Knowledge of the world is the basic prerequisite for universal education, which is what makes an adequate human existence possible in the first place. Therefore, all world knowledge should be available to everyone in all parts of the world free of charge. However, this is still not the case in the 21st century A.D.[1].

Some sources of knowledge, such as the free encyclopaedia Wikipedia, are only accessible with technical infrastructure, and this is either cost-intensive or only accessible free of charge on loan in special locations, others are subject to a charge and sometimes expensive, such as academic books, whereby libraries are very often accessible free of charge or at minimal cost, but the effort to borrow the desired work is sometimes very time-consuming.

Irrespective of the effort involved in accessing knowledge, the world’s knowledge is fragmented, difficult to search and filter and at the same time incomplete, sometimes erratic and some areas cannot be understood without sufficient prior knowledge.

In order to educate responsible citizens, it is essential to make all knowledge accessible to everyone as cost-effectively as possible. Otherwise, knowledge is reserved for a privileged class that can use it to abuse power.

Knowledge must be freely accessible, free of charge and freely expandable, e.g. under the free document license

[1] Academia, Structurally Fxxked Up

Order is half the battle, as the saying goes. Organization is the whole of life, is the doctrine of current politics.

• Regulatory frenzy
• Overregulation
• Minor case specifications
• Individual justice
• Sanction allocation

All this and much more is an active part of the bureaucracy of a united Europe. If Europe were actually united as a result, this would be a small price to pay. Only the price is paid without receiving anything in return.

This does not make Europe more united, more understanding or even more united. It is only the rules that apply in all EU states, which the countries must adhere to, that provide a similar, sometimes meaningless, legal framework. But that doesn’t make for tolerant and positive coexistence.

Each country suffers individually from the excessive bureaucratic structures that apply to all of them. This shows once again that “more of the same” does not necessarily lead to a solution to the problem, and is in fact the problem.

Structures should be made for the people and simplify and improve cooperation and be designed in a way that benefits the majority. Fundamental structural reforms are needed here, even a new beginning, so that the achievements of the modern world can be used safely and helpfully.

Individual justice is an illusion whose absence must not lead to arbitrariness, but there must be ways that are understandable, acceptable and practicable for all members of society and yet are not “just” for everyone.

At the beginning of the 22nd century, people like to talk about freedom of opinion in a democracy. From the most diverse groups, interest groups and client lists. But it is precisely these people who are also practicing cancel culture, the attempt to silence dissenters.

There have been differences of opinion since time immemorial, which can degenerate into battles of opinion for various reasons. However, these differences of opinion do not disappear if one of these parties is to be silenced by media power, mainstream opinion and manipulation of the other side. The result is simply a hardened front that, in the worst-case scenario, can tear through society as a whole.

In the past, taboos were used to keep the dialog between opposing parties open without having to touch on sensitive topics that could lead to discord or even harassment. In modern societies, it should actually be possible to have a taboo-free discussion on all topics from divergent opinion groups.

But if you don’t give others room to think differently, if everything is always without alternative, then you have reached the end of any discussion.

Regardless of the topic, a discussion in a neutral, objective style should always be possible, as there can never be agreement on all topics in societies.