A World Without Borders Tractatus

Firuz Mustafa
A World Without Borders
Tractatus


The philosophical treatise A World Without Borders by Firuz Mustafa is, in a way, a preliminary sketch or draft of the future world—albeit an incomplete and unfinished sketch.
               A World Without Borders
Foreword
Or a Brief Project for the World of the Future
A World Without Borders is, in a sense, a preliminary outline, a draft of the future world—though an incomplete, unfinished one. The author does not aim to lead the reader into a realm of illusions and dreams with lofty musings about some utopian society. Instead, this work provides a scientific and philosophical analysis of the main trends in humanity's development in the near future, along with a series of generalizations. The author firmly believes that the theoretical concepts he has proposed will be realized in practice and is prepared to defend his conclusions resolutely.
Writer and philosopher Firuz Mustafa, fully aware of the complexity, gravity, and multifaceted nature of the issues he addresses, consciously departs from traditional methods and methodologies of research in some instances, opting for a simplified analytical approach. This decision is made because the work is intended not only for a narrow circle of specialists but also for a broad readership.
We believe that this work, which at first glance may seem paradoxical, will, in the future, become the subject of more in-depth, comprehensive consideration and will be enriched with new nuances. An open society does not accept narrow, one-sided, and inherently inhumane scientific frameworks. The time has come for a new approach to the problem of the future development of world civilization. There is no doubt that the new century—the 21st century—will not be an age of division and fragmentation but one of unity, integration, and consolidation. We view this work as a kind of epilogue to the second millennium and, simultaneously, a prologue to the third.
 
1
...And in the very end, there was the Word.
But even earlier than the Word, we were created.
Had the Word been created before us, perhaps there would not have been a need for so many words.
Had the Word been created before us, there would have been no need for instruments of killing.
If the Word had been born before us, the World would not have shattered, would not have fractured...
I have no intention of disputing the Scriptures or of processing everything literally through my own perception. Not at all! Human consciousness is rich with metaphors. Hyperboles and hypotheses embellish not only the mind but also our entire inner world. Yet, sometimes, one desires to step away from the transcendent realm of ideas and return to earthly reality...
And then, at the core of today's realities and truths, lie doubt and skepticism—resembling fireflies with their mysterious, cold glow.
We are children not only of our faith but also of our doubts.
We looked at the world—it is wonderful.
We looked at the world with the eyes of reason—the picture becomes even more magnificent.
If we gaze upon it with the eyes of the soul, the world appears even more beautiful.
If we treat the world as the Creator did when crafting it—the world will become a paradise on Earth.

-2-
"...When the Almighty was bestowing intelligence upon people, He acted very justly: no one complains about the scarcity of their own intellect."
This humorous saying holds a grain of truth: after all, each of us perceives and evaluates this world within the limits of our intellectual abilities. And each of us has our own contradictions, intricate labyrinths, and complexities. Awareness is subjective, but it is not devoid of objective factors. The world, as we know, is an objective category, but within this very objectivity, let us admit, lie certain subjective nuances. Primarily, by "world," I mean the space where humans reside. The "world" being discussed is an integral part of the Galaxy, of the entire Universe. So far, science has discovered only one planet where life exists: Earth. Earth is our shared homeland. On this homeland live black and white people, the well-fed and the hungry, the wise and the mad, the healthy and the ill...
The world is divided into continents, states, cities, villages... nations, races, peoples, tribes... classes, social groups, believers and atheists—in short, the world is divided by the most diverse principles, and sometimes without any principles at all. As a result, its universal laws and patterns often remain hidden behind the fog of conflicting judgments.
A great deal has been written about this world: in scientific-philosophical works as well as in artistic-publicistic ones, the world and the laws governing it are analyzed from various perspectives. There is no shortage of those eager to explain the world, nor of those striving to change it. The world is witnessing a genuine war of ideas, and the bitter consequences of these "military actions" are evident: the globe, which belongs to all its inhabitants, is fragmented spiritually; the world tends not towards unity but towards division, even though logic dictates that the reverse process should take place.
There are obvious and hidden forces that hinder unity. These forces, sometimes spontaneously and sometimes deliberately, create obstacles to the natural process of humanity's development, forming micro-states. However, humans live in a macro-world, a macro-state, a macro-environment. In all the hardships humanity has faced (and continues to face today), humans themselves are to blame. We must never forget that at the root of all our troubles and suffering, poverty, and shame lie our unhealthy desires, our consumerist psychology, our lack of spirituality, and cultural poverty. It is a fallacy to think that economic growth and abundance should be prioritized first, and only as a last resort—culture. In reality, it is the opposite—culture constitutes the essence and meaning of any development. All claims that a certain people are happy are conditional because peoples, like individuals, cannot be happy or prosperous if their neighbor is unhappy.

-3-
Ambition divides the world. Reason will unite it.
...Poles and geographical distinctions are relative concepts; North and South, East and West do not exist in absolute terms—all of it is conditional, all of it is our invention...
...In the world, and about the world, there are subjective perspectives, and we must treat everyone’s opinions with respect. We must have the patience and cultural sensitivity to listen to the judgments of even those who do not attract our sympathies. This applies to everyone—you, me, him... As someone distant from political ambitions and sensationalism of any kind, after long discussions with myself regarding the current state of affairs, I have concluded that the world, as a physical and spiritual concept and entity, should not resemble a patchwork quilt. This conclusion, which at first glance may appear to some as the joke of an unserious person, has a constructive scientific foundation. I would like to briefly share my thoughts on such a "world without borders" and in advance express my deep gratitude to both my supporters and opponents.

-4-
There is a well-known truth: history is made by people. But people are not just creators of history; they are history itself. In other words, the history of the world is not only the history of humanity but also the history of individuals.
Here, there seems to be no need for a thorough excursion into the history of humanity or the development of the "historical" person—thousands of studies are dedicated to this issue, though, in the end, thousands of questions remain unanswered. It suffices to recall that some associate the emergence of humans (and of nature and society as a whole) with material factors, while others attribute it to divine power. Still, other thinkers attempt to reconcile these two perspectives.
Certainly, pinpointing the precise starting point of humanity's history would be a monumental scientific discovery. But alas, humans, who have reached such great heights in scientific understanding, still lack sufficiently complete knowledge about their own history.
Today, we—the people seeing off the second millennium of the new era—are less concerned with the historical past and more with the present and the future. Will the departing 20th century, with its bloody wars, destruction, tragedies, and catastrophes, leave its grim legacy to the coming millennium? Will the 21st century face the same tragic events that accompanied the 20th? What paths will the wheel of history take? Might the new century (millennium) bring a need to reassess history, to "rebuild" the world? Perhaps the very concept of time (history) has become conditional for humans—do we relive our past in the future or experience the future in the past? There are many questions, and each one remains open amidst the tangled knot of countless possible answers.
The history of the recent past is known to many. However, history is often presented in an unreal or even surreal guise, with many facts distorted beyond recognition, and subjective views and objective events thoroughly intertwined. Nonetheless, this history has been lived by us. And it is an undeniable fact that every historical epoch has its heroes. At times, bloody tyrants appear almost angelic, fools take on the guise of sages, and the weak seem powerful. But history, as is known, puts everyone and everything in its proper place.
The past is known. But the history of the future? It seems to me that history is not only the past but also the future.

