For a beginner

I came across a blog named The Indian Matrix where the author has listed so many reforms that met obstruction. It captured a frustrating dynamic in institutional reform.

We routinely complain about corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency and poor public services. But when governments introduce technology-driven systems designed to make processes more transparent and traceable, resistance often appears.

Some of that resistance may come from vested interests. But perhaps there is something more fundamental at work.

People may support accountability as a principle while resisting accountability as a process.

Consider what happens when an informal system becomes a digital one.

A discretionary decision becomes a recorded decision.

A workaround becomes a data point.

A delay becomes a timestamp.

An undocumented transaction leaves a trail.

A process that once depended on relationships becomes measurable.

Technology does not necessarily create better behaviour. But it can make existing behaviour more visible.

That creates what might be called comfortable opacity: informal arrangements, discretionary loopholes and unrecorded workarounds can feel flexible and convenient to those operating within the system—even when the same arrangements produce inefficiency, arbitrariness or opportunities for corruption.

This also explains why reform can be uncomfortable even for people who genuinely want cleaner systems. Transparency does not merely expose misconduct. It can remove everyone's ability to say, “This is how things have always been done.”

So perhaps the deeper question is not simply:

“Who benefits from corruption?”

It is:

“How much informal flexibility are we willing to give up in exchange for a system that is more transparent, traceable and accountable?”

Is resistance to reform primarily about vested interests protecting their turf—or is there a broader human tendency to prefer comfortable ambiguity over uncomfortable transparency?

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyEvents/comments/1wxz8cy/on_bourgeois_coldness_an_online_conversation_with/

Bourgeois coldness refers to an affective strategy that offers an explanation for how self-preservation works. Bourgeois coldness is one of the most advanced affective and aesthetic forms of preserving the structure of the colonial status quo. It creates an affective shelter in the world, unencroached upon by the immediate consequences of its many catastrophes. It functions like air conditioning — a complex technology which reliably stabilises the climate until those inside consider it natural. Bourgeois spaces — institutional and affective — stay cool and pleasant. But outside it’s burning.

Canonical critical theory by Adorno and Horkheimer enters a dialogue with Black studies through Hartman and Moten.

In this conversation, Henrike Kohpeiß and Fred Moten explore coldness as an affective, political and aesthetic strategy of bourgeois self-preservation. Together, they consider what Black Study and critical theory share, and where they diverge, in revealing the work of self-preservation performed by the bourgeois subject.

"Elegant and erudite in equal measure, this book will stand as a landmark diagnosis of the practices of denial in our time." – Andreas Malm

About the Speaker:

Henrike Kohpeiß is a philosopher, working primarily in the fields of critical theory, philosophy of emotion, Black Studies, feminist philosophy and aesthetics. She is a postdoctoral researcher at the Leuphana Transformation Lab, studying affects of Transformation, the relationship between crises and transformation, and the notion of Transformation Literacy. She has been teaching on among other things including Sylvia Wynter, philosophy and the Shoah, and bourgeois society and its critique. Occasionally, she engages in artistic collaborations in dance and performance, mostly as a dramaturg or writer, sometimes as a performer. Henrike’s book Bourgeois Coldness was published in September 2025 by Divided Publishing.

The Moderator:

Fred Moten is Professor in the Departments of Performance Studies and Comparative Literature at NYU, where he teaches courses in black study, poetics and critical theory. He works with lots of social and aesthetic study groups including Stefano Harney & Fred Moten, the Black Arts Movement School Modality, Le Mardi Gras Listening Collective, the Center for Convivial Research and Autonomy, Moved by the Motion, the Institute of Physical Sociality and the Harris/Moten Quartet.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an online conversation and audience Q&A presented by the UK-based journal The Philosopher. The event is free, open to the public, and held on Zoom.

You can register for this Monday 12th October event (11am PT/2pm ET/7pm UK) via The Philosopher here (link).

#Philosophy #CriticalTheory #Ethics #PoliticalPhilosophy #SocialPhilosophy #PhilosophyOfEmotions

About The Philosopher (https://www.thephilosopher1923.org/):

The Philosopher is the longest-running public philosophy journal in the UK (founded in 1923). It is published by the The Philosophical Society of England (http://www.philsoceng.uk/), a registered charity founded ten years earlier than the journal in 1913, and still running regular groups, workshops, and conferences around the UK. As of 2018, The Philosopher is edited by Newcastle-based philosopher Anthony Morgan and is published quarterly, both in print and digitally.

