsky, Fukuyama, Zakaria, Khanna e Rushdie) contro la dittatura del  “politicamente corretto” costituisce l’ennesima conferma della fondatezza di tutta la nostra battaglia culturale, basata sull’ idea che l’errore fondamentale della Modernità consista nella pretesa, limpidamente enunziata da Lessing, dal Primo Programma Sistemico dell’Idealismo Tedesco e dai sansimoniani, che la secolarizzazione delle religioni monoteistiche avrebbe permesso l’attualizzazione dell’insieme delle loro promesse escatologiche. Da quella scelta, a mio avviso logicamente vuota, sono scaturite le contraddizioni della Moderntà, sempre più insostenibili innanzitutto per gl’intellettuali, che sono chiamati a spiegarla e giustificarla, contraddizioni che stanno venendo al pettine con la Singularity, la crisi ecologica e sanitaria e la rivincita delle  culture siniche, indiche, medio-orientali e indio-americane.

Secondo Lessing, Hegel, Saint Simon, Comte, e Enfantin e il mainstream culturale che a essi, spesso senza saperlo, s’ispira, la coincidenza, nell’immanenza, fra l’Essere e il Bene, avrebbe permesso di superare la finitezza, la soggezione alla natura, la separatezza degli uomini e ogni forma di costrizione. Come nelle idee dei Manichei e dei Pelagiani condannate da Sant’Agostino,  Progresso, tecnica, libertà e giustizia sarebbero divenuti una cosa sola. Come si esprime oggi Kurzweil, con la cosiddetta “Singolarità”, il Progresso avrebbe prodotto la “Quasi-Immortalità”, e, conformemente all’ Agenda delle Nazioni Unite  2030, si sarebbero estirpati tutti i mali dell’Umanità, a cominciare dalla povertà e dalle “ineguaglianze”. Le vecchie Grandi Narrazioni sarebbero confluite in un’unica Memoria Condivisa, dove tutte le brutture del passato (mitologia, violenza, autoritarismo, stereotipi) sarebbero state superate nel “Regno della Libertà”. A questo punto, come affermava già l’Apocalisse, non sarebbe sostanzialmente più successo nulla (la “Post-Histoire”di Arnold Gehlen).

Francis Fukuyama è passato dalla “Fine della Storia” alla critica del post-umanesimo

1.L’esplosione delle contraddizioni della Modernità

L’insostenibilità di quel millenarismo immanentistico era divenuta evidente già al pempo della IIa Guerra Mondiale. Eppure, già alla vittoria contro il preteso “Male Assoluto” dell’Asse si era accoppiato l’eguale e contrario Male Assoluto della Bomba Atomica. Con l’indipendenza d’ India e Israele, l’affermazione del principio dell’autodeterminazione dei popoli aveva cominciato a dimostrare la sua contraddittorietà, con la contrapposizione degli opposti buoni diritti di hindu e islamici, arabi e israeliani. Non molto dopo, le “democrazie” intervenivano con la forza per impedire l’autodeterminazione di popoli come quelli vietnamita e iraniano. L’industrializzazione forzata portava alla crisi ecologica, mentre la diffusione del suffragio universale aveva come immediata conseguenza l’ascesa di governi islamici, imperialistici o nazionalistici (come era stato, a suo tempo, dei partiti bolscevico, fascista e nazista).

Oggi, l’inesauribile contraddittorietà della Modernità si sta rivelando in tutta la sua ampiezza, in primo luogo attraverso la conflittualità generalizzata della società americana:

-la vittoria della tecnica sta portando alla società del controllo totale (Echelon, Assange, Prism, Google Analytica ,Big Data, riconoscimento facciale, Great Digital Firewall) e all’obsolescenza programmata dell’Umanità (Kurzweil, Miortvaja Ruka);

-la condanna del colonialismo sta portando al crollo del mito della libertà occidentale, e quella del patriarcato alla paralisi della stessa riproduzione sessuata; 

-la pretesa della democraticità della cultura sfocia nella persecuzione sistematica dell’intelligenza e nell’ apoteosi di ogni forma di tracotanza plebea.

Di fronte al linciaggio quotidiano e ai licenziamenti per soddisfare la piazza, anche il “mainstream” intellettuale, che aveva prosperato per secoli grazie alla connivenza con tutte le forme di potere via via dominanti, si vede finalmente costretto a passare all’ opposizione. Infatti, oggi, per sopravvivere professionalmente, non basta più, soprattutto in America, dichiararsi di destra o di sinistra, ma occorre soprattutto schivare ogni e qualsivoglia questione scomoda. E, siccome la società occidentale sta finalmente esplodendo sotto il peso delle sue contraddizioni, ogni questione di sostanza  è divenuta, non soltanto, scomoda, ma, addirittura,  scottante. Qual è, per i nostri contemporanei, il fondamento della morale? Quali sono le ragioni delle innegabili differenze fra gli uomini? L’eguaglianza è compatibile con un buon governo? Si può governare in modo partecipato la società dell’equilibrio nucleare, dei “big Data” e di Prism? Come può un Paese di 300 milioni di abitanti dettare legge a un’Umanità di 7 miliardi?

In realtà, un volta data risposta a questi interrogativi, ben poco resterebbe in piedi del cosiddetto “Occidente”, che si fonda proprio sulla  messa in sordina di tutte quelle questioni.

Di conseguenza, i poteri costituiti sono tutti in grande agitazione; vedono nemici da tutte le parti, e se la prendono con il mondo della comunicazione, che non riesce più a svolgere i suoi tradizionali compiti di mistificazione, perché ciascuna delle parti in conflitto (Trump, iconoclasti, fondamentalisti, suprematisti, tecnomani, fanatici dei “diritti”) rappresenta non già una risposta, ma parte del problema.

Si rispolvera da parte di tutti l’elogio dell’ “onesta menzogna”, l’unica che, forse, permetterà di gestire quel guazzabuglio.

Fareed Zakaria e la crisi della “liberaldemocrazia”

2. L’impossibilità di aderire a uno qualsiasi degl’idoli della Modernità

Il rifiuto di prendere posizione, che è alla base della protesta dei firmatari del Manifesto, trova infatti la sua radice prima nel fatto che per nessuna di quelle domande esiste una riposta veramente persuasiva, e comunque valida sempre e dovunque. Perciò, la pretesa delle varie “sette” occidentali , dai fondamentalisti ai laicisti, dagli occidentalisti agli egualitaristi, dai quietisti ai  tecnomani, dalle femministe ai pauperisti, dai suprematisti bianchi ai vittimisti di ogni genere, che vi siano dei “Valori non negoziabili”(i loro) ,viene   smentita proprio dall’evoluzione stessa di quei movimenti. I  fondamentalisti, che cent’ anni fa vituperavano la democrazia perché incompatibile con le verità eterne della Religione, sostengono oggi, in sostanza, che l’unica verità eterna è proprio la democrazia, divenuta, nel frattempo, miracolosamente, “cristiana”. I laicisti, che, cent’anni fa, propugnavano l’assoluta libertà di pensiero, hanno promulgato nel frattempo un’infinità di leggi memoriali e di reati d’opinione, di cui si è perduto addirittura il conto. Gli occidentalisti ch’ esaltavano il valore della democrazia formale, ai presidenti comunque eletti Putin, Erdogan e Morsi, preferivano i non eletti Gorbaciov, Atatuerk e al-Sissi. Gli egualitari, che ieri esaltavano gli operai come gli uomini del futuro, oggi stanno dalla  parte di un ceto medio di “parvenus” e di “déracinés” che nulla  ha a che fare, né con il progresso tecnico-scientifico, né con la rivoluzione sociale. I quietisti, che cent’anni fa volevano  il mantenimento a qualunque costo delle forme ottocentesche di proprietà, oggi difendono “quota 100” e la finanza internazionale. I tecnomani, che sono i veri responsabili della crisi ecologica, oggi non fanno altro che parlare di “Green New Deal”. Le femministe che ieri difendevano le donne sfruttate dal capitalismo, oggi forniscono il pretesto, con “Me Too”, per i ricatti e le vendette di squallide attricette arriviste.  I pauperisti, che esaltavano, nei “poveri di spirito”, i destinatari del Regno dei Cieli, oggi vorrebbero invece ”estirpare la povertà”. I suprematisti bianchi, che credevano che la superiorità della razza dipendesse dal suo spirito guerriero, oggi s’identificano con un “degenerato” sottoproletariato americano. Alla fine dello spirito sacrificale, teorizzata qualche decennio fa da René Girard, si è contrapposta di fatto, proprio da allora, l’apoteosi del sacrificio da parte di Palestinesi, Pasdaran, al Qaida e  ISIS.

Come credere ancora a questi variopinti teorici del nulla?

La frenesia di assoggettare gl’intellettuali ai variopinti  slogan del potere deriva dalla consapevolezza del vuoto concettuale di tutte le tendenze cntemporanee, presagio della perdita del controllo da parte della “Società dell’ 1%”.

Parag Khanna, fra la Svizzera e Singapore

3.La storia moderna è una Grande Cospirazione? 

In definitiva, la Modernità si regge sulla deliberata imposizione al popolo, attraverso un’intelligencija addomesticata, di una serie di” valori non negoziabili” che, da un lato, non trovano, né troveranno mai, attuazione (perché irrealistici), e, dall’ altra, sono in stridente contrasto con il “dubbio sistematico” di Cartesio, con il “Pari” di Pascal, con la “Critica della Ragion Pura” di Kant, con il “prospettivismo” di Nietzsche e con la Dialettica dell’ Illuminismo di Horkheimer e Adorno ( autori a cui le élites aderiscono, ma riguardano bene dal comunicare all’ esterno, anzi, di cui reprimono la comunicazione).

Per ovviare a queste contraddizioni, già Platone aveva affermato il dovere di mentire da parte degli Archontes, e Averroè aveva tentato di risolvere il problema distinguendo fra i “filosofi”, che avrebbero dovuto parlare solo al “principe”, e i teologi, che avrebbero dovuto parlare al popolo.

Oggi si pretenderebbe che gl’intellettuali, a fronte dei loro privilegi, nascondano in eterno e a tutti quelle contraddizioni della Modernità, per permettere ai governanti di irreggimentare il popolo secondo quei valori a cui essi per primi non credono affatto, e che in realtà calpestano selvaggiamente, anche se per lo più di nascosto. Ciò è, però, alla lunga, tecnicamente impossibile anche con la migliore buona volontà (per i moltiplicarsi infinito degli strumenti di comunicazione), sì che gl’intellettuali sono oramai posti in una situazione professionalmente insostenibile.

Questa situazione viene, come abbiamo visto, da lontano, ma è strettamente legata soprattutto all’ irruzione dell’America nella storia mondiale, e al carattere costitutivo, per essa, dell’ ipocrisia puritana. E’ perciò normale che la rivolta si scateni innanzitutto in America. Colombo aveva “scoperto” l’America dichiarandosi erede dei profeti biblici e delle Crociate, e come prima cosa vi aveva portato la schiavitù (e aveva fatto tagliare letteralmente la lingua a coloro che conoscevano la sua vera storia e ne parlavano). Carlo V e De las Casas avevano osteggiato, nel nome della concezione imperiale cristiana, la schiavizzazione dei nativi americani, ma, per ovviarvi, vi avevano importato gli schiavi africani.

Come afferma neanche tanto copertamente la Dichiarazione d’Indipendenza degli Stati Uniti, la Rivoluzione Americana, che afferma controfattualmente che tutti gli uomini sono nati eguali, era stata creata per impedire al Re d’Inghilterra di estendere all’America l’abolizione della schiavitù, decretata dalle corti inglesi, di restituire, come aveva fatto, i territori indiani, e di conservare il culto cattolico e il diritto romano ai sudditi francesi della Luisiana e del Canada. La Tratta Atlantica e il “Trail of Tears” erano stati sostenuti, fra gli altri, dai Padri Fondatori degli Stati Uniti, da Voltaire, da Kant, da Tocqueville e, perfino, da Carlo Marx, il quale si rendeva benissimo conto che solo grazie ad essa l’ Occidente aveva potuto realizzare quell’ “accuumulazione primitiva” che le aveva permesso di primeggiare sui Continenti, e, quindi, di realizzare la rivoluzione borghese, prodromo di quella socialista.

Franco Cardini, un intellettuale europeo a tutto tondo

4.Ripartire dall’ intelligencija indipendente.       

Le contraddizioni dell’Occidente, insostenibili per la stessa “intelligencija” americana, costituiscono la premessa per la rivincita di quattro secoli d’intellettualità indipendente che, della sua indipendenza, era stata costretta a subire tutte le conseguenze, come Sully, costretto a nascondere le proprie opere, De Maistre isolato dagli stessi sovrani che intendeva servire, Nietzsche finito pazzo, Zweig suicida, Pound inviato in manicomio per salvarlo da una condanna a morte, Coudenhove-Kalergi finito fra le opere proibite per avere teorizzato senza infingimenti le necessità, anche spiacevoli, dell’ integrazione europea, De Finetti mai pubblicato per aver osato sfidare il principio di causalità….

Per capire questa millenaria persecuzione contro l’attaccamento degl’intellettuali alla verità, occorre ricordare senza complessi che già il RgVeda, la prima opera “teologica” della storia, insinuava il dubbio che non vi fosse alcun Creatore, come pure che il Dio del Sinai si autodefiniva così: “io sono quel che sono” e che il padre della Chiesa Tertulliano affermava senza mezzi termini “credo quia absurdum”.  Occorre por mente anche al fatto che De Sade, Baudelaire e Flaubert erano stati condannati per la loro ostilità elitaria  alla pruderie moralistica borghese, e che tutta l’intellettualità dei primi del Novecento (Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Mosca, Michels, Pareto, Tigher, Rensi, Boas, Pirandello, Kafka, Huxley, Burgess, Pound, Céline, Lévy-Strauss, Herskowits)  non ha fatto altro che demitizzare la “grande narrazione” occidentale, progressista e razionalista.

Si tratta, come voleva Lukàcs, di una follia collettiva volta alla “distruzione della Ragione”, oppure della necessaria critica al “miti della Modernità”, più falsi di quelli dell’Antichità perché dotati di una pretesa di verità obiettiva, e più pericolosi perché fondati su un’irrealistica aspirazione alla  perfezione terrena?

Le culture che si stanno costruendo in tutto il mondo in opposizione al pensiero unico della Globalizzazione Occidentale si trovino esposte a rischi inauditi (fine dell’ Umano, dominio delle Macchine Intelligenti), e non debbono, quindi, limitarsi a riproporre vecchi clichés.  Trattandosi comunque  di affrontare realtà eterne, adombrate già nei miti dei” 44.000 Kalpas”, della Pashupatastra, del Diluvio Universale, dell’ Apocalisse, è a quegli archetipi universali che finiranno per riallacciarsi. Poi, fra quegli archetipi così elevati e i nostri problemi inediti e irrisolti si dovranno contestualizzare le grandi esperienze dei pensatori del passato: le teofanie  delle Religioni del Libro;  i grandi Maestri orientali, ma anche i vertici della “Cultura Alta” moderna, come Goethe, Leopardi, Nietzsche, Anders, che si sono erano già confrontati con i temi centrali della politica culturale contemporanea, come le Illusioni, il Patto col Diavolo, l’obsolescenza dell’ Umano e il Superuomo.

Le società del passato, monarchiche, totalitarie o conservatrici, avevano concesso paradossalmente a questi dibattiti più spazio che l’attuale pretesa “società aperta”. Basti pensare ad opere come “La Servitù volontaria”, “Justine”, “Les liaisons dangéreuses”, “Al di là del Bene e del Male”, “L’ Europa Vivente”, “Praktischer Idealismus”, “Lettera a un religioso”, “Citadelle”….

Antoine de Saint Exupéry, l’ufficiale poeta

5.Per una cultura europea di liberazione

Alla prepotenza del “mainstream” culturale, politico e mediatico chiuso all’autentico dibattito, occorre contrapporre un mondo di pensiero, di dibattito e di azione indipendenti. L’Europa, se pretende, come afferma,  di porsi quale “trendsetter” del dibattito sul futuro, dovrebbe concepirsi innanzitutto quale tutore, in un mondo obiettivamente difficile, di questo mondo intellettuale indipendente, non già, come è stato fin d’ora, la roccaforte delle peggiori imposizioni culturali dell’Occidente, come quella di espungere dalla vera storia d’Europa tutto ciò che precede la IIa Guerra Mondiale, oppure ciò che attiene al carattere bellicoso degli Europei e a quello violento degli Americani.

Per fare ciò, essa dovrebbe liberarsi da quella soggezione culturale verso l’America che, attraverso l’interiorizzazione  dei miti fondanti  di quest’ultima (i culti della tecnologia, dell’appiattimento valoriale, dell’”uomo qualunque”), ci ha portati, attraverso Saint Simon e Mazzini,  Gramsci e Popper, ad accettare il politicamente corretto (teoria dello sviluppo, liberalizzazioni, sessantottismo, leggi memoriali, reati di opinione, ideologia “gender”), e, di conseguenza, all’incapacità di produrre risultati culturali autonomi, utili all’ umanità.

Contrariamente all’ America, dovrebbe essere fattibile in Europa usare nuovamente tutti i concetti europei oggi tabù, come relatività, indeterminazione, identità, differenze, verità in senso extramorale, “paideia”, “elite”, “epistocrazia”, “autoaffermazione”. Ma, soprattutto, gl’intellettuali dovrebbero venire liberati dalle schiavitù della “memoria condivisa”, della cooptazione nelle vecchie consorterie, della soggezione alla politica, ai “gatekeepers”, ai finanziatori….