-5-
The study of past events is a traditional focus, while the exploration of the history of the future still seems absurd, meaningless, or, at best, fantastical to many. Admittedly, certain scientific disciplines and fields, such as futurology, forecasting, and planning, deal with future-related issues. Yet even they cannot transcend the limits of narrow perceptions—this incompleteness is likely because these specialists view the future merely as fertile ground for cultivating ideas, pushing the human factor to the background. In contrast, we approach the future as a continuation of human history, grounding it in the attributes of real-world reality.
The past cannot be edited; it has already been lived. Only the future can be adjusted based on specific plans and concepts.
Of course, each state or nation may have its plans for the future: to establish a city in a particular place, allocate a certain amount for science and culture, defense, and engineering needs, determine the budget for the coming years, and so on. However, as has already been noted, these are merely current outlines and projects of individual states. One must remember that, over time, the communicative world, which serves as the condition for our existence, transforms into an increasingly unified organism. This makes it evident how imperfect, incomplete, and one-sided these localized plans are.
...We conclude that today global problems exist not only in ecological and military spheres but in all areas related to human life. Undoubtedly, solving these problems requires consistent, purposeful work. However, even a cursory glance at the world's ongoing processes reveals the absence of an effective mechanism regulating universal economic, political, cultural, and legal processes. In some places, hunger prevails; in others, prosperity. In some areas, people perish; in others, peace and tranquility reign. On one pole, democracy flourishes; on another, oligarchic regimes dominate.
In many countries, people still face humiliation and oppression for having the "wrong" skin color, eye shape, or "undesirable" nationality or race. Every day, thousands fall victim to the reckless schemes of ignorant politicians; people lose their lives over linguistic or religious differences, political beliefs. Humanity still harbors the seeds of selfishness, discord, catastrophes, and death, and it takes no great insight to foresee the consequences of failing to rid ourselves of this formidable burden.
Although there are dozens of large and small states on Earth, the world is effectively controlled by a handful of superpowers. Throughout the 20th century, this group has been called various names—the duo, the trio, the quartet, the G7, the G9—but essentially, it has pursued the same uniform mission: to govern the world unilaterally or at least to keep as much of the scattered countries of the globe as possible within its sphere of influence.
It is no secret that the political and economic events occurring in the world are closely intertwined with various interests and ambitions. These interests encompass a wide range of categories, from personal to national, from group to regional, and from clan to party-related. Many wars are deeply connected to ethnic, territorial, and other interests, as well as pragmatic goals pursued by the holders of these interests. Often, group and clan interests prevail over national ones, and national interests overstate interests.
For some reason, in all cases, the listed and unmentioned categories of interests inevitably outweigh universal human ones. This occurs despite the fact that the laws of the world should primarily be based on cosmic principles. The world is one. Once we accept this principle, it follows that all ongoing processes in the world—not just natural but also economic and political—are or should be unified. This is a requirement of the world's progressive development, its "beginning" and "end," the shades and nuances of this process—in short, the logic of the world itself. When we start dividing and fragmenting the world, it seems to diminish, retreating into itself. The world is a living organism, and it will always have the strength to retaliate for itself. The nuclear weapons we have invented can destroy the entire world multiple times (at least over 50 times!), but the world itself is unlikely to have the patience for such horrifying "experiments." It would be destroyed just once, with a single blow, and in that case, it would not be our might but our ambitions and arrogance—our powerlessness and weakness—that would doom our "planet of people" (as A. Saint-Exup;ry called it).

-6-
Borderlines are the physical fragmentation of the world. Such fragmentation cannot lead humanity and the world to good; it ultimately threatens to bring about universal destruction. In reality, the world should live and be governed according to the "principle of communicating vessels."
Of course, the social and societal processes happening in the world cannot be called primitive; resolving the "world problem" through superficial methods is impossible, and failing to understand this truth is already inexcusable. It would be a mistake to speak of an automatic merging or unification of nations and peoples, especially in the current era of widespread aspirations for national freedom and self-determination. Such assumptions appear particularly inappropriate. A recent example of an attempt at forced "merging" of nations can be found in the now-dissolved USSR. Evidently, before unifying, the world must first undergo a phase of fragmentation. One can speak of a strong, long-term unification only if it occurs on an equal and just foundation. No nation can join the global community while under the "patronage" of another nation.
Our doctrine (if the term is permissible) assumes equality of free individuals and independent nations on a unified socio-political basis, even if some might dismiss this as mere wishful thinking. Be that as it may, our stance is as follows: the politics of "divide and conquer," born of various ambitions, must end. A new model of human development and progress is needed. All the citizens of the world should be free and prosperous, and the World and its Citizens must restore unity and harmony among themselves. It is time to put an end to the "amendments" being made to the world's political map; rather, the physical barriers that divide the globe must be eliminated once and for all. Border posts, which wound the earth's body, should be dismantled. In a word, the world must be without borders.

-7-
At first glance, the idea of a world without borders may seem like a utopian construct tinged with cosmopolitanism, but in reality, it is difficult to imagine the future of humanity any other way. Some may consider this idea utopian and fantastical, others may dismiss it as delusional, and still others may choose to mock it. However, it is clear that this concept is based on an undeniable reality. The author, who considers themselves far from any fatalism, mysticism, or unhealthy illusions, arrived at these conclusions not suddenly, nor as the result of some revelation; there is no divine inspiration here, nor the gift of Nostradamus. These views are rooted in purely scientific reasoning.
Determining the role and place of humanity in the creation of the world is no simple task, but defining the essence and purpose of the existence of the world (and of humanity) is both possible and necessary. In other words, while it may be difficult to answer the question "How did you come into existence?" it is possible—and indeed a moral duty for every rational person—to seek an answer to "What is the purpose of your life?" The bloodshed of 20th-century wars and their catastrophic consequences place humanity, all of us, before Shakespeare’s dilemma: "To be or not to be."
So what should we do? Continue tribal disputes, ethnic cleansing, interethnic conflicts, and interstate wars, or instead work together to seek a solution? Should we build bonfires of millions of victims’ bodies, or put an end to mass murder once and for all?
From the bow and arrow to nuclear weapons, humanity has taken a "glorious" (though in reality, more infamous) path, participating in or witnessing thousands of large and small wars that pushed civilization to the brink of the abyss. The losses suffered by European countries alone in wars amount to 3.3 million people in the 17th century, 5.4 million in the 18th century, 5.7 million in the 19th century up to the start of World War I, up to 10 million in World War I, and more than 50 million in World War II.