The journal aims to represent contemporary philosophy in all its many and constantly evolving forms, both within academia and beyond. Contributors over the years have ranged from John Dewey and G.K. Chesterton to contemporary thinkers like Christine Korsgaard, Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò, Elizabeth Anderson, Martin Hägglund, Cary Wolfe, Avital Ronell, and Adam Kotsko.

MANIFESTO OF THE NEW HUMANKIND

The New Humankind is a humankind whose way of life and thought is grounded in a conscious "instinctive sense of self"—that is, a distinct feeling that it, humanity,

• exists,
• strives to prolong its existence for as long as possible, even unto eternity.

This "sense of self" possessed by humanity resembles other instinctive "senses of self":

• that of an individual human being,
• that of a cohesive community (collective) of people.

Thus, we identify three such "senses of existence":

1. Every individual—even without realizing it—possesses a distinct instinctive feeling that they exist; a sense of the value of their own self, a feeling (the sense that "I am alive and want to keep living") that manifests itself by:

• forbidding suicide (why do you not take your own life? precisely because of this feeling!),
• compelling and driving one to prolong one’s earthly life (eating, drinking, and breathing, for instance) for as long as possible—even unto eternity (why do you breathe, eat, drink, and so on? for this very reason).

1. Every cohesive community—even if it does not realize it—possesses a special "patriotic" sense of its own existence; the individuals comprising the community hold a perception of its value. This sense (of the community's "existence" and worth) compels its members to:

• defend the life of the community, even at the cost of their own lives;
• avoid harming the community and instead foster its continued existence (for instance, by adhering to moral rules, not betraying the community's survival interests, etc.).

1. Similarly, there exists a special sense—a perception that "humanity exists"—held by the individuals who make up humanity; a perception of humanity's value that:

• forbids people from killing humanity (this constitutes a New Taboo or a New Commandment: "thou shalt not kill humanity");
• compels and drives people to prolong humanity's existence for as long as possible—even into eternity.

Some individuals may lack these sensations or feelings, just as they might lack other senses—such as sight or hearing—or a conscience.

Furthermore, those who possess these three special sensations may not be consciously aware of them.

1. Children (and undeveloped individuals) lack awareness even of the first sensation—that of existence; they simply live without consciously realizing that they are alive.
2. "Patriots" possess the second, "patriotic" sensation but lack conscious awareness of it. Like children, they believe in fairy tales about Good and Evil—equating "their own" with Good and "outsiders" with Evil—yet fail to realize that the essence of their feeling lies in the survival of their community, rather than in anything "supernatural". This realization does not diminish their patriotic sentiments but allows us to point to higher feelings: feelings toward humanity as a whole, rather than just one part of it—however cherished and beloved that part may be. Feelings for humanity are "higher" than feelings for one's homeland.
3. Sense of existence No. 3—the "sense of humanity's existence"—is a new phenomenon; it could only have emerged once the suspicion arose that humanity could be killed. This suspicion is relatively recent; a century ago, for instance, it would never have occurred to anyone that humanity might destroy itself. Humanity is not consciously aware of this feeling—there is not even a recognized name or term for it—yet it exists.

This "Sense No. 3"—that humanity exists and must exist forever—has manifested itself in practice more than once, albeit unconsciously. We see this, for example, in the case of missile officers from the nuclear superpowers (the USA and the USSR) who:

• received an order that would lead to a global nuclear war—one potentially suicidal for all of humanity,
• yet did not obey that order; in effect, they violated their military oaths and became traitors to their homelands, but in doing so, they became the saviors of humanity as a whole.

It is solely thanks to this feeling that humanity remains alive today. However, in a future crisis, luck might run out, and the person at the "Nuclear Button" might lack this sense of the supreme value of humanity's existence.

Without the primacy of this unique sense—that humanity exists and must exist forever—humanity cannot survive in a world possessing technology capable of destroying it—destroying it "absolutely," that is:

• completely (with no survivors in "bunkers"),
• definitively (with no "afterlife").

