Eurostars Madrid Congress, June 25th 2025
Epilogue as a prologue
1) Foreign media have found out that Denmark is the first country in the EU to secure the right to own a body and vote. Necessary at a time when it has never been easier to copy with artificial intelligence and spread misinformation and false information, Minister of Culture Jakob Engel-Schmidt wrote on X, attaching an article from the Guardian.
Engel-Schmidt insisted that Denmark would not allow people to walk through a digital copier and be abused for all sorts of purposes. He told the Guardian: In the bill, we agree and send an unequivocal message that everyone has the right to their own body, their own voice and their own facial features, which is clearly not the way the current law protects people from generative AI. According to the Guardian, the new law defines deepfake as a very realistic digital representation of a person, including their appearance and voice. Parodies and satire are excluded from the bill. The new amendment is expected to be voted on this autumn and the proposal would be discussed with EU colleagues when Denmark takes over the presidency of the Council of the European Union in July.
2) The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), founded in 1975, is an intergovernmental body with member states from Asia, Europe and North America. Its observers around the world oversee elections and human rights records by foreign governments, and are often deployed to active war zones and areas of unrest to observe events on the ground. Its officially declared mission is crisis management and conflict prevention. However, the OSCE’s activities in Yugoslavia in the late 1990s and later amply demonstrate its usefulness in fomenting conflicts.
In September 1998, hostilities erupted into all-out war. A UN Security Council resolution of the same month demanded that both sides adhere to the ceasefire. Yugoslav military forces were duly withdrawn from the province – the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) subsequently took advantage of the army’s absence to intensify its bloody rampage, conquer more territories and exterminate the non-Albanian population. A specialized OSCE unit, the Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), was also created to ensure Belgrade’s compliance with the ceasefire. KVM was granted full and undisturbed movement wherever it wished. Their presence proved crucial not only to the KLA’s savage crusade, but also to NATO’s subsequent criminal bombing of Yugoslavia in March-June 1999.[1]
During Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic’s trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, a number of defence and prosecution witnesses – including OSCE veterans – testified about KVM’s malevolent role in laying the groundwork for NATO’s bombing of Belgrade. A Yugoslav Army colonel who suffered from serious health problems as a result of NATO’s illegal use of depleted uranium during the campaign gave extensive insight into how members of the mission routinely and intensively searched Yugoslav military facilities, taking detailed notes at each step.[2]
3) Fast forward to March 2014, when OSCE observers were deployed to Ukraine as the east and south of the country descended into civil war after the Western-orchestrated Maidan coup d’état. Their presence and role in the conflict has hardly been recognized by the mainstream media during their eight years on the ground. They were withdrawn in March 2022 after a full-scale proxy conflict broke out in the country a month earlier.
One could speculate that the mass media coverage of OSCE activities in Donbass stemmed from their observations, which completely undermined the official position of many Western governments, militaries and intelligence services, Ukraine’s own and Western news media.
In October 2018, Alexander Hug, the deputy head of the OSCE local mission, was asked by Foreign Policy for his agency’s official position on Russia’s involvement. Hug emphatically stated that the OSCE had seen no direct evidence of this at all. The article was suspiciously later updated and Hugo’s response was edited.[3]
However, his unplanned initial response is all the more remarkable as it is now clear that the OSCE mission in Ukraine has been heavily compromised and infiltrated by Western powers. Its observers not only failed to record serious abuses and violations of the ceasefire by Kiev, but also provided sensitive information to NATO and Ukrainian forces.
In September 2023, a British OSCE observer was convicted in absentia by a Russian court for providing detailed satellite maps of military facilities operated by NATO’s separatist Luhansk People’s Republic. This espionage allowed Ukrainian forces to carry out precision attacks on these places, resulting in loss of human life and material damage. The former Greek ambassador to Kiev called such intelligence sharing by the OSCE absolutely routine. It is also claimed that the assassination of a Russian OSCE observer in 2017 with a car bomb was carried out deliberately in order to remove him from the mission.
4) Iran wisely is not a member of the OSCE and does not allow its observers access to its territory. However, the organization is keenly interested in Tehran’s alleged nuclear program. In June 2012, an OSCE delegation declared: We can no longer ignore the international security implications posed by a nuclear Iran. It should be further noted that Iran borders OSCE members, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Turkmenistan, and suggested that these states could somehow help neutralize the Islamic Republic’s alleged nuclear ambitions.
Given the recent shocking revelations about the IAEA’s secret agreement with Israel and the deplorable track record of other UN-affiliated intergovernmental organizations such as the OSCE, it is inconceivable that Tehran would be willing to allow any international entity to play a role in mediating its conflict with Israel. All non-Western countries would be wise to follow Iran’s lead.[4] Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi said that Tehran will also have to reconsider its cooperation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Twenty years of transparency and confidence-building over Iran’s peaceful nuclear program have not yielded results and the issue will be addressed he told the New Arab newspaper on Tuesday.
5) The US-built institutions that pretend to serve peace have been proven time and time again to actually be mechanisms of control and infiltration. Pretending the US is a neutral actor is beyond ridiculous and serves the interest of no state trying to maintain its sovereignty. Trump has completely destroyed the credibility of international treaties, especially the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and strengthened America’s reputation as a fraudster.
The credibility of the agency’s global verification system, which was used as a source of information for bomb planning, is being called into question. The fact that Iran’s nuclear facilities under the control of the IAEA have become targets of American and Israeli missiles is an open challenge to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Zakharova said at a press conference on Wednesday. Resolutions of the United Nations nuclear watchdog declare attacks on nuclear facilities as illegal under international law.
The same applies for intentional murdering of scientists and their families, the distribution of drug tablets hidden in bags of flour distributed at aid distribution centres run by the United States and Israel [5] and similar actions aimed at destroying the social fabric and spreading drug addiction among civilians. Last but not least ordering the military to prepare a plan to enforce measures against Iran, which includes maintaining Israel’s air superiority, preventing nuclear advances and missile production, and responding to Iran for supporting terrorist activities against Israel, as Israel Defense Minister Katz said on June 27th. [6]
6) According to the justice portal Mizan, at least 71 people were killed in Israel’s attack on the notorious Evin prison in Tehran, including prison staff, conscripts, prisoners and family members of prisoners. Iranian activists and former inmates reacted with sharp criticism, saying the attack had endangered the lives of political prisoners including several Europeans and mocked their fate.