-8-
Wars are often classified as "just" or "unjust." For example, World War II was considered "just" for the Soviet people, while unjust from the perspective of German Nazis. The collapse of the USSR was marked by armed conflicts between the nations that once constituted the "Soviet people": Armenians and Azerbaijanis, Georgians and Abkhazians, Chechens and Russians, Moldovans and Russians, and so on. Paradoxically, citizens of the former USSR, who once proudly discussed the victory over fascist Germany, are now absorbed in destroying their recent "brothers." Thus, today’s brother may become tomorrow’s sworn enemy, and vice versa. Does this mean there are no eternal friends, just as there are no eternal enemies?
Our conclusion is this: no war has a truly right or wrong side, just as there are no true winners or losers. Both the killed and the killers are us. The notion of strong and weak states is also essentially conditional. A small state with a large arsenal already considers itself strong. The Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev aptly noted that each of us, against our will, becomes a participant in war: if I wish victory for my nation, then I harbor animosity towards the opposing side. This very wish plays a role in the act of killing.
We—both the perishing and the killers—are undermining our own roots, cutting the branch on which we sit. It is time for all of us to begin searching for the causes of our tragedy not elsewhere, but within ourselves. By approaching the issue in this context, we see that today there is an urgent need to address humanity's global and fateful problems through the lens of new times and new thinking. We must return to the principles and tenets of classical sociology, political science, and philosophy.
If we propose the idea of a world without borders, we must develop a new approach to many national, religious, economic, and legal principles. Others before us have advocated for the idea of "borderlessness." But how, and by what means? One need only recall the infamous Marxist slogan, "Workers of the world, unite!" and the equally infamous theory of world revolution. Humanity has experienced firsthand all the tragic consequences of using class struggle slogans to unite the world.
There are hundreds of examples of how, in the name of a "borderless world," large states have annexed and absorbed smaller ones. The removal of borders must not be achieved through violence, coercion, military aggression, or intimidation, but through intelligence, wisdom, mutual concessions, open dialogue, constructive approaches, and scientific justification.
Of course, many questions arise: How, when, by whom, and by what methods should such unification be achieved? Clearly, tearing down and burning border posts in a chaotic fashion cannot bring the world into harmony as a "system of interconnected vessels." On the contrary, such primitive methods can only lead to chaos and anarchy.
Where should we start?
First and foremost, a strong international organization or a series of organizations must be established, similar to the United Nations or the OSCE. This legal institution should create an extensive network to oversee the world's nations, paying special attention to the development of various forms of self-governance and participation in them. There are numerous artificial and natural obstacles that hinder the process of bringing people closer together. The fragmentation and disunity of the world are not in the interest of ordinary people but rather of politicians seeking to satisfy their thirst for power and personal ambitions.
In the modern era, the actions of individual states resemble the behavior of mischievous children or, at best, the rash decisions of greedy individuals: each thinks only of their own interests and benefits. How rational is this? If several states are ready to crush each other into dust, constantly flexing their muscles and rattling their weapons, then how can we speak of civilization or steps toward mutual understanding?
If the principles of brotherhood among people and universal equality before the Creator lie at the foundation of all sacred books and moral theories, what then underpins the discrimination that is often enshrined in constitutional acts, or the divisions and splits based on various criteria and parameters? Who or what places the children of humanity on opposite sides of barriers? In our view, this is primarily the thirst for power of certain rulers and the conflicting interests of various groups.
Today, the fate of the world is determined by great powers, their leaders, and the policies these leaders pursue. If the bulk of the world’s military potential is concentrated in the hands of the United States and Russia, intellectual potential mainly in Germany and Japan, physical resources in China and India, and financial resources in Switzerland, what realistic possibilities and prospects for a "world without borders" can we discuss? Where should the process of abolishing borders begin—strong regions or weak ones?
A civil structure already exists in the world that everyone must reckon with: the European Union. Its existence testifies to a trend toward economic integration. NATO (a military structure) is busy expanding its borders. The OSCE carries out its peacekeeping mission, and the role of other international organizations is gradually growing. In the humanitarian sphere, the process of "de-bordering" has essentially been underway for a long time. But what about in the political realm? Unfortunately, politicians are not yet willing to entertain the idea of delegating their powers to international organizations.
Far too often, the thirst for power of individuals suppresses all other considerations. Historical experience shows that many power-hungry individuals are willing to sacrifice not only the interests of specific groups but also to bring any misfortunes upon an entire nation or even all of humanity in pursuit of their personal goals.
To wish for freedom, independence, and well-being for one’s people and state is a natural feeling for every person. Conversely, wanting one’s country to be annexed by another state is an anomaly. Therefore, a natural question arises: is the concept of a world without borders merely another reckless adventure? The author is absolutely convinced: no! It is not a utopia, not a reckless scheme, not an idyllic dream! As noted earlier, the idea of a world without borders, though seemingly abstract at first glance, is in fact a highly pragmatic theory. Implementing it in reality could rid humanity of endless wars, hunger, and poverty. This may sound grandiose or clich;d, but it is true: the elimination of borders will save the world.
This leads to another logical question: if borders are eliminated, does this mean that states will also disappear? Yes! States, in their classical understanding as apparatuses of coercion, will gradually be dismantled, replaced by mobile, flexible mechanisms of governance (more on this below).
The world, or human society as a whole, will be governed through the functioning of unified legislative and executive bodies and will be perceived as a single state entity. But doesn’t this plan suggest the emergence of global totalitarian rule? A single world, a single state, a single government, a single executive mechanism... Doesn't this resemble a fevered delusion? No! A global state can only be dangerous if all the levers of power are concentrated in the hands of one person. However, if we are talking about the principles of power-sharing and civilized integration, are such fears justified?
The executive mechanism would be in the hands of an International Governance System (IGS)—a kind of global Supreme Council (the names are entirely provisional; what matters is the principle of power-sharing). In the initial stages, national parliaments will remain. However, alongside the restructuring of national parliaments on new principles, fundamental work will also be undertaken to establish an International Parliament (IP). The necessity of such a body will be revisited. Over time, forms of self-governance will improve. Local governance structures, in particular, will remain intact for a considerable period, as abrupt "de-statization" risks leading either to totalitarianism or general chaos.

-9-
I am confident that in the near future, our descendants, having embraced freedom as a natural necessity, will develop more democratic and civilized forms of governance, bringing to life ideas that today may seem like fantasy. Such remarkable figures as Plato, Augustine, Nizami, Thomas More, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen expressed valuable judgments about a free society of the future in their works. I am far from intending to compare myself with these great thinkers. I merely wish to refresh the reader's memory regarding the titles of their works, which many call utopian: Plato's The Republic, Nizami's Iskender-nameh, Campanella's The City of the Sun, Thomas More's Utopia, Cabet's Voyage to Icaria, Bellamy's Looking Backward, Morris's News from Nowhere, and many other classic writings filled with realistic forecasts for the future. As the early 20th-century German sociologist Karl Mannheim rightly pointed out in his book Ideology and Utopia, today's utopia may become tomorrow's reality. To this, one might add Lamartine's observation: "Sometimes what is considered utopia is simply a truth expressed ahead of its time."
I do not consider myself a utopian but rather a pragmatist. If historical experience shows that social traits outweigh genetic ones, then on what grounds should one oppose different peoples and races to one another? Some backward sociologists with primitive thinking occupy themselves with "proving" the "fact" that some nations produce more great individuals than others. This is absurd. Genius is not born of a nation or some abstract community but of environment, conditions, and, finally, individual abilities and diligence.
The 20th century entered history as both a century of nationalism and racism. Alas, the devastating impact of fascism on humanity has not yet been fully overcome. Local wars show no signs of ending. The Russo-Chechen conflict, which began in the early past century, continues to this day. More than 500 heads of state (kings, presidents, and general secretaries) were forcibly removed or killed during the concluding century. In wars and power struggles, sons sometimes killed their fathers, brothers took up arms against brothers. Examples abound. If military expenditures had been redirected toward peaceful goals, humanity would have achieved far greater progress.
There are no good or bad peoples, brave or cowardly, talented or untalented, strong or weak, lazy or industrious, coarse or refined... In every nation, individuals possessing all these qualities can be found.
This is why the emergence of a world without borders could play a decisive role in the broad dissemination of universal human values, allowing the "law of communicating vessels" to extend beyond physics and into the moral and spiritual spheres.
What is meant by applying the "law of communicating vessels" to society? First and foremost, we should recall that the continents of our planet resemble such "communicating vessels," closely interconnected. Why, then, are material goods not evenly distributed among them? Numerous factors hinder the emergence and spread of mutual connections within global civilization.
Humans are cosmic beings; when isolated from the values of civilization and planetary connections, communication, and information channels, they are burdened by things like insufficient education and deficient upbringing. Such individuals live with narrow thoughts and unsettled ideas, react belatedly to events, and fail to properly understand and evaluate processes and phenomena. The dire consequences of this "inferiority complex" strike back at humanity itself like a boomerang. The emergence of such figures with minds loaded with distorted information codes—Stalin, Tito, Hitler, Mao, Saddam—during the partially civilized 20th century may be seen as a paradox. However, it must not be forgotten that this is also connected to the existing social system and environmental conditions.
No one can guarantee that similar isolated (or disconnected) personalities will not appear in the future. Only a Great Morality, the ethical principles of a world without borders, can protect humanity from dire, catastrophic events.
Incidentally, the convergence theory (from Latin convergo – “to converge”), which was once fiercely criticized as a “bourgeois doctrine,” does not exclude the possibility of a gradual rapprochement between the two systems – socialism and capitalism. However, Soviet sociologists, accusing American philosophers Sorokin and Galbraith, French scholar Perroux, and German thinker Flechtheim of "inhumane" ideas, labeled them abnormal, denounced any form of convergence as madness, and did not even attempt to propose any rational idea of their own.
Often, even excellent ideas are suppressed, destroyed in their infancy by such malevolent executioners of thought. Naturally, we are speaking here about healthy, benevolent ideas.