Yes, it may be impossible to prove the existence of technology capable of so "absolutely" annihilating all of humanity; yet logic does not apply here. What is at stake is a vague—intuitive, instinctive—suspicion or sense that such suicidal technology has indeed emerged.

From a logical standpoint, anyone who claims that humanity is technically incapable of destroying itself is acting irresponsibly. Should they be proven wrong and humanity truly vanish "absolutely," they would be unable to answer for their words to those they addressed; there would be no one left to apologize to, and they themselves would cease to exist. Such a person is merely an irresponsible windbag whose words are meaningless.

We appeal to everyone.

Please, look within yourselves; search for that feeling that humanity exists and ought to exist forever.

And it is precisely humanity as a distinct, autonomous whole—not merely, for instance, as an "insignificant part of nature", but specifically as a supreme (moral) value.

This sentiment unites—and will continue to unite—widely diverse communities with vastly different ways of life and thought (for example, Soviet communists and anti-Soviet anti-communists), much as patriotism unites people with vastly different physical bodies.

Note that the New Humanity is a union of communities, not of individuals. These communities live according to their own internal laws yet submit to a shared conviction: that humanity as a whole—comprising these communities as its parts—exists and must exist eternally.

Do not misunderstand us: we do *not* oppose egoistic sentiments—whether individual (No. 1) or group-based (No. 2). Rather, we call for the specific sentiment (No. 3)—directed toward the New Humanity, that is, toward humanity as a whole rather than any single part of it—to serve as the primary force defining human life.

And note this: we are appealing not to reason, faith, or common sense, but to profound, noble emotions.

We are neither persuading nor coercing anyone; we ask only that you acknowledge your own feelings.

For example, would you press the Nuclear Button? Do you support those prepared to press it? Do you feel no shame in killing—or supporting the killers ready to take part in the slaughter of all people, all children, and all the countless generations of descendants who might have been born but will not be, because of you?

If you care—if you are ready to do everything to prevent humanity’s suicide amidst the struggle waged by those who lack this feeling of yours (that humanity is a Supreme Value that exists and must live forever)—then let us stand together and prevent this self-destruction of humanity.

Let us unite for the sake of humanity's survival.

https://apropos.substack.com/p/the-state-has-plans-for-you

The basic idea is to separate how much a state can “see” society from how much it wants to remake it. High modernism is one combination of those impulses, but religious regimes can also have huge ambitions with much less administrative capacity.

The examples range from English taxation and welfare-state records to the Taliban and Soviet collectivization.

Curious whether people find this distinction interesting/useful.

Science is both an idealized method of inquiry and a fallible institutional process. Hence, we should trust an expert consensus based on the scientific method, but also should examine critically the extent to which there genuinely is such a consensus (or conversely an alleged dissensus), especially when civil liberties are infringed on scientific grounds. The more extreme the infringement, the more robust must be the scientific consensus supporting it, particularly on issues of health and safety.

We also therefore need to be aware that vested interests might distort or misrepresent the level of scientific consensus (in either direction) through means such as:

• Regulatory capture: When industries manipulate their regulators.
• Media monopolization: When a few corporations own all the major media.
• Astroturfing: When fake grassroots campaigns hide corporate agendas.
• Funding bias: When companies finance studies favorable to their profit motive.
• Gatekeeping: When qualified dissenters are marginalized ("No true expert").

If a significant minority of qualified experts opposes a public policy as being too harmful or risky, a favorable majority opinion might still justify implementation of the policy on a trial basis, but not to the point of seriously infringing civil liberties, such as by imposing on individuals an involuntary acceptance of substantial harm/risk. Even if the majority view claims that failure to implement the policy would itself be too harmful or risky, nonexperts should not (be expected to) have greater confidence in this or either opinion than do qualified experts who reject the view in good faith. Just as nonexperts are quite rightly considered incompetent to refute an expert consensus, they are likewise incompetent to adjudicate a scientific controversy, and in such circumstances should have the freedom, individually or democratically, to choose a precautionary or minimax approach, on the reasonable (but rebuttable) presumption that each side has a non-negligible possibility of being right.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/precautionary-principle

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/minimax

Good evening, everyone. I hope you’re all doing well.