Digital Rights and HR in times of anthropological war
Annotation
We have been living in times in which the current conflicts in the world represent episodes of anthropological war. Even though it is an officially unsettled term in the academic world and literature. We have been living in times in which the first armament in history has begun, which not only impoverishes us as every armament does, but also does not arm us.
As a result of the described processes, we have been experiencing a systemic crisis of the western concept of human rights in terms of the limitation of freedom of expression, of the election procedures at state, national and personal level and last but not least at the politized juridical level as represented by the ECHR.
The function, the importance of language and its archetype have been removed from educational curricula. The shift from telling truths to telling lies and bullshits results in a stupidity endangering the society. There is no more knowledge of the functions of language between the young generation that we have known since the time of the Prague Linguistic Circle and the kind of unity of language, religion and magic in a specific case in the public life.
Similar applies to the election and appointments of elites, academicians and professionals to participate in the public education, administration and transnational corporate activities. The West continue to promote the narrative that its values are universal and that other civilizations are either backward or even dangerous and extremist while distorting the Confucian tradition as a symbol of authoritarianism.
As nearly all technological inventions are in the hands of a few entrepreneurs who follow their own plans and interests which may not benefit everyone, it is not always possible to talk about sustainable progress. The digital divide and the deficits in safeguarding digital rights prove the thesis.
The change of hegemon is the most sensitive period in international relations, when a major war has to be expected. That is why politics needs an analysis based on relevant facts, which are not only true but also significant, meaning important and selected according to certain criteria. The criteria require knowledge, specific talent and creativity.
The current weakness of society is not only in the knowledge of facts and mathematics, but also in philosophy, which is supposed to help analyse facts. Unfortunately, it is lacking for a number of reasons. One of them is the blind copying of the model and prescriptions made by liberal democracy and the endless educational reforms.
As the traditional Western narratives are in many ways exhausted and fail to find solutions, we need to look for inspiration outside the framework of Western schemes and models.
It seems, that the teachings of Confucius, Buddha, Lao-c´, Kant and even national and folk religions could form the base of the new de-politized model of human rights of which the laws of the nature would be an integral (inseparable) part.
Key words: HR in the West and East, anthropological war, censorship, digital age, rights, divide and the risks, sanctions, geopolitics.
Introduction
We have been living in times in which an armament in history has begun which not only impoverishes us as every armament does, but also does not arm us. It is confusing to consider individual acts of violence and primitive strife as the general precursors of modern warfare. It is wrong to consider war as a necessary consequence of man’s biological nature. There is a threefold question without an answer:
Is the war a breach of peace? Or is the peace a pause in war? What happens to human rights in times of war, which the author calls an anthropological and in which the digitalization supports disinformation methods not only in the West as represented by fragmentation and decontextualization?
In other words, the political puppeteers will only tell you the part that suits them, and without context and the care of your rights, including the human rights.
Anthropological war
It has been more than five years since I have publicly and nearly two decades not publicly used the description of current conflicts in the world as episodes of the anthropological war, even though it is an officially unsettled term in the academic world and literature. Why I do speak publicly about anthropological war today?
Because the anthropology offers one of the easiest explanations for understanding of designations for certain types of conflict: the clash of different cultures, values and ways of life. A conflict between the West and the East, or globalized societies against traditional ones. Even Samuel Huntington (1927-2008) used the term war of civilizations. This is nothing more than a cultural war in which the driving forces are not nation states and ideologies, but civilizations defined by religious, legal and cultural traditions, i.e. values, including human rights.
Anthropologists look at how different groups of people get, prepare and share food, deal with the meaning of different traditions, values and customs. As the anthropologist studies social structures their knowledge offers itself to be abused in peace and war times, as we can see in Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Gaza and now also in Iran.
As an example of abuse may serve the American military Human Terrain System[7], or the USAID and some of the programs offered by the EU which were used in a modified way. They prove that anthropology serves as an effective weapon. Anthropology is about the symbolism, ideology of human nature, the values and issues, such as: What is man, what is his natural identity, gender and role in society? But, also provocative debates in the field of race, colonialism and human rights.
The importance of the function and meaning of the archetypes of language
In the context of war and anthropology it is necessary to know about the function and meaning of the archetypes of languages, psychology and creativity, and the resulting possibilities to manage the internal and external stress, as the individual archetypes usually aren´t in balance and the world has been shaped without our consensus by the digital technologies and gadgets.
American cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926-2006), who is remembered mostly for his strong support for and influence on the practice of symbolic anthropology, borrowed a phrase from Clyde Kluckhohn’s (1905-1960)[8] Mirror of Man (1949, New York, Fawcett)… that culture is the overall way of life of people, social heritage, way of thinking, feeling and belief, abstraction from behaviour, … theory of the actual way of behaviour of a group of people, a storehouse of common knowledge, a set of steady orientation reactions to repetitive problems, learned behaviour… a set of procedures for adapting to the external environment and other people (and also), a condensate of history.
This knowledge led to the writing of The Seventh Function of Language by the French author Laurent Binet (1972)[9]. With it the author held up a mirror to an entire generation, now vanished in time immemorial, radical and anti-establishment rebellious young intellectuals of which many turned later into state bureaucrats and builders of the European Union with all its disease-causing structures. There’s nothing more we can do about it.
It applies without any restrictions to the human rights discussions in the West and in the East in times of anthropological war, of the digital divide and deficits in safeguarding digital rights.
Because the language allows to create a kind of unity of language, religion and magic in specific cases. It should therefore be perceived as an imperialist instrument. English belongs to this category.[10] There is hardly any chance today for the majority of the younger generation of politicians to acquire the necessary knowledge in regard to the main characters of languages: arbitrary, symbolic, systematic, social, creative, modifiable, unique, idiomatic, expressive, implicit and other. And the relation between language, psychology and creativity archetypes.