-10-
There are many who wish to enter the political or philosophical arena with new, unconventional words, judgments, or ideas. However, most of these ideas often bring to mind the saying, “What is new is merely well-forgotten old.” Such originality often borders on pretentiousness and self-admiration. Unfortunately, in the socio-political and philosophical spheres, as in many others, there have always been more than enough of such know-it-alls.
The names of great and small ideologists, who have spread nationalist, chauvinist, as well as internationalist and “universal” ideas, are well-known. We have no intention of erasing their names from history. We only deem it necessary to remind that neither extreme nationalist nor cosmopolitan ideas will save the world, as both are ultra-radical in nature.
Long before us, the problem of uniting the world was addressed by cosmopolitans (from Greek kosmopolites – “citizen of the world”). Great thinkers of Ancient Greece, such as Diogenes La;rtius and Plutarch, Renaissance figures like Dante and Campanella, German philosophers Lessing, Fichte, Goethe, Schiller, and many others actively promoted cosmopolitanism as an abstractly humanistic idea. Epictetus wrote that Socrates, one of the earliest cosmopolitans, coined the term. Socrates said, “I am not an Athenian or a Corinthian, but a cosmopolitan.”
Cosmopolitans, along with rejecting state sovereignty, also denied national sovereignty. By prioritizing the concept of a “citizen of the world,” they sometimes sought to impose a new world order through violent actions.
As for us, while embracing the notion of a “citizen of the world,” we do not intend to renounce national sovereignty. Nor do we advocate for a “unified world,” the kind sought by Alexander the Great – a world founded on violence, aggression, and bloodshed. Unlike the cosmopolitans, we reject the notion that a “world without borders” will arise, be governed, and regulated automatically or based on utopian ideas. Naturally, we are firmly opposed to the world being ruled by one individual or a group of politicians. History has shown us that large masses of people, under the influence of a single adventurer, often turn into participants, executors, or, at best, mere onlookers of the most horrific crimes. It is well-known that controlling a crowd in a state of psychosis is far easier than managing an individual of sound mind. Sometimes, an entire nation is driven into such a psychotic state, and in such an unhealthy environment, a rational person begins to seem anomalous and draws suspicious attention.
Against an epidemic, there are antidotes in the form of medical preparations and preventive measures. However, the infection of the masses with a social illness is a far greater calamity, as its consequences sometimes take years, even decades, to resolve. One need only recall the heavy legacy of Stalinism and Hitlerism.
(Of course, there have always been people with plans for world domination, and there are plenty of them today. The obsessive desire to rule over one’s kind at any cost is not without signs of sadism; it would be more accurate to call it social sadism. It should be noted that the widespread principle “Politics is a dirty business” plays a significant role in this desire to dominate...)
(Although sometimes it seems to me that the world we live in is nothing more than an unfinished sketch. And that this sketch will not be completed by some supernatural artist, but by humanity itself...)
(...To ensure the “integrity” of the world, all people must first learn to listen to their own words, reflect on their inner world, and analyze them.) (...Self-analysis and self-discipline do not solve everything, but they accomplish a great deal. You can train a dog to behave in human society without fear, but you cannot safely introduce an untrained person even into a dog’s “society”...)
We are aware that our reflections on a world without borders may be interpreted as a new variant of a totalitarian “bright future.” Such an interpretation is fundamentally mistaken. Above all, we advocate for the elimination of physical borders, while national and cultural differences will remain for a long time. Naturally, universal human culture already transcends borders; the greatest achievements of human culture have long belonged to the world, having eliminated state boundaries on their own.
Reflections on culture also touch on questions of religion, language, and customs. Can national identity or adherence to a particular religion truly serve as insurmountable barriers between people? Religion is an instrument of faith, just as language is a tool for expressing thoughts, so there cannot be good or bad religions or languages. One can only distinguish between ancient and young religions, or linguistically rich and concise languages.


-11-
It is not difficult to notice that in characterizing the "world without borders," we focused more on outlining its key contours than on providing detailed arguments. It is challenging to make definitive judgments in matters involving the intricate mechanisms and controls of a colossal process.
We believe that the structure of the world does not depend on any fatal or supernatural factors. The development of society follows its own laws. Therefore, unlike global processes, many local processes can evolve under the control of individuals, groups, states, or society as a whole. If certain well-known interstate interests and the personal ambitions of many state leaders were set aside, at least initial steps toward the peaceful resolution of local issues could be undertaken.
What prevents states from making mutual concessions?
States, like individuals (not nations but systems), sometimes become hostages to the systems they have created. A system can turn into a monster, devouring its creators and destroying civil society. Only a system based on democratic principles and universal human values can serve not to suppress the individual and the citizen but, on the contrary, to protect their rights and freedoms.
Incidentally, science has yet to determine the true place and role of one of nature’s creations—human beings. It is known that everything living in nature has its function: every representative of the wild, from the worm that "plows" the earth to the forest "sanitarians" like wolves and jackals, occupies its niche. But what is the function of humans in the kingdom of living nature? To destroy and annihilate, to exterminate other living beings? Or perhaps even to self-destruct? What is the profound purpose of humanity? Could it really be only to kill, destroy, and devastate?
Some may argue that humans do not only destroy but also create. However, can humans create without destruction? When we dig a canal, we "deal with" a river; when we construct a building, we "deal with" a forest; when we extract oil, we "deal with" the earth. Nevertheless, humanity has somehow managed to create its own society, in which it lives according to the laws it has developed. Unfortunately, humanity has yet to create a perfect state structure. However, it is not to say that there are no people or groups who put significant effort into solving this problem.
Like humans, a state cannot exist in isolation; states are bound by cosmic connections, historical and geographical ties, the artificial severing of which can lead to catastrophe. In this sense, an intimidating state is an isolated one, detached from the political "galaxy" of states. In such states, citizens not only lack love or attachment to their country but may even harbor hostility and hatred toward it. In an abnormal system, the state symbolizes not the comforting embrace of a mother but the blows of an unkind stepmother for its citizen-son. In such a hostile society, the homeland becomes not a paradise but a hell for its citizens, compelling them to escape the searing flames of that infernal fire. The usual means of escape are emigration or suicide.
Often, people are subjected to not only physical but also spiritual tyranny. Hope, as they say, dies last; a person who has lost all hope, aspirations, and desires is morally already dead, with only their physical shell remaining. Sometimes, it is not just individuals but entire nations that experience moral self-destruction.
... And, on the whole, all nations are destined to undergo catharsis;
... Peoples, like individuals, are born, grow, mature, and die;
... Civilizations die and are reborn.
Nature constantly self-programs, which is entirely alien to human society. Neither politically, morally, nor demographically are we capable of fully controlling our activities. History is filled with countless dramatic and tragic events. Only the close mutual connections between nations and states, the authority of great powers, and their adherence to the "law of communicating vessels" can spare humanity from the diverse hardships and calamities it endures.
Of course, today, on the threshold of the 21st century, appeals for a "borderless world" may seem out of place to those whose minds are burdened by nationalist ideas (we avoid using the word "poisoned," as it could be perceived as offensive; moreover, it is hard to deny the role of nationalist ideas and leaders in ensuring the survival of many nations. Indeed, nationalism has saved numerous nations at dramatic turning points in history). Nevertheless, rational people with even a modest understanding of history will undoubtedly draw appropriate conclusions, leading to the following question: What is the means of saving the world (not individual nations or states, but humanity as a whole) if not in its "de-bordering"?