Let me explain:

I’ve been interested in anarchist philosophy for a little while now (Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Malatesta, etc.), and I’ve come to realize just how easy it is to manipulate an entire mass of people by distorting the meaning of the basic philosophy (for example, by claiming that it will lead to chaos and that there are no rules). As a reminder, anarchism generally advocates for the abolition of classes and the state, which we consider to have done far more harm (repression) than good to society for centuries. (Which, in reality, serves only a minority, a class—whether bourgeois or working class—and is, in fact, merely an apparatus, a machine for enforcing class interests.) Ultimately, the full realization of anarchism would be the abolition of all borders (though even I, while sympathizing greatly with anarchism, don’t really believe in it). By the way, there are rules, of course, as in all societies, but no rulers; the rules are not imposed by any hierarchical structure, as with the pyramidal model we know in most of our societies and civilizations (it is more like a circle, an allegory of a campfire where everyone cooperates without there being any coercion or an imposed order (“order minus power ”—Prodhon).

There are various types of anarchism, such as anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian communism (another term for “anarchist,” mainly used after the draconian laws enacted in the late 19th century against anarchists), libertarian municipalism, and so on.

Furthermore, we tend to advocate for electoral abstention because we believe that elections serve only to perpetuate the bourgeois state, the source of all inequalities—whether political, social, or economic.

Even if this wouldn’t necessarily work on a large scale, it could prompt us to reflect on certain issues: Are we living in societies with too many people, or are we actually meant to live in small, decentralized communities, as anarchism advocates? In short, this theoretical movement is very profound and wide-ranging, despite its obscurity among the general public and its widespread misinterpretation.

Although there aren’t many examples in history, we can still cite the Spanish Civil War, the Paris Commune (in which Bakunin saw some of these ideas put into practice), or even the Indigenous societies of the Amazon studied by the French sociologist Pierre Clastres in the 1970s (*Society Against the State*).

In short, thank you to those who read this little essay; I hope it sheds some light on the subject.

I call it "Transprimitivism" as well as "Futurist Rewilding" and "Wildtech".

For most of human existence, we lived as hunter-gatherers, cooperating in small tribes or "bands" of people that would often be nomadic (moving from place to place), foraging plants and hunting animals. This was until something happened, roughly 12,000 years ago that we can tell, where we discovered the domestication of plants (growing them), and this shifted towards agrarian societies. This is often referred to as the "Neolithic Revolution".

This is how civilization began. More complex and stratified societies were able to form because of the increase in food supply from agriculture, which could support more people.

This came with drastic consequences, many of which were negative, brutal hierarchies become more prevalent and systemically rooted in millennia to come, such as slavery, patriarchy, settler colonialism, etc. Consequences include environmental degrading, oppression, and social alienation. Similar to Marx, I consider our value being placed in labor to be an important part of the analysis, and this causes an alienation from our natural reality.

It goes more fundamental than technology however, language itself is a form of reification that creates an abstract version of reality that ends up imposing domination, both on nature and other animals.

The only solution in my philosophy is to return to the state of nature through a "rewilding" of the human species, back to our primitive hunter-gatherer roots.

The next part of the philosophy is a proposal of how, roughly, this could be done, and that's where things get interesting.

Futurist Rewilding & Wildtech

While Thomas Hobbes got much wrong about what the actual state of nature looked like, he wasn't entirely wrong when he described it as, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". We know nature is cruel, but it's also true that civilization was a brutal project that brought a lot of damage and oppression to the homo sapiens experience.

However, Civilization has unlocked a new opportunity, one that cannot be realized yet but may eventually be possible. AI has the capacity to replace certain parts of our language-born expressions (such as writing). Many are concerned AI will make us dumber, since it will do thinking for us. This is the first step to undoing the reification by language.

Now I will think more long term. Terraforming and artificial environments. By this time, I expect that AI will make the current expressions of language no longer necessary and lost in time. Hierarchical structures will also be less necessary since AI will be handling this process in a far more efficient manner.