Un’Europa politicamente autonoma dovrebbe avere, come punta di diamante, quegl’ intellettuali indipendenti (anche se nati o vissuti altrove), capaci di dare il loro contributo al dibattito avviato coraggiosamente da intellettuali americani, e comunque aperto in tutto i mondo, circa la lotta alla società del controllo totale. E’ una vergogna che l’Europa abbia ufficialmente rifiutato di dare asilo ad Assange e a Snowden (con tutto ciò che ne è derivato).

Ospitare in Europa tutti gl’intellettuali dissidenti (senza distinzione di ideologia e di provenienza) sarebbe l’unico modo concreto per continuare la tradizione di libertà tipica dell’ Europa (Ippocrate, Leonida, Catone, Alfieri, Dante, Foscolo, Nietzsche, Galimberti, Weil, Nàgy, Màleter, Sol’zhenitsin, ecc…), e, nello stesso tempo, dare all’Europa una reale forza politica e culturale, per affermarsi quale “trendsetter” nella lotta contro la società del controllo totale.

Il manifesto di 150 intellettuali americani (fra i quali Chomsky, Fukuyama, Zakaria, Khanna e Rushdie) contro la dittatura del  “politicamente corretto” costituisce l’ennesima conferma della fondatezza di tutta la nostra battaglia culturale, basata sull’ idea che l’errore fondamentale della Modernità consista nella pretesa, limpidamente enunziata da Lessing, dal Primo Programma Sistemico dell’Idealismo Tedesco e dai sansimoniani, che la secolarizzazione delle religioni monoteistiche avrebbe permesso l’attualizzazione dell’insieme delle loro promesse escatologiche. Da quella scelta, a mio avviso logicamente insensata, sono scaturite le contraddizioni della Moderntà, sempre più insostenibili innanzitutto per gl’intellettuali, che sono chiamati a spiegarla e giustificarla.

Secondo Lessing, Hegel, Saint Simon, Comte, e Enfantin e il mainstream culturale che ad essi , senza saperlo, s’ispira, la coincidenza, nell’ immanenza, fra l’Essere e il Bene avrebbe permesso di superare la finitezza, la soggezione alla natura, la separatezza degli uomini e ogni forma di costrizione.Come nelle idee dei Manichei condannate da Sant’Agostino,  Progresso, tecnica, libertà e giustizia sarebbero divenuti una cosa sola. Come si esprime oggi Kurzweil, con la cosiddetta “Singolarità”, il Progresso avrebbe prodotto la “Quasi-Immortalità”, e, conformemente all’ Agenda delle Nazioni Unite  2030, si sarebbero estirpati tutti i mali dell’Umanità, a cominciare dalla povertà e dalle “ineguaglianze”. Le vecchie Grandi Narrazioni sarebbero confluite in un’unica Memoria Condivisa, dove tutte le brutture del passato (mitologia, violenza, autoritarismo, stereotipi) sarebbero state superate nel “Regno della Libertà”. A questo punto, come affermava già l’Apocalisse, non sarebbe sostanzialmente più successo nulla (la “Post-Histoire”di Arnold Gehlen).

Julian Assange, prigioniero politico in Inghilterra

O

POSTPONEMENT OF THE LEIPZIG MEETING: III

EU-CHINA RELATIONSHIP AS A REMEDY TO SINGULARITY

Hvarenah: a Persian version of the Heavenly Mandate

According to Zhang Weiwei, “China is what the Roman Empire would have been, if it would not have been dissolved”.Therefore,pretending that Europe and China are more different between them than Europe and America is misleading. They have, at least, a series of “mirror image” similarities and diversities.

Mainstream culture and politics establish a comparison just between present days “polyarchic” Europe with Xi Jinping’s “State Capitalism”. On the contrary, according to me, who follow the vision of collective identities started with psycho-analysis,”, as written by Gustav Jung,  the “real” identity of each people is composed of different “strata. Underneath the “Europe of Maastricht”, you find the christian-democratic compromise of Gioberti, Vogelsang, Toniolo, Maritain, Fanfani, Delors and De Gasperi; so as, underneath Xi’s China, you find New Confucianism and Chinas’s perennialists. Christian democracy had a link to Ancien Régime, so as Mao was an admirer of old dynasties (see his poem “Snow”). Also  Ancien Régime was an avatar of the Roman Empire, so as Chinese nationalism was an offspring of the Imperial (“Tia Xia”) idea (see Zhao Tingyang).

O Quinto Imperio, an American version of the Heavenly Mandate

1.“Identity” in the EU’s and China’s international relations

The idea of a “European Identity” had entered the language of European politicians via the Foreign and Defence Policy. Therefore, it is understood also now (and not appropriately), before all as a geopolitical concept. Therefore, it is tightly linked to the question of Euro-Chinese relationships.

In July 1995, the European Trade Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, had  unveiled the EU’s new initiative, “A Long-term Policy for China”. The 1995 China strategy paper followed on the EU’s broadening relations with Asia, recognized the “rise of China as unmatched amongst national experiences since the Second World War”. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, however, geostrategic analyses have tended to focus on the “China Threat” –. In this setting, the question has been raised: what role will the Europeans play in the power shift from the USA to China?

Some analyses (principally, by French or Chinese commentators) have privileged the idea of the EU and China as alternative poles to a unilateral America. The EU had entered into strategic linkages with China (especially in aerospace cooperation projects) already  in 2003 – coincidentally, the year in which China became the third nation to send a man into space. A joint Sino-European satellite navigation cooperation center was opened in Beijing in February 2003, and an agreement was reached in September of the same year, committing China to finance up to €230 million (or one-fifth) of the EU’s Galileo satellite positioning system which is seen as an alternative to the US Global Positioning. President Trump is a follower of this interpretation.

Another approach (or rather, broad school of approaches) to China-EU relations is to see the relationship through ideological, cultural and/or civilisational lenses. They have echoes in historical/civilizational narratives that look at the China-EU relationship as an interaction between two old civilizations, which goes back millennia (Qin and Da Qin). A variation of this approach is to conceive of China and the EU not as “normal” or typical states, but as modern “empires”. In this perspective, China and the EU are not conventional nation-states, but very large and diverse, multiethnic and multinational political entities that strive to behave like nation-states.

Numerous studies on European “identity” have pointed out how “civilisational” identity is strong, even among citizens of EU states suspicious of the EU. On the other hand, “civic” identity, linked to the more overtly political goals of European Union (especially the “progressive” ones of the last decades), is qualitatively different and exerts less attractive power over citizens in EU states.

Eurasia in the times of the Roman Empire

2.Europe and China: a mirror image relationship

Actually, according to my book “DA QIN”, there is a frightening parallelism among the Chinese “Tian Xia” ideology and the one of “Imperium” typical of ancient Rome, and, still more, of Dante, and of dom Antonio Vieira (“o Quinto Imperio”). Matteo Ricci, inhis work in Chinese called “The real meaning of the Lord of Heaven”, had clearly taken side with Confucianism against Buddhism, so striking indirectly a parallelism with the dispute between Catholics and Evangelicals. The enlightener Fresnais had suggested to the King of France to imitate the Chinese Emperor, and Leibniz had defined Europe, Russia and China as the most civilised countries of the World.

Also the founding fathers of America had in mind the Bible’s and Vieira’s idea of Translatio Imperii, which is very similar to the Chinese Tian Ming and to Persian Hvarenah.

But, first of all, we have to consider with special attention Voltaire’s  “Rescrit”, a short satyrical work, by which the French philosopher had answered the question, set by Rousseau requiring comments to the well-known “Projet de Paix Perpetuelle” of the Abbé de Saint Pierre, to which mainstream historiography attributes (abusively) a large merit for the advancement of  European integration. On the contrary, according to Voltaire, the federalist “Projet” was backward, because the unification of our Continent alongside the Chinese imperial model, was overdue since many centuries. In comparison with China, he found Europe to be very parochial.”Philosophes”were not at all “democratic”: they equated the “enlightened despotism” of its favourite kings (Peter the Great, Mary Therese, Frederick II, Catherine II) with he one of the Qing Emperors.

+

The US diplomat Victoria Nuland distyrinbutes sandwiches to UKrainian Nationalists

3.China’s influence less invasive thanm America’s

Atlanticists insist that China is trying to achieve undue influence in Europe, but the reality is that China is just trying to counter, and very partially, the huge influence on Europe (and the rest of the world) of the United States, which the latter does not cease to assert and to reinforce. America was born as “a house on the hill”, designed for converting the whole world.  In this sense, it is America’s worldwide influence which is “undue”, because it’s a deliberated offence to other peoples’ cultures. It is true that also the vague reference to the ancient Tianxia theories, made by some Chinese thinkers, such as Zhao Tingyan, hint at a form of hegemonial temptation. Zhao Tingyang replies that, in principle, the Tian Xia is not the same thing as China: it is something open to all the world (“Tian Xia Wei Gong”, as Sun Yat-Sen said). In practice, Tian Xia corresponds to a better, really multicultural, United Nations, were Li (rites) and Yue (music) would be again at the basis of life, as foreseen in the “Confucian Classics” as  “Datong”.

Actually, starting from the travels of Columbus, who expressly referred to the biblical prophecies on the “New Skies and New Earth”, American lobbies never ceased to accumulate power in Europe. Columbus had obtained huge privileges from the Kings of Spain and had even falsified his diary for damaging Portugal for favouring Isabel and Alfonso.He also persecuted heavily those who challenged his personal myth. The Puritan colonists of North America had sent aids to Cromwell’s New Model Army; the Correspondence Committee of the American Revolution had prepared the French Revolution; the US had supported the Italian Liberation Wars, the establishment of AEG and FIAT, as well as the travel of Trockij to Russia and the appointment of Hitler by Hindenburg. After WWII, America had masterminded, also physically, via Fulbright, Donovan, Acheson, Ball and the Law Firm Cleary & Gottlieb, the creation of the European Communities, the orientation of European industries and media, the Yugoslav wars, the coloured revolutions, the Maidan. America influenced customs, language, culture, not only in Western Europe, but also in the East (“Fortian Communism”, the federal system, “tresty”, “turnkey plants”,  big cars, rock music, ’68, the Flowers’ Sons, management, informatics,..). After the fall of Real Socialism, European left has ceased to be critical towards America, and, on the contrary, has become its strongest supporter, via George Soros. Even the Catholic Church is influenced by the spendings of US catholics.

Not being yet influenced by this pro-American orientation,  the enlightened sponsors of the European Idea in the XVIII century, such as Leibniz and Voltaire, had written, in “Novissima Sinica” and, respectively, in “Rescrit de l’ Empereur de la Chine”, that Europe should have developed in the sense of  a sole enlightened monarchy, as the one of China, and the liberal economist Fresnais, who was also the physician of Henry XIV, had suggested to the  Roi Soleil to follow the example of the Chinese, small but hyper-effective, bureaucracy. Frederick II had a statue of Confucius erected in his palace of Sans-Soucy.

Thus, the two influences (America and China) have been confronting each other since centuries in Europe. However, the presence of Russia, China and the Islamic countries, via commerce, finance, foreign language televisions, immigrant communities, has constituted up to now, contrary to what propaganda says,  a very modest counterweight to the existing theological, social, cultural, ideological, military, political, industrial and mediatic US influence, which is still overwhelming in Europe. Moreover, the US are dealing with Europe with disdain, whilst China and Russia have always expressed a profound love for Europe. Presently, some new element may be felt, e.g., via the existing Chinese investments in Europe, the Confucius Circles,  as well as a certain degree of imitation of Russia by East European countries, but they are not enough for allowing Europe a sufficient maneuvering space vis-à-vis the US.

Taking into account  such asymmetrical nature of America’s and China’s interferences in Europe, even equating the two (as somebody does)  would be unfair. The whole ideological, institutional, social and economic system of present days Europe derives from a literal imitation of the American Model; Europe is filled with American soldiers, technology, capitals, cultural institutions, newspapers. 5G is a pale counterweight of the OTTs; Tik Tok and Alipay have not the strength of Facebook or Cambridge Analytica; State aid in China is nothing as compared to DARPA’s and the US Intelligence Community’s in the birth and the life of the US digital system. The outcomes of the Echelon, Wikileaks, Prism and Web tax cases, as well as the findings of the Court of Justice in the Schrems case have even shown beyond any doubt that the ICT world has been conceived by the US primarily for dominating Europe.

As a consequence, if  Europeans want to be consistent with the statements of their authorities (who have started to complain this awkward situation), they  must go on in their collaboration with all peoples of the world, without accepting any further interferences from the United States. Only in this way European economy, society, policy and culture will be free again to recover their ancient role as trendsetters of the worldwide debate on the future of mankind.

POSTPONEMENT OF THE LEIPZIG MEETING, II:QIN SPEAKING TO DA QIN

Confucius in Berlin

After her first teleconference with President Xi Jinping, Ursula von der Leyen had made a very important statement, which in any case was the last in a chain of small shifts from last decade’s acritical atlanticism of the EU: “The relationship between the EU and China is simultaneously one of the most strategically important and one of the most challenging that we have,” She had pointed the finger at China for “cyberattacks on computing systems, on hospitals”, adding sternly that “we know the origin of the cyberattacks”, on disinformation campaigns and on the subject of Hong Kong she spoke of “very negative consequences” should Beijing go ahead with the national security law (what ha just happened).

Xi, not impressed by such statements, went on to say that China was “a partner, not an opponent” to the EU, and would continue to deepen reform and expand opening up, providing Europe with a new round of cooperation opportunities and development space. “No matter how the international situation changes, China will take the side of multilateralism and adhere to the global governance concept of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefit.”

Today, the big issue confronting the EU is World Trade Organisation reform. While the US’ hostile approach to the WTO was not welcomed in Brussels, the EU was equally dismayed by Beijing’s attitude. However, if we recall that, a few years ago, EU wanted to sign the TTIP with the US for sorting out  China, a great step forward has been done (mainly, thanks to President Trump) in the direction of an overall agreement with China. On the other side, de facto, China is already doing what the EU requires, restraining from investments in Europe and allowing further European investments in China. It is questionable whether these trends are really in the interest of Europe, which needs investments in its own economy.

Finally, once  the idea of signing the TTIP fallen aside in March last year, the Commission had classified  in a first moment China as a “systemic rival”, while also referring to it as an economic partner and strategic competitor. The idea of a “systemic rival” is very ideological, hinting at old Cold War definitions, which Europe had rejected since a long time, and that now are being revived only under US pressure. Then came the issue of next-generation 5G mobile technology, as different EU countries debated whether to comply with Washington’s demand to ban Chinese telecommunications giant.

As Stefano Stefanini  remarked in “La Stampa”, the most important news is that Xi and Li Keqiang have decided to endorse a great power status for EU, since the dialogue has taken place directly between Xi (the President and secretary of the CPC) and Li Keqiang (the Prime Minister), from one side, and Charles Michel (the President of the Council) and Ursula von der Leyen (the President of the EU Commission),from the other.

China sticks to its friendly attitude towards Europe, which it had at the times of Jesuits, of Mao, of the economic reforms, and especially of Xi Jinping, who loves to speak of the “Peoples of Eurasia”.This friendliness is especially important in a moment when the Union needs badly a support to its assertiveness. From another point of view, it is difficult to deny that the idea of Europe’s unity had made many leaps forwards since the beginning thank to reflections as the ones of Leibniz and Voltaire about China.

Since the beginning of the XXI century, I had considered, alongside Asimov, Kubrick, Snowden and Joy, as a priority, to fight against the overcoming of Mankind by Intelligent Machines.  Since then and up to now, this threat has come constantly from the Silicon Valley and the NSA, as shown by thousands of law cases all over the world and by the work published by the same initiators of the US digital industry, such as Joy and Musk. Now, the US OTTs are no more alone in their industry, because also China has developed, at an astonishing pace, its digital industry (the BATX), which, under several points of view, is even more advanced than the American, and represents a similar, but not identical, threat, because China does not dominate Europe, nor the rest of the world. So, in any case, it may cause less damage, also because China’s move is defensive, against monopolies which pretended to extend to China, the homeland of the highest population of surfers.

But, especially, this newly arisen competition hinders one party’s domination, and , even if its excessive enthusiasm for new technologies is suspect, the world should be thankful to China for this.

Catalan ministers in jail in Spain for having exercised their duties for the autonomy of their country

1.Europe unduly harsh towards China

Apart from the fact that Europe had given up since many years to the idea of “exporting democracy”, it seems inequitable  to  indict China for things that, when they are done by Western countries, are not even remarked,

The Hong Kong national security law is very similar to the US Subversion Act 1807, invoked by President Trump against anti-racists rallies, and especially to the Spanish criminal code utilized for condemning the Catalan Government (« rebelión »- paragraphs 472 and 473 ;“distracción ilegal de caudales públicos” -paragraph 478;”malversación de caudales públicos” -paragraphs 432 and 252; “desobediencia grave” -paragraph 410-).The Generalitat (an autonomous region as Hong Long) has been put under direct control of the Central State, and the ministers have been condemned to very heavy penalties, something that has not occurred, up to now, in Hong Kong.

In the same way, the repression of political Islam in Xin Jiang is not so much different from what has happened in the neighbouring Afghanistan, occupied for less than 10 years by Russians and for 20 by Americans, who are now indicted in front of the International Criminal Court.

In the same way, the annexation of Crimea is not more unjustifiable, from the point of view of international law, than the one of the West Bank.

Then, why to impose sanctions on China and Russia and not on Spain, USA and Israel?

