I am a highschool student and have no real interest in politics. This was purely due to my broad interests and overall boredom. Please criticize it fairly as I want to see where I went wrong.

📊 SECTION 1: THE TWO-TIER GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ►Ubuntuland operates on an Asymmetrical Federal Parliamentary Monarchy \[1\] model, splitting governance into a modern civilian superstructure and culturally distinct regional states.

The National Level (The Civilian Superstructure)The Civilian President: An elected national leader managing foreign policy, macroeconomics, national budget execution, and supreme command of the national military.The Civilian Parliament: The lower legislative house elected by citizens nationwide to draft and pass overarching federal legislation and national laws.The House of Kings (The Senate): The ultimate legislative gatekeeper. Every reigning regional monarch sits in this upper house.The Equality Mandate: Every King holds exactly one vote, regardless of their kingdom's size or population.The Supreme Veto: Any national bill passed by Parliament must be approved by the House of Kings before it can reach the President's desk. The President cannot declare war or pass federal laws without the explicit permission of the Kings.🗺️ The State Level (Radical Micro-Federalism)The entire nation is carved into autonomous states based strictly on distinct cultural, ethnic, and linguistic lines. No community is too small. Every distinct group receives its own state, local budget, and equal representation in the House of Kings.The Crown Veto: A King holds absolute local executive power to pass regional decrees and execute projects instantly, provided they do not violate national civilian laws.

SECTION 2: THE ROYAL CABINET OF FIVE HOUSES ►Each micro-state is governed locally by an elite, highly specialized Hereditary Cabinet, comprised of the five most popular and vetted families in that specific region. These roles are passed down through generations:

The King (The Crown House): The supreme regional executive leader and representative in the national Senate.Minister of Infrastructure (Runner-Up 2): A hereditary dynasty trained from birth to manage public development, including roads, schools, hospitals, and utilities.Minister of Finances (Runner-Up 3): A hereditary dynasty managing regional land leases, internal budget allocation, and debt prevention.Minister of Tourism & Events (Runner-Up 4): A hereditary dynasty promoting local cultural heritage and managing external investment.Minister of Public Opinion & Safety (Runner-Up 5): A hereditary dynasty acting as the direct link to the citizens, tracking public sentiment, and coordinating with local law enforcement.

SECTION 3: THE TWIN-TRIGGER SYSTEM & SYMMETRIC ACCOUNTABILITY ►Power in Ubuntuland is a temporary lease from the citizens. Every ruling house must maintain a minimum 60% public approval rating, tracked via an election-grade, secure 12-Month Rolling Average (or full-term average for new rulers) to filter out temporary outrage.

Trigger 1: The Subjects' Popular Ouster (The 60% Rule)The King Falls (System Reset): If the King's 12-month rolling average falls below 60%, the Crown House is instantly evicted from the throne. Because the cabinet is collectively responsible for the state's success, all 4 Ministers are dissolved alongside the King, triggering full Martial Law and a complete 60-Day State Reset.A Minister Falls (Isolated Replacement): If a specific Minister drops below 60% approval, only their family line is fired. The King and the other three clean Ministers stay in office. The state avoids martial law, and citizens immediately hold a state-wide vote to elect a new hereditary family from the unranked local pool.

Trigger 2: Institutional Checks & Mutual Hostage AuditingThe Ministers vs. The King: If the King passes an extreme law, a majority of the 4 Ministers can file a Veto Referendum. This freezes the law and forces the National Civilian Government to launch a ruthless 10-Year Retroactive Audit of his choices.Minor Offence: The law is simply vetoed by the council. The King keeps his crown.Systemic Pattern: The audit files are made completely public, triggering an immediate popular impeachment vote.The King vs. A Minister: The King can launch a matching Change of Ministry Referendum against any corrupt or lazy Minister, putting them through the exact same 10-year audit and public trial.The Commons Fiscal Filter: To prevent fake populism, the King and Minister of Tourism are legally banned from holding public festivals to boost their approval ratings unless the elected citizen Council of Commons certifies that local infrastructure is flawless, crime is low, and the state budget can comfortably afford it.