-12-
Certainly, mutual connections and cooperation among nations and states must be regarded as a desirable and highly important process. But do these mutual connections always yield positive results? Do states always find common ground, understand each other, or at least strive to do so? Do "great powers" always take into account the interests of smaller states? Are we not witnessing in society what we see in nature, where the strong pursue the weak?
There are many questions, but there are counter-questions challenging them. Opponents may reasonably ask: What kind of unification are you talking about when nations and peoples in colonial and semi-colonial dependence demand sovereignty and independence? What "borderless world" are you discussing when the number of border posts on Earth continues to grow? These questions are entirely justified, fair, and necessary.
In such cases, we must ask: Have you thought about the political goals often hidden behind demands for "sovereignty"? Can you comprehend the causes and consequences, the ultimate goals, and the near- and long-term results of the separation of one part of a state and its subsequent "reunification" with another state? If you pay attention, you will see that smaller states often strive to unite and consolidate with larger ones. An ongoing process of natural integration among states already exists; despite ethnic conflicts, clashes, and border disputes, borders become denser in one place and sparser in another. In other words, the world is already "de-bordering"; this process is inevitable, and there is no other path. The question then becomes: How can we accelerate this process? How can we ensure that it is painless and that humanity avoids suffering, bloodshed, and tragedies along the way? This is the main problem.

-13-
Now, I turn to my patriotically minded brothers, who are outraged that I placed the word "sovereignty" in quotation marks: please be patient. I swear by the Almighty Creator that I had no intention of mocking the aspirations of peoples for sovereignty. I love my people, my nation, sincerely and wholeheartedly. While penning these lines, I am optimistic about the future of my hardworking, decent, patient, and courageous people, unlike my compatriots who pessimistically and unflatteringly think of our nation.
In history, victories and defeats have alternated; periods of rise have been followed by decline. There is nothing disgraceful about decline per se—can you name a nation on Earth that has always been victorious? If there is one, show it to me! It seems to me that there are no victorious or defeated peoples, only competent and mediocre political leaders.
In this sense, it is absurd to speak of absolute sovereignty for either individuals or nations. There are no and cannot be absolutely free individuals or states. The current state of humanity, dispersed across the planet, can only lead to true sovereignty through mutual human (and inter-national) contact and genuine fraternity. Only through such harmony and order can the world regain its wholeness, integrity, originality, and authenticity. True human freedom can only arise after the world achieves this integrity.
This is the opinion of a person who primarily considers real facts, refrains from prophecy, and does not respect empty rhetoric or banality. Yes, the Earth must be united (an analogy to the famous exclamation of the unforgettable Galileo: "And yet, it moves!").
One should not doubt that an idea which today seems like a dream, legend, or utopia may become a reality tomorrow. The unification of the world (not only in the philosophical sense of the term) is a challenge dictated by the demands of the era. The world must not be divided or allocated between "large" and "small" nations, or "weak" and "strong" rulers, but must be shared among all people on equal terms. The task of "redistributing" the world (in essence, forging a new unity) transcends all ideologies—be they bourgeois, nationalist, communist, or any others.

-14-
When discussing world unification, it should be emphasized once more that the concept of unification does not imply the global dominance of a single state, nation, or people. On the contrary, the foundation of unification must rest on the complete and absolute equality of all the world's nations as they exist today. The idea of a global community or world citizenship should not be perceived as an abstract concept; for example, the Russian people should join the global community not as the current Russian Federation but as Russia itself. This proposition, which at first glance may seem controversial, is in fact entirely rational: Chechens would join the structures of international organizations independently, not as part of Russia; Gagauz, not as Moldovans; Kurds, not as Armenians. The conclusion follows that before uniting, we must, in a sense, separate and become distinct. Only by gaining independence can nations join the future global community of nations, creating a true world without borders.
The greatest misfortune is to live in a fragmented world (referring to the current forced divisions), ruled by clans and tribal associations, classes, and parties. The greatest happiness, however, is to breathe freely in a free and secure world. Of course, discussing absolute, universal human happiness is a thankless task, but real happiness is possible only for a free person in a free world.
As for how the restructuring of the world should be implemented, what processes it should involve, and by what means it should be carried out, serving the goal of unification—
Undoubtedly, "de-bordering" and unification must begin with arms control. International oversight groups must be organized to inspect the arsenals of all states and draft official reports. Only after this should efforts commence to neutralize nuclear, then conventional heavy and missile weapons, followed by the conclusion of international agreements and the adoption of binding commitments. The production and testing of all types of weapons of mass destruction must be unequivocally prohibited.
Thus, the process of "de-bordering" the world should begin with demilitarization. The elimination of heavy, medium, and light weaponry and the parallel reduction of military expenditures will lead to the weakening of global military potential. Resources allocated for military purposes should be redirected to rebuilding settlements destroyed by armed conflicts. All of this must be carried out with the support and under the guidance of international organizations.
Simultaneous elimination of weapons and ammunition might temporarily weaken law enforcement structures. Therefore, police forces should retain a limited amount of ammunition and mobile tactical weapons for a certain period. After demilitarization measures, expert groups should be established to address the severe consequences of large-scale natural disasters and solve global environmental problems comprehensively.
The greatest goal for the citizens of a "world without borders" should be the eradication of areas plagued by mass hunger, unemployment, and illiteracy.