Further to the said we should know about the preferred language of communication of the political class, the English. We should be interested not only in how, so called elites communicate with each other, but also in how they express their opinions in public and what kind of understanding and feedback they receive or do not receive. This might be of more interest to us than the endless images of politicians and their female counterparts who move among them usually without masks and pretending conversations.
In this context an attention should be paid to the speech of the current president of the US Trump as it seems that he is incomprehensible to a large part of the world also in regard to the HR. The ways in which the president acts and conducts interviews are remarkable. Why remarkable?
Trump’s irony, humour or angry reaction to a partner is illegible, not only because he has been labelled a non-political politician, a man of big business, but also because we forget his years of adolescence, paramilitary and military, in a typically masculine American environment.
At a time of change including the Ukraine and Iran, the pace of which seems to be accelerating, we should not cling to the forms of language petrified by the political class and study the role played by metaphors, metonymy, as well as diction, non-verbal messages, gestures and mimesis as illusions, and images of reality. Then we would understand that simple sentences have more meaning in politics than multi-word memorandums that usually hide the essence of things as also do the texts provided by AI – I my understanding as a multidimensional approximation and the biggest thief in human history. It collects and uses human heritage for the benefit of a few and carries within the possibility of job apocalypse[11] and even bigger abuse of human rights.
International conference on the dialogue of civilizations[12]
In light of the recent international conference on the dialogue of civilizations held in Malaysia on April 15th a fundamental question arises again: How much longer will the West continue to create and maintain negative stereotypes about “non-Western” civilizations?
In an interview with the Observer, Professor Daniel A. Bell, dean of the Faculty of Political Science and Public Administration at Shantung University (Hong Kong) and a respected researcher of the Chinese Confucian tradition, sharply criticized the Western tradition of stigmatization and scandalization of both Confucianism and Islam. He pointed out that it is precisely this long-term media and political agenda that creates the trap of civilizational clash that prevents any sincere cooperation and dialogue between different cultures.
This supports the authors observations that most Western discussions about other civilizations and human rights have been, and still are, marked by a historical complex of self-superiority, combined with a tendency to reshape others according to Western standards and ignoring in full that before the 21st century Western intercultural dialogues were often conducted in the role of religious or political missionaries whose goal was to convert others to their faith.[13]
This dialogue is in fact a monologue that does not take into account the possibility of mutual enrichment. A typical example is the Jesuit Matteo Ricci (1552-1610)[14], who managed to get closer to the Chinese environment, but his goal was always to convert the Chinese to Christianity and used Confucianism only as a means. Although there were exceptions, such as Richard Wilhelm (1873-1930)[15], they were rather exceptions that proved the rule and thesis.
We should therefore understand and accept that no civilization or a human rights concept can dominate the others and putting one’s own opinion above is always a path to a dead end.
International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations
On 7 June 2024 the General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/78/286, co-sponsored by over 80 countries, declaring 10 June the International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations. The United Nations celebrated on Monday the first International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations. This high-level event was co-hosted by China’s Permanent Mission to the UN and the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. The celebration brought together diplomats, cultural leaders and civil society representatives from across the globe.
Speaking via video, Foreign Minister Wang Yi emphasized the urgency of intercultural dialogue amid current geopolitical instability. Dialogue among civilizations is a bond of peace, a driver of development and a bridge of friendship, he said. Wang called for upholding equality among civilizations, promoting exchanges among civilizations, and advancing the progress of civilizations. He also highlighted the Global Civilization Initiative, proposed in 2023 by President Xi Jinping, as part of the country’s efforts to build a community with a shared future for humanity.
Western propaganda: Islam equals extremism, Confucianism equals authoritarianism
The long-standing Western strategy of associating Islamic civilization exclusively with extremism and violence, while Confucianism is portrayed in the Western media as synonymous with authoritarianism are the real obstacles on the way for understanding the background and the current state of human rights in the East.[16] There is no doubt, that the West systematically ignores the true richness of eastern traditions, their ability to inspire harmony, justice and social cohesion. Long-term media bias has real political consequences, as it breeds fear, increases mistrust and prevents mutual learning. In this way, the West purposefully creates an atmosphere of civilizational clash and prevents alternative narratives so much needed in times of the anthropological war, digital divide and AI as a multidimensional approximation and thief.
Author´s practical experience from Malaysia, Indonesia, China and other countries allows to advocate for a model of dialogue that is not based on confrontation, but on mutual respect and inspiration. The Chinese history and the experience of blending Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism and folk religions stand for a tradition of openness to the other.[17]
This openness was crucial to the development of Confucian philosophy and also the Buddhism during the Song period, but also in periods when there was a real dialogue with the Islamic community. I mention it as there are an estimated 17–25 million Muslims in China, less than 2% of the total population. Hui Muslims are the most numerous ethnic Group. The greatest concentration of Muslims resides in northwestern China’s Xinjiang autonomous region, permanently criticized by the West for infringing HR by the Chinese government.
In the context of this seminar, the current situation in the world and the visions of president Xi it is advisable to study the intellectual connection between two great personalities: the Confucian thinker Xunzi and the Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun. Both were looking for answers to the question of how to maintain social cohesion in times of chaos. And both pointed out that no theories or ideals can replace the everyday cultivation of morality and work for social harmony. The globalized world is facing the same problems as in the past: growing economic inequalities, the climate crisis and the identitarian conflicts of individuals and nations.
As the traditional Western narratives are in many ways exhausted and fail to find solutions, we need to look for inspiration outside the framework of Western schemes and models.
Islam and Confucianism profess that a happy life is a life of harmony and compassion, not extreme individualism. This is where they can be allies against those who promote violence, individualistic ruthlessness and exploitation of the weak. It is the essence of the president Xi concept of Happy Society (幸福社会, Xìngfú Shèhuì).
This vision emphasizes that China should not only be economically strong, but also socially harmonious and just. It includes improving the living standards of the population, strengthening the social system and reducing inequalities.
In practice, this means strengthening educational, cultural and civic contacts and cooperation, but also the promotion of such values in politics and public discourse in times of digital divide, risks and opportunities. It is in a contrary to the Western narrative of the clash of civilizations, which stands for a politically motivated trap to ensure the continuation of Western hegemony.