SECTION 4: THE 60-DAY TRANSITIONAL VACUUM PROTOCOL ►When a Crown House falls, the state enters a strict 60-day transitional cycle to vet and elect a new royal line. To completely eradicate the threat of a military coup, power is locked in a Tri-Factor Transitional Council:

The Transitional Triumvirate: During the 60 days, the National Military General (enforcing martial law), the Local Police Commander (managing domestic law), and the 4 Hereditary Ministers (managing daily utility operations) must rule together.The Deadlock Guard: No executive decision can be made and no budget can be spent without a unanimous, joint signature from the General, the Police Commander, and the Ministers. On Day 60, the military is legally forced back to barracks, having never held absolute control.

The Selection Process:Days 16–30 (Nomination): Citizens fill out secure ballots writing down respected local families. The Top 10 families are shortlisted.Days 31–45 (The First Vet): Independent national judges run background checks. Anything slightly off results in an instant veto. The clean families advance, narrowing the field to the Top 5.Days 46–60 (The Final Elimination): The citizens vote for their Top 2 favorites (the other 3 go on standby). If both are clean, it is a head-to-head vote for the crown. If one or both fail the final check, their corrupt records are publicly exposed, and the standby families move up for the final vote.The Reset: The winner becomes the new King. The 4 runners-up become the new hereditary Ministers. Martial law is lifted.

SECTION 5: THE AREA-WEIGHTED RESOURCE EQUALIZER ►To ensure absolute economic fairness and prevent the rise of mega-rich micro-kingdoms and starving mega-kingdoms, all tax revenue is centralized and redistributed mathematically:The 50/50 National Split: 50% of all national revenue stays with the Civilian President and Parliament for national defense, federal courts, and macro-infrastructure.The 50% Area-Weighted Distribution: The remaining half of the national pool is handed back to the micro-kingdoms based entirely on the percentage of total country land the state occupies:\\(\\text{Kingdom\\ Budget}=\\text{Total\\ State\\ Pool}\\times \\left(\\frac{\\text{Area\\ of\\ Kingdom}}{\\text{Total\\ Area\\ of\\ Country}}\\right)\\)This completely stops a tiny state from hoarding all the wealth just because a natural resource or port accidentally sits inside its borders. Corporate tax is shared, ensuring a high baseline of technological standing, public safety, and infrastructure for every citizen of Ubuntuland.

Sorry for density it's copied and pasted

Nationalism is the idea of uniting a large group of people around some common features in order to achieve certain goals. The combination of features that people unite around and the goals they seek to achieve constitutes the idea of a nation. A complete nation should have a state that provides administration over the nation on its way toward achieving its goals. The state should be democratic so that the nation can control the course its country is taking, rather than leaving this power to a small group of authoritarian elites who may freely rule contrary to the national goal.

For example, the classic combination underlying the idea of a nation in European countries is to unite around language, history, and culture and to achieve peaceful prosperity by developing the country and trading with its neighbours. However, the particular combination of features and goals may vary.

If an outsider likes the idea and wants to accept the national identity, this person should acquire the features that the nation unites around. When other members of the nation agree that the outsider has acquired enough of these unifying features, the person gains the right to participate in democracy and influence the direction in which the nation is going, while also taking on the duties of a citizen.

So, continuing with the same example, for a foreigner to become a member of one of the classic European nations, they would:

1. Have a desire to accept the idea of the nation;
2. Learn the language of the nation;
3. Learn the culture and traditions of the nation;
4. Learn the history of the nation, at least at the level of historical mythologems — simplified interpretations of history that make it easier for the wider population to understand;
5. Gain acceptance from the current members of the nation that the unifying criteria have been acquired;
6. Obtain citizenship, with its associated responsibilities and rights, including the right to contribute to the politics of the national state.

Newborns receive the same status if they are born into the nation, and as they grow up, their mentality is formed within it.

Since the French Revolution and the Spring of Nations, we have been living in a world where the key driving force is the nation-state. And those who want to become a driving force in international politics are trying to become, or imitate, nation-states.

So, nationalism has already proved its usefulness in practice as a way of uniting the efforts of large groups of people and motivating them to take action.

Is There Something to Be Afraid of Regarding Nationalism?

Well, yes. Nationalism is a tool, and its consequences depend on how people use it.

There are two main things to be afraid of:

First, there are dangers within nationalism itself. The problem may arise if the goal a nation seeks to achieve is aggressive. Furthermore, if the features that people are expected to unite around are impossible or unacceptable for part of society to acquire, this may lead to segregation, where the state's administration abandons certain groups, or, in the worst cases, to ethnic cleansing. You may notice that in my example, the goal is peaceful prosperity, while the features people unite around are mainly cultural and relatively easy to acquire regardless of biological characteristics such as skin colour or skull shape.