-15-
Alongside addressing global economic and environmental issues, political transformations must also be implemented. In the initial phase of these "grand reforms," all state structures are preserved, but the primary levers of local governance are gradually and systematically transferred under the authority of a "collective management center," "main control panel," or "brain center" of the interstate (international) community. It does not matter what this body is called; for the sake of convenience, we will refer to it as the International Management System (IMS).
Some may perceive the term "subordination" as carrying a connotation of despotism and coercion. However, as has been repeatedly emphasized, this process must be carried out in a civilized manner—carefully and step by step. To completely eliminate the risk of the IMS becoming a suppressive or totalitarian body, a thoroughly thought-out governance mechanism must be established, along with an elective organizational structure operating on the basis of democratic laws. The number of IMS personnel is not determined by the proportion of the global population but on an equal-proportional basis. For instance, China, with nearly 1.5 billion people, and the Estonian nation, with just one million, have an equal number of representatives in the IMS. The IMS bears full responsibility for the fate of all nations and peoples of the world, all human beings, and the protection of human rights. It regulates and coordinates the activities of state structures and non-governmental organizations.
Human progress, as well as the inevitability of world development, confirms the necessity of uniting nations and peoples. The reader is already familiar with certain judgments regarding some elements of the international economic, environmental, and military community. But how can the contours of spiritual unity be defined, and what are the challenges of global culture?
The author is compelled once again to digress in order to prove the validity of their conclusions and their resilience to criticism. The fact is that the author of the idea (or theory) of a "world without borders" considers themselves a more or less normal person who has, as thoroughly as possible, studied the most important examples of world culture (or civilization—though the terms are often used synonymously, they are not actually equivalent). They have examined the works of numerous philosophers and philosophical teachings, both humane and inhumane, from Plato to Popper, from Kant to Comte, from Aristotle to Sartre, from Marx to the latest "neo-isms." Based on an analysis of everything they have read, the author has concluded that humanity carries within it the seeds of new ideas and requires a "midwife." It would be better for the newborn to come into the world not on the operating table but directly into the mother's arms, and not before the due time for delivery.
One of the issues that concerns the author most is the fear of being perceived by the majority as either a fool or a fraud. However—without sounding overly lofty—they believe that such a prospect, as well as any difficulties and hardships faced in the pursuit of true happiness for humanity, should be regarded not as misfortune but as a form of enjoyment. In this context, the author, summarizing what they have read, seen, and learned, wishes to share a small portion of their conclusions.
I am well aware that the supporters of the theory of a "world without borders" will be far fewer than its opponents. There are many reasons for this, the main one being that the world as a whole is conservative. However, decisively rejecting any cosmopolitanism or Freemasonry (an international secret society originating in 18th-century England with the aim of uniting humanity into a fraternal alliance, though its ideas were largely utopian and even mystical, detached from reality, and in some aspects aggressive), we must conclude: only unity can save the world.
The famous phrase of a renowned writer—"beauty will save the world"—is a reflection of the timelessness of universal human values. In short, the socio-political, philosophical, economic, statistical, legal, and other viewpoints we have studied and adopted fully confirm the theses we have put forward.
The reader has probably noticed that to confirm and reinforce (or, conversely, to critique and refute) our views and conclusions, we rarely provide citations, relying instead on the most general principles, even though every argument could be supported by countless quotations. However, since excessive reliance on quotations often leads researchers away from the central narrative into scholasticism, we prefer general formulas and propositions, deeming it appropriate to present our thoughts in the form of postulates.
Having read numerous books, documents, works, and treatises about destructive wars and bloodshed, I have concluded that the world belongs to everyone, just as everyone belongs to the world. Analyzing the diverse and ambiguous consequences of nationalist ambitions and chauvinistic arrogance, clan-based and “internationalist” thinking, communist disgrace and liberal unseemliness, bourgeois arrogance and socialist prejudices, Christian “brotherhood” and Muslim fundamentalism, Judaic “mercy” and Buddhist “immortality,” I have discovered a single truth in which I firmly believe: the world is the first and last abode of humanity. Living by myths of paradise and inferno, suffering under the yoke of rulers and conquerors, humanity must ultimately and inevitably come to the supremacy of reason and intellect, not in words but in deeds, creating a “world without borders.” This may sound lofty and grandiose, but everyone must once and for all grasp a simple truth: the salvation of the world lies not in the hands of some supernatural force but in the hands of humanity itself. Of course, I am not referring to natural disasters, geological cataclysms, or global upheavals resulting from cosmic catastrophes, which could lead to mass death of humans and all life on Earth.
...I am not even speaking here about how humanity exploits and destroys nature, causing global environmental problems. By damaging natural ecosystems, humanity—a paradoxical entity—afflicts not only the “shell” but also the very heart and memory of nature. Can we expect inspiration or any creative impulse from nature with a disrupted “memory”?

-16-
This is a topic for a serious discussion. It must be noted that humanity is obligated to resolve all problems that depend on it. Regarding humanity’s development, scientifically grounded forecasts can be proposed; however, making senseless and even absurd judgments is a crime against humanity. It is deeply regrettable that, from time to time and generation to generation, humankind has blindly followed various fraudsters—Kabbalists, fortune-tellers, ventriloquists, mediums, and prophets like Nostradamus, Kashpirovsky, Vanga, and other charlatans and adventurers—leaning not toward truth but toward fiction, not toward science but toward pseudoscience. What could be the outcome of such prejudiced illusions, unhealthy hallucinations, social paranoia, and political necrophilia? Naturally, mass psychosis and social neurosis! Finally, to our great sorrow, even power-hungry individuals who have concentrated powerful propaganda tools in their hands sometimes fall victim to these maladies and, most frighteningly, infect the masses as well.
Prejudices, ignorance, obscurantism—these are humanity’s most terrifying ailments. A world without borders must rid itself of them. It is particularly regrettable that even leading, extraordinarily talented representatives of global science, prominent thinkers, fall under the influence of narrow regional or local thinking, becoming proponents of inhumane and harmful ideological trends, pitting nations, religions, and continents against one another. Can this be called anything but racism or primitive nationalism?
The verdict once delivered by the English writer Rudyard Kipling, who lived in India, about the impossibility of rapprochement between East and West, is often echoed in various scientific circles today: “East is East, and West is West.” This thesis is absurd: opposing East and West, North and South, is nothing more than conservatism and political color blindness. Certainly, countless references could be made to differences in parameters, lifestyles, and traditions of the East and West. Moreover, at certain historical stages, the East surpassed the West, while at others, the West surpassed the East (in terms of scientific achievements, cultural development, economic growth, etc.). However, none of this justifies opposing East and West or making irresponsible judgments. Apparently, the author of The Jungle Book went further in artistic fiction than in political views. A being like Mowgli can exist only in conditions of social vacuum—what, then, do differences between East and West have to do with this? If a favorable social environment for human formation is absent (assuming the individual is born normal), and if this being, destined to be human, lives by the laws of the jungle, then, at best, it will become a Mowgli. Kipling, whom we respect as an outstanding writer, with his orthodox views, unwittingly resembles a kind of social Mowgli himself.
Kipling is not alone. Friedrich Nietzsche, the author of many grand and outstanding works, after filtering human races through his own "sieve," recognized no national or racial minorities or majorities apart from the Aryan race—the bearers of blue blood.
For Marx and his followers, the opposition lay not between East and West or Aryans and non-Aryans but between classes—proletariat and bourgeoisie.
The tragedy lies in the fact that sometimes (and history offers numerous examples), this political ailment infects not just individuals but almost entire nations. At the beginning of the 20th century, certain political circles in England considered the English to be the "wisest nation." By the mid-century, similar sentiments were held by the ruling elite in Germany, and at the end of the century, in Japan. On the threshold of the 21st century, fierce debates unfolded about who owns the future. Some self-proclaimed modern Nostradamuses declared, “The 21st century is the century of the Russians!” This, of course, was the firm conclusion of prominent Russian "prophets." Or: “The 21st century is the century of the Turks!”—a statement, naturally, made by those longing for the former glory of the Ottoman Empire. Armenian ultranationalists dream of a mythical "Great Armenia from sea to sea," making loud claims against their neighbors. Add to this the Tatar, Mongol, Tekke-Turkmen, Persian, Chechen, and even Chukchi (;) nationalists...
As noted earlier, the author is far from any desire to divide peoples into large and small, good and bad. It would be, at the very least, foolish not to understand the role of nationalist and populist movements during certain historical stages, the courage and resolve of national heroes, the unique mentality inherent to every nation, or to mock national liberation struggles against colonialism and aggression for self-determination, or to ignore national sentiments and the polyphony of national values, or to dismiss nations and peoples, tribes, and clans. On the contrary, the world is beautiful precisely because of its diversity, including its national diversity.
The point, however, is that throughout history, some nations have oppressed others, creating nations of rulers and nations of the oppressed. Of course, this dominance was never eternal, as roles constantly shifted, but the essence remains: wars persist, and blood continues to be spilled on Earth, with humanity unable to wash away its own shed blood.