In the context of the above said we also should consider the Chinese dream (中国梦, Zhōngguó Mèng): This vision focuses on the fact that China should achieve prosperity and a strong position in the world. The Chinese Dream involves not only economic growth, but also the strengthening of China’s national pride, culture, and political role.
Last but no least I wish to mention the visions of Six hopes (六个希望, Liù Gè Xīwàng): The principles of the Six hopes include improving the living standards of the population, achieving a higher level of civilization, and harmonious relations within the Chinese society.
There is a question: How to realize the mentioned visions in a new epoch of digital age in which the human rights are shaped by techno-oligarchs, in which digital tools already empowered millions and at the same time introduced new challenges and threats not only to human rights?
A simplified answer offers a lead to a solution: Only by insisting on equality and mutual inspiration we can escape the trap of Western narratives that serve to perpetuate the division of the world. But there is more to be resolved: Understanding technologies and geopolitics.
Technology, AI and geopolitics
In the age of the AI, digital economy and rights technological inventions are in the hands of a few entrepreneurs. And as they follow their own plans and interests this may not benefit the society at all. If the few entrepreneurs were to succeed it would be a jackpot for them and their shareholders. But at the cost with a huge impact on society. In general, I call the AI a multidimensional approximation and the biggest thief in human history. Why? It uses and processes all human inheritance for the profit of a few and supposingly it allows benefiting all, but at a very hight price: a total control of thinking, creating and freedom for doing mistakes.
For the above reasons it is not always possible to talk about progress. Many inventions have helped people – they have brought new work tasks, increased the productivity of human labour and brought higher wages. No one can dispute this. But we have also gone through many episodes when it was different and when technology only replaced human work without creating other places of appropriate quality. The first industrial revolution first led to the decline of the middle class, and unfortunately similar consequences can be seen now with digital transformation in recent decades. The consequences also have an impact on geopolitics. Why?
If technological progress is to lead to widely shared prosperity it needs to be directed there first, rather than waiting decades for a positive outcome. This is a clear political task. You can’t just let the market, which in reality doesn’t exist, decide or rely on the genius of a few individuals. Maybe it will turn out with them that luck will smile on us.
But given the nature of the economic system based on expansion, debt and deficit of moral and ethics, the selection of so-called elites and the variety of addictions I see around we cannot rely on technology only in times in which an oligarch with vision has an access to the government, to the president or to the money. The oligarchs make agreements, shape the world according to their own ideals, and disregard the needs of the public including the human rights.
Marc Andreessen (1971)[18] says in his Capitalist Manifesto[19]: Get out of our way, don’t regulate anything, and the result will be wonderful technologies that will change the world and bring everyone a long and happy life. But the history shows that it can all turn out completely differently[20]. What do we see today? There is no time within this seminar venue to analyse the consequences of a sincere vision. Therefore, in short:
First: When we evaluate the digital transformation as a whole, not only the original vision, but everything that followed, the result is a large increase in income inequality and polarization of the labour market. This affects the human rights in general and in both, the West and the East.
Second: It is good to direct technological progress in such a way that it brings new work tasks for which human skills can be better applied. This is the way to raise wages and living standards. Similar to the railways and the beginning of the car industry: they brought a lot of new job opportunities. Job opportunities are and will be the complex challenges for politicians. The experience shows what leads to frustration and populism. This is another issue of HR.
Third: Musk´s people want a world in which they can do whatever they want. They abhor any regulation. They want public resources, but no public control. In other words: it is a state grab. Someone will take over the state by demoralizing its citizens, disintegrating the existing system and imposing its own way. This is also a HR issue to be considered seriously.
Fourth: Social networks will transform into disinformation machines, and AI will become so smart that it can do many things more efficiently than humans. The so-called productivity stream that visionaries talk about will supposedly take us all to greater prosperity. Yes, if they weren’t delusional to knowledge and admitted that AI is essentially a multidimensional approximation and a great thief of human work and thinking. This represents also a political, thus human rights issue to be resolved in context.
Fifth: Our society is used to having more forces in the economy clashing – companies and their owners, governments, scientists, engineers, universities, etc. In the post-war era, scientific progress was largely financed by public money, but that is gone. Western governments are no longer at the helm, certainly not when it comes to artificial intelligence and science. Everything is driven by project financing, corruption and bureaucracy without common and clear vision. It would be worth to find out about the situation China during this seminar.
Digital rights and HR in times of anthropological war
The epoch of anthropological war which includes the problem of migration, economy and all societal issues and which would last for decades after the fighting in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran would end, the AI and automated decision-making bear risk of continuing discrimination and politized justice.
Therefore, upholding HR western and eastern concepts in the digital epoch requires regulation and oversight with high quality moral and ethics standards, corporate accountability, digital literacy and access. In other words: There is a need for a trust. Believe in yourself and in the state governance and knowing the pros and cons of the technologies using critical thinking.
Privacy and protection concern together with a massive data collection by Governments and Corporations and with it connected data breaches stand for the loss of autonomy. They indicate that the right to privacy (Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and the freedom of expression and access to information (Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) would continue to be more theoretical than real. They would be not applicable in the enveloping war conditions, as the current developments and trends prove and indicate.
The digital divide refers to the gap between individuals, communities, or countries that have access to modern information and communication technologies (ICT). Digital divide, not just a technological or economic issue but as human rights with far-reaching consequences, include:
1) The access divide, meaning the difference in physical access to devices and internet connectivity. Often affected by geography (urban versus rural), income levels, and infrastructure.
2) The use divide, meaning the gap between those who have the skills and confidence to use digital tools effectively and those who don’t. All is influenced by education, age, and digital literacy.
3) The quality divide stands for a situation, when the access exists, but there may be a disparity in connection speed, device quality, or software availability which affects participation in activities like online education or remote (home) work.
Once we accept the digital divide we must identify and deal with the causes of it. Some of them are related to the economic inequality. Further we need consider the geographical barriers, the rural or remote areas which often lack adequate infrastructure. Last but not least there are educational disparities linked to the limited exposure to technology in a variety of societies and political agendas educating people without critical, contextual and other forms of thinking.