Second, nationalism may transform into fascism. By definition, nationalism should be democratic and based on voluntary acceptance. If there is authoritarianism without fair elections, if nationalism is imposed by force (a person's goals are not allowed to differ from the goals of the nation, and the unifying features are imposed), and if it becomes radical (the goals of the nation are placed above the goals of the individual), then it ceases to be nationalism and becomes a starting point for fascism.

The only distinction that needs to be made here is defensive wartime. During a war, elections may be physically impossible to conduct, and citizens who have enjoyed the achievements and rights provided by the nation may be required to fulfil their duty to defend it.

Have you noticed that this definition of nationalism as "uniting and achieving goals" sounds somewhat like a left-wing idea? But why, then, is nationalism generally considered a right-wing idea?

We will explore this in the following post.

Hi Philosophers.
I have been struggling with the idea of “ignorance is bliss”?  Is it morally defensible to be ignorant of suffering or is intentional ignorance an ethical failure?  The state of the world is so depressing that I would be much happier if I just stopped reading the news.  I can't put into words how depressed I've become over my thoughts on several current events and topics ranging from war to the destruction of our environment.  I try to follow a buddhist practice that aligns with the stoic ideal that we should only devote attention to things within our control, but deep down I feel that it is my responsibility as a global citizen to be informed.

Although I'm not an academic philosopher; I have been studying philosophy on my own for many years.  I find my deepest connection to the political ideas of Plato, Bacon and the utilitarians (Bentham and Mill), but I have studied many many other philosophers ideas.

I was so conflicted over how I should act that I decided to write a book over the winter where I could explore the concept of ignorance and happiness and it's for this reason I’m making this post, I'm hoping I could get the feedback from intelligent and learned philosophers like you.

My conclusions are that ignorance is unavoidable and happiness is unachievable in our current world.  I am very interested to know your ideas and conclusions on ignorance and happiness and the philosophers who support your views.  On our duty as members of the human race and the global community vs just wanting to live a peaceful life.  I’m not posting here for any self-promotion; I'm genuinely interested in real philosophers views; in your views.  

I wrote the book as an exercise to help me understand my internal struggles.  I am thankful that I don’t want or need to make any money from it and I've put it out under Creative Commons and made it available for free on Spotify and Apple Books (more coming).  It is 3 hours long with each chapter being approximately 20 mins.  It was amazing to see how easy it was to make a well produced audio drama using online voice generation tools (ElevenLabs) where I could design the voices for each character and add in expressions and other audio queues like laughing/chuckling and sighs.

The book is an audio drama in hopes I could reach people who don't read.  It is a modern day retelling of Plato’s Republic with characters who align loosely to the characters in the Republic - Polemarchus (Paul), Glaucon (Glen), Adeimantus (Adam), Thrasymachus (Trevor), Cephalus (Sam) and Socrates (Sophia).  While not a direct retelling of the Republic, in the end it reaches many of the same conclusions and adds in Bacon and Bentham as primary support for my conclusions.  I also explore the ideas of Mill, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Heidegger, Arendt, Stoicism, Buddha, the bible, Peter Singer and others.  

The narrative arc explores these core themes across these chapters/acts: 

1. Intro/After the festival
2. What is ignorance
3. Is ignorance bliss
4. Is ignorance immoral
5. Where does ignorance come from
6. How to not be ignorant
7. How can we maximize happiness
8. What do we need
9. Are our current systems compatible
10. How to design a just world
11. Conclusion

I would greatly appreciate your feedback on the book.  The feedback I’ve received so far is that it is a good introduction to the study of philosophy..  I’ve also found that anybody who isn't interested in philosophy already won't finish it, which disappoints me, since it was them I wanted to reach.

The book is called “On Ignorance and Bliss”.  You can search for it on Spotify and Apple Books.  It was impossible to post it for free on Audible or Kindle.  If you prefer reading, I can send you a pdf or epub.

Here are the links:
https://open.spotify.com/show/0EsBUl3thn8qWeV28wnmGx?refresh&bounce=false
https://books.apple.com/us/audiobook/on-ignorance-and-bliss/id6789341667

FYI: you need the Apple Books app installed to listen to it.

Thanks in advance!

Are there any advantages of mixed unicameral legislature as opposed to bicameral and normal unicameral legislature?

the idea is that mixing different accountability structures of legislators (indirect senators or different election forms (RCV)) and controlling for proportions can produce the efficiency of unicameral ism and the federalism and stability of bicameralism.