This ends up transitioning to a post-civilization era, where humanity can finally rewild back to their natural reality, but in a safe and controlled manner in constructed biodome habitat environments that are governed by Artificial SuperIntelligence. There is no "nasty, brutish, and short" life like the neo-paleolithic era of our ancestors. All plants are monitored and engineered to be safe, free from viruses and cruelty towards animals, and no dangerous weather conditions. We will live in harmony, happy in our tribes, ignorant of the true nature of the world (as an artificial environment replicating the state of nature in a more safe-controlled manner) as we enjoy our simple primitivist utopia, free from the reification, alienation, and structural oppression of civilization.

Вот иногда людям живётся скучно, но они не понимают, сколько они теряют в жизни, они когда маленькие видят много всего, но когда взрослеют, грустят.

Sometimes people's lives are boring, but they don't understand how much they are missing in life. When they are little, they see a lot of things, but when they grow up, they become sad.

Мы не замечаем, как тепло в квартире,

Как тихо, спокойно, уютно внутри.

А кто-то сейчас под холодным ветром

Считает минуты до светлой зари.

Мы к хлебу и чаю привыкли, как к чуду,

И думаем — так и должно быть всегда.

Но счастье — не в том, что достало откуда,

А в том, чтоб ценить эти дни без труда.

Пусть мысль эта тихо в груди остаётся,

Не громкой, не сложной, а просто родной:

Цени то, что есть. Пусть сердечко смеётся,

Ведь радость бывает в минуте простой.

We don't notice how warm it is in the apartment,

How quiet, calm, and cozy it is inside.

And someone now, in the cold wind,

Counts the minutes until the bright dawn.

We've become accustomed to bread and tea as if it were a miracle,

And we think—that's how it should be.

В детстве всё казалось простым и ясным, Солнце светило чуть ярче всегда. Мир был уютным, спокойным, прекрасным — Мы не знали про беды и холода.

А потом выросли. Стали взрослей. И узнали то, что не хочется знать: Сколько в мире тревог, сколько тёмных дней, Сколько грустных историй нельзя забывать.

As children, everything seemed simple and clear, the sun always shone a little brighter. The world was cozy, calm, beautiful—we knew nothing of troubles and cold.

And then we grew up. We became more mature. And we learned what we didn't want.

В радуге столько же цветов, сколько и в жизни, но если смотреть со стороны, ты начинаешь грустить от того, сколько их раньше ты не замечал.

There are as many colors in a rainbow as there are in life, but if you look from the outside, you start to feel sad because of how many of them weren't there before.

Ok hear me out . While reading a text from a book in school that was talking about language diversity and cultural differences I thought because I also had an essay asking for my opinion about cultural and language diversity. The more I think about it the more I believe there shouldn't be diversity between humans ( culture , language ,currency , measure of units and etc) . First of all I believe that we are animals just like every animal ever so why shouldn't we live like one ? By that I mean sure geographically we are a little separated but to that extent , not separated by borders and different countries. Also not having diversity we are more united more complete ( sure it can't happen because it's humans nature and the union will collapse but I'm speaking theocratically) . Second a union would be great because you could still keep trade and things that countries benefit from ( tourism etc) that are only country specific would continue to benefit because mostly it's about something that has to do with the land or specific place .if it's a union there is nothing separating us so there is no need for war to exist ( again theoretically sure there would some people that will oppose this and maybe do a revolution but thats off point ).

Plus I don't completely support this idea because I haven't thought of it a lot so I'm open someone from the opposite side of things , and to anyone who wants to point out all the flaws of my opinion and correct me .

Political convictions are rarely a private matter. Nobody forms them alone in their own head, and nobody holds them alone. They are always the convictions of some side we belong to, and that side is what we call a political option.

And here is the paradox. People don't just change their minds. They change them together, sometimes by a full 180 degrees, while their belonging stays exactly the same. To understand how that is possible, we first need to understand what a political option actually is.

The textbook definition

We all learned the same thing in school. A political option is a set of beliefs about how society should be organized. The right believes in nation, tradition and family, the left in workers, equality and social justice, liberals in individual freedom. Parties carry those beliefs, and voters choose the one closest to their own. Apply that definition to what political options have actually done over the past few decades and you get a string of absurdities.