In reality, all these anti-Chinese arguments seem to be first of all just negotiating tools, because more focused arguments are lacking, and in reality no one wants to interrupt negotiations, but nobody wants even to conclude them waiting for this year’s American elections.

The EU, and especially Angela Merkel,   wants to reach a substantial  agreement with China, because their economy needs markets, capitals and customers. Especially the dominating EU industries, like the German car manufactures and their Italian and Spanish sub/suppliers, need a favourable climate for their most promising market, already in difficulty because of Trump’s trade wars and the Wuhan lockdown.

And, if we analyse the two parties’ mutual relationships, we see that a similar swing is not new at all.

 Trump’s West Bank Annexation Plan, more questionable than Crimea’s   

2.”Digital Renminbi”,  Made in China 2025 and China Standards 2035

Things will probably further change with the recent advance of China in digital industries, whose further progress is already planned (“Digital Renminbi” “Made in China 2025”; “China Standards 2035”). From another point of view, such advance, exerting a certain weight on the military balance with the US, could be a further area of specific conflict, which could degenerate into a total one.

The impact of this technological duopoly may represent, for Europe, at the same time a challenge and an opportunity. A challenge, because it will make still more difficult, than today, to stop a deadly escalation among autonomous weapons as had succeeded in the Petrov case,  and, from another point of view, an opportunity, because Europeans will not be put any more in front of the diktat of a sole alternative, the American one, and will be able to choose between two, or among many, up to a moment when (we hope) they will be in a position to build up their own technology. Angela Merkel and Li Keqiang have spoken some days  ago about technology. Here lies the most important aspect of the relationship. China is so advanced in digital, that it is the only partner which could help Europe to become achieve technological sovereignty before this is too late. An example is the proposal of Huawei to sell to third parties on an absolute exclusivity basis the whole technology package of G5, whilst Huawei would focus  only on the new G6.A similar formula could be utilised for acquiring from China the algorythms for creating a European web apt to sustain US competition. The idea of a European telecom giant between Nokia and Erickson could be achieved thanks an agreement with Huawei.

Now, following an indication of our “Da Qin” post, the Italian central bank has expressed its wish to participate, in an experimental way, to the creation , by the European Bank, of a European digital currency.

The same approach could be followed for the creation, in Italy, with the Recovery Fund and the help of China, of other exemplary forefront digital activities, such the digital academy and a European Web,

It would be the case that  a collaboration is started between European and Chinese on all these new technological fields. It has to be recalled that, as written below, China is filing  one half of all patents filed in the world.

Questa immagine ha l'attributo alt vuoto; il nome del file è 220px-Latvian_non-citizens_passport1.jpg
The passports fo the “non citizens” (Russian speakers natives of Latvia)

3.Europe’s crisis is caused first of all by the American hegemony

Europe and America are not the same thing for a reason very well expressed by Huntington in “Who we Are”: America is the Dissidence of Dissent.  Puritans flying from Europe because English Protestants were not sufficiently anti-traditional for their tests. As well exemplified by Dan Brown in his “The Lost Symbol”, America is a hidden theocracy of Christian sects at the borderline with political radicalism, esoteric Freemasonry and Qabbalism.

America had overcome Europe already with World war I, when it had imposed on the UK the Lend-Lease Agreements, the “14 points”, the Society of Nations and American films. With the military occupation after WWII, it just completed the conquest of Europe. As Trockij had written during WWI, after the wear, “America would have contingented European capitalism”, what is what they did with the Marshall Plan, European Antitrust, the hegemony of the dollar…

Since, in a world which is conformist as the present one, it is essential that people think that America is winning, every effort has been deployed since ever for showing that the USA are and remain stronger than any other.  For this reason, when the weight of America declines, Europe’s weight must decline even more. From this come the tariffs, the sanctions (which do not hit China and Russia, which, on the contrary, have become more independent, but Europe), as well as the giant lawsuits against European corporations.

As a consequence, Europe has a dramatical interest in reducing, especially now, USA’s influence over its society. Since Europe is very weak, the only way to reduce US influence is to play intelligently with Chinese, Russian, Islamic and Israeli influences, as well as the ones of the Churches. Today, US influence may be considered as one half of all the external influences over Europe. It is still too much for giving Europe a real freedom of movement. As an example, in case of a total war, Europe would find very hard to avoid being involved.

Even the continuous US/China bilateral trade  negotiations are often at the expenses of EU economy. For instance, China bought more than US$1 billion worth of soybeans from America in the first quarter of 2020. Photo: Bloomberg

For instance, China’s commitments under a trade agreement signed with the United States in January have left European firms feeling frozen out of the world’s largest consumer market, observers say. Under the deal – reached in an effort to put the brakes on a trade war that started in July 2018 – Beijing promised to buy an additional US$200 billion worth of American agricultural products over the next two years.For European firms, who had made some inroads into Chinese markets during the trade war – as Beijing sought alternatives to its usual US suppliers – the phase one deal, as the January agreement is known, came as a body blow.

In 2018, with the trade war under way, Beijing granted approval to 46 meat companies from European Union (EU) countries to export their products to China, more than double the figure for the US. Last year, as China grappled with a shortage of pork and other meats due to an outbreak of African swine fever, which killed an estimated 60 per cent of its pig herd, the number of EU meat producers granted approval to export more than doubled to 112.EU sales of agricultural products to China in 2019 rose 38 per cent from the previous year to €15.3 billion (US$17.1 billion).

The trend has been reversed  in 2020, with 1,024 US companies getting the green light to sell to China, compared with just 24 from the EU. In the first three months of 2020, China bought more than US$1 billion worth of soybeans from America – one of the world’s biggest suppliers of the crop – and US$691 million worth of US.

Meanwhile, European sales of agricultural goods to China are set to take a further hit after officials in Beijing said the new outbreak of Covid-19 in the city was linked to a “European strain” of the coronavirus.

The strategy towars China should start from the study of its culture

4.A cultural revolution

For the reasons listed above, for understanding how Europe should interface with China, it is preliminary to locate the present conflict within an overall vision of what present days superpowers are, i.e, holistic realities which  we may understand only adopting at the same time different points of view, the ones  of world-view, ideologies, alliances, supra-national organisations,  confederations, federations, nations.

For what America is concerned, it is sufficient to think of the complexities of the “Hidden Empire” described by Immerwahr; as to China, the nature of its empire lies in the vague and archaic concept of “Tian Xia” as described by Zhao Tinyang (see post n. 3 below). Both of them are purported  global empires which  have not achieved up to now their final goals because of the existence of alternative empires and sovereign states. Their mutual conflict is not subject to mediation, because it arises from their similar ambitions to world power, well expressed by the 矛盾, (“hanzi  / maodun”) contradiction.

The ambiguities of the two concepts depend on our inability to locate the same within their specific holistic context:

-the limitation of human beings, denied by the messianic pretention of the Perpetual peace;

-the contradiction of Western eschatologies, with the Tree Ages myth, the Antichrist, the Millennium;

-the vagueness of  Classical Chinese, and in particular, the absence of a clear cut times declension.

As a consequence, it is very unlikely that, either the Americanisation, or the Sinicization, of the world, may be really carried out,  so that the world will go on being “polyhedrical”, so guaranteeing the freedom of all peoples.

Also Muhammad (r.w.m.’.), Rousseau and Kant, often described as tenants of a Uniform World State, considered this a monster, and appreciated all kind of differences :“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” –  [Holy Qur’an, 49:13].

This implies a persistence of international conflicts, not only among States, but also among worldviews, up to the Last Day. Possible (and positive) moments of encounter and of peace exist, as have existed in the past. The first, and not yet overcome example was the “Pax Aeterna”, signed among the Byzantine emperor Heraclios and the Persian emperor Khosrow, to which also China, India and the Huns should have been participated. Second case was the Treaty (‘aqd) signed between Emperor Frederick II and the Egyptian King al-Malik, for the recovery of Jerusalem. Even the signing of the Charter of the United Nations did not bring an end to wars. On the contrary, very important conflicts (Israelo-Palestine, Indo-Pakistani, Greek and Korean wars) were under way in that period.

Also today, the maximum to which we may strive is a similar situation, a “plural world” with peaceful competition, as opposed to “Existential Risk”.

THe next world war will be fought by machines against other machines

5.Europe has to fight against the perspective of  WWIII

Europe is indeed now a piece-loving country, not because of a special spirit of election, but because today its most concrete development prospects lie in pacific activities, such as culture, digital and environment (in which it can be the first in rank), and not in mass production, bureaucracy and technological warfare. For which it is not endowed, especially after the disastrous internecine religious, dynastic, colonial and, finally, the civil/World Wars. This had been foreseen relatively clearly already by Fichte and Nietzsche

From another point of view, the war of today is not a “hot war”, but, on the contrary, a virtual one, fought at the writing desk, in conference halls, via the web, in laboratories and television studios.

Consistently with this “pacific” vocation,  Europe, being  in any case one of the largest countries of the world,  does not need a huge offensive apparatus, but, on the contrary, just  a thin, but very effective defence (and counterintelligence)apparatus, in a position to protect Europeans from any attack to the freedom of our country, without invading others (as done in Sinai, Somalia, Iraq, Kossovo, Afghanistan, Libya), according to the traditional defence doctrines of Switzerland and Sweden (“Om kriget komer”, “inte samarbejde!”).

The ambitions of Europe, starting from Reconquista, has gone through radically different stages: requerimiento (1492-1600); colonisation(1650-1800); exploitation (12850-1950); neo-colonialism (1950-1990); democratic imperialism(1995-2010); rhetoric equalitarism (2015-today). For the future,they should not lie, as it happens still today, in territorial expansion, but more in the upscaling of all its social activities, so being able to seize a “nobler” position in the international division of work (“a trendsetter”), as opposed to the present situation (“a follower”). Europe as a center of religion and of big data, of culture and high tech, of environment and of cyber-defence, of  automatisation and of financial organisations, of tourism and international trade. No need of re-locating labour intensive industries, because we will be all “Saints, Poets and Seafarers”.

A type of ambition and, consequently, of defence, radically different from the American one. As a consequence, it is very difficult that, in such post-modern world, America and Europe will go on having a common interest (and even complementarity) in defence structure. A “secondary” consequence is that Europe has no interest in conflicting with China.

THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE EU-CHINA MEETING IN LEIPZIG: 1.WHAT LIES BEHIND?

When, thirty years ago, I had started to write about Europe, the prevailing criticism I received was that no reader would ever have taken any interest in European questions, something which mattered just for a handful of specialists and/or idealists.

Now, in 2020, Europe is one of the top political and mediatic issues, either for extolling or for criticizing it. What are, if not European problems, economic crises, recovery from Coronavirus,  disputes among member States, with Russia, China and Turkey? What are, if not disputes about Europe, the “sovereignist” ideas of a “Europe of the Nations”, or the one of Atlanticists, of a “Euro-Atlantic Community”?

In the same way, when, twenty years ago, I started writing about the re-birth of Russia and China, everybody thought that it was mere phantasy, because the Eastern Bloc was just collapsing, and, with the fall of communism, even the modest previous influence of those countries would have ceased; then, we have had Crimea, Donbass, Syria, Libya, high speed trains, Confucius institutes, G5, New Silk Roads, mask diplomacy….Now,allkey protagonists of European politics feel obliged to take position every day about China and Russia. Presently, more often in a negative sense (dictatorship, expansionism, espionnage,  sanctions), but we do not doubt that, in a next future, we will necessarily listen to growing and growing positive voices (effectiveness, epistocracy, harmony). And, in fact, we have been favourably  surprised in listening to some of Europe’s top politicians, as Josep Borrell, inclined even towards a certain amount of equidistance between China and USA:”We are not in a tough position against one or against another. …… So no, I do not see anything comparable to what you remember of what happened many years ago between China, the United States and the Soviet Union. We are not on a confrontational line; we just want to have realistic relationships in order to defend our values and our interests.”

And, in fact, all new EU policies treat on a foot of equality all extra-European relationships.

When, in 2017, I wrote the book DA QIN, maintaining that China millennial history can represent a model for the rejuvenation of Europe, nobody took seriously that idea, which today is not only present in the works of important international scholars, such as Parag Khanna, Daniel D. Bell, Zheng Wei Wei and Zhao Tingyang, bet is even considered as an important danger for the European Union, which has created expressly the formula “Systemic rival” without specifying what it means.

The need to understand how China has become so strong, that the last report of the European Parliament, “EU-China trade and investment relations in challenging times “ is devoted to a multifaceted study of the question, in particular about the cultural, technological and commercial aspects. Notwithstanding the remarkable attention paid to this matter, we feel that very much has still to be studied. We anticipate here the concepts which we will express at length in the new edition of “L’Europa lungo la via della Seta”, about which we will debate on the 4th July,  of July, and which will focus on the attitude that pro-European movements should adopt, according to us, towards the new Treaty under discussion, starting precisely from the structure of the above Parliament’s study.

If, within 10 years, I will still be alive and write on these matters, I am afraid that I will again realize that my pages have foreseen the future, but have been written in vain again.

The many people who cannot do anything better than crying, on behalf of their employers, against  purported “dangers to our way of life” would do a much more useful thing if they would study what is happening in the world – in the Silicon Valley, in the United States, in Russia- for seeing how can we master the burning world of tomorrow.

In the same way, it would be useful to understand what is meant by “our way of life”, because Europe has always been a multi-faceted., or, as the Pope says, a “polyhedrical” countries, with wild, inhabited lands such as Greenland, the Balkans or Lappony; post-modern metropoles, like Paris and London, ancient shrines of culture like Freiburg, Prague, Venice, Florence, Rome, Dubrovnik, Istanbul, St. Petersburg; historical cities, like Granada, Turin, Siena, Palermo, Athens, Sarajevo, Krakow; small jewels of past times, like Guimaraes, Carcassonne, Noto, Modica, San Gimignano, Mantua, Bruges, Rothemburg ob der Tauber, Salzburg, Veliko Tarnovo, Zamosc; West and East….

Qin and Da Qin: the most ancient and continuous empires

1.A history of repressions

The dominating narrative about “the East” (inherited from Herodotus and Aeschilus) is that its societies were, and still are, characterised by   a culture of State repression of individuality (the Empires), whilst Western Europe (and still more the United States) would be the countries of freedom. Personally, I do not share this view, because, albeit having concretely fought in the past against the real forms of repression  then prevailing in the East (under ”real socialism”), I know better the ones of the West, an area where massification and conformism are not less heavy, and where people like Assange and a large part of the Catalan Government are still in jail for having exercised their civil rights, and/or duties. Moreover, the obsessive care for the so-called “fake news” and for opinion crimes shows that, under an falsely friendly image, Western European States are no less totalitarian than Eastern ones. The only difference is that the two areas prosecute different types of infringers: in the East, separatists or pro-Americans, in the West, pro-vita, muslim veil bearers and extreme right nostalgics.

As to an asserted primeval difference as to the respective concepts of the State, what Zhao Tingyang describes of the Chinese Empire (Tian Xia) is astonishingly similar to the Roman empire and still more to the Holy Roman empire, as described, e.g., by Dante in De Monarchia and by de Las Casas in De Regia Potestate. We will devote the third chapter of this post to a thorough analysis of Zhao Tingyang’s work, which is helpful also, and above all, for understanding Europe’s own cultural and political history, starting from pre-history, passing through Persians, Jews, Greeks, Germans, Romans and Modernity, very similar to pre-historical China, the different dynasties and ethnicities.  It is what we mean when we speak about Qin and Da Qin.

In reality, East and West have always influenced mutually one another, and often exchanged their respective roles. For instance, Herodotus explains that, while choosing for themselves monarchy, which they considered more effective, Persians imposed democracy to their subjects, the Greek Ionians, after defeating the latter, because, in this way, they thought that they could be more easily manipulated by the Empire. This preference of empires for having democracy in their satellites has continued up to now. Let’s recall, for instance, that the Soviet Union did not impose in most satellites a Soviet-style one-party system. In certain “socialist” countries, a “true” “communist” party with this name did not even exist, and/or, as in East Germany and Poland, had not even the majority of MPs. These “People’s Democracies” could easier be manipulated (e.g. by Yaruzelski’s  “Stan Wojenny” or the speech of Gorbačev in Berlin in 1989), than genuine dictatorships, like the ones of Tito, Hodzha and Ceausescu, where the leadership was composed of stark communist fighters, which for this reason resisted up to the last moment USSR influence. Useless to recall that Angela Merkel had started her political career as an official of the East German “Youth Front”.

The censorship of Western establishments on Eastern (and East European) cultures and values had been absolute since the XVI Century, at the times of von Herberstein, of  Condorcet, of Hegel, of de Coustine: the “Romano-Germanic Arrogance” of Trubeckoj. Extra-European (and East European) countries have always been vilified: only Western Europe, and eventually America, are valid civilisations, les “nations policées” (“the decent countries”).  The others are backward, are the equivalent of Europe’s Ancien Régime, they would have been substituted with modern, progressive, societies, which, without any doubt, would have imitated Europe, but, especially, America.

According to the Western establishment, the whole process of world history, from the Bible to Hegel and Marx (“from Plato to NATO”), revolved (and still revolves) around the West, where East was seen just as a far away root (Egypt, Israel), an accident (the Mongols) or a foe (Persia, Islam). It is really difficult to have somebody in the West, even the most cultivated and the most ”Third World friendly”, to conceive world history as  something really parallel, from the first hominids, up to the civilisations along the great rivers, ancient empires and cultures, their mutual relationships (e.g., the Silk Road), the succession of ideas spread between East and West (the sannyasin movement, mazdeist and  judaic messianisms, Hinayana and Mahayana buddhism,  christianism, islam, the steppes peoples, the search of Cathay, the chinoiseries, aryanism, the “white man’s burden”, Asiatic ideologies, the Soviet Union, the surge of China, multilateralism…).As Zhao Tingyang writes, “the different histories of the different places have been melt, by European History, into a complex ‘history of histories’. In so doing, they traced no world history, but, on the contrary, just  the history of the expansion of Europe’s influence.”

