I read your blog's post and saw your Google Doc's Timeline of History. Are the benefits of the immense, gigantic work of changing school's teaching, books, and people's mind worth of it? Not to speak about convincing Historians (what I believe to be an impossible thing to do).
Anyway, I support your idea just for the sake of the iconoclast attitude and for the absolutely huge discussion and indignation it would generate at the solemn members of the Academia. I doubt it to being a more practical system than what we have currently.
However there's a problem, where does the French Revolution fits? It's perhaps, after Jesus Christ, the more important timemark to mankind separating an epoque from another. It doesn't seem to me that it has the adequate relevance in your system.
Mr Elon Musk sent a Tesla car to space orbiting the earth, wasn't it? He thinks space to be his personal trash can vanity. Space is not his property, as that idiot seems to think. Hope all his rockets explode. Beautiful.
Resident technology masters already knows it for sure but for the simple mortals, you can speed up your already much-more-faster-than-Windows operative system.
First, you send your phone to inside a truck with destiny to Portugal. Second, you can rob a bank there. Third, you say you never did it, you were in Portugal by that time.
How do we know that it's really off after turning it off? They tell us that is off, just that. I don't consider them honest people to blindly believe them.
But ultimately it's not up to him, but the member countries, particularly France and Germany.
With the UK out of the equation it is only about France and Germany. One has the money, the other has the nuclear power. The rest it's just countryside. It was always like this with the UK being the only ones facing French and Germans.
The EU has no parallel with any other world power regarding its internal composition and dynamics, so we often need to present to the world with this kind of soft-power diplomacy that some can think that it is a weakness. It is not. ,
Why did you start counting at around 3.000BC? the real scale in my opinion would be around 40.000 years ago, with Homo Sapiens. Course in that case you would have 40000/30=1333 generations where nothing happens during 1200 generations. A bit boring story.
I wonder what Germany, Poland and Swede are waiting for deporting Russian Ambassadors as a reciprocity measure. This is in the first place a problem with those countries, the EU as a common organization should be supporting its members, not sending an idiot to Moscow.
So ends the paper submitted to NASA's Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey 2023-2032 titled Ethical Exploration and the Role of Planetary Protection in Disrupting Colonial Practices...
But how about when your king is a total moron [...]
Enlightened monarchies do have the internal mechanisms to solve those issues.
I don't defend the equivalent in monarchies to a presidential regimen, like the American regimen for example, where the president governs the country at his will. I'm in favour of the type of parliamentary regime where an elected government governs the country and the president/king has only supervising powers (but also others) not the effective government of the Nation.
To the King what belongs to the king, to the people what belongs to the people.
As a monarchist and a proponent of democracy, you would rather elect kings, right?
Let me see.. Estonian humour?
Glad you ask that because many people don't understand the reason why to defend a non elected state role in a Democracy.
One of the many functions a king goes beyond any president is because people aren't artificial political constructs, people are real and people organise themselves, at most human societies, in families. To have a human being organisation at the the top of the state is the right way to prevent the arrival of Brave New Worlds or autocratic regimens that try to dehumanise human beings and turn them into obeying-non thinking robots. Et voilá.