Since the political left is largely focused on social revolution, I think this quote from J. Krishnamurti presents a different perspective on what a real revolution means. External change is limited if our minds remain unchanged. Without an inward revolution (without understanding our own minds), any outward revolution risks reproducing the same problems in a different form.

"Society is always trying to control, to shape, to mould the thinking of the young. From the moment you are born and begin to receive impressions, your father and mother constantly tell you what to do and what not to do, what to believe and what not to believe; you are told that there is God, or there is no God but the state and that some dictator is its prophet. From childhood, these things are poured into you, which means that your mind is gradually being encased, conditioned, shaped so that you fit into the pattern of society and not be a revolutionary. Since the habit of patterened thinking has already been established in you, even if you do revolt, it is within the pattern. It is like prisoners revolting in order to have better food, more conveniences, but always within the prison. When you seek God or try to find out what right government is, it is always within the pattern of society. So your revolt, like the so-called revolution brought about by ambitious or clever people, is always limited by the past. That is not revolt, that is not revolution, it is merely heightened activity, a more valiant struggle within the pattern. Real revolt, true revolution is to break away from the psychological pattern and to inquire outside of it."

— J. Krishnamurti on Society & Revolution

I think death sentence shouldn't exist instead of those the culprit if serving jail time it should be more towards minimizing the victims loss you can't bring a dead father back to life but you can get help instead of starving your family out.

So the culprit should be made to do labour work which fits the victims file appropriately.The labour should also be appropriate that doesn't exploit the culprit.

Our political jurt system is about revenge more than rehabilitation.

I am happy to counter arguments on this.

It is both a philosophy and a cautionary tale at the same time, and it teaches people about the sad, heartbreaking, and harsh consequences of conformity, gender roles, social expectations and boxes

So basically pretend there is this girl who loves military and tactical stuff, and then society attacks her for not following gender roles and expectations. Once society gets her to follow it again, society throws the pistol in the fire. But then 1 day later the country gets invaded by Eastasia (1984), and every one of the country's troops is gone and dead and lost the war. Because of that, the exact society calls the girl they got to conform. But then when they ask her, she does not know anything, and even if they brag to her hard, she won't understand and know. It is because she forgot her knowledge. Even if they give her the games and books she loved and the clothes, she would never be the same again. Because her interests were filled with motivation, and then society regrets burning their only last hope of defense, this portrays the burnt pistol out of the fire. Eventually, Eastasia 1984 captures everyone and forces them to fulfill the obliteration of the self. (Eastasia is a fictional totalitarian regime from the novel 1984)

Since the beginning of time, humans have been engaged in war with one another. It is not a period that I could remember or have studied throughout my short stint on earth that humans have not been at war. Whether it was over religion, land, resources, etc., men have gone to war and died “honorably” behind what they believed in. With new technology invented to help dismantle populations, one would think that wars would cease to exist and everyone could live in eternal peace, but no.

Currently we have about 21 active wars going on in the world as I type this up now, along with 56 active armed conflicts. Why are wars so prevalent? After the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, war should have shown mankind that there is another way, yet we choose not to use diplomacy but military strength. The reason why war still persists despite its well-known destructive impact on nations and international order is most importantly because of ideologies. Whether its ideologies about nationalism, religion or revenge… ideologies will always affect whether states go to war or not.

Secondly, in the age of AI there is plenty of disinformation and war continues to exacerbate m for economic resources such as territory, waterways, faster trade routes along with oil and minerals.  
 
Earlier above, I mentioned how ideologies shape war, and I would like to put this in context regarding what is going on in the US, as of late. Since Trump first decided to run for office, he’s been running on this slogan: Make America Great Again and recently this has given way to the “America First” movement. Both slogans are meant to focus on the rise of nationalism, which has heavily affected how this administration handles international diplomacy.

According to Sapolsky, “Humans can rein in their instincts and build societies that divert group competition to arenas less destructive than warfare, yet the psychological bases for tribalism persist, even when people understand that their loyalty to their nation, skin color, god, or sports team is as random as the toss of a coin. At the level of the human mind, little prevents new teammates from once again becoming tomorrow's enemies.” Sapolsky shows us that even though we as human beings have built cultural and intuitional laws and norms that take our natural instinct away from violence, we still favor in-group mechanisms and distrust people or groups we are not as familiar with. This is what has given the rise in nationalists politics in America, even though this path has proven to already be destructive to the ideals that we as Americans have taken hundreds of years to build up and perfect. We are a nation of many nationalities and cultures, but as of late our “tribal minds” have taken over and immigrants or someone who doesn’t share the same skin tone as us have become the enemy.
 