In the last 100 years, this relentless propaganda has further developed, being unchained against all kinds of non-American nations: imperial Japan; militarist Germany; “papist” Italy; totalitarian Russia; reactionary Poland; theocratic Arabs; nationalist Israelis; hierarchical Indians; imperialist Chinese…The evil does not consist in one or another characteristic: just in being “un-American”. America (and present days Europe) will not stop interfering into the other people’s life until they become exactly equal to USA and Europe. At that moment, there would have been “the End of History”, the “Perpetual Peace”. As Tacitus wrote: “They made the desert, and called it ‘peace’”.

The apparent openness of Americanism to diversity is just theoretical. In fact, if a country becomes equal under all aspects to America, except one thing (e.g, theocracy, monarchy, one party system, a castes system, socialism, polygamy…), it is considered automatically in breach of human rights and the West has the obligation of interfering. Only worldwide uniformity is accepted: against the others (British, Indians, Mexicans, Confederates, Spaniards, Philipinos, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Islamists), there is perpetual war.

In the background of “human rights exportation” there is the belief that the expansion of the “Western way of life” is a higher justification which overrides even the pretended “universality” of human rights. It is a translation into politics of the genocides of the Old Testament (starting from the worshippers of the Golden Calf)  justified by the first Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me!” And, in fact, when US society or authorities breach roughly those “human rights” that they pretend to protect in other countries, no one has the right to interfere – not even to express a judgement-:the ”Double Standard of Morality”. The extreme case is constituted by the recent sanctions of Trump against the International Criminal Court, created precisely for defending American-style human rights, but responsible to prosecute American military.

2.The “Necessary Nation”

In fact, for America, this idea  to be a “Necessary Nation” is unavoidable: if the USA would not be the leader of the World, its very “raison d’etre” would cease, and every American would come back to be a Brit, a German, an Italian, a Jew, a Hispanic, an African…What we start to see now with the clash among white-Americans and black Americans, but is going on also with Sino-Americans and Islamo-Americans, de facto discriminated. At the end of the day, not differently from all other modern (“ideocratic”) empires, if America is deprived of its messianic objective, it would be seen simply as a purposeless, and even monstruous, conglomerate of power. Also Europe suffers a lack of mission, but its peoples, rooted in theirs histories, can, nevertheless, survive well or worse.

The real point is that the mission of America, as shown from Bacon to and Transhumanism,  is to achieve the domination of technique over Mankind, so that, as Marx wrote, if you cancel the US from the world map, you cancel also the progress. And, in fact, the  Singularity project of Ray Kurzweil is going on with Google just because of the protection of the US Digital-Military Complex. That fanatism in the defence of America’s mission is in reality the messianic enthusiasm for a negative theology aiming at the End of Man.

Paradoxically, whilst Western civilisation had been born from doubt (the Socratic dialectic, Tertullian’s “Credo quia absurdum”,  Descartes’ “Systemic doubt” and Pascal’s “Pari”, Nietzsche’s prospectivism and  De Finetti’s challenge to the principle of causality), the only thing of which the West never doubts is its own superiority on the others. Just a handful of European intellectuals (De las Casas, the Jesuits, Schopenhauer, Guénon, Evola, Panikkar) have been really immune from this presumption. Also the official Europe has pretended since ever to be different from the US because it purports not to “export democracy”, but, in reality, follows the same path, just in a less evident way and often being obliged by America.

This obsession for a theological, ethical, political, intellectual and social superiority (inherited from  ancient empires and monotheisms) is the driving  force around which the Western establishment has aggregated one seventh of Mankind, pretending that the others must become as they are ( but also without ceasing to criticize them because they are not succeeding to do so), has shaped one century and a half of world history, with the Algerian, Mexican, Indian, Spanish wars, with the repression of Sepoys, Taiping and Boxers, with Atlantic slave trade, the Crimean War, the Inequal Treaties, the Chinese Concessions, the Congo State, the Durbar. It remains still now the secret powerhouse of most conflicts.

This pretension has allowed America to minimise the memory of its evils (such as the extermination of native Americans, the Atlantic slave trade, the Opium Wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War), emphasizing the ones of the others (totalitarianism, terrorism). This Double Standard of Morality has always found an allied in Western left, which has always been aware that this messianic arrogance of America is the driving force of economic progress, so triggering a continuous shift in power balance worldwide, what, at its turn, favours social mobility and class conflict. Typical the favour of Marx for the Confederates’ slavery, which, according to him, was unavoidable for preserving the avantgarde role of America in the ongoing worldwide progress march.

The present iconoclastic furore against the racist past of the whole anglosphere, arisen by the killing of George Floyd, is awakening once again those never healed old contradictions.

The statues of Christopher Columbus violated under the accusation of racism

3. The Fall of XX Century’s Myth

Happily, these pretentions of the West have started to  shrink over the years, with the birth of African, Indian, Chinese and Arab nationalisms,  and of the international movements of Developing Countries,  with decolonisation and  the wars of Korea and Vietnam, but especially with the strong resistance of intellectuals as different as Voltaire, Boas, Guénon, Pannwitz, Fenollosa, Père Foucault, Gandhi, Pound, Aurobindo,  Evola, Débray, Béjart, Panikkar, Jacques, Frankopan, who have extolled the merits of extra-European civilisations, affirmed their right to remain themselves, to participate on an equal footing  in the decisions about the future of the world and in the philosophical debate under way at world level. Taking this into account, a certain intellectual violence from Eurasian leaders is fully understandable as a reaction to this systematic repression.

The fact that the majority of European intellectuals (even when not sharing extreme positions on this point such as the ones of Guénon, Evola, Béjart or Panikkar) has not approved in any moment  those politics of defamation of other continents, has not reduced, but on the contrary, extended, the repression, not only against different cultures, but also against such Western intellectuals who do not share the arrogant attitudes of their politicians (the “political correctness”). It’s sufficient to see how were treated Blas Valera, Boas, Pound and Evola.

The ongoing digital revolution, creating the real bases for a possible worldwide technological empire, has reinforced everywhere all existing imperialistic trends in an exponential way, rendering a solution to the problem still more difficult. A world empire is possible, and America has been, in 2002, on the verge of implementing it. China, which had never accepted, since 1850, the idea of “America First”, seems today to shift towards the radical strategy to oppose the American technological empire with another technological empire,  based on Datong and Tianxia. The real miracle is that it is again in a position to raise such a question after one century and a half of foreign occupation and continuous wars. The real meaning of this new claim is unknown to most actors, because of the absence of an adequate culture,

The discussions about the new Treaty with China cannot be read in separation from this historical background and this unsolved problem.

White Man’s Burden By Rudyard Kipling (1899) Take up the White Man s burden– Send forth the best ye breed– Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives need; To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild– Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child. Take up the White Man s burden– In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain To seek another s profit, And work another s gain.

4.The advancement of Eurasia

Notwithstanding the Durbar, the repression of the Boxers and the Sykes-Picot Agreements, starting from the beginning of the XX Century, extra-European cultural traditions (African, Islamic, Hindu, Confucian), and even minority European cultures (like the Orthodox and the Euro-Islamic), had affirmed more strongly   their right to exist, and, subsequently, had  gained momentum in several countries.

All extra-European countries, and also the countries of Eastern Europe, share today a sense of pride for their ancient traditions, different from Western mainstream (“the Asia that dare say ‘no’”). For this reason they have, towards their history, a “continuity approach”, from the Yellow Emperor to  Confucius, from Qin Shi Huangdi to the Red Rescript, from Sun Yat Sen to Mao; or, respectively, from Rjurik to Alexander Nevskij, from Ivan the Terrible to Peter Ist, from Catherine II to Lenin, from Stalin to Putin (or from Arpad to Rakosi, from Kossuth to Nagy). Only Europe tries (happily, without success) to limit its own history to the last 80 years, minimizing the roles of Gilgamesh and Moses, Hippocrates and Socrates, Plato and Aristoteles, Alexander and Caesar, Augustus and Constantine, Justinian and Charles the Great, Dante and Frederick II, Napoleon  and Coudenhove Kalergi. If this effort of the mainstream would succeed, we would loose our main element of strength: the attractiveness of our old culture.

The most extreme avatar of present days  Eastern Renaissance is constituted by the Belt and Road Initiative, which, already by its definition, recalls to everybody that the peoples of Asia and Europe have been linked since the most remote antiquity by ethnic, religious, cultural and commercial links, so that China and Europe have conceived themselves as a mirror image of high civilisations (Qin and Da Qin). The idea of a Silk Road, invented by the German Earl von Richthofen,  creator of the Trans-Syberian railway project  developed eventually by the tsarist government, has been taken over now by China, which seems today to be the main beneficiary of a revamping of the Old Silk Roads. However, nobody hinders other subjects, such as the European Union, to develop  their own “Silk Roads”. This is precisely what the EU intends to do by its “Connectivity Initiative”.

In reality, in our century, the idea of a new Silk Road had already been developed by Hillary Clinton, but not followed-up. China,  being the largest country of the world, needs vitally for several reasons a continuous interchange with the rest of the world, which has already taken place, especially with the United States, but that the latter wants now to stop because, thanks to it, China is gaining always more momentum, so challenging the American “intellectual leadership” of the world.

And, in fact, there has been since a long time a wish to establish world peace based upon a harmony between East and West. This idea is deeply entrenched in Chinese culture since its beginning, being tightly linked with the idea of Tian Xia), and found its expression in the name of the Qin, Han and Tang Capital, Chang’An (permanent peace). In the short period between 332 and 340 a. C, there was even an ephemerous Pax Aeterna between Constantine and Khosraw of Persia, to which also China and the Huns should have adhered. The Epistle of Prester John in the twelfth Century asked for a contact between Byzance and India, Giovanni da Pian del Carpine and Marco Polo, tried to establish a stable relationship, which was consolidated by Jesuits.

What disturbs most Americans and European Atlanticists is that the Silk Road makes a direct  reference to the core of the Old World: the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, Dar al-Islam, India, Central Asia and China, so putting into a corner the New World, which still pretends to be the heart of the ecumene. Actually, a full implementation of the New Silk Road (and/or of the Connectivity Initiative) would imply the marginalisation of the United States. Even the widespread idea of creating, by the Connectivity Initiative, uttered by the Institutions in an effort to balance the Chinese weight in the Belt and Road Initiative, will end up completing the latter, and consolidating the ongoing “Eurasian” trend.

The Coronavirus pandemic is just the last event in a long chain, where the effectiveness of Eastern countries has shown their superior capability to overcome the challenges of the Third Millennium (so confirming an intuition of Max Weber): traditions, technology, State-building, soft power. This superior capability has been recognized by Western public opinions, as shown by recent polls that have revealed that the majority of Europeans is more inclined towards Russia and China than towards the West, and especially is not available to participate in a Third World War on the side of America. It is not a case that the present US Defence Doctrine starts from the idea that USA must be independent from NATO, first of all by the refusal of existing agreements  with the stress on sea-land ballistic missiles, which do not require any consent from allied countries and by imposing home productions invoking war preparedness.

This implied conflict is at the roots of what European Institutions has labelled as “a Systemic Rivalry”, which we will criticize in the following posts, for its lack of an adequate cultural background, and even of a precise meaning.

The national Indian festival in New Delhi

5.China Bashing

For all the above reasons, US media and politicians attack China constantly with a series of stereotyped critics. Here is an example:

“ China’s thousand-year objective is to overthrow the democratic order through peaceful and divisive means. China is spreading its narrative through coercive diplomacy, OBOR, propaganda and disinformation campaigns legitimizing Chinese authoritarian governance shrouded in historical values and ideals. Its objective is to alter democratic governance, norms and the established rule-based world order and replace it with the Chinese version of an illiberal order and authoritarian rule. China is making inroads in democratic countries like Poland, Greece, the United Kingdom and Italy by buying or investing in companies and critical infrastructure like ports and bidding for 5G network contracts. Chinese companies doing business overseas have links to the communist party or the People’s Liberation Army. Through these companies and 5G technology, China will be able to collect and harvest intelligence for diplomatic and trade negotiations, launch cyber warfare against critical infrastructure and classified government networks, gather confidential information from companies, launch disinformation campaigns and understand warfare plans and military preparedness of host states.”

Taking into account their lack of cultural background, such attacks, by Western national and supranational institution, to Russia’s and China’s public diplomacy appear to be ridiculous, and the new so-called Chinese “Wolf warriors diplomacy”, not differently from the consolidated style of the Russian speaker Marija Zakarova,  by which it seems to be inspired, is just a reaction, mirror image of the American one (for instance, of Victoria Nuland).

In the same way, the very much criticized militarisation of Chinese society is a result of the everlasting imitation lust of Chinese:“China’s initiatives in military-civil fusion are informed by a close study of, and learning from, the U.S. defense industry and American defense innovation ecosystem to an extent that can be striking. In certain respects, military-civil fusion can be described as China’s attempt to imitate and replicate certain strengths from a U.S. model, but reflected through a glass darkly and implemented as a state-driven strategy.”

In reality, all of that was already anticipated in earlier stages of China’s history, by the idea of a fusion of Chinese and American cultures, hinted by the Taiping ideology and Kang Youwei’s Datong Shu, directly risen by the incumbent propaganda of  evangelic missionaries.

Sino-Italians welcome Chinese warships in the port of Taranto

6.The Treaty

Presently, the major ambit of dispute is the next Europe-China Investment Treaty, which last year the Commission had undertaken in writing to sign, and which was bound to be signed in September in Leipzig, but against which George Soros had launched a violent campaign, and which has been postponed for Coronavirus.

In the background, there is the struggle for technological dominance between USA and China, which is an updating, in the III Millennium, of Huntington’s “Clash of Civilisations” and the first Fukuyama’s “End of History”. According to this author, the world would have split alongside the borderlines of the Orthodox Faith , and would have gone towards WWIII, where China and Russia would have fought against the US. According to Huntington, notwithstanding the big differences that he objectively saw between Europe and the US, it was of utmost interest for the US that Europe remains together with them. Otherwise, the latter would have had good prospects of loosing WWIII, and, in the best case, the only remaining superpower would have been India. This is the explanation for the growing pressures, from the US and the European pro-American lobbies, to boycott the new Silk Roads, in which many European countries, such as UK, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Serbia and Greece, not to speak of Turkey and Russia, are already heavily engaged.

In reality, US, without Europe, should not remain the hegemon power of the world; on the contrary, Europe without Eurasia would remain forever a follower of the US and a country on the way towards underdevelopment.

The summary drafted on behalf of the European Parliament about the EU-China Treaty has made it clear that, notwithstanding Europe’s ongoing descent towards underdevelopment, we have now a lot of political opportunities which in the past had never existed.

The news is that, being the XXI century the one of Intelligent Machines, the power struggle is no more between States, but between technologies: not the DoD against the PLA, but the OTTs against Huawei.

However, the new Treaty would have first of all a symbolic, political and legal meaning, because it will simply supersede the existing “national” treaties: besides being an opportunity to profile itself as more independent from the USA, would also be a move to assert EU’s legal competences in the face of Member States. In fact, all member States are doing excellent business with China and have their own treaties, and it is questionable whether the competence for international investment treaties lies with the EU or with Member States, or both. A new “mixed” Treaty, alongside the model of the ACP-EU  Agreements, could be an appropriate basis for the whole Silk Road. By the way, my first work devoted to European law, written in 1980 when working in Luxemburg for the European Court of Justice, dealt precisely with the Lomé Agreement.

Eurasia is a complex of ancient civilisations

7.How to behave in the US-China dispute?

The campaign launched by Bannon and Trump some years ago, for “disrupting China’s supply chains”  has gained momentum in the States because of the ongoing American crisis and the even more evident growth of China. America feels that it is losing its clout on the world and reacts nervously. Ironically, also George Soros is sponsoring now an action formerly initiated by Bannon (which, unexpectedly, has obtained just now, by the Administrative Court of Latium, the right to utilize an ancient monastery for creating an American political school in Italy) and shared by Le Pen and Salvini, who have proposed a motion of the European Parliament under this heading. In this, America is wholly bi-partisan.

Such idea of “disrupting supply Chains” with China could make sense for the US, which, having seen that they cannot undermine China from inside, are preparing a war, so that nobody can expect them to purchase strategical goods form the enemy (nor to shell US property in China as they did not shell Opel and Ford in Nazi Germany during World War II).

Contrary to what has written ECFR, this idea does not  apply, on the contrary, to Europe. Seen from this part of the Atlantic, adhering to the US diktat to break-up relationships with China in this moment of deep crisis would be fatal for Europe’s economy. Unfortunately, European politicians are very attentive and reactive to US “suggestions”, which often change the Governments’ attitudes within a few minutes (as has happened with the infamous Italian MOU). This time, Europeans seem a bit tougher, because Europe, with China, risks to lose very much, as we will show in the following posts.

In fact, first of all, far from trying to reduce Chinese investments in Germany, Merkel  is speeding up German investments in China. On June 11, in spite of American pressures,  Angela Merkel and Li Keqiang had a teleconference, and  three agreements were signed by German and Chinese firms, including one between auto makers Volkswagen and JAC Motors. Merkel urged Li to open up the domestic market and provide more legal certainty for investment, but, in fact, in spite of accusations, more than 40% of the cars manufactured by the Volkswagen Group are sold in China. By these agreements, VW has even achieved the majority of the stock of the joint ventures which manufacture VW cars in China. What is in itself an evidence that there is no limitation on European investments in China.