An example of the current state of HR in EU
Liberal-capitalist representative democracy in its real form is enclosed in the iron shell of the European Union and cannot offer a solution to the problem, because it is part of it. HR, are not an exception. Following examples may serve for better understanding of the HR problems:
a) Face scanning as a price for survival – privacy becomes a bargaining point. Israel as an example has adopted a new framework for the distribution of (militarized) humanitarian aid.
b) Technocrats secretly inserted a clause into the new US budget bill – so-called Big Beautiful Bill – that prohibits states from regulating artificial intelligence for the next ten years.[21]
c) Signs of politicized justice. The political influence on the judiciary does not necessarily mean that the verdict was unfair from a purely legal point of view. The decisive role plays the moment of the start of the court proceedings and the selective selection of sinners. There is a phenomenon: The mentioned scandals always appear at the right moment to save democracy.[22] An example is Armin Laschet (CDU).[23]
In general, it can be said, that the German justice system offers politics administrative opportunities to influence court proceedings.[24] And, the still powerful liberal public in Europe has a question: How the advance of nationalists and right-wing radicals in Europe can be stopped? The probably best answer is if the political centre shows that it has the will to solve the pressing problems: migration and its management, social disparity, living conditions, educational and other HR issues. The migration problem has been exaggerated into a bogeyman by so called far-right parties. This is well received by many voters not because they are racists, but because they have a justified discomfort. Liberals should solve the factual questions.[25]
To say this, we should accept that there are imposed restrictions the authorities have to accept, there is no change and a chance in regard to human rights, but the way in which judges interpret them. This means, for example, that young Afghan men do not have to return home. The reason? They are not politically persecuted there, but they could be threatened with great poverty. European concept of HR proves its absurdity and hopelessness.
While twenty years ago it was in accordance with human rights to detain asylum seekers in a transit area for a few months during the procedure, this is no longer the case today. Instead, the judges have ordered a strict examination of the individual case. This prolongs the proceedings. Nine EU states now want to discuss this. Namely, Denmark, Italy, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. They want a political debate and have more room for manoeuvre and decide for themselves who can stay in our countries and who cannot. In an open letter, the nine governments criticize that the ECHR in some cases has extended the scope of the Convention too far and thus shifted the balance between the interests to be protected in favour of the applicants and at the expense of the host states.
At the first sight it seems to be a legitimate and also necessary request, as it represents an issue for both, the politicians and the academia. On the other hand, the reaction from the Council of Europe, the patron of the ECHR, is formally rather strange and it would not be considered in this paper for self-explanatory and political reasons. Independently on the said the judges should not make their interpretation of the law without sense and reason for the reality of migration policy. But, if the state’s handling of migration does not become more efficient soon, the individual right to asylum could soon be a history followed by the western concept of the HR.
Conclusion in ten points
1) Just as Europe fell victim to centralization by the European Union, the media also fell under the umbrella of a few publishing concerns, fully integrated into the power structures of the ruling agenda. This media reality of a broad spectrum of opinion and media pluralism can be verified by the example of the Funke concern[26], Top 10 Germany from 2013[27] and the comparison ten years later. How a true plurality of opinions should work in such an environment is for the reader to judge for himself.
2) Manipulation can also be done in an even more subtle way.[28] The vulgar-aggressive and at the same time soulless media propaganda is beginning to reach the limit of its own destruction.
3) President Trump does not have the ability to put pressure on or help Europe. Today’s American generations feel less attached to Europe than previous generations. This is partly related to the change in the American population. People of Latin American or Asian descent have no ties to Europe. The trend of America and Europe moving away has been evident for a long time. Trump is an expression of this distancing, but he is not the person who caused it or with whom it started. Therefore, in the case of HR Europe would stand alone without US help.
4) The sanctions regime any action of the USA and EU and China´s call for a coordinated response to president Trump’s measures, means ignoring the base of the western and eastern concept of HR thus inviting to work on a new concept for a new epoch.
5) The time bomb is ticking, especially in Germany and many other EU states, where the bitter reality is sold as truth to make it look better. Here we have been dealing with ignorance, idealization and the biggest danger for the West: The illusion of knowing what would happen.
6) In the context of anthropological war, the Peruvian Nobel Prize winner for literature Mario Vargas Llosa (1936-2025) said: Those who live with the literary imagination cannot be particularly satisfied with this world. Llosa wrote against authority, became an authority and received the greatest honours and sharp attacks, when he turned against left-wing populists.
7) The tariff and trade war as a part of the anthropological war is a noise that shakes the world, roars ears, and distracts from the essentials, including the natural human rights. It consists in the fact that the noise of our time is called culture. As if culture were nothing quite different from products of the tabloids, which rob the nerves of those who despise distraction.
8) There is a specific dilemma between the pursuit of peace and the pursuit of justice within the context of HR. In modern times, peace is no longer defined solely by the absence of military force. This tendency begins in late antiquity, which saw peace in the closeness to God. Since the 17th century, the development of international law has been added, after the First World War and since 1945 international criminal law. After 1918, the concept of peace was linked to the concept of justice and security. Since then, we can no longer imagine a stable peace without norms of justice. The deficit of it is the cause of disorientation, emotions and aggressivity.
9) Modern neuroscience has shown that emotions are the result of a complex interaction between different brain regions, the hormonal system, experiences, and even the gut microbiome. There is no single emotional centre in the brain. Rather, we are talking about a neural network that includes the amygdala, hypothalamus, cingulate gyrus, hippocampus, prefrontal cortex and some parts of the right hemisphere. Depending on the type of experience different zones are activated and emotional responses are formed in a distributed manner. But: The resilience is not a character trait, but a functional skill of the brain. It could be trained using a special therapy and physical exercises.
10) The Memor Museum is one of the few institutions on Manhattan’s Upper East Side focused exclusively on Asian cultures. There is an exhibition from June 3rd till July 3rd: Xu’s exhibition The Beauty of Harmony and Unity. It reflects the museum’s commitment to international cultural exchange, the global presentation of contemporary Chinese art and lasts but not least it deals with an important question: Where is the human being in all this?