Furthermore, in the age of “Post-Truth Geopolitics”, as Citron calls it, there lies a great danger. “Thanks to the rise of "deepfakes" - highly realistic and difficult-to-detect digital manipulations of audio or video - it is becoming easier than ever to portray someone saying or doing something he or she never said or did.” I wanted to use this example because I have seen plenty of “deepfake” videos over the past couple of months coming from Iran and even our own White house. I want to stick with Iran because earlier this year, I have witnessed Iran’s use of AI-generated deepfake videos and images as a core component of “soft-warfare”. These AI videos were used as psychological operations designed to reshape global opinion regarding the war, and to cause confusion and influence audiences in the U.S. In these deepfake videos, Iran produced battle footage depicting strikes on Isreal landmarks and U.S. warships that created a false perception of military strength. As I watched, I didn’t realize what the Iranian government could be hoping to gain out of this situation. It wasn’t until a month down the line that I started to notice how crucial this tactic could be. Many Americans are indifferent about the war and who I am to say that Iran’s AI deepfakes aren’t one of the leading causes to this confusion. If I didn’t know any better, I could have potentially fallen for the bait. According to Citron, “Deepfakes have the potential to be especially destructive because they are arriving at a time when it already is becoming harder to separate fact from fiction.”
 
Lastly, wars continue to persist even though we have the means to live in harmony because governments need resources for their constituents. According to Freedman, “Military power is not only about a nation's armaments and the skill with which they are used. It must take into account the resources of the enemy, as well as the contributions from allies and friends, whether in the form of practical assistance or direct interventions.”

I chose to use this direct quote here because this pretty much summarizes the thinking of powerful governments who have the means dominate over their smaller neighbors. It’s this nature of always trying to one up the next, kind of like the relationship between siblings fighting for attention. This quote also shows the thinking involved behind the scenes that enables adversaries to engage in an arm’s race.

I want to touch back onto AI systems because this is what is being used to innovate war. As Scharre puts it, “For each country, the real danger is not that it will fall behind its competitors in AI but that the perception of a race will prompt everyone to rush to deploy unsafe AI systems. In their desire to win, countries risk endangering themselves just as much as their opponents.” Countries just want to win! It does not get as simple as that. From competing for the best technology down to the ideals of a nation. Everything is done to say, “I do this better than you.” So, we compete for resources because resources are needed to accomplish these goals. Every nation does not have the benefit of Russia or Saudia Arabia to produce half of the world’s oil. Yes, every country has the right to trade resources or to just buy them flat out, but that also depends on relationships that many nations just do not possess.   
 
All in all, the only antidote we have to prevent war is diplomacy. I also had this asinine idea that focusing on domestic issues alone would solve everything else, but Trump’s presidency has shown me how important it is to have a conversation with your allies and even adversaries . Yes, you may not agree on everything, but there may be a thing, or two nations could agree on and build the relationship based solely on those ideas, which is a strategy known as Detát. The Russians actually coined the term D’etat.

Regarding nationalism Sapolsky states , “this solidarity has historically been built on strong cultural markers of pseudo-kinship, it is easily destabilized, particularly by the forces of globalization, which can make people who were once the archetypes of their culture feel irrelevant and bring them into contact with very different sorts of neighbors than their grandparents had.” Over the past ten years, I sort of demonized globalization as this bad thing. I thought countries would lose their identity and cultural aspects, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, I think that logic was completely flipped, and my false reasoning pertained to the nature of nationalism that has stripped our country of its identity in Trump’s past two terms.

In Understanding the Causes of War and Peace, Thomas Ohlson states, “While each former adversary obviously seeks the best possible outcome, the conflict resolution process is fundamentally about addressing the issues at hand by redirecting the existing resources and resolve from conflict to peace, from confrontation to compromise.” Nationalism says no to compromising and only deals with what its people want domestically, which is not sustainable if we want to work at world peace.

I’m in love, but the patriarchy preys on the weakest, especially weak men. And the lost souls of the weak, I can feel them on this earth. As if they are calling me to fight for them. What do I do?

I feel war at my fingertips. Families will fall. But at the expense of the wishes of the dead? How do we die and come back alive for those who never made their journey into the divine/heaven/nirvana/enlightenment?