At the end of the teleconference, Li has affirmed, in stark contrast with the requests of Americans and European “sovereignists” that China and Germany should make good use of the “fast track”  for personnel exchanges to facilitate business cooperation and resumption of production “and jointly maintain the safety and stability of the supply chain of the industrial chain.Li said China always respects Europe’s integration and is glad to see a unified and prosperous EU:”We are willing to maintain high-level exchanges with Europe, promote pragmatic cooperation and strive to complete the negotiation of the China-EU investment agreement at an early date to better achieve common development,” .

In fact, the most evident result of Trump’s policies has been a direct damage to European economy, heavy duties (for security concerns), by the interruption of trade fluxes, and, last but not least, the direct unfair competition with European goods, the ITA with China resulting in China being obliged to purchase for US§ 193.3 billion instead of 130.7. As a consequence, imports from the EU have declined by 10.8 billion, so reducing European export to China under the American one (always a consequence of the “America First” principle).

I remember that already under Reagan the US utilized the military legislation for curbing the commercial expansion of its allies. Now, pretending that the import of metals from Europe has to be reduced for the national security of the United States amounts to say that the two sides of the Atlantic might have a war between them. If this should be the case, there is a lot of Europe-US business relations which would constitute a danger for the security of Europe: first of all the storage of European data in the US.

EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY AGENCY: LETTERS TO THE EUROPEAN POLITICAL GROUPS

European Space Agency

Turin, 22 May 2020

Honorable President Weber,

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able not only to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems, but also to develop an autonomous  societal system, able to translate, into the society of intelligent machines, the “European way of life” which the Institutions purport to develop.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met.

In particular, we note also that, in  the present Industrial Strategy under discussion, in contrast to what foreseen in Minister Altmaier’s Industriestrategie fuer Deutschland und Europa,  attention is paid only to SME, whilst, on the contrary, announcements from different parts had hinted at a strategy for European Champions, comparable to the ones of the USA and of China.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. I note also that in his interventions in Strasburg, the Pope had warned against “unknown empires”. These empires may be blocked only by a European Web, which the Institutions should  build up according to the models of ESA, Arianespace and Airbus. This herculean work cannot be carried ourt by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistency in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

Arianespace, European launchers champion

Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats

Honorable President Garcìa-Pérez,

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able not only to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems, but also to develop an autonomous  societal system, able to translate, into the society of intelligent machines, the “European way of life” which the Institutions purport to develop.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met.

In particular, we note also that, in  the present Industrial Strategy under discussion,  attention is paid only to SME, whilst, on the contrary, announcements from different parts had hinted at a strategy for European Champions, comparable to the ones of the USA and of China. After the market failures of the ongoing economic crises, worsened by Coronavirus, it had been said that old turbo-liberal prejudices had been overcome, but this reluctancy of European politics to make plans (when everybody in the world makes plans) is suspect.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. I note also that in his interventions in Strasburg, the Pope had warned against “unknown empires”. These empires may be blocked only by a European Web, which the Institutions should  build up according to the models of ESA, Arianespace and Airbus. This herculean work cannot be carried out by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistency in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

The Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry

Free Alliance  Identity and Democracy Group  

Honorable President Zanni,

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. This herculean work cannot be carried out by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistency in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

The correrponding Ministry in China

Renew Europe

Turin, 2 June 2020

Honorable President Dacian Ciolos,

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able not only to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems, but also to develop an autonomous  societal system, able to translate, into the society of intelligent machines, the “European way of life” which the Institutions purport to develop.

This is what President Macron means when speaking of “European Digital Sovereignty”.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met.

In particular, we note also that, in  the present Industrial Strategy under discussion,  attention is paid only to SME, whilst, on the contrary, announcements from different parts had hinted at a strategy for European Champions, comparable to the ones of the USA and of China. After the market failures of the ongoing economic crises, worsened by Coronavirus, it had been said that old turbo-liberal prejudices had been overcome, but this reluctancy of European politics to make plans (when everybody in the world makes plans) is suspect.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. empires may be blocked only by a European Web, which the Institutions should  build up according to the models of ESA, Arianespace and Airbus. This herculean work cannot be carried out by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistency in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

The new Chinese hyperloop

Greens/Free Alliance

Turin, 3 June 2020

Honorable Ska Keller and Philippe Lamberts,

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able not only to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems, but also to develop an autonomous  societal system, able to translate, into the society of intelligent machines, the “European way of life” which the Institutions purport to develop.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met.

In particular, we note also that, in  the present Industrial Strategy under discussion,  attention is paid only to SME, whilst, on the contrary, announcements from different parts had hinted at a strategy for European Champions, comparable to the ones of the USA and of China. After the market failures of the ongoing economic crises, worsened by Coronavirus, it had been said that old turbo-liberal prejudices had been overcome, but this reluctancy of European politics to make plans (when everybody in the world makes plans) is suspect.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. I note also that in his interventions in Strasburg, the Pope had warned against “unknown empires”. These empires may be blocked only by a European Web, which the Institutions should  build up according to the models of ESA, Arianespace and Airbus. This herculean work cannot be carried out by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency.

Also the European New Deal is unrealistic without mastering all AI technologies, because, as Jeremy Rifkin has explained very well, a rational utilisation of energy is based upon an omnipresent form of control, which can be achieved only thanks a widespread presence of digital devices and of powerful control centers, which must not depend from far away multinationals.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistencies  in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

Rostech, the State-owned holding of the Russian high tech industries

European
Conservatives and Reformists

Turin, 2 June 2020

Honorable Ryszard Antoni Legutko and Raffaele Fitto

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able not only to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems, but also to develop an autonomous  societal system, able to translate, into the society of intelligent machines, the “European way of life” which the Institutions purport to develop.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. empires may be blocked only by a European Web, which the Institutions should  build up according to the models of ESA, Arianespace and Airbus. This herculean work cannot be carried out by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistency in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

The Chinese quantum satellite, developed in Austria

Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left  

Turin, 3 June 2020

Honorable Manon Aubry and Martin Schirdewan,

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able not only to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems, but also to develop an autonomous  societal system, able to translate, into the society of intelligent machines, the “European way of life” which the Institutions purport to develop.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met. In particular, The role of workers depends on a rational digital policy (see Annex 2).

In particular, we note also that, in  the present Industrial Strategy under discussion,  attention is paid only to SME, whilst, on the contrary, announcements from different parts had hinted at a strategy for European Champions, comparable to the ones of the USA and of China. After the market failures of the ongoing economic crises, worsened by Coronavirus, it had been said that old turbo-liberal prejudices had been overcome, but this reluctancy of European politics to make plans (when everybody in the world makes plans) is suspect.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. I note also that in his interventions in Strasburg, the Pope had warned against “unknown empires”. These empires may be blocked only by a European Web, which the Institutions should  build up according to the models of ESA, Arianespace and Airbus. This herculean work cannot be carried out by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency (see Annex 1).

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistency in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

A quantum computer

OLD-NEW FINANCIAL APPROACHES FOR EUROPE

Walther Rathenau, the author of “The New Economy”

When people say that, after Coronavirus, nothing will remain the same, they refer first of all to economy.According to us, this must go much further, first of all inb the financial sector.

Indeed, we seealready now, in many directions, some signs of change, though balanced by the eternal conservatism of our establishments. From one side, digital currencies are altering already now several aspects of traditional economies, especially as concerns digital payments in China, where digital has become, within the framework of the new web economy of the “BATX”, the prevailing means of payment. Their role has been powerfully enhanced by Coronavirus, because the digital network of Alipay has become the key instrument of virus tracking, and digital payments, not involving the physical handling of money, have been a powerful means of prevention, so to become mandatory in high risk situations like the one of Wuhan.

From another point of view, the whole structure of the economic philosophy underpinning the Euro has been eroded, first of all by Quantitative Easing, then by the ongoing generalized economic crisis, already present before Coronavirus, but worsened by the same. This has brought about the need to find out new thinking modes, which we will outline here, and on which we will revert in the forthcoming publications of Associazione Culturale Diàlexis.

The new Chinese Central Banl Digital Currency: a model worldwide

1.Central Banks Digital Currencies

On May 23, Partha Ray and  Santanu Paul have written, in the Indian newspaper “The Hindu”, a detailed article highlighting the crucial, and revolutionary, features of the new Chinese digital currency.

It is worth wile going through this report, for picking up information and ideas which would be useful also, and especially, for Europe:“While the world is grappling with the fallout of COVID-19 and speculating on how far China can be blamed for the pandemic, a silent digital revolution is taking place in China. On April 29, 2020, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), the country’s central bank, issued a cryptic press release to the general effect: ‘In order to implement the FinTech Development Plan (2019-2021), the People’s Bank of China has explored approaches to designing an inclusive, prudent and flexible trial-and-error mechanism. In December 2019, a pilot programme was launched in Beijing. To intensively advance the trial work of fintech innovation regulation, the PBoC supports the expansion of the pilot program to cover the cities of Shanghai, Chongqing, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Suzhou, as well as Xiong’an New Area of Hebei, by guiding licensed financial institutions and tech companies to apply for an innovation test.’ “

In media reports, in the recent past, China has emerged as the capital of the crypto ecosystem, accounting for nearly 90% of trading volumes and hosting two-thirds of bitcoin mining operations. The People’s Bank of China tried hard to curtail this exuberance but achieved limited success.

The benefits of Central Banks Digital Currencies (CBDC) are:

-paper money comes with high handling charges and eats up 1% to 2% of GDP, which can be spared;

-by acting as an antidote for tax evasion, money laundering and terror financing, CBDCs can boost tax revenues while improving financial compliance and national security;

-as a tool of financial inclusion, direct benefit transfers can be instantly delivered by state authorities deep into rural areas, directly into the mobile wallets of citizens who need them

-CBDCs can provide central banks an uncluttered view and powerful insights into purchasing patterns at the citizen scale

A digital currency would be beneficial especially for Europe, which has a dramatical need to increase is own cash creation power without borrowing on international markets. The expertise of the PBoC could be transferred through cooperation within the framework of the new Investment Treaty, whose scope should be enlarged to various aspects of economic cooperation, alongside the path of the Italian Silk Road MOU.

An investigation carried out by the Bank for International Settlements shows that most Central Banks are working out hypotheses of digital currencies, but China is the pioneer, as in all other social innovations and technologies..

Rudolf Hilferding, the theorist of the State-monopoly capital

2.An inversion of attitudes between Europe and USA about strong and weak currrencies

The stress since the start of the Euro had been on the idea of “stability”, -whilst, on the contrary, the monetary policies of the FED and of the Bank of China were stigmatized as politicized and volatile-. Such stress has been reversed by the most recent attitudes of European Institutions.

The ECB had already had recourse, against its natural inclination, to Quantitative Easing, after that Abe and Obama had already made massive use of this instrument following to the Subprime crisis, so rendering it “politically correct”. At the occasion of the Coronavirus crisis, the ECB has made recourse again, more than before, to this instrument, so resulting to be the major source of emergency liquidity in favor of Member States. Now we have a further panoply of emergency and recovery funds, which do not comply any more with the preceding monetary orthodoxy, and that could, and should, open the way to the total reversal of past policies .

Now, it is US president Trump, that, for the sake of preserving the role of the dollar as the reserve currency by excellence, is extolling the virtues of stability, as compared with the weakness of Euro and of Yuan .

This necessitated abrupt change of the European financial policy, though maintained, uo to now, within a strict political and ideological control, cannot avoid to shadeimportant doubts on the traditional metapolitical grand narrative of Euro.

According such narrative, this currency was a cornerstone of the European integration because it embodied to the utmost extent the stability goal attainable by the preeminence of economy over politics, which purportedly was the civilizational achievement of the European Union, rendering it superior to any other political form in history (including the United States). This hegemony of economics corresponded to the ideal of “Douce Commerce” expressed by Benjamin Constant as the landmark of representative constitutionalism, which, by this way, was supposed to set the concrete bases for the “Eternal Peace”, which, according to Kant, would have been grounded on the preeminence of merchant values on the ones of glory a and honour, typical of old monarchies.

Europe could have achieved such goal of “Douce Commerce” because, as stated eventually by Juenger and Schuman, WWII would have shown to Europeans the necessity of avoiding wars, and, therefore, to find a peaceful organization of Europe. Such peaceful Europe would have required giving up strong national identities, and the related cultural atmosphere oriented towards war. This was even the characteristic which distinguished Europe from U.S. (for Kagan, “Europe coming from Venus, US from Mars”). According to this narrative, US hegemony constituted even a blessing, avoiding to Europe the burdens of war and allowing to it to carry out that historical experiment.

Following to a mix of marxist determinism and Rostow’s Development Theory, mainstream Euro ideology maintained that wars are a by-product of economic contradictions. In particular WWII would have been the outcome of Weimar inflation and Great Depression, which, by disenfranchising the German middle-classes, had created the psychological background for Nazi revisionism. By contrast, the new stability policies of the Federal Republic would have been the main instrument for preventing the falling back of Europe, and especially of Germany, into the “cultural atmosphere” of the Thirties (the “Destruction of Reason” described by Lukàcs), which had rendered the Axis possible.

The problem for these theorists is now that the present fall of the economic background set up with the Euro could make possible a disenfranchisement of middle classes parallel to the one of the Thirties and their orientation towards populism, which, at its turn, could make possible the rebirth of violent forms of empowerment (“Selbstbehauptung”).

Albeit the ideological Byzantinism of the above narrative is self-evident, there is something true in its reasoning. The end of the illusion of an unprecedented richness of Europeans, which has been so well cultivated in post-WWII Europe – by the ERP, by the mythologies of neo-realism and of dolce-vita, of welfare State and Occidentalism, had been seriously set in doubt by the 1973 Oil Crisis, by the crises of the Twin Towers and of Subprimes and by the comparative reduction of Europe’s GNP as compared with China and developing countries. The higher growth rate of such countries not having given up to their sovereignty and to a realistic orientation of their ruling classes have shown that Rostow’s Development Theory is not apt to explain the real economic trends of the world.

The need, by European Institutions, to follow , for salvaging European economy, paths alternative to monetarist orthodoxy, such as Quantitative Easing, monetization of debt, deficit spending, State aids, shows that there is no unavoidable trend in world economy, and that Europeans are free again to choose their economic destiny.

According to me, the case of Italy is the most perspicuous. Italy’s economy had grown at a very fast pace before and during the two world wars because the ambitions of the unified State had led it automatically towards expansionism and militarism. Eventually, the huge industrial structures and widespread industrial culture created for the needs of war had purposefully not been destroyed by the Allies because they would have resulted to be too useful after the war. The conversion of Europe from a war economy to a consumption society had brought about the so-called “Italian Miracle”. Unfortunately, since it was just an epiphenomenon of wars, such “Economic Miracle” finished less than 30 years after the war (in 1973, with the Oil Crisis), even if this abrupt end was masked by the increased salaries,inflation , the extension to middle classes of social benefits already accrued to blue collars, and a large dose of propaganda, by State, media, enterprises and trade unions.

Michal Kalecki, the inventor of “Military Keynesism”

3.A further step forward

Presently, the need for a realistic approach to the management of economy is felt more than ever.

At knowledge level, it must result clear that economy is a human science, and, as such, it is not an exact science. As a consequence, all of its theories, stories, approaches, solutions, are always very subjective.

Second, at meta-political level, the fact that war has not appeared, at least in Europe since WWII, in the traditional forms of direct and massive violence, does not impede that a “war without limits” is carried out every day under our eyes, with propaganda,mafia, excellent murders, military expenses, ethnic wars, terrorism, espionage, extraordinary renditions, humanitarian wars. A State which gives up to counter this kinds of violence carried out by other States or organizations against itself, its territory, its citizens, its economy, is damned to disappear within a short period of time.

At political level, this situation is opening up the possibility to discuss concretely each specific issue on a solid basis, showing which have been the mystifications and the mistakes of the past, the political distortions influencing still now a correct strategical approach, and in any case proposing alternative paths, apt to reverse the structural weaknesses of European economies.

It is loughly is that, when thinking of the “necessary reforms” of our economies, everybody thinks of the reduction of employment and social benefits, as well as a further minimization of the role of States.

Unfortunately, these processes, which have been the most evident causes of acceleration of Europe’s decline, are not the ones apt to reverse it. On the contrary, a serious “reform” should start from a thorough study (now possible thanks to Big Data), of what Europeans are really doing and of what the market really need.

There will be many great surprises.

Such study would bring us to ascertain that, today, the largest part of Europeans is not present on the labor market (because many women work at home, the number of pensioners is growing exponentially, young people do not start working before 20 years, there is a lot of unemployed and under-employed workers, sick persons and prisoners. Secondly, most people who are employed are producing things which are relatively not useful for European societies (such as the huge amount of commercial businesses, which now are almost bankrupt, or the production of luxury cars, which have no market, or military bureaucracy, deriving from the existence of 40 different armies), whilst, on the contrary, products and services which are badly needed, either for homeconsumption (such as education, research, industrial restructuring services, maintenance of territories), are not produced by anybody.

Today, the European market, left to itself, is not able to match society’s needs with workforce availability. Europe must set up, first of all, the Big Data which will be able to map this situation and provide for a general plan for the next 7 years, during which people will be trained, financing will be provided, enterprises will be restructured, employees will be hired, in such way that all necessary activities will be carried out by somebody, and that everybody finds an occupation corresponding to his skills.