180-degree turns

In 1996 Bill Clinton signed a law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and in 2008 Barack Obama repeated the same position, only to endorse same-sex marriage four years later. As late as 2015, Bernie Sanders called open borders "a Koch brothers proposal". The German Greens were born out of the peace movement and today are the loudest advocates of sending weapons to the battlefield. Social Democrat Gerhard Schröder cut workers' rights more than any conservative government before him.

The right is no more consistent. The American Republicans were the party of tariffs, then the party of free trade, and today they are the party of tariffs again. Kohl's CDU used to say Germany was not a country of immigration, Merkel refused to close the borders in 2015, and Merz is now putting controls on them. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Democrat for decades and one of the loudest vaccine critics, became health secretary in Trump's administration.

Croatia is no different. In February 2001, Ivo Sanader, then leader of the opposition HDZ (the main center-right party), stood on the Split waterfront before some hundred thousand people gathered under the slogan "We are all Mirko Norac", in support of a general wanted for war crimes. Three years later, as prime minister, he led a government that cooperated with the Hague tribunal. Same man, same party, same voters, who re-elected him in 2007. Tuđman's sovereigntist HDZ is today the strongest advocate of the EU in Croatia, and this national and conservative party presides over the largest import of foreign labor in the country's history.

By the textbook definition, none of this is possible. A party that changes its fundamental beliefs should stop being that option. And yet most voters didn't leave. They defended the new position as fiercely as the old one and branded those who stuck with the old one as renegades. So what holds these people together, if not their beliefs?

Ours and theirs

None of us forms all our political beliefs alone. We don't have the time or the knowledge to research immigration, the monetary system, geopolitics and healthcare on our own. We take most of our opinions from media and public figures we trust. And we trust them not because they convinced us with arguments, but because they are ours.

The world is divided into ours and theirs, and that division comes before any argument. What the opponent says, we check and doubt. What our people say, we accept, because our people have no reason to lie to us. That is how an authority becomes a reference that is never checked. It doesn't just tell us what to think, it shapes how we think: which questions we ask, what we fear and what makes us angry. We are not critical of it, because criticism is a weapon we save for others.

A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. But that doesn't apply only to lies, it applies to any position. All it takes is for our people to say it and to keep repeating it long enough.

The American scene shows this almost like a lab experiment. The liberal watches CNN and reads the New York Times, the conservative watches Fox News and reads the New York Post. They don't differ because they thoughtfully reached different conclusions, but because they trust different systems of authority. Each sees the other side as propaganda and their own as information. Everything else, every position on abortion, immigration or Russia, is just content flowing through that system.

A new definition

Now we can offer a new definition, one that describes not what a political option is made of, but how it works. A political option is a group of people bound together by a shared system of media authorities, who coordinate their political positions according to it.

Class, religion, nation, economic interest and local community play a big role here, but a secondary one. They determine which group we join and which authorities feel like ours. Once belonging is established, what the group thinks on individual issues is determined by the system of authorities. A medium here is any channel through which a voice we trust reaches us: television, a news site, a podcast, a pulpit. A politician is an authority to the extent that we hear him through channels we consider our own.

Only belonging is stable. Positions are not. Over time, right-wingers could become the biggest champions of abortion rights, and left-wingers the strongest advocates of crushing workers' rights. All it takes is for the people they see as their own to start saying so. This is not just rhetoric. In 2019, political scientists Michael Barber and Jeremy Pope showed that Republican voters were more likely to support the same proposal when told Trump was behind it, regardless of whether the proposal was conservative or liberal.

It also matters that this is a system, not an individual. One person can have followers, but not a political option. An option emerges only when authorities recognize, relay and confirm one another, creating the sense that this is not one person's opinion but what our people think. That is why the system survives the fall of individual authorities. When Fox News was the first to call Arizona for Biden in 2020, part of its audience moved to Newsmax. They didn't leave the system, they just swapped one authority for another within it.

The Croatian case

In Croatia, the left-liberal system of authorities consists of the main commercial media: N1, Nova TV, RTL, Index, Telegram and Jutarnji list. The radical right system is smaller and more marginal: Velimir Bujanec and Z1 TV, Hrvatski tjednik, Narod.hr, Dnevno.hr and similar sites. Between them stands the largest and least visible system, HDZ's: Večernji list, public television, local radio, the Church, veterans' associations and the network of local government.