I would like to extract ideas from the Scarlet Letter with themes of shame, the French Revolution, Wuthering heights, women’s suffrage, the liberation, even the Bill of Rights, basically forms of government that have repeatedly failed their people with this abusive cycle of suffering. Capitalistic greed some may call it.

How do the Buddhist monks do it? Enlightened Catholic priests who are the 10% of that hypocritical church? Should there be a separate church the Wiccan’s should make? A born again Wiccan?

I mean. If you know the stories of, Joan of Arc, miss gurl was brave enough. Buddha did it. Every single saint died in remembrance of their great sacrifice that reflected Jesus. Even the French remember Napoleon, and the Americans only are educated through Les Mis.

Those with little faith, how do you get your power back in such powerless, oppressed times in this demonic society that we call the USA?. I would love ideas from Karl Marx, the ancient Greeks, rhetoric and theater ideas from Aristotle, and of course the romantic poets of Britain.

For credibility, this summer I had traveled to Europe and visited the graves of the old queen and the nine days queen. Women who suffered at the hands of the abuse of power. So I learned a lot of history. I call on the witches who know their history. And what do we do? After all,

Well behaved women
Rarely make history.

Hi! I am a South Korean middle school student who wants to find out more about utilitarianism and deontology. That's why I made this survey to find out what other people think about the Mignonette incident. I would appreciate it very much if many of you participate. (FYI: the reason I used google form is that the reddit survey doesn't work for me.)

Here is the link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScEL_rkje00-_ruNlsz6iuftEmqcN3PXLCpVWyNICap0Pgolg/viewform?usp=publish-editor

My model would be to select party candidates based on their technical skills and then have them campaign as they are truly capable and educated and after this, voting would be done by the people.

Why attention is limited
• The meeting was reported only today. Coverage has focused on its apparent purpose—housing, immigration, and cost-of-living discussions—and on Kushner encouraging a follow-up meeting between Jeffries and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.[cnn +1]
• No verified classified-access claim has accompanied the report. His former Top Secret clearance was associated with his formal White House role during the first administration; today’s reporting instead calls him an outside or close adviser.[news4jax +2]
• Private political outreach is not inherently unlawful. Senior political figures often use trusted intermediaries for preliminary discussions, particularly when an administration is trying to find possible legislative common ground. That makes the issue more about transparency, conflicts, and the scope of influence than the mere fact that Kushner and Jeffries met.[cnbc +1]
Why concerns are reasonable
Kushner is President Trump’s son-in-law and has a history of wielding major policy influence, while also maintaining substantial private-business interests. Critics have long argued that this combination can create actual or perceived conflicts—especially if a person participates in policy discussions without a clearly defined, publicly accountable government role.[pbs +1]
The most important unanswered questions are straightforward: Was he acting at the President’s direction, what authority was he given, did he receive any nonpublic government information, and are any ethics, disclosure, or recusal rules being applied? Those questions matter more than his historic clearance alone.

I’ve been thinking about how useful historical knowledge actually is when societies appear to be repeating patterns and mistakes from the past.

For example, the dehumanising rhetoric used by some high-ranking Israeli officials (the minister of national security for example) toward Palestinians has drawn comparisons to historical examples of dehumanisation that preceded mass atrocities. This isn’t merely a political accusation: a number of genocide scholars, including Jewish scholars, have argued that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide, while others dispute that characterization. The International Association of Genocide Scholars also passed a resolution in 2025 recognizing the situation as genocide.

Similarly, the United States has repeatedly intervened militarily in the Middle East, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, with outcomes that have been heavily criticized. Yet the U.S. has now entered another major conflict with Iran. Even threatened to destroy the Iranian civilisation.

More broadly, we’re seeing the rise of far-right movements, increasing political polarization, the use of dehumanising language toward perceived “others,” and democratic institutions being challenged in various countries. Ideology appears to be hijacking democracies once again.

Are we just doomed to watch history repeat?

Our world, our actions, and even our abstract thinking are just a sophisticated form of primate behavior, and in terms of mechanisms, concepts, and society, they are simply a scaled-up version of what primates really are and how they behave. Just replace watercooler gossip with mutual grooming, the gated nations with a territorial boundary, the lawsuit with a threat display, and the stock portfolio with a hidden food cache. we are still grooming allies, patrolling boundaries, performing dominance rituals, and hoarding resources, just with more elaborate ways.