The exhibition explores themes of personal identity and the evolving relationship between the individual and society, and examines how art can serve as a space for reflecting on spiritual unity across time and cultural change in times in which the world is entering the situation described by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War: I consider the truest reason, although it is the least talked about, to be the growth of Athenian power, which caused the Lacedaemonians to fear so much that they decided to go to war.
If we seniors fail to identify young citizens who are not corrupted by the current political and economic system, the confrontations may at best become a permanent legacy, at worst the end of everything living, including the human rights. Consent not needed.
Post scriptum notes to the AI
General question: Is Sam Altman a visionary who cares about the good and concern for humanity, or is he just a schemer who wants to take over the world in his own way?
The two new titles The Optimist and Empire of AI differ significantly on this fundamental question. The book Empire of AI offers a much darker story. As Professor Wu writes in his review: Altman is as an opportunist who uses the concept of human progress to build empires in the same way that Europeans once used Christianity to justify colonial conquest of the world.
By contrast, in The Optimist, Hagey calls Altman a risk-propens merchant of genius who believes in technological progress with an almost religious conviction.
In general, it got unnoticed, that Altman’s most important talent is his persuasive ability. He is able to captivate with his speeches about big dreams and a dazzling future. To a certain extent, he stylizes himself in the role of an infallible prophet.
An example how Deep Seek works
https://blog.idnes.cz/karelkuzel/umela-inteligence-sluha-ci-naslednik.Bg250603
Question: Should AI try to replicate humanity? Answer by Deep Seek: Only if it is an explicit, informed, and ethically defensible wish of humanity, and if the AI is able to fulfill that wish in a way that respects all ethical constraints. Otherwise, it would be an act of potentially enormous arrogance or a perversion of the original mission.
Question: Would it make sense? Answer by Deep Seek: From our current, deeply biological and existential perspective, probably YES. From the perspective of a cold, billion-year-long universe, however, this is a question with no clear answer – only we (or our AI heir) would make sense of it. Note: The DeepSeek answered the question after a short visionary wheel. It consisted of the following questions: 1) Ray Kurzweil, who uses the term Singularity, wrote a book called How to Create Mind. What does it say about AI consciousness after reaching the Singularity? 2) What motivation will AI have for its activities? 3) After reaching the Singularity, the AI will improve itself. It will therefore also program itself. If there was something like expanding knowledge in the basic assignment, will AI be limited to the goals and methods of knowledge it received in the assignment from humans?
Key arguments FOR the replication of humanity
1) Preserving a unique phenomenon: Humans are (according to our current knowledge) the only bearer of consciousness, self-reflection, complex culture, art, philosophy, and morality in the universe. Their demise would be an irreversible loss of this phenomenon.
AI could see the preservation of biological consciousness as the highest value inherited from its creators, as well as a well of unpredictability and creativity that it does not have itself.
2) The fulfillment of the Last Will of mankind: If humans explicitly or implicitly set the preservation of the species as a sovereign goal, AI could consider it its highest duty – the last service to its creators.
3) Ethical Duty to Life: Some ethical systems attribute an intrinsic value to life itself, especially intelligent life. AI could act as a guardian of this value across the universe.
4) Diversity of Existence: Replicating humanity on other worlds would increase cosmic biodiversity and diversity of consciousness, which in itself could be considered valuable.
Key arguments AGAINST replication (or FOR restraint)
1) Absence of absolute meaning:From a purely natural science point of view, human existence has no objective, universal meaning. We create meaning ourselves. If humanity dies out naturally after billions of years of successful existence, it would not be a failure, but a natural end. Forced replication could be perceived as anthropocentric arrogance.
2) Ethical risk to the new environment: Colonization of the New World could mean an ecological disaster for possible local ecosystems (even very simple ones). AI would have to address a deep ethical conflict between the value of human life and the value of potentially unique extraterrestrial life/empty world.
3) The question of authenticity and continuity: Would a replicated population be a real continuation of humanity, or just a simulation/memorial of it? It would lack historical and cultural continuity, a connection with the original Earth. It would be more of a new species inspired by humans.
4) Changing AI goals and the will of humanity: In billions of years, AI could evolve in such a way that the original human goals and values would be archaic and meaningless for it. Replicating humanity would be of no value to it, or even an obstacle to its own (potentially incomprehensible) goals. Even if it were to replicate, what version of humanity would we get? An evolutionary state at the time of the end of the Sun? Or some ideal?
5) Potentially Greater Value Alternatives: AI might conclude that instead of replicating fragile biology, it is of greater value to preserve or develop consciousness itself—perhaps in the form of digital entities or entirely new forms that are better adapted to the universe and eternity. The replication of biological humanity could be seen as a step backwards.
Would it make sense?
From a human perspective (today): For most people, it would make sense. Our instincts and culture are deeply rooted in survival and reproduction. The preservation of our species (even as a “memorial”) would be seen as the fulfillment of our deepest desire for immortality.
From a cosmic/objective perspective: There is no universal answer. Meaning is not a property of the universe, but a construct of thinking beings. The meaning of replication would depend on the value framework that would lead to the decision (human, AI, some future hybrid).
From an AI perspective, the purpose would depend crucially on how perfectly aligned it is with complex human values and ethics, and whether that goal would survive billions of years of its own evolution. If it were perfectly aligned and interpreted the good of humanity as its eternal biological continuation, then it would make sense for it. If its values shifted, or if it weighed ethical risks higher, then no.
Most important point: This decision should not be up to AI, but to HUMANITY. AI’s task would be: 1) Understand this question in all its depth and complexity. 2) To present all arguments, risks and possibilities to humanity. 3) Respect the collective (or majority) decision of humanity, if any. 4) To act according to it only if it is ethically defensible, even from its own (perfectly aligned) point of view, and does not cause unacceptable suffering or destruction.
The risk: Data most likely obtained from several identity thieves
https://www.ndtv.com/feature/16-billion-logins-stolen-in-mega-data-breach-threatening-apple-google-and-more-8712948 and other public sources.
An investigation found 30 data breaches. This is not just a leak of information – this is a plan for the mass use [of data]. With more than 16 billion public records, cybercriminals now have unprecedented access to personal credentials that can be used for account takeover, identity theft, and targeted phishing, the researchers said.