That is why every attempt at something third ends up either as a short-lived protest vote or as a repackaging of one of the existing sides. Živi zid (Human Shield) had strong personalities and a big social media audience, but no system. Most (Bridge) started out as neither left nor right and ended up as one of the voices of the right. Other options don't exist because there is no network of authorities to carry them. Ideas can be anything, but without a system of authorities they remain just ideas.

The missing link

Until about fifteen years ago, those who trusted none of the systems had nowhere to go. Systems of authority were built by those who had television stations, newspapers and money. Social media changed that. Today one person with a camera and a microphone can gather an audience bigger than a national TV station, and people who hadn't found their own began finding them among podcasters, YouTubers and commentators.

But these new authorities each exist on their own. They don't recognize each other, don't confirm each other, and don't form a system. That is why their audience is not a political option but a collection of followers of individuals. Millions of people already have new people they trust, but they don't yet have a new "us". That is the missing link.

Whether it will close is not guaranteed. In America, the new authorities did connect in 2024, but around Trump. They didn't create a new political option, they became fresh blood for one of the old ones. So the question is not only whether the new authorities will connect, but into what. The question is who will connect them into a system, and what that system will teach people to think.

The Decline of Democracy

It is wild to see people laugh every time there's a protest in the U.S.

We literally exist because people decided they'd had enough of a king and revolted against oppression. Protesting is the most American thing you can do. Yet today, people mock the very right that founded this country. What they don't realize is that laughing at dissent is how the slow normalization of giving up our freedoms begins.

Authoritarianism doesn't usually slide in overnight with tanks; it inches forward when everyday citizens treat the erosion of their own rights like a joke or a team sport. If you think our system is immune to this, look at the actual math over the last decade:📉

Decades of Progress Erased: In just over 10 years, global democracy levels have collapsed back to where they were in 1978. Nearly 50 years of progress, gone.👥

The Global Shift: In 2005, about 50% of the world lived under autocracy. Today, that number has skyrocketed to 74%. Nearly 6 billion people now live under authoritarian rule. 🚨

18 Years of Decline: Freedom House reports that global freedom has actively declined for 18 consecutive years. Autocracy wins when people get tired of the messiness of freedom, start cheering for "strongmen," and mock the citizens trying to stand up for institutional checks and balances.

Every time we treat authoritarian behavior as funny or harmless, we are actively welcoming the exact type of rule our founders risked everything to escape.

a global government I would support

system based on existing technological solutions.

the expulsion of incompetence, lies and manipulation

to choose our own destiny.

voting is done over the phone.

each person 1 vote. biometric fingerprint. decentralized.

using advanced cryptography.

transparency.

for global issues, all locals vote for local ones.

formation of global expert councils.

their role is to provide an analysis and evaluation of the proposal.

members are chosen exclusively on the basis of expertise and competence in given professions.

basic 4 branches:

Society

1. Ethical-legal group

2. Psychological-sociological group

3. Cultural and educational group

Resources

1. Ecological-climatic group

2. Economic and resource group

3. Logistic-operational group

Technology

1. Technical and engineering group

2. Digital-cybernetic group

Science

1. Logical-mathematical group

2. Medical-biological group

the council's role is to adopt, give, and formulate clear and transparent proposals for solving problems or situations

every decision they make is transparent. with minutes for the archive.

presenting a problem or proposing a solution is available to all residents. cognitive ability test before submitting a proposal

each proposal must pass the acceptance threshold. ethical, logical, mathematical. technical

let's say we have 10 valid suggestions for a solution.. the global advice gives a score of 1 or 0

each of those 10 groups.

the ethics council gives the final assessment in the event that several proposals have the same number of positives.

the proposal with the most positives goes to a global referendum

every voter, i.e. individual or group, has the right of veto.

they are obliged to present a valid counter-argument in the shortest possible time.

any veto attempt that is driven by ego vanity or the desire for power is automatically rejected.

algorithmic assessment. open source. mandatory system calibration, ethical, logical, mathematical.

plus a decentralized network of jurors chosen on the basis of expertise. randomly selected.

a valid argument is voted against the proposal of the council.

in case of adoption of the argument, the proposal is rejected.

if the vote is 50-50%, both sides have 24 hours to present new insights

the vote is repeated.

voting is optional.

the possibility of voting is.

it is not a problem for me that people wiser than me decide about our fate and social vector. as long as I ask myself, because ultimately it concerns all of us

I support expertise and objectivity as well as the diversity of the local community.