All this has not very much to do with Keynesianism, which is just one of the options within the prevailing American- type liberalism. We cannot call it “corporatism”, nor “State command economy”, both having resulted, in the government practices of the XX century, to be just two alternatives compatible with Western globalization, all of them falling within the Aristotelian definition of “Chrematistiké”.

That “good government”should be an application, in practice, of the ideas of Aristoteles about “oikonomìa” as alternative to “chrematistiké”, or, in a more recent application, of the ones of Hilfereding, about “Staatsmonopolistischer Kapitalismus” or of Kalecki, about “military Keynesism”.

The overall scheme of tEuropean recovery interventions

4. A European NATO-like Emergency Service

The problem of the European post-Coronavirus interventions is that the very complex structure of the European Union renders its intervention slow, ineffective and not transparent.

In fact:

1)each action has to go through:

-a proposal phase (through Member States, and Commission);

-a decision-making phase (ECB, Council, Parliament)

-an implementing phase (Financial markets, Governments and Parliaments)

-an administrative phase (Ministries, Regions, banks);

-a jurisdictional control.

b)Each phase imply lengthy negotiations with egoistic interests, which hinder emergency interventions (Member States, Central Banks, political parties, Ministers, enterprises, professions, regions, cities):

-disputes about the nature of the aids;

-US interferences;

-instrumental polemics;

-media manipulations;

-personal ambitions;

-organised crime;

-unconscionable citizens’attitudes;

c)it is impossible to understand really what happens (Byzantinism of European regulations; uncomplete nature of compromise regulations; need of national implementing activities;fraudulent implementation):

-the swinging attitudes of financial markets;

-the upredictable impact of the financial compact;

-the ever changing decisions of parliaments, goverments, regions and mayors.

The EU authorities would have liked to be able (as Josep Borrell dreamed), to send armored convoys with European flags to bring first aid to victim popuilations. On the contrary, whilst Chinese, Russian, Cuban and Albanian aid arrrived physically and officially within a few days from the requests of the relevant governments, European aid has nort yet arrived, and will never arrived with military medica and with European flags.

Under these conditions,how to be surprised that most Italians consider China as the most friendly country?

This constitutes an objactive drawback of the European system. Ursula von der Leyen, David Sassoli,Josep Borrell, Paolo Gentiloni and Dubravka Suica must work harder on that, creating a complete system of European enìmergency intervention, if necessary as a joint intergovermment project, like NATO, with own dotations, own personnel, equipment, stock, commandment, without being bound to discuss everything with everybody.

LETTERS TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION

During this period, when every important decision is suspended in the expectation that the pandemic will decrease earlier or later, further time cannot be lost for deciding which future we want for Europe.

Europe’s decision-making processes have been paralyzed since two years: first, because of the European Elections; afterwards, for the cumbersome procedure of forming the new Commission, and, finally, by the exception state during the Coronavirus Pandemic.

But already before, a hurdle of unsolved problems was cumulating: the uncertainty in the relationships with the rest of the world and the ongoing demographic, cultural, political, economic and technological decadence as compared with the other Continents.

Conscious of these dangers, Associazione Culturale Diàlexis is going on soliciting all responsible entities to take care of this urgency, inserting it into Europe’s priorities.We report systematically, via the Alpina-Diàlexis website, about our steps with the different Institutions. Only a few ones have given a response.

When we were urging, several decades ago, not to cede to irrealistic ideologies, nobody wanted to listen; when we tried to address the interest of Italian scholars towards the study the Central European social system, for deriving teachings from it, nobody was interested;when we travelled throughout the world for promoting a form of globalization which could be fruitful for Italy, Europe and third parties, we were boycotted by everybody; when we warned against complacency on the lack of a European Identity, people even denied that the problem existed; when we warned that, without an annual theoretical growth of 4.5%, Europe and Italy would have been in a pernìmanent de-facto recession, this seamed to be unbeleavable, but now data about Europe’s positioning in the world economy in the last forty years are available and undeniable.

Now, we are warning about the technologhical gap between Europe, from one part, and China, US, South Korea and Israel, from the other.

Also now, most people try to misinterpret this warning, as if new technologies would mean just Industry 4.0, electrical car, solar plants and G5, whilst the world is driving towards Total Surveillance, concentration of Big Data, Quantic computing, Space rush. So, Europe will remain still more backward than before and will be obliged to accept, de-facto, the ideological and business solutions chosen by technological hyper-powers.

We have already published the letters sent to the members the ITRE Committee of the European Parliament. By this post, we report now about the letters addressed to the members of the Council and of the Commission.

Up to now, the only one authority which has given a follow-up answer is the President of the European Parliament, Davide Sassoli.

Turin, 22 May 2020

Dear Sirs

We have addressed to the Members of the European Council (including President Ursula von der Leyen), the following letter, which we send also to you for what is of your specific competences.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of this inconsistency both in working out the 7 years budget and in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

Turin, 14/5/2020

To the members of the European Council

Ladies and gentlemen,

We had addressed ourselves to the rapporteurs to the Committee “Industry, Research and Energy” of the European Parliament in the session of April 28 for the discussion (and possible approval in first reading) of two proposals, concerning a revision of the regulation governing the EIT, and its re-financing for the period 2021-2027.

In that letter, we emphasized  that, after the Coronavirus crisis, everything had changed in the world, so that  preceding policies should be in any case modified. As President Ursula von der Leyen had said “…because this crisis is different from any other, so must our next seven-year budget be different from what we know. We will need to frontload it so we can power investment in those crucial first years of recovery”.

We had sent to the rapporteurs  the digital file of the book  “A European Technology Agency”, which we send to each of you, including a proposal of Associazione Culturale Diàlexis for an overall restructuring of European technology policy alongside the Commission’s priorities, and especially its Digital Strategy, thoroughly revised in the light of the recovery needs after the incoming economic crisis and Coronavirus.

We start by noting that the European Coal and Steel Authority, of which the 9th of May has been the anniversary, was at the end of the day a European agency for the management of a European consortium, which, at that time, represented the core of crucial industries. In the same way, we propose now to put, under the common European control, the most sensitive European industries: the ones of new technologies. As the Coal and Steel Industries were pooled because they constituted the basis of military preparedness, such are today Internet, European Champions, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Currencies, Energy control, Biomedical.

The approach followed up to now, where new technological developments in defence, aerospace, digital, biology, transportation, environment, communication, organisation, are so much dispersed as to result ineffective , has to be reconsidered thoroughly, with the idea of a sole planning organisation, common to EIB, Commission, Council, Member States, Regions, Companies and Cities, which may concentrate this huge effort of the next few years, for challenging, from one side, DARPA, and, from the other, “Made in China 2025”and “China Standards 2035”.

Let’s recall also that Jean Monnet, before been appointed the first Chairman of the High Authority, had been the French Commissaire Général au Plan, and before, had worked for a military consortium of the Allied forces.

It is sufficient to say that, as it results from the papers to which the Parliament is confronted now for the discharge of their  accounts, the Agencies and Public-Private Entities of the Commission (mostly with high technological responsibilities) are almost 40, to which important entities such as ESA have to be added. It would be much more reasonable to have a sole big entity like MITI or DARPA, with a global vison of what is going on in all branches of technology, and the capability to react immediately.

We had sent the book and the proposals to members of Parliament and relevant Commissioners, urging them to consider its arguments and the proposals contained in it. Finally, we are also preparing a second book, devoted to a debate among intellectuals, politicians, European Movements  and  civil society, on technological humanism in Europe after coronavirus. We hope we will receive contributions from everybody, in time for influencing the ongoing debates. Of course, we think, in fist instance, of the addressees of this communication.

The basic idea is that, already before the Coronavirus crisis, the authoritative studies carried out by the French Senate (Rapport Longuet) and by the German Government (Nationale Wirtschaftsstrategie) had certified that Europe has no prospect to recover in time its positions in web industries, European Champions, cyber-intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, quantum computing, cyberwar, digital currencies, biotechnologies, before the proposed deadline of 2030, and the joint French-German Manifesto has already been overcome by the events of the last few months.

As a consequence, Europe’s situation is  condemned to deteriorate constantly, from the point of view of overall economic results (see Mazzucato, Morozov and Zuboff), from the one of military security (De Landa, Dinucci, Mini) of environmental crisis (Greta Thunberg, “Laudato Sì, Querida Amazonia) and of the protection of citizen’s rights (Assange, Snowden, Greenwald), unless the European Union undertakes an overall strategy of reflection, of political debate, of institutional reform, culminating in a new era of Digital Humanism, alternative to the one of Superpowers.

For the above reasons, during the discussions about the 2021 seven years budget which are bound to start soon, as well in the ones that must precede the Conference on the Future of Europe, the question of an overall restructuring (philosophical, conceptual, geo-political, institutional, technological and financial) of the orientation of European society cannot be escaped.

For these reasons, a preliminary question is whether the existence of EIT still makes sense, and whether or not should it be merged with ESA and other entities.

Let’s recall just some fundamental and unresolved issues, which have to be addressed before it is too late:

-the lack of a digital-humanistic ruling class;

-the abuses of the digital-military complex in the areas of data storage, tax evasion and antitrust;

-the upgrading of the European society, from an Industrial Society, to a Society of Intelligent Machines;

-Europe as an ideal battlefield among great powers in all possible areas of human life: economic war, battle of narratives, NCBW, political destabilisation…

Our book, and our formal proposal for the Conference, has the ambition to suggest the headlines of a global response to these unanswered questions

President Sassoli has replied to us very kindly, suggesting to address all the members of the ITRE Committee, who are, in last instance, responsible for a decision together with the Council (see below).

We are at your disposal for further illustrating the proposals, as well as for collaborating with your services in arriving at more concrete results. At the same time, we are addressing the same appeal to the Commission, so that this crucial deadline of European history is not missed.

We would be honoured by any reaction on your side, and we remain available for any form of cooperation.

Thanking you for your attention,

Kindest regards,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis

Via Bernardino Galliari 32

10125 Torino

Tel: 00390116690004

00393357761536

Da: SASSOLI David, President <President@europarl.europa.eu>
Inviato: martedì 12 maggio 2020 11:07
A: Riccardo Lala <riccardo.lala@alpinasrl.com>
Oggetto: RE: Sessione straordinaria del 28 aprile della Commissione Industria, Ricerca e Energia D(14934)

Caro Dott. Lala,

Grazie per la Sua cortese lettera, per la pubblicazione “European Technology Agency” e per le proposte dell’Associazione Culturale Diàlexis sui nuovi ecosistemi tecnologici.

Il pacchetto “EIT” sta seguendo la normale procedura legislativa e si trova attualmente in prima lettura ad una fase iniziale. In occasione della riunione della commissione ITRE, lo scorso 28 aprile, si è tenuto un dibattito approfondito che ha messo in luce come la crisi provocata da Covid 19 sia attualmente al centro del confronto e delle decisioni politiche europee. È in questo contesto che gli europarlamentari di ITRE sono ora chiamati a presentare gli emendamenti al pacchetto “EIT”. Relativamente alle implicazioni sul bilancio dell’EIT, il Consiglio Europeo sarà inoltre chiamato a decidere sul prossimo Quadro Finanziario Multilaterale (MFF), relativamente al quale la Commissione europea avanzerà presto una nuova proposta che dovrà riflettere la nuova realtà della crisi Covid 19 e della risposta da dare a quest’ultima.

Ho trasmesso la Sua pubblicazione al Segretariato della commissione ITRE affinché possa essere distribuita ai Relatori del pacchetto “EIT”. La invito inoltre a mettersi direttamente in contatto con i membri della commissione ITRE per assicurarsi che la sua proposta possa giungere ai legislatori che, in ultima istanza, saranno chiamati a decidere sulla questione.

Cordiali saluti,

David Sassoli

DOMANI 9 MAGGIO: WEBINAR 70 ANNI DICHIARAZIONE SCHUMAN; 2500 ANNI TERMOPILI

La storia dell’ integrazione europea comincia nel 480 a.c. (Erodoto, Eschilo, Socrate)
La Commissaria Dubravka Suica, responsabile per la Conferenza sul Futuro d’ Europa

PROGRAMMA

Ore 9,00 Prove tecniche

Ore 9,15 Apertura dei lavori (Modera – e riceve le domande per i relatori-Riccardo Lala, info@alpinasrl.com)

Ore 9,30

Relazione introduttiva

Prof. Pier Virgilio Dastoli:

Lo stato di avanzamento della Conferenza sul Futuro d’ Europa

Ore 10,00

Prof. Marcello Croce

Quale spazio per la cultura nel dibattito sull’ Europa?

Ore 10,15

Ing. Roberto Matteucci

Dove sta l’ Europa  nelle industrie tecnologiche?

Ore 10,30

Dott. Bruno Labate

C’è posto per i lavoratori nell’ Europa del futuro?

Ore 10,45

Avv.to Ennio Galasso

Che fine ha fatto la tradizione giuridica europea?

Ore 11,00

Ing. Ferrante Debenedictis

Europa e nazioni oggi

Ore 11,15

Domande e dibattito

Chi desidera partecipare alla manifestazione, dovrà collegarsi, a partire dalle ore 9,00 del 9 maggio, al seguente link: https://www.alpinasrl.com/dibattito-online/, segnalando eventuali difficoltà a:

info@alpinasrl.com, o ai seguenti numeri di telefono:Lo stesso vale per fare domande ai relatori e comunque per intervenire.

00390116690004 00393357776 1536.

L’Europa è destinata a uscire dalla storia se non si darà, entro il prossimo decennio, un proprio sistema tecnologico completo, autonomo e competitivo con quello degli altri Continenti

ALLEGATI

DOCUMENTO COMMENTATO DEL MOVIMENTO EUROPEO SULLA CONFERENZA SUL FUTURO DELL’ EUROPA

Nostri commenti, in particolare sul  Fondo europeo per la ricostruzione:

– sia affidato alla gestione della stessa Commissione, attraverso l’Agenzia Europea della Tecnologia,  sotto il controllo del Parlamento europeo, secondo criteri privatistici, ma in base a un Piano Settennale di Trasformazione della Società Europea, con una precisa Roadmap temporale, calibrata su quelle dei nostri concorrenti, e coinvolgente:

il sistema educativo europeo;

il web europeo;

l’intelligence europea;

i campioni europei;

l’esercito europeo;

il servizio civile europeo;

la formazione permanente europea.

-sia aperto alla possibilità di:

creazione “greenfield” di nuove imprese, nel settore del web, dell’e.commerce, del software e dell’ industria culturale, sul modello di Arianespace;

un intervento temporaneo europeo nella ricapitalizzazione e nella governance di grandi complessi industriali strategici continentali per realizzare campioni europei nei settori dell’aerospazio, delle reti, dei trasporti e dell’industria biomedica.

MOVIMENTO EUROPEO

CONSIGLIO ITALIANO

_____

______________________________________________________________________________________________

00186 ROMA – VIA ANGELO BRUNETTI, 60 – TEL.: 06-36001705 – FAX: 06-87755731

e-mail: segreteria@movimentoeuropeo.it – sito: www.movimentoeuropeo.it

UN PROGRAMMA PER L’EUROPA

Dichiarazione del Movimento europeo in Italia

L’Europa non è in guerra ma le conseguenze della pandemia saranno egualmente devastanti per l’insieme

della società europea soprattutto sul sistema produttivo, fra le lavoratrici e i lavoratori e sulle categorie più

deboli nelle nostre comunità.

Pensiamo in particolare al vuoto fisico e culturale causato dalla strage di persone anziane e alle difficoltà

pedagogiche ed educative che si stanno creando dove gli studenti non possono seguire i corsi online nelle

scuole di ogni ordine e grado e nelle università, corsi fruibili grazie al diffuso sforzo dei docenti, degli altri

operatori del settore e delle famiglie.

1. IL FONDO EUROPEO PER LA RICOSTRUZIONE

Tenendo conto degli strumenti già adottati o su cui sono stati raggiunti accordi senza precedenti nell’Unione

europea e più specificatamente nel Consiglio europeo del 23 aprile (BCE, BEI, SURE e linea di credito

senza condizionalità del MES), noi riteniamo che la Commissione europea debba proporre al Parlamento

europeo e al Consiglio che il Fondo europeo per la ricostruzione:

– sia dotato di strumenti finanziari adeguati per mettere in moto consistenti risorse pubbliche e private

necessarie per l’opera di ricostruzione, sia attraverso trasferimenti (grants) che prestiti (loans),

– sia operativo già nel 2020,

– sia fondato su debito pubblico europeo e su emissione di titoli irredimibili o a lunga durata con

immediati aiuti per la liquidità di un’economia in grave sofferenza,

– sia affidato alla gestione della stessa Commissione sotto il controllo del Parlamento europeo,

– sia aperto alla possibilità di un intervento temporaneo europeo nella ricapitalizzazione e nella

governance di grandi complessi industriali strategici continentali incoraggiando fusioni laddove

sia utile per la competizione a livello globale.

2. BILANCIO E FISCALITA’ EUROPEA PER UNA PROSPERITA’ CONDIVISA

Il Fondo deve essere garantito da un ambizioso bilancio europeo sempre più finanziato da risorse proprie

che, per essere rapidamente disponibili, devono essere introdotte direttamente nel quadro della capacità

fiscale dell’Unione europea come quelle già suggerite dalla Commissione europea nella proposta di

regolamento MFF del 2 maggio 2018 ma anche e soprattutto una tassa alle frontiere europee sui prodotti a

contenuto di carbonio (border carbon adjustment) o altre risorse i cui tempi di realizzazione tuttavia

sarebbero inevitabilmente più lunghi sia dal punto di vista della politica commerciale che dal punto di vista

giuridico come un’imposta sulle grandi multinazionali del web e il recupero dell’elusione fiscale o ancor

di più l‘armonizzazione delle imposte dirette sulle società affinché una quota di esse sia attribuita al

bilancio europeo come avviene per l’IVA.