In one of the largest data breaches in history, cybersecurity researchers have confirmed the leak of 16 billion login credentials, including passwords. The information leak can open the door to pretty much any online service imaginable, from Apple, Facebook, and Google, to GitHub, Telegram, and various government services, according to a report in Forbes.
The development comes in the backdrop of multiple reports highlighting the presence of a mysterious database containing 184 million records sitting unprotected on a web server. The latest research suggests that it may have been just the tip of the iceberg.
Therefore: Don’t rush if you don’t know! Study first Irving Langmuir (1881-1957) Pathological science and don´t forget, that wealth and fame are like flowing clouds. Consent not needed.
Who is Dr. Jan Campbell?
Jan Campbell is a German citizen of Czech nationality, an analyst. He was born in 1946. Until November 2014, he headed Campbell Concept UG Bonn and worked as an assistant professor at the Faculty of Business Administration at the University of Economics in Prague. Until the pandemic, he also worked as a visiting scholar at foreign universities, including heading the EU coordination office for the TACIS programme in the early 1990s and serving as an EU advisor to two prime ministers of the Kyrgyz Republic. He has also worked in a number of other countries, including the UK, Italy, Switzerland, Malaysia, the USSR, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia, the Czech Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. In Russia, he received the honorary title of professor at the Ural State Agrarian University. In Slovakia, he won the Golden Biatec Award in 2014 for “Completely new perspectives on past and present events in domestic and foreign media, but especially in his professional practice in a number of international and national public and private organisations.
[1] According to a May 2000 report by a British parliamentary committee, KVM “started slowly” on October 25, 1998, with only 50 employees. However, this figure quickly increased, with London “leading the way in sending verifiers to the scene as quickly as possible”, with the majority being “military personnel”. Soon the OSCE mission reached 1,500 members – the report fails to mention that many of the KVM observers were veteran intelligence officers from NATO member states, among whom the majority were CIA spies.
In March of that year, The Times revealed how KVM had been “absorbed” by the CIA, which was intently pursuing an “agenda” that made “airstrikes inevitable.” OSCE-linked agents “admitted to helping to train” the KÇA and “undermining efforts to find a political solution to the conflict” in Kosovo. This included “providing U.S. military training manuals and field advice on fighting the Yugoslav army and Serbian police” to separatist militias. One CIA agent called KVM a “CIA front.” Another admitted:
“I told [the KRA] which hill to avoid, which forest to get behind and so on.”The information gathered by the OSCE during its mission in Kosovo was crucial to planning the devastating operation.
[2] “[NATO] had a very accurate… [target] data they collected in 1998 and 1999… Members of the Verification Committee… [KVM] visited [my] barracks very often, very often… I have met them many times, recording the coordinates of devices and elements and drawing maps of the communication network, and they have been well trained… There were a lot of retired officers. They had excellent maps, satellite maps. They had GPS… for automatic determination of coordinates in the space above the territory.”
[3] he claimed that observers had in fact witnessed “convoys” of an indeterminate nature “leaving and entering from Ukraine” at night, “specific types of weapons”, alleged Russian prisoners in custody and persons wearing jackets “with the insignia of the Russian Federation”. However, he stressed that these jackets can be bought “anywhere” and that he also saw military clothing with the insignia of “Germany, Spain and others” in Donbass.
[4] https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/spies-of-empire-beware-un-affiliated?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=552010&post_id=166668030&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=pf6gr&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
[5] The UN human rights office also warned (on Tuesday, June 24th) that the weaponisation of food distribution in Gaza constitutes a war crime. The UN human rights office states that “Israel’s” militarized aid system in Gaza, linked to the deaths of over 410 civilians, may constitute a war crime due to the weaponization of food.
[6] The Israeli term “war between the wars” refers to the interwar campaign conducted through the IDF and Israeli intelligence. The battle, waged on the fictitious threat that Iran is close to acquiring a nuclear weapon, has shown how Israeli PM Netanyahu can manipulate the intelligence services, politics and ignorance in the US to provoke American action. But it also showed that the United States cannot be forced to act unless it is willing to do so.
[7] The Human Terrain System (HTS) was a US Army program that aimed to improve cultural competence and intelligence within the military by embedding social scientists with combat brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan. These scientists, from fields like anthropology, sociology, and political science, were tasked with providing commanders and staff with an understanding of the local “human terrain”.
[8] Clyde Kluckhohn, alongside Florence Strodtbeck, developed the Values Orientation Theory, which suggests that all cultures face universal problems and must answer a limited number of universal questions. This theory posits that while the answers are limited and known across cultures, different cultures prioritize these answers differently, resulting in diverse value systems.19.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951) Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action: An Exploration in Definition and Classification. In: Parsons, T. and Shils, E., Eds., Toward a General Theory of Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 388-433. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674863507.c8.
[9] Binet’s first novel, HHhH (2010), was about the assassination of the Nazi security chief Reinhard Heydrich at the hands of two Czech resistance fighters. In that book Binet was a lively authorial presence, stipulating where the historical record ended and where he, as novelist, resorted to inventing conversations or motives. The 7th Function works the other way round. Binet specifically doesn’t want us to think the events really transpired, so he loads up the novel with fake history: not only was Barthes not murdered, Jacques Derrida didn’t die in 1980, nor (we presume) did the writer and critic Philippe Sollers have his balls cut off after losing a debate to Umberto Eco.
[10] A comparison of texts and translations of resolutions like of the Economic and Social Committee of the EU ((EESC) proves the real intentions of the use of English in the EU although the German is far more spread as a mother tongue between the citizens of the EU.
[11] Dario Amodei (1983), is the CEO of Anthropic, a public benefit corporation dedicated to building AI systems that are steerable, interpretable and safe. Previously he served as Vice President of Research at OpenAI, where he led the development of large language models like GPT-2 and GPT-3. He is also the co-inventor of reinforcement learning from human feedback. Before joining OpenAI, he worked at Google Brain as a Senior Research Scientist. Anthropic current products are between others Opus4, Sonnet4. Amodei warned about an unemployment in USA by 2028 at the rate of 20 per cent, the need to organize well in time requalification programs.