-17-
In one myth, a fantastical creature is described that, upon reaching a certain age, begins to devour its own flesh. The actions and deeds of humankind often resemble the plot of that horrifying myth: sometimes, a person puts their kinsfolk, blood brothers, and even themselves at risk of death; they destroy their own kind. Humanity eradicates itself, thirsting for human blood.
It would, of course, be naive to believe that the removal of border posts would automatically end all wars and stop the bloodshed on Earth. That is why the author emphasizes the need to implement a disarmament plan (demilitarization) before “debordering.” If such a plan is realized, the governing of the world will be determined, at best, by democratic laws, at worst, by criminal codes, and in the worst-case scenario, by the baton of law enforcement.
Incidentally, the structure and mechanism of the functioning of the MCS (Modern Civil Society), taking into account some minor regional (national) differences, require the development and implementation of unified laws covering the most general principles. Compliance with these general unified laws should be considered necessary (mandatory) for everyone.
However, the laws related to society cannot and should not apply to the moral norms used by peoples. Each nation has its own established norms of behavior, traditions, and mentality. It is also necessary to recognize the truth that a person who finds themselves in the large World, supported by organic global connections and contacts, after adopting common human moral principles over time, will begin to live by unified higher goals and ideals. This will not be the “ideal person” imagined by Marxists, but a normal, living individual—a personality who, while embracing universal human values, will retain their own identity.
In essence, practically all ordinary people live with the same aspirations and desires. However, "unusual" political views of politicians prevent them from uniting. Therefore, slightly rephrasing the famous Marxist slogan (forgive us, Marx!), it is appropriate to put forward the following call: People of all countries, unite!
Outstanding works of literature and art have made and continue to make a significant contribution to the “debordering” of the world. Does Homer belong only to the Greeks, Shakespeare to the English, Rustaveli to the Georgians, Fizuli to the Azerbaijanis, Pushkin to the Russians, or Shevchenko to the Ukrainians? High culture and great science are the heritage of the whole world and all its inhabitants. As was noted long before us, a scientist has a homeland, but science does not. In other words, the homeland of science is the entire world.
For the development of literature and art, a world without borders will undoubtedly open up the broadest horizons. However, as already mentioned, examples of genuine culture, literature, and art have long since “crossed” all state borders, becoming the heritage of the entire world. In the society we aspire to see, the most favorable conditions will be created for translating and promoting works, leaving no doubt about the swift removal of any significant obstacles to global literary and artistic integration.
After establishing the structures of the MCS, all states, republics, peoples, nations, national minorities, and majorities must hold parliamentary elections, the results of which will allow deputies to represent their communities in Continental and International Parliamentary Assemblies (IPA).
If, within the structures of local self-government (LSG), all nations, regardless of population size, are represented by an equal number of deputies, then in the International Parliamentary Assembly (IPA), they are elected (or at first may be appointed) in numbers proportional to the population size of former states or nations. Parliaments at all levels—villages, cities, countries, continents, and the entire world—will operate strictly based on democratic principles.
Note: One of the main reasons for the collapse of the USSR and the entire "socialist bloc" was the absence of a democratic governance mechanism. The entire country was subordinate to a single center, and everything was managed by one authority. The system as a whole was controlled by a representative of the "great nation" (though the leader's national identity mattered little: Stalin’s Georgian origin didn’t change the fact that he was a Russian politician). If the parliament (or general secretariat) had acted under a collective leadership of the heads of the 14–15 republics, the USSR would likely have been more enduring.
The creation of an international (global) parliament can play a significant role in resolving international conflicts and developing laws that are universal for the entire world. Initial steps toward forming international policing structures have already been taken—for example, Interpol. In countries integrated into the LSG system, neutralizing and punishing criminals and criminal groups could be achieved more easily than it is today.
Gradually, the need will arise to transition from national currencies to a unified monetary system. Even now, the world has effectively been "conquered" by two currencies—the US dollar and the German mark. Is there a need to continue printing national currencies? Undoubtedly, some national patriots, eager to take revenge on us for "abolishing borders," will step forward and indignantly ask: Don’t you know that currency, like borders and flags, is a symbol of statehood?
However, if we are transitioning to a unified governance system—or rather, ascending to a new stage of governance—what statehood symbols can there be to speak of? Moreover, the funds spent worldwide on printing national currencies could solve the problems of millions of people.
While the countries of the European Union are taking steps toward establishing a unified monetary system, small nations, having gained independence, rush to introduce their own national currencies. Of course, we must understand the small nations' yearning for freedom and the feelings born of that yearning. At the same time, we must emphasize that euphoria rarely leads to anything good. Furthermore, the author, using the term "small nations," means no irony but seeks to highlight a simple truth: small nations face no fewer challenges than large ones, but the fate of small nations is often decided in the private circles of "great" leaders. That is why the "first idea of peace" should primarily be realized through the unification of large nations, not small ones. In this case, small nations will more quickly rid themselves of major dangers.
Unfortunately, this is human nature: people are more frightened by today's small fears than by tomorrow's looming global catastrophes. Nations and states incapable of—or unwilling to—see beyond their immediate surroundings are doomed to upheavals and disasters. "Homo sapiens" must draw a conclusion from this very inevitability and preserve their world.
I repeat: the creator of this "human world" is humanity itself and no one else—neither Allah nor any other supernatural force. And, being far from intending to offend anyone's religious feelings, I declare with full responsibility: fear of God is nothing more than a tool in the hands of adventurist rulers, used to suppress the people.
Today, the world is governed by people; in the future, however, the achievements of scientific and technological progress will increasingly play a role. As fantastical as this may seem now, it is certain that, in the long run, the decisive role in world governance will no longer belong to humans but to computers. We must come to terms with this prospect, which some may find mystical and others even terrifying, although there is no rational basis for pessimism here, since the role of computer technology in human life contains far more positives than negatives.
Aren't many critical functions already entrusted to modern technical means, from the most complex calculations to equally complex surgical operations? Don’t we already trust "artificial memory" more than our own natural memory? If so, what grounds do we have for doubting the possibilities of modern technologies tomorrow?
The place for the "center of the world" should be located in the territory of one of the least developed and smallest countries. The position of the chairperson or co-chairperson of the global parliament will alternately be granted to deputies from small states. In this case, the citizens of the world, who have suffered for centuries from despotism, tyranny, and dictatorship, will finally feel free, free from centuries-old fear. They will witness a world without borders and wars—where the concepts of paradise from the sacred texts will begin to take shape in real life. Humanity, having rid itself of tribal, clan, and familial instincts, will enter a new world, a new era where universal human values reign supreme.
The idea of a "world without borders" is far removed from any religious-mystical, fatalistic superstitions or illusions. This concept is of exceptional importance in resolving the socio-psychological, ethnic, economic, legal, cultural, and spiritual problems of humanity.
The notion of a "world without borders" is immeasurably distant from revolutionary extremism, social upheavals, economic polarization, political terror, and any danger of moral degradation.