Se il bilancio europeo dovesse rimanere incatenato all’1% del PIL europeo, il costo del progetto di un Piano

europeo – che proponiamo di chiamare “per una prosperità condivisa” – rischierà di incidere

negativamente sul Patto Verde Europeo e sulle altre linee di bilancio come la PAC, le spese

finanziariamente più modeste dell’Europa per cittadini, linfa vitale per le attività non-profit e di

volontariato, la coesione economica, sociale e territoriale, la ricerca e lo sviluppo tecnologico, il fondo

sociale europeo, la cultura e l’educazione, le azioni esterne ivi compresa la sicurezza comune anche

attraverso il “Fondo europeo per la difesa”.

Il Piano europeo dovrà dunque essere aggiuntivo e non sostitutivo delle spese attualmente previste,

rappresentando un’occasione unica per indirizzare gli investimenti pubblici e privati verso lo sviluppo

sostenibile e diventando così una nuova parte del Patto Verde europeo.

Per questa ragione noi chiediamo un ammontare complessivo quinquennale 2021-2025 di almeno 2000

miliardi di Euro e cioè di due trilioni di Euro.

In questo quadro è importante che l’azione dell’Unione europea sia coerente con l’Agenda 2030 proprio nel

momento in cui si è deciso di rinviare a data da destinarsi la Conferenza delle Nazioni Unite sul clima

(COP26) con il rischio di rinviare ancora una volta ogni impegno sulla lotta al cambiamento climatico.

3. UN PROGETTO PER L’EUROPA

Insieme al Piano europeo, il Parlamento europeo e la Commissione europea devono avere l’ambizione e il

coraggio di elaborare e di adottare un “progetto per l’Europa“ in una prospettiva di medio periodo

secondo una roadmap condivisa fra l’assemblea rappresentativa delle cittadine e dei cittadini europei e

l’esecutivo che solo da essa trae la sua legittimità democratica.

Le conseguenze della pandemia devono sollecitare l’avvio di una nuova fase dell’integrazione europea

centrata sui valori condivisi da tutti gli Europei.

Si deve avviare un dibattito pubblico su una trasformazione delle strutture economiche e sociali nel quadro

di una più ampia condivisione della sovranità a livello europeo attraverso competenze federali con

elementi programmatici legati ad un eco-sistema fondato sull’obiettivo della piena occupazione creando

nuovo lavoro e contrastando la precarietà.

Queste trasformazioni riguardano l’uguaglianza delle opportunità, la lotta alle diseguaglianze e allo stato

di indigenza, la politica di inclusione, la riorganizzazione dello spazio e il ruolo delle città,

l’organizzazione della mobilità, la redistribuzione del tempo, il ricambio generazionale e la parità di

genere, le forme della partecipazione civile, la democrazia economica, una rinnovata strategia per le

PMI e per il sistema cooperativo, la formazione permanente e lo sviluppo della comunicazione e del

pluralismo dell’informazione.

Queste trasformazioni non possono prescindere dal quadro geo-politico internazionale in un mondo

globalizzato dove l’Unione europea deve essere protagonista di un’azione a sostegno del multilateralismo,

della riforma delle Nazioni Unite e delle relazioni speciali con il Mediterraneo e con il continente

africano.

4. DEMOCRAZIA E STATO DI DIRITTO

E’ evidente che un progetto siffatto pone la questione ineludibile delle conseguenze per il sistema

democratico europeo e per le democrazie nazionali all’interno del nostro modello di una comunità europea

di diritto che siamo tutti chiamati a valorizzare e a difendere nella giornata in cui si celebra in Italia la

vittoria contro il fascismo e il nazismo.

Allontanandosi da questo modello oggi ì cardini dello stato di diritto vengono pericolosamente messi in

discussione in alcuni paesi dell’Unione europea come la Polonia e l’Ungheria con gravi violazioni dei

principi della divisione dei poteri e delle libertà dei cittadini e alle nostre frontiere nei confronti dei

richiedenti asilo come sta avvenendo fra Grecia e Turchia.

MOVIMENTO EUROPEO

CONSIGLIO ITALIANO

_____

RIELABORAZIONE DELLA DICHIARAZIONE SCHUMAN

CON AGENZIA TECNOLOGICA EUROPEA

A DECLARATION FOR THE CREATION OF A EUROPEAN FEDERATION VIA AN AUTONOMOUS DIGITAL ECOSYSTEM.

The survival of Humankind is at stake more than in any other moment of history because the development of deployed technique has lead to the control, by machines, of essential processes of human society, and, in particular, intelligence and nuclear warfare. As a consequence, putting under international political control  Artificial Intelligence and nuclear warfare  represents the utmost priority.

The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to this priority is important.

Europe is on the making since 2500 years  according to a plan which has evolved at an imperceptible pace, from the Persian Wars up to now. A unified Europe will be built by European culture, which alone can create a de facto solidarity, because the coming together of our peoples requires the elimination of  the obsolete notion of  nation States.

We propose that all European activities concerning new technologies are put under the control of  a European Technology Agency, an organization open to the participation of  all countries of Europe. The pooling of  high technology activities should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those social coaches whose survival is threatened by technological obsolescence, tax erosion and foreign multinationals.

The solidarity in intelligence, research, teaching, production, finance, work, commerce thus established will make it plain that any war among Europeans, of the West and the East, becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful digital ecosystem, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member with the basic elements of  economic life, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification.

This ecosystem will be offered to the world as a whole without distinction or exception, with the aim of contributing to raising  the stamina of Mankind, so impeding the taking over by machines. With increased resources Europe will be able to pursue the achievement of one of its essential tasks, namely, the re-skilling of the entire society, for avoiding the entropy of a mechanised world. In this way, there will be realised simply and speedily that fusion of interest which is indispensable to the establishment of a common economic system; it may be the leaven from which may grow a wider and deeper community between countries of Western and Eastern Europe.

By pooling the Digital Ecosystem and by instituting a new Agency, whose decisions will bind  the European Union and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of Mankind.

To promote the realization of the objectives defined, the European Union is ready to open negotiations on the following bases.

The task with which this common Agency will be charged will be that of securing in the shortest possible time the creation of a full-fledged European Digital Ecosystem including research, education, Big Data, biotechnologies, web industries, software,  intelligence, communications., cyberwar, transportation, cultural industries, aerospace, the development in common of exports to other countries,  the upskilling of the whole European society.

To achieve these objectives, starting from the very poor conditions in which member countries are at present situated, it is proposed that certain transitional measures should be instituted, such as the application of a production and investment plan, the establishment of military-civil organisations, and the creation of a European sovereign fund to create brand-new branches of industries. The carrying out of digital activities in, to and from member countries will immediately be subject to uniform taxation and antitrust, privacy and cybersecurity rules. Conditions will gradually be created which will spontaneously provide for the level of effectiveness and innovation at the highest level worldwide.

In contrast to the digital multinationals, which are imposing on Europeans  restrictive practices on national and international markets, and to export outside Europe data and profits, the organization will ensure the creation of a European industry and its defence, with the storage of data, the taxation of profits and the localisation of decision-making centres in Europe.

The essential principles and undertakings defined above will be the subject of a treaty signed between the States and submitted for the ratification of their parliaments.

The common Agency entrusted with the management of the scheme will be composed of motivated and competent persons appointed by the governments, giving equal representation. A chairman will be chosen by common agreement between the governments. The  Agency’s decisions will be enforceable in whole Europe.

A representative of the United Nations will be accredited to the Agency , and will be instructed to make a public report to the United Nations twice yearly, giving an account of the working of the new organization, particularly as concerns the safeguarding of its objectives and the possible extension of the same methods  worldwide. The Agency will negotiate on behalf of Europe with foreign States, corporations and international organisation the establishment of treties for the limitations of new technologies and the enhancement of the human element.

In the exercise of its functions, the Agency will restructure rules, ownerships, management and financing of the European technology industries, with the aim to render them the most advanced worldwide and to support a humanistic society, able to counter the pre-eminence pretentions of the machinic world.

Altri webinar oggi e domani

“Plans for transforming our Europe”,

Care amiche e cari amici,

ho il piacere di invitarvi a partecipare ad una iniziativa che si svolgerà venerdì 8 maggio, a partire dalle ore 15:00, dell’alleanza Europe Ambition 2030, composta da una serie di importanti organizzazioni della società civile europea di cui fa parte anche il Movimento Europeo. L’alleanza promuove il Webinar dal titolo “Plans for transforming our Europe”, quale contributo al 70° anniversario della Dichiarazione Schuman.

L’incontro sarà suddiviso in due sessioni: la prima, dalle 15:00 alle 16:00, affronterà il tema “The Future of Europe and a European Social Compact” e la seconda, dalle 16:00 alle 17:00, tratterà di “Economic Recovery plan or Transformation Plans”.

La lingua di lavoro sarà l’inglese.

L’evento si svolgerà online sulla piattaforma Zoom. Di seguito troverete il link utile per l’iscrizione:

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81598189658?pwd=ai9hc1c0RVpRSnB6M0VVU2MrSjZRQT09

Meeting ID: 815 9818 9658

Password: 489524

One tap mobile

+3225884188,,81598189658#,,1#,489524# Belgium

+3227880172,,81598189658#,,1#,489524# Belgium

Dial by your location

+32 2 588 4188 Belgium

+32 2 788 0172 Belgium

+32 2 788 0173 Belgium

+32 1579 5132 Belgium

+32 2 290 9360 Belgium

+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)

+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)

+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)

+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)

+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)

+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)

Meeting ID: 815 9818 9658

Password: 489524

Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kdWUUSOyQS

Vi allego il programma completo e la dichiarazione approvata dall’Assemblea del Movimento Europeo lo scorso 23 aprile che costituirà un’utile base ai fini della nostra discussione.

Nella speranza di poter contare sulla vostra partecipazione, vi ringrazio e saluto cordialmente.

Pier Virgilio Dastoli

PRESIDENTE

———————————

Movimento Europeo Italia

Via Angelo Brunetti, 60

00186 Roma (Italia)

Tel. +39 0636001705

Fax. 0687755731

www.movimentoeuropeo.it

EUROPEANA

Participants who have registered for our webinar via Eventbrite will receive a message via Eventbrite later today with the link of the Zoom webinar. They will need to click on the link in order to attend the webinar. 

I hope this answered your question, but please let me know if you have other questions. 

Best, 

Tamara 

Care amiche e cari amici,

ho il piacere di segnalarvi l’iniziativa che il Movimento europeo Italia, il Movimento Federalista europeo, la Gioventù Federalista europea e l’AICCRE organizzano per la giornata di sabato 9 maggio in occasione della Festa dell’Europa che quest’anno, come sapete, coincide con il 70mo anniversario della Dichiarazione Schuman.

L’iniziativa si svolgerà sabato dalle 14:30 alle 16:30 sulla piattaforma Zoom.

Per partecipare all’evento, sarà necessario compilare un semplice form online: https://forms.gle/MWrqMFzMFFiZEQnq7

Una volta iscritti, si riceveranno le indicazioni e il link per il collegamento Zoom.

N.B.: le iscrizioni verranno accettate fino ad esaurimento posti (max 100).

Per tutti coloro che non riusciranno ad iscriversi, segnaliamo che sarà possibile seguire l’evento live su Facebook direttamente dalla pagina del Movimento Federalista europeo  (https://www.facebook.com/MovimentoFederalistaEuropeo/)   

Parteciperanno al dibattito esponenti politici, parlamentari europei e rappresentanti delle istituzioni, come da programma allegato.

Per vostra memoria, vi accludo la dichiarazione congiunta adottata da Movimento Europeo, MFE, GFE e AICCRE in occasione di questo anniversario.

Nella speranza di poter contare sulla vostra partecipazione, vi ringrazio e saluto cordialmente.

Pier Virgilio Dastoli

PRESIDENTE

———————————

Movimento Europeo Italia

Via Angelo Brunetti, 60

00186 Roma (Italia)

Tel. +39 0636001705

Fax. 0687755731

www.movimentoeuropeo.it  

https://www.touteleurope.eu/actualite/declaration-schuman-le-texte-integral-et-la-video.html

WEBINAR 9 MAGGIO: 70 ANNI DALLA DICHIARAZIONE SCHUMAN, 2500 ANNI DALLE TERMOPILI

Sabato 9 maggio, ore 9,00

Webinar sul tema:

2020,

-2500 ANNI DI EUROPA

-70 ANNI DAL PIANO SCHUMAN

-AVVIO DELLA CONFERENZA SUL FUTURO D’EUROPA

Che quest’anno sia cruciale per il futuro del mondo, e soprattutto dell’ Europa, lo dimostra non soltanto l’incidenza eccezionale della pandemia su modi di pensare, culture, ideologie, organizzazioni, rapporti geopolitici, abitudini ed economie, ma anche la coincidenza fra molte scadenze fondamentali per l’identità europea.

Durante questo lungo periodo che ci separa dal ritorno alla normalità e all’esercizio ordinario dell’attività editoriale (sintetizzata dall’apertura dei saloni del libro di Torino e di Francoforte), Alpina Dialexis sta sviluppando un intenso dialogo con i suoi lettori, con le Istituzioni, con il Movimento Europeo, con il mondo intellettuale, per fare chiarezza sull’ identità europea, sulla sua storia, sulla sfida tecnologica e sulle strategie da seguire per sfuggire all’entropia generalizzata delle società contemporanee, ritornando a quelle posizioni di leadership che, oramai da molti anni, costituiscono solamente più un wishful thinking degli oratori della domenica.

Questo primo webinar ha carattere introduttivo, essendo dedicato alla ricognizione dei temi che sono sul tavolo. Ad esso faranno seguito la presentazione delle novità librarie 2020, la pubblicazione di anteprime delle stesse, la discussione delle proposte per la Conferenza per il Futuro dell’ Europa, e, infine, la commemorazione delle battaglie di Salamina e delle Termopili, con il loro impatto eccezionale sulla memoria collettiva degli Europei.

PROGRAMMA

Ore 9,00 Prove tecniche

Ore 9,15 Apertura dei lavori (Modera Riccardo Lala, info@alpinasrl.com)

Ore 9,30

Relazione introduttiva

Prof. Pier Virgilio Dastoli:

Lo stato di avanzamento della Conferenza sul Futuro d’ Europa

Ore 10,00

Prof. Marcello Croce

Quale spazio per la cultura nel dibattito sull’ Europa?

Ore 10,15

Ing. Roberto Matteucci

Dove sta l’ Europa  nelle industrie tecnologiche?

Ore 10,30

Dott. Bruno Labate

C’è posto per i lavoratori nell’ Europa del futuro?

Ore 10,45

Avv.to Ennio Galasso

Che fine ha fatto la tradizione giuridica europea?

Ore 11,00

Ing. Ferrante Debenedictis

Europa e nazioni oggi

Ore 11,15

Domande e dibattito

Alle 12, sarà possibile collegarsi con il museo digitale europeo Europeana per un dibattito sul ruolo del patrimonio culturale nell’ integrazione europea.

Chi desidera partecipare alla manifestazione, dovrà collegarsi, a partire dalle ore 9,00 del 9 maggio, al seguente link: https://www.alpinasrl.com/dibattito-online/, segnalando eventuali difficoltà a:

info@alpinasrl.com, o ai seguenti numeri di telefono:Lo stesso vale per fare domande ai relatori e comunque per intervenire.

00390116690004 00393357776 1536.

Per rompere il ghiaccio, il Dott. Lala ha già anticipato il suo personale intervento, mediante il post sul sito Alpina Diàlexis https://www.alpinasrl.com/europa-2500-anni-dalle-termopili-70-anni-dalla-dichiarazione-schuman/.

Per facilitare il compito dei relatori, abbiamo raccolto una ventina di domande e risposte che, scelte da ciascuno,  potranno costituire  degli spunti per gl’ interventi dei relatori, orali e/o anticipati per iscritto, e si possono consultare con il seguente link:https://www.alpinasrl.com/dibattito-online.

Abbiamo già iricevuto il contributo della sinologa Giuseppina Merchionne.

Se avremo abbastanza interventi per iscritto, essi potranno fare oggetto di un e.book che metteremo online.

Se questa prima giornata funziona, lo schema potrebbe essere ripreso per la celebrazione delle Termopili all’inizio di Settembre.

ISTRUZIONI PER I RELATORI

I RELATORI debbono digitare  https://www.alpinasrl.com/dibattito-online-relatori.php

Prima delle 9,00, la pagina comunica solo le informazioni su COME partecipare.

Alle 9,00, permette di accedere alla videoconferenza in sé.

La videoconferenza si farà utilizzando il sistema 8×8 basato su Jitsi Meet.

Il sistema è compatibile con tutti i browser più aggiornati, ma consigliamo di utilizzare Google Chrome.

Per chi si connette tramite computer, non è necessario il download di alcun software.

Per chi si connette tramite smartphone, è disponibile un’app scaricabile dai rispettivi app store di Android ed iOS:

I relatori possono anche provare il sistema in autonomia, prima dell’evento, per assicurarsi che webcam e microfono funzionino correttamente. Per effettuare un test bisogna andare su https://app.8×8.vc/ scegliere l’opzione “Partecipa/avvia un meeting come ospite” e inserire un nome casuale per avviare una videoconferenza di test.