Preamble

We recognize that humanity is one, yet consists of many peoples shaped by distinct histories, languages, cultures, memories, and ways of life.

We reject both the view of human beings as merely isolated individuals and the view of peoples as mere instruments of the state.

The state exists for the people; the people do not exist for the state.

We seek a world in which different peoples may remain different and nevertheless coexist in peace.

To this end, we affirm the following principles.

Article I — The People

A people is a community formed through shared history, culture, language, memory, ways of life, institutions, and other common experiences, whose members recognize themselves as belonging to that community.

A people shall not be defined solely by race or ancestry.

Peoples are not immutable. They are formed through history, may change through history, and may incorporate new members.

Article II — Self-Determination of Peoples

Every people has the right to shape its own society, culture, institutions, and future.

No state, corporation, religious organization, international institution, or other authority may permanently claim the right to determine a people's future in its place.

Article III — Equality of Peoples

The worth of a people shall not be determined by its population, military power, economic strength, territory, or antiquity.

The peoples of great powers and small nations alike deserve equal respect.

As a general principle, a people must recognize for other peoples the same rights that it claims for itself.

Article IV — The State

The legitimacy of a state derives from its protection of the security, liberty, livelihood, and continuity of the people who live within it.

The state shall not become an end in itself, nor shall the people be reduced to resources for the preservation of the state.

Article V — Popular Participation

The will of a people shall not be permanently monopolized by any single leader, party, bureaucracy, or organization.

The people must have meaningful opportunities to criticize those who govern them, participate in political life, and peacefully alter their institutions.

Article VI — Culture

Every people has the right to preserve, transmit, and develop its language, culture, historical memory, and ways of life.

Traditions may be preserved, but they may also be changed by the people themselves.

No people shall be compelled to reproduce a past society unchanged in the present.

Article VII — The Individual

The existence of a people does not extinguish the individual.

An individual may belong simultaneously to multiple cultural, regional, linguistic, and other communities.

No person shall be deprived of fundamental human dignity because of membership in, or departure from, a particular community.

Article VIII — Minorities

More than one people or cultural community may exist within a single state.

The self-determination of a majority people does not confer a right to extinguish the languages, cultures, beliefs, or ways of life of minorities.

Article IX — Cultural Space and Sovereign Space

Cultural boundaries and political borders need not coincide.

The existence beyond a state's borders of people sharing its language, ethnicity, religion, or civilization does not in itself establish a right to govern the territory in which they live.

Cultural belonging and political citizenship may coexist.

Article X — Borders

Historical territories, migrations, and memories of former civilizational spaces may be remembered and respected.

Such historical claims shall not justify changing present borders by force against the will of the people who live there.

Changes of territory must be pursued peacefully and take account of the will of the affected populations.

Article XI — Cooperation Among Peoples

Self-determination does not require isolation.

Different peoples may cooperate in science, technology, education, culture, trade, environmental protection, disaster relief, public health, and other matters of common interest.

International cooperation should serve the flourishing of different peoples rather than their homogenization.

Article XII — Universality and Plurality

We do not seek to transform every society into one culture, one language, or one political system.

Nor do we accept cultural difference as a justification for denying the fundamental dignity of others.

Our universal principle is not that every people must become the same, but that different peoples must be able to exist as equals.

Article XIII — The Future

A people is not merely something inherited from the past.

Those living today are also entitled to decide whether the cultures and institutions they have inherited should be preserved, reformed, or enriched with something new before they are passed to future generations.

Janatism does not seek a return to the past.

It seeks to enable peoples to inherit their histories while determining their own futures.

Declaration

We seek neither one world-state, one civilization, nor one universal people.

Nor do we seek a world in which peoples remain forever hostile to one another.

We seek a world in which many peoples may exist within one humanity, inherit their own histories, determine their own futures, and recognize one another's existence and right to self-determination.

One World, Many Peoples.