-18-
Admittedly, the "unification" of the entire world under one flag and the elimination of borders could lead to serious challenges. Avoiding sudden catastrophes could be aided by the natural course of integration processes. A system built on artificial, false, and unscientific ideas and principles cannot be sustainable.
I am far from advocating for the idea of a single nation, a single language, a single religion, and the like, although, in principle, the possibility of something like this in the distant future cannot be ruled out. I advocate for a unified economic space. While I do not accept the idea of a single culture, unified moral principles, or uniform traditions in the absolute sense, I do hope for the emergence of a unified cultural and spiritual space.
Alongside the preservation of national self-awareness, I support the formation of a universal humanistic worldview within each of us. By proposing and defending the concept of world unification, I do not intend to endorse the absurd idea that all people in the future will have a single nationality. I am firmly against the cultivation of "seedling" humans modeled on incubator-raised chickens. However, I strongly believe that establishing direct and operational transcontinental connections, improving the structure of international self-governance, and strengthening the activities of international parliamentary organizations will not diminish humanity. On the contrary, the immaturity and imperfection of the individual are precisely the result of incomplete education fostered by the existing "unfinished" states. If the world returns to its original wholeness, the individual will also become whole.
I sincerely believe that borders will one day be eliminated. However, I would not want a powerful state, under the pretext of eliminating barbed-wire-divided borders, to deploy its army onto the territory of a weaker state and annex it. Humanity has often witnessed such "reunifications."

-19-
Throughout history, dozens of world conquerors, from Alexander to Hitler, have attempted to seize control of the entire world through military force, but each time these ventures ended in failure. The world should be united not through violence but by the power of intellect and civilization.
...And finally, about existing political systems. For decades, sociologists worldwide advocated the idea of an eternal confrontation between two opposing systems. By the end of the 20th century, they had largely agreed that "capitalism" and "socialism" could coexist peacefully. Ultimately, however, the "socialist camp" collapsed, and "socialism—the first phase of communism" was effectively laid to rest. Historical experience shows that the "final point" of a society based on violence is absurdity and tragedy. At the same time, it is an indisputable fact that subjective factors—ideas put forward by various thinkers, whether progressive or regressive—have played a significant role in shaping human society.
As for the division of the world into antagonistic (or non-antagonistic) systems, this is all relative: socialist societies had both dark and bright, progressive and negative features, just as capitalist societies did. One can cite countless examples of positive and negative, virtuous and ugly aspects in both capitalism and socialism.
From this, one can conclude that a unified, holistic, "borderless" world must transition to an entirely new system of governance—choosing a third path of development. It must not be forgotten that the path of progress and development lies through culture and spirituality. A spiritually empty world breeds spiritually empty individuals—a gray, faceless mass.
In any case, we are opposed to an impersonal, monotonous, monophonic society, as well as to individuals who embody these qualities. The spiritual horizons of a borderless world must be vibrant and diverse.

-20-
P.S. Here, I have decided to place a temporary conclusion to this essay, presented as a philosophical and artistic treatise. However, I feel it is too early to definitively conclude the propositions within it. It addresses how today’s humanistic values will be passed on to tomorrow, as well as the prospects of the human race. It speaks to the future of our world... Many of these issues are a cause for concern for the author. Nevertheless, his conclusion is clear: the world must be freed of both physical and spiritual borders; it must, by nature, become borderless. In a borderless world, free individuals should live. The integrity of the world must transform into a moral guarantee of human freedom. A holistic individual can only be formed within a holistic world.
The author is confident that the propositions he has put forth will evoke a wide range of opinions among readers. But there can be no doubt that among ordinary people, supporters of a unified world far outnumber advocates of its fragmentation. People should live freely, happily, and prosperously on their planet—regardless of skin color, race, religion, or language.

-21-
Chronological Supplement to the Tractatus – A Prospect
1. Initially, in all states, disarmament is carried out under the supervision of specially appointed representatives.
2. Referendums are held in all states. Respondents are asked: "Do you agree to the integration of our people and state into the World Union, including the incorporation of executive government structures into the structures of the WUA?" Naturally, before the referendum, a broad educational and explanatory campaign must be conducted among the population regarding the essence of joining the New World (Great World, Transcontinental Management System, International Union).
3. Depending on the results of the referendum, the first steps are taken toward world unification, forming the initial regional unions, whose borders, naturally, will expand over time.
4. Armed forces and weaponry are gradually eliminated, with public order maintained by law enforcement agencies.
5. The territorial integrity of states is symbolically preserved, but the world's maps gradually take on a single color.
6. Connections between regional political parties and transnational entities are steadily expanded.
7. The transition to a system of self-governance leads to a fundamental transformation of the concept of the "state," with the process of de-statification progressively expanding.
8. Parliaments are elected based on regional or national criteria. An equal number of representatives from all peoples are elected to the WUA structures, forming an international parliament based on regional principles (or the national composition of the population).
9. National-cultural autonomy is preserved, while the political sovereignty of states is gradually abolished.
10. The authority of international human rights organizations and societies is expanded.
11. Language, religion, and culture retain their eternal role in the lives of individuals and nations, fulfilling a universal human mission.
12. All manifestations of racist and chauvinistic tendencies are deemed intolerable and unacceptable, with the propagation of inhumane slogans categorically prohibited.
13. The world’s laws are regulated by a single Constitution, and a unified currency (e.g., dollar, mark, ruble, yen, etc.) is introduced as the sole medium of exchange.
14. The capital of one of the smaller states is designated as the world's capital.
15. One of the world's most widespread languages (German, English, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, French, Turkish, etc.) is adopted as the primary means of communication.
16. International cultural exchange remains a focus, emphasizing the translation of major artistic works and scientific achievements.
17. On a planetary scale, global problems are addressed, including the elimination of illiteracy.
18. Favorable conditions are created for the preservation and development of all known forms of property. The WUA abolishes undemocratic practices such as permanent residence permits and mandatory registration by place of residence.
19. Greater attention is given to demographic processes and resolving issues in this area.
20. The process of border elimination is accompanied by the annulment of statehood.
21. The world and its history are governed in a unified stream, reflecting the will of its inhabitants.


Postscript
...Thus, to the countless multitude of scientific and philosophical teachings, movements, and "isms," a new idea has been added. The author, with all their rational soul and the soul of their reason, believes in their concept, in its pragmatism and vitality, though they do not rule out that some may perceive it unseriously due to their narrow-mindedness or rigidity of thought. This is quite natural; after all, Plato once wrote that many, being unable to grasp and enjoy certain ideas, derive pleasure from mocking their authors, thereby attempting to mask their ignorance.
The author emphasizes the exceptional role of human intellect in understanding the world. As Kant said, the truth, especially philosophical truth, is understood at the cost of infernal labor, and philosophy itself is a Sisyphean task.
Unconditionally accepting the truth of a "world without borders," the author rejects pseudo-philosophical views aimed at finding contradictions between the very existence of the world and its understanding, between object and subject in resolving socio-political "ebbs and flows."
In their opinion, the explanation of the world is essentially as simple as the world itself. Marx(ism) focused less on understanding the world and more on changing it. Naturally, denying the reality of this process of change is impossible, but one cannot deny that there is now a need to change traditional, limited perspectives on the world among an even greater number of people.
By adapting the world to their needs, a person must also adapt to it, seeking in harmonious unity with it the quintessence of their vitality. The progress of modern human civilization should serve not division but the consolidation of the world, which in this sense must return to its original state.
The surface of the Earth should resemble the heavenly heights, which, as we know, know no borders.
1993