Come per qualsiasi conferenza online, consigliamo di accertarsi già un giorno o due prima di avere una connessione stabile e sufficientemente veloce. Al più tardi, questa verifica va fatta alle 9,00 del 9 maggio. Durante la videoconferenza, è preferibile che sul dispositivo non siano in esecuzione altri programmi che possono utilizzare grandi quantità di dati, come altri programmi di videoconferenza, aggiornamenti di sistema o altro.

Inoltre, consigliamo di disattivare sempre il proprio microfono quando non si deve intervenire, per evitare che rumori di fondo o altri suoni disturbino la teleconferenza

ISTRUZIONI  PER IL PUBBLICO:

Il link per gli spettatori è:

PER FARE DOMANDE AI RELATORI, INVIARE UN’e.mail AL MODERATORE riccardo.lala@alpinasrl.com, o telefonargli al numero 3357761536

Il video YouTube è già attivo.

LETTER TO MEMBER STATES

Torino, 24/4/2020

Al Ministro degli Esteri

Luigi di Maio

Signor  Ministro,

Mi permetto di inviarLe con urgenza questa mia opera (all.1), la quale tratta di un tema attualmente in discussione per il 28 aprile dinanzi alla Commissione Industria, Ricerca ed Energia del  Parlamento Europeo (la nuova  regolamentazione dell’Istituto Europeo d’innovazione e Tecnologia di Budapest) , relativamente al quale mi permetto di trovare poco appropriato il calendario dell’iter approvativo  quale emerge dal sito del Parlamento (cfr. l’ordine del giorno https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-OJ-2020-04-28-1_IT.html). Le ragioni della mia critica sono esposte nel libro allegato sub 1.

In sintesi, trovo prematuro approvare l’agenda e le modifiche al regolamento specifico dell’EIT (su cui le Istituzioni avevano già tanti dubbi) nel bel mezzo della crisi del Coronavirus (e senza sapere come  questa andrà a finire), e, per giunta, stralciando una parte del budget pluriennale 2021-2027, che, secondo la Presidentessa von der Leyen, dovrebbe essere tutto dedicato al  cosiddetto “Piano Marshall”.

Ciò detto, non credo  spetti, in linea di principio, al Governo intromettersi nell’ iter di  lavori così avanzati del Parlamento Europeo, sicché mi sono già rivolto al Presidente Sassoli e al Commissario Gentiloni,  tuttavia penso che  la situazione attuale sia così straordinaria, che qualunque cittadino abbia il diritto e il dovere di sostenere la tesi contenuta nel libro, secondo cui si dovrebbe porre finalmente fine alla dispersione delle attività dedicate alla tecnologia in Europa, mettendo insieme l’ ESA, l’EIT e  l’AED,  per creare un DARPA, un MITI, un Commissariat au Plan o un’ IRI europea,  capace di riunire le scarse forze esistenti nel nostro Continente quanto a intelligenza strategica, finanza, tecnologie innovative, capacità di management e di ricerca, per  condurre finalmente una concorrenza efficace alle grandi potenze (ammesso che la si voglia fare). Tra l’altro, proprio uno studio diffuso recentemente dallo stesso Parlamento Europeo (allegato 2), rivela che fin dal 2013 la Cina ha superato l’Europa quanto a investimenti in Ricerca e Sviluppo. Come pensiamo di superare questo gap sempre crescente? Quindi, a rigore, domani l’EIT potrebbe non esserci neppure più, essendo sostituito da qualcosa di più solido e di più efficace.

Vorrei anche sfatare un mito, quello secondo cui l’Italia non avrebbe nulla da guadagnare dal potenziamento delle alte tecnologie, perché non avrebbe aziende qualificate, come l’Airbus o la SAP. Vorrei ricordare, a questo proposito, che l’Italia, oltre ad avere, come noto, una tradizione eccezionale (anche se purtroppo stroncata sul nascere) nel settore informatico, dispone attualmente di due centri fondamentali dell’industria spaziale europea, l’Avio di Colleferro, che fabbrica il lanciatore Vega e il booster dell’Ariane, e l’Alenia Thales di Torino, che fabbrica lo Space Rider, il Veicolo di Rientro Spaziale lanciato con il Vega.

Credo comunque che il Governo italiano sia perfettamente intitolato, nell’ambito delle discussioni in corso sulle misure per uscire dalla crisi, a chiedere una totale rivisitazione di tutti gli aspetti del bilancio europeo, per approntare, nell’ambito del bilancio pluriennale 2021-2027, una revisione totale delle politiche economiche europee, mirante a rovesciare l’attuale situazione di decadenza del nostro Continente, e dell’Italia in particolare. Un rovesciamento che non sarà certamente conseguito con mezze misure volte esclusivamente a ripristinare lo status quo.

L’Associazione Culturale Diàlexis e il sottoscritto sono comunque a completa disposizione Sua e del Governo per approfondire questi temi.

RingraziandoLa per l’attenzione,

Voglia gradire la nostra più alta considerazione

Per l’ Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

Il Presidente,

Riccardo Lala

Asssociazione Culturale Diálexis Via Bernardino Galliari 32, 10125 Torino  TO (Italy) ++39 011.6690004    +39 335. 7761536   www.alpinasrl.com  

Turin, 25/4/2020

Au Président de la République Française,

Emmanuel Macron

Une proposition pour la Conférence pour l’avenir de l’Europe : une Agence Européenne pour les Technologies.

Monsieur le Président,

nous sommes en train de vous envoyer par courrier exprès l’ouvrage « European Technology Agency , a Sovereign Digital Ecosystem »  que Associazione Culturale Diàlexis vient de publier. Comme, à cause du lockdown, le livre existe seulement en format numérique, et en Italie c’est une fête nationale, si quelque votre collaborateur nous indique un numéro d’e.mail, nos vous enverrons immédiatement une copie numérique.

Cet ouvrage a l’ambition d’aborder, dans un moment si difficile pour l’Europe, la question de la lutte pour la souveraineté technologique. Un objectif que vous avez porté justement à l’attention de toutes les instances, nationales et internationales, mais qui risque à tout moment d’être caché par des thèmes qui s’imposent de temps en temps à l’opinion publique: le terrorisme, les immigrés, la crise économique, les populismes, les guerres commerciales,  le Coronavirus.

A’ l’heure actuelle, le risque majeur est que, une fois résolue la question du sauvetage des économies européennes des conséquences du lockdown, le nouveau budget pluriannuel soit dédié au consolidement de ce qui déjà existe, tandis que, si nous voulons résoudre la question de la souveraineté, il faut nous donner, avant qu’une véritable guerre parmi les grandes puissances et les géants du web débute sur  notre territoire, ce qui encore n’existe pas: une culture stratégique européenne, un web européen, un cloud européen, une intelligence européenne. La crise du Coronavirus devrait constituer un levier qui nous permette di dépasser les dogmes du XXe siècle qui ont paralysé la refonte numérique de l’Europe.

Ce risque est confirmé par le fait que, tandis que les sommets de l’Union et des Etats membres sont occupés è discuter du SURE, du MES, du Recovery Plan, des Eurobonds et des Coronabonds, le Parlement Européen continue à travailler tranquillement de la réorganisation et du refinancement (pur les prochains sept ans) de l’ EIT, un institut minuscule qui devrait s’occuper de technologie en Europe, mais qui, jusqu’à présent, n’a abouti a rien (voir l’Ordre du Jour de la séance du Comité   Industrie, Recherche et Energie du Parlement Européen du 28 Avril, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-OJ-2020-04-28-1_FR.html).

Le problème est que, au cours du prochain septennat du budget Européen 2021-2027, on devrait, au contraire, créer tout ce qui n’existe pas, avec les mèmes critères d’urgence avec lesquels on avait abordé la question de la préparation industrielle militaire lors des deux guerres mondiales et on est en train de récupérer une mobilisation sanitaire lors de la crise du Coronavirus. Afin que cela soit possible, il faut que d’abord il y ait un seul cerveau qui photographie l’état de l’art, qui prévoit les évolutions, qui invente des solutions, qui attribue des tâches, qui assure le suivi, comme c’était en France le cas du Commissariat Général du Plan aux temps de Jean Monnet, le MITI au Japon après la guerre, le DARPA en Amérique et aujourd’hui le Comité pour l’ Union du Civil et du Militaire en Chine..

A’ l’heure actuelle, ce cerveau européen n’existe pas, et l’EIT c’est seulement une parodie de ce qu’une véritable Agence Européenne des Technologies devrait être. Les initiatives partent (si elles partent) des grandes entreprises (s’il y en a), des associations professionnelles, des Ministères, de la Commission, de l’ESA, d’Arianespace, mais sans aucune coordination, ni parmi les secteurs, ni parmi les pays. Surtout, personne ne songe à contraster les privilèges des GAFAs. Au contraire, on les utilise souvent comme des « conseillers du prince ».

L’idée que notre livre propose, et qui devrait représenter le centre de la discussion, soit pour le budget 2021-2027, soit de la Conférence sur l’Avenir de l’ Europe, est celle de créer un tel cerveau, l’Agence Européenne de la Technologie, avec le rôle qui l’ESA a dans le secteur de l’espace, mais élargie à toutes nouvelles technologies : étudier, débattre, proposer, organiser, contrôler, gérer tout ce qui bouge (et surtout ce qui ne bouge pas) en Europe dans le secteur des nouvelles technologiques : réflexion culturelle et futurologique ; recherche de base et appliquée ; formation et compétences ; dual use ; géopolitique et diplomatie ; cryptomonnaies et finance numérique ; web economy et big data ; cyber threat intelligence et cyberguerre ; 4.0, 5.0, 5 G, 6G ; ordinateurs quantiques et fusées hypersoniques ;avions de 6e génération ;  véhicules et armements autonomes, étique et droit des technologies). Aujourd’hui, il n’existe en Europe aucune personne, ni aucune institution, qui soient familières avec l’ensemble de ces disciplines.

Au contraire, Made in China 2025 a défini même quelles seront les entreprises chinoises dominantes sur les différents marchés mondiaux dans les prochaines cinq ans ; M. Trump proclame que l’Amérique doit rester (ou redevenir) la première en tout e M. Kurzweil, le Directeur Technique de Google, a même écrit bien de livres pour expliquer comment et par quelles étapes il va atteindre, dans quelques décennies, le dépassement de l’homme par la machine et ensuite l’indépendance du logiciel des ordinateurs (la « Singularité »).Il est évident que, pour l’agence que nous proposons, le travail ne manquerait pas pour tous les prochains ans.

J’espère que le livre que nous vous proposons puisse constituer une contribution valable pour les discussions au sommet qui ne devraient pas cesser dans les prochains mois sur les thèmes abordés ci-dessus, et tout d’abord à propos des démarches en cours pour la refonde de l’EIT. Nous sommes en train d’élaborer un autre livre, parallèle, sur la nécessité que l’Europe, en abordant sa renaissance numérique, développe un Humanisme Numérique, qui soit l’actualisation de sa civilisation millénaire . Nous ne manquerons pas de vous tenir au courant des évolutions de ce nouvel effort.

En vous remerciant d’abord pour votre attention,

Veuillez agréer, M. le Président, l’expression de ma plus haute considération,

Pour Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

Le Président

Riccardo Lala

Asssociazione Culturale Diálexis Via Bernardino Galliari 32, 10125 Torino  TO (Italy) ++39 011.6690004 
  +39 335. 7761536 
 www.alpinasrl.com

Turin, 24/4/2020

Betr.: “Neuer Marshallplan und Technologie” : Sitzung 28 April des EP um EIT

Herr Minister,

Wir wünschen Sie hierbei über die Sitzung , diejenige schon für April 28 bei dem Ausschuß “Industrie, Forschung und Energie” des Europäischen Parlaments,um das  Europäische Innovations- und Technologieinstitut  und die damit verbundene Strategische Innovationsagenda 2021–2027: Förderung des Innovationstalents und der Innovationskapazität programmiert ist aumerksam machen (sehen Sie  die  Tagesordnung des Ausschusses https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-OJ-2020-04-28-1_DE.html ).

Wir betrachten das betreffende Vorhaben als unlogisch und gefährlich. In der Tat, ist, nach der Koronavirus-Krise, alles verändert, in Europa und überall in der Welt; infolgedessen, müssen alle vorherige Politiken durchgedacht werden.

In der  gleichzeitig mit der Koronawirus Pandemie erschienenen Nationalen Industriestrategie 2030,Strategische Leitlinien für eine deutsche und europäische Industriepolitik, schrieben Sie, unter anderem:

“………Weltweit erfolgreiche Internetunternehmen der Plattformökonomie entstehen derzeit noch fast ausschließlich in den USA und in China. Nicht hingegen in Deutschland und den meisten Ländern der EU. Eine Änderung dieses Zustands ist bislang nicht in Sicht. Hier besteht Handlungsbedarf.…..Jedenfalls durch die vorgehende US-Administration wurde diese Entwicklung umfassend begleitet und unterstützt..………..Ein industriepolitisch besonders erfolgreiches Land ist die Volksrepublik China, die 2015 die Agenda „Made in China 2025“ beschlossen hat. Durch aktive Industriepolitik sollen dort Schlüsseltechnologien in zehn Sektoren gestärkt werden. Dazu gehören u. a. die Informationstechnik, High-End-Robotics, Luft-und Raumfahrt, Maritime Industrie, Elektromobilität, Transport und Eisenbahn, Biopharmazeutika, Medizintechnik. 2017 kündigte China an, im Bereich der Künstlichen Intelligenz bis 2030 zum weltweiten Spitzenreiter werden zu wollen. Der chinesische Staatskonzern CMG beschloss im Juli 2018, einen 15 Milliarden US-Dollar umfassenden Technologiefonds zu gründen (China New Era Technology Fund). …….”

Im Licht Ihrer oben erwähnten Betrachtugen, fragen wir uns, welches Sinn eine neue Regelung  für Technologie in Europa (wie diejenige des EITs) machen kann, die noch vor der Entstehung der Koronavirus-Krise ausgedacht wurde, und die in diesem Augenbick diskutiert wird, wenn man noch nicht weißt, wie Dinge am Ende gehen werden, und  welche Strategie Europa für die nächsten 7 Jahre wählen wird.

Zweitens, sollte sich die Konferenz für die Zukunft Europas nach dem technologischen Übergang, und nicht nach dem Status Quo, richten. Wie Sie feststellt haben, waren die bisherigen technologischen Tätigkeiten in Europa offenbar schon vor der Krise nicht zufriedenstellend. Die Rückständigkeit Europas gegenüber Amerika und China (Web Economy, Big Data, Kryptowährungen)  is ständig gewachsen, und wächst noch jetzt. Wie das europäische Parlament selbst festgestellt hat, hat China Europa seit 2013, für was die Investitionen in R&D anbelangt,  überwunden (sieh Anhang1). Was will Europa dagegen tun?

Sogar wenn die Politik dazu nicht zustimmen wollte, wird die wirtschaftliche Lage Europas am Ende der Krise so viel  geändert sein, daß die vorigen Prioritäten automatisch umgewältzt werden, wo die Fähigkeit neue, bedeutsame, Ertragsquellen für Bürger (nicht nur rechnungstechnischer Art) zu erschliessen, eine vorrangige Rolle spielen wird. Die neuen Technologien haben genau diesen Charakter:

-erstens, weil sie heute in Europa nicht bestehen;

-zweitens, weil heute die OTTs aus Europa so viele Ressourcen auspumpen, dass die Nationalen Steuerkapazitäten seit vielen Jahren schwer gemindert wurden.

Die bisherigen Praxen der europäischen Wirtschaft, wobei die neuen Entwicklungen in den Gebieten der Verteidigung, des Raum- und Luftfahrts, des Digitalen, der Biologie, der Transporten, der Umwelt, der Kommunikation, der Organisation, zu zersplittert waren, um eine kritische Masse gegenüber unsere Wettbewerber darzustellen,  müssen durchaus übergedacht und überwunden werden. Ein einziges europäisches Programm muß die Zentralbank, die Europäische Investitionsbank, die Kommission, den Rat, die Staaten, die Laender, die Unternehmen und die Städte einbinden,  um uns zu erlauben, gleichzeitig DARPA und “China 2050” zu widerstehen. Mit all diesem in Sicht, haben wir jetzt das Buch “The European Technology Agency, with a proposal of Associazione Culturale Diàlexis for the Conference on the Future of Europe” (Anhang 2) herausgegeben, das wir hoffen, den europäischen Gesetzgebern von Hilfe sein kann, wenigstens mit dem analytischen Vorschlag, der als Beilage des Buches erscheint. Wir senden das Buch auch den dazu zuständigen Kommissaren und Euroabgeordneten, in der Hoffnung, daß jemand zeitgemäß handelt.

Wir hoffen auch, daß diese Tätigkeit den Anfang einer kulturellen Bewegug darstellen können, diejenige  die heutige Haltung der europäischen Eliten verändern wird. Sie sollen nicht mehr die “planlosen Eliten” bleiben, die schon vor 30 Jahren Glotz, Hirsch und Süßmuth stigmatisiert hatten.

Wir bleiben jedenfalls zu Ihrer Verfügung, diese Themen zu vertiefen, mit dem Zweck einer erfolgreichen Lösung der vielen und dringlichen Fragen, die heute vor Europa stehen.

Ich danke Ihnen im vorab für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit, und verbleibe,

Für Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

Der Vorsitzende

Riccardo Lala

Asssociazione Culturale Diálexis Via Bernardino Galliari 32, 10125 Torino  TO (Italy) ++39 011.6690004 
  +39 335. 7761536 
info@@alpinasrl.com