u/New_Discipline_1400

So far, a lot of the discussions around Eurofederalism, whether in subreddits, Volt conversations, or campaign materials, tend to focus heavily on the benefits: a larger market, greater global leverage against powers like China and the US, lasting peace, freedom of movement, and all other things like those. All these points are valid and important to talk about, but what often gets lost is a deeper talk of why federalism is the right approach in the first place, exept the idea that “it would just work better.”

When you look at the other small and non-systemic movements fighting for people’s attention, they often have a clear philosophical foundation. For instance, Neoreaction offers Yarvin’s Cathedral thesis, while Dugin’s neo-Eurasianism presents a distinct civilizational perspective. Even revolutionary Marxism has a clear, if debatable, theory of historical progression that argues why capitalism needs to be replaced. Regardless of your view on these ideologies, and I personally find most of them lacking under critical analysis, they explain why someone should adopt their worldview, not just what they promise to deliver.

To me, much of the discourse around Eurofederalism can sometimes feel like a policy objective wrapped in the European identity thing. Statements like “We believe in strong institutions, human rights, and shared sovereignty” sound right, but what is the foundation behind these beliefs? Is it based on Kantian perpetual peace, Popper’s anti-utopianism, or a more detailed argument about why national sovereignty might be unnecessary in today’s world? We need to choose a perspective and defend it. Right now, federalist speeches could often be replaced with generic center-left technocratic discussions without losing much of their point.

This is not just a matter of aesthetics, it has real-world implications(especially among young intellectuals who are not falling for simple ideas). Consistent ideologies tend to attract more followers because they provide a sense of narrative, inner logic, a story that explains history, identifies challenges, and presents a vision for the future. If federalism cannot clearly express its own foundational principles, it risks falling behind movements that can, even if those competing ideologies fail under closer examination. Why? Because politics is not only about being logically consistent, it is also about offering people a worldview that gives meaning to their choices(Yes, I’m aware of the Euro-federalists’ meta-game, and that we’re supposed to have a whole host of federalist parties with different values. But you must understand that the very idea that we need a single state must be one that appeals to people far more, because traditionalistic ideas in Europe, for example, often come with anti-European and nationalistic narratives, and I'm sure we are not able to change this).

I do not think we need to create a mythos for federalism. Instead, we should aim for the opposite: a clear, testable, and philosophically grounded argument explaining why shared sovereignty and institutional pluralism are preferable to both national fragmentation and excessive centralization. This argument should be strong enough to withstand repeated questioning and not collapse into the answer “because it is obviously better and btw Russia/America wants conquer us one by one".

Honestly, I do think there is a way to make the inclusion of Odin in a future Atreus game possible while keeping Ragnarok intact and quite frankly, it might turn out to become one of the best character relationships in the whole series. Specifically, imagine that when Odin's soul marble was destroyed his soul did not vanish, it was not saved either. Instead, Odin's soul became dispersed, scattered. Pieces of it attach to Atreus through the giant magic associated with souls, masks, prophecy, and all those things.

This Odin would not be physically reborn. Instead, this Odin will only manifest as a voice or a presence in Atreus' mind. Furthermore, the important detail here is that neither of them would particularly like that development. Odin would have used and betrayed Atreus, while the latter would be stuck with the former forever. And now, Atreus wouldn't even have a moment of respite and solitude because of having Odin comment on his actions.

Odin might also view Atreus as naive and overly emotional. In other words, he might think that Atreus is entirely unprepared for what life actually is. Now, consider that this relationship alone would serve as the core of the game, basically Atreus's Mimir. Atreus wants to do good for people, to trust others, believe in reconciliations and understanding. And Odin would destroy it every single time. When Atreus attempts to show some mercy, Odin reminds him about the risks. When Atreus trusts another person, Odin reminds him how fragile trust can turn out to be and how easily it can be betrayed. Not because Odin is "evil for the sake of evil" but because he really believed paranoia saved his life for ages.

This is how it would hurt Atreus so much. Slowly, he will discover how easy it is to confuse wisdom with cynicism. Odin's view of the world didn't fall out of thin air; it was built on fear, paranoia, obsession with control and the worst experiences of centuries of dealing with gods and mortals.

Old Odin was always occupied with moving around, manipulating other people, having armies, ravens, and the ultimate power. He could occupy his mind with so many thoughts and actions he never needed to stop and think. But now? No real power and no capacity for influence or shaping events.

And perhaps surprisingly, Atreus might become the first person who would ever say anything truly honest to him. With time I think Odin would see many things he spent centuries ignoring. Particularly through Atreus, who still harbors hope after witnessing horrors beyond imagining. While mocking hope constantly, I believe Odin would be drawn to it subconsciously, as well. Odin shouldn't have a wholesome relationship with Atreus, nor become suddenly kind or friendly. Odin should remain manipulative, arrogant, embittered, and damaged in many ways. But with time, little by little, some cracks might appear. When Odin realizes Atreus’ compassion is reminiscent of Thor. Moments when he comes to grips with the fact that Baldur had been ruined long before Odin cursed him.

Moments when he comes to terms with the fact that Frigg stopped loving him because he viewed everyone as an extension of his own fear. And perhaps the hardest lesson that all his wisdom didn't make him wise. Especially I would like to see this game questioning if redemption is possible for Odin. Forgiveness? No. Justifying what he did? Absolutely not. It's asking if a person responsible for countless deaths is capable of gaining true understanding right before dying. It would result in a powerful end.

The whole game, Atreus tries to rid himself of Odin for good. He views him as a burden, a parasite, a painful memory. However, in the end, Odin transforms enough to finally comprehend what letting go of your past truly entails. Instead of Atreus forcing Odin away, Odin himself would ask to be let go to Helheim. For the first time in his existence, Odin makes the only choice he was scared of making - to reflect about his life decisions.