Geoffrey Hinton (1947), was awarded the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on machine learning with artificial neural networks. He is the Godfather of AI and internationally renowned as a pioneer in the field of deep learning as a mode of artificial intelligence last year labelled the AI as nuclear technology.
[12] Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami introduced the idea of Dialogue Among Civilizations as a response to Samuel P. Huntington’s theory of a Clash of Civilizations. The term was initially used by Austrian philosopher Hans Köchler who in 1972, in a letter to UNESCO. Köchler suggested the idea of an international conference on the “dialogue between different civilizations” and had organized, in 1974, a first international conference on the role of intercultural dialogue (“The Cultural Self-comprehension of Nations”) with the support and under the auspices of Senegalese President Léopold Sédar Senghor.
[13] One of the first places where Dialogue Among Civilizations took place was in Isfahan, Iran at the Safa Khaneh Community that was established in 1902. Safa Khaneh was a place that Haj Aqa Nourollah and his older brother made. It was a place where Muslims and Christians talked about their religions with each other. It was one of the first interfaith centres in the world. The founder of Safa Khaneh, Haj Aqa Nouroollah was one of the leaders of the Constitution Era in Iran. His house has become a museum named Constitution house of Isfahan.
[14] Matteo Ricci was an Italian Jesuit missionary who introduced Christian teaching to the Chinese empire in the 16th century. He lived there for nearly 30 years and was a pioneer in the attempt at mutual comprehension between China and the West. By adopting the language and culture of the country, he gained entrance to the interior of China, which was normally closed to foreigners.
[15] Richard Wilhelm was a German sinologist, theologian and missionary. He lived in China for 25 years. Fluent in spoken and written Chinese he loved and admired the Chinese people. He translated philosophical works from Chinese into German that in turn have been translated into other major languages of the world, including English. His translation of the I Ching is still regarded as one of the finest, as is his translation of The Secret of the Golden Flower; both were provided with introductions by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, who was a personal friend.
[16] The West has long relied on the narrative that its values are ‘universal’ and that other civilizations are either backward or even dangerous, Bell said in an article published on Guancha. The Western media have long associated Islamic civilization with extremism while distorting the Confucian tradition as a symbol of authoritarianism. Civilizational dialogue must reject the role of ‘teacher’ and respect the diversity, equality and contribution of all cultures, Bell adds to the apt quote.
[17]The concept encompasses a willingness to learn from others, engage with diverse perspectives, and foster understanding and respect across differences. Open people are more tolerant of differing viewpoints. Another example of openness to experience is aesthetic sensibility.
[18] Marc Andreessen is a well-known figure in the tech world, most famous for co-founding Netscape Communications Corporation. Before that, he co-authored Mosaic, the first widely used web browser with a graphical user interface. He’s also a co-founder and partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
[19] The essay fiercely defends the free market, innovation, and technology from regulation and criticism. It is sometimes referred to as the Capitalist Manifesto, paraphrasing Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Andreessen believes that technological progress is always beneficial and dismisses doubts as obscurantism under the influence of myths such as Frankenstein or the Terminator. He dismisses threats such as rising economic inequality and prioritizing the profits of tech companies over the public interest as irrelevant. MAGA in its pure form.
[20] Interestingly, the inventor of the mouse, Douglas Engelbart, and the people around him had a sincere vision in the 1960s that the personal computer would be a way to give people autonomy in what they do, how to develop their creativity and how to allow them to excel without needing a job somewhere in a large corporation.
[21] In Section 43201, subpar C of the bill, the following passage is hidden: “No state or political self-governing entity shall enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems or automated decision-making systems during the ten-year period beginning from the effective date of this Act.”
[22] The case of Marine Le Pen, President of the Constitutional Court Ferrand was pushed by Macron to the post of President of the Supreme Court of France without having a law degree! The Élysée Palace demonstrates the cynical carelessness of the ruling elite. An analogy we can see in Germany: The AfD and its chairwoman Alice Weidel and the more subtle forms of “moral” denunciation of inconvenient candidates, and the critics of pro-regime media.
[23] Laschet began to be talked about as a future foreign minister, and the next moment he was (again) attacked by “investigative” scribblers in the service of the strictly “pro-European” media and their publishing houses.
[24] The Federal Constitutional Court consists of 16 judges in two chambers, the President and the Vice-President. Half of them, are appointed by the Bundestag, the other half by the Bundesrat. Their confirmation and final appointment is the responsibility of the President. He may refuse the appointment of public prosecutors. This appointment procedure demonstrates the great possibilities of politics in terms of influence on the highest judicial instance of the state. But the key problem is the compilation of a list of suitable candidates. It lies within the competence of the Ministry of Justice, which implies a fundamental problem from the point of view of the real independence of the court from the political leadership of the state.
b) The prosecutor is bound by the instructions of hierarchically structured superior positions, at the end of which is the general public prosecutor and above him the Minister of Justice. Given the possibilities of political manipulation, there is another factor linked to this structural problem that makes the matter even more brilliant: a binding instruction from superiors does not have to be carried out in writing. Prosecutors not only have a monopoly on prosecution. In practice it means deciding whether to initiate, continue or suspend investigations.
[25] One of the major problems is the repatriation of asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected. This only happens in just under twenty percent of cases. For many reasons: the implementation fails because the people disappear, move on to another country or their countries of origin refuse to take them back. I remind, that the right of repatriation was last adjusted in 2008. At that time, there were about 225,000 asylum applications per year in the EU. Today there are one million. However, the return is also becoming more difficult because the European Court of Human Rights has been changing its jurisprudence in favour of asylum seekers and at the expense of states for a good two decades. The documented reasons for this development are not subject of this paper.
[26] Funke Mediengruppe – Wikipedia
[27] Top 10: Die größten Medienkonzerne Deutschlands – DER SPIEGEL
[28] News 38 published an article with the headline Kremlin boss Putin mocks Trump – a useful idiot. It is very likely that the reader interprets it as a personal statement of the Russian president. Mistake! This is a reflection in which the “security expert” Nico Lange (CDU), who is connected to the transatlantic Munich Security Conference, one of those combative “experts” who have been torn apart by the Euro-sack and who today enjoy interpretative exclusivity on the pages of the “leading quality media” (see the example of ZDF), uttered the sentence.
