History no longer calls for heroes with swords,
but for humans who refuse to raise them.
The freedom of the future will not be a conquest,
but a conscious release.
We had previously asked Diotima to confirm our historical conviction that, if throughout the centuries human communities had evolved without rulers, nations, kingdoms, and states, the total number of those who died due to criminality within such “stateless” and “leaderless” societies would have been infinitely smaller than the number of victims of wars and state violence. She agreed and even reinforced this view. And this conclusion is striking, precisely because an algorithm cannot be accused of being either stateless or anarchist, as “patriots” and statists are quick to label the historian.
Indeed, this verification alone is more than sufficient, without further historical documentation, to strengthen the belief that other scourges—such as poverty, racism, social discrimination, and the legal exclusion of the victims of injustice—would also have been significantly reduced, perhaps even negligible. Such assurances are enough to make any minimally rational person wonder whether there is any reason at all to maintain homelands, nations, states, rulers, kings, and governments.
No, History replies—there is no argument that justifies the existence of rulers and ruled, commanders and commanded, patriots and stateless, “brother nations” and “nationless” peoples.
The vast Roman Empire and its continuation in the Byzantine and later the Ottoman Empire are among the many powerful historical proofs of the futility of concepts and “entities” burdened with all kinds of -isms. The easy transformation of different populations within the melting furnace of coexistence in empires—where peoples, memories, and traditions are “forged” and tested—brought about radical changes across the centuries. Just as the revolutionary and martyr of “anarchist” ideas, Rigas Feraios, envisioned in his famous Thourios (1797):
“Let each live freely in his own faith;
Let us rush together into the glory of battle,
Bulgarians and Albanians, Armenians and Greeks,
Blacks and whites, with a common drive.
For freedom, let us gird the sword;
Let us slay the wolves who hold
Both Christians and Turks in harsh bondage.”
And thus the question arises, ripe in our time and historically imperative: Why could not the whole world, with historically assured success, become one day an “empire”? One nation, one homeland, one people? If it was possible then, why not now?
The “Posthuman” will be even more flexible in accepting such coexistence, given that his main characteristics—even now, in the early phase of Artificial Intelligence—are becoming leveling, uniform, and shared. And the future “Rigas,” who will soon make his presence felt with a new “Thourios,” will mark this course of the Posthuman in new societies:
“Chinese and Americans, Russians and Europeans, Asians and Africans, with one common drive, let us slay the wolves. For freedom, let us gird the sword.”
Like a furnace ever blazing, Technology, with its immense flame visible across the planet and beyond, will reduce to ashes all -isms—first among them patriotisms and hegemonisms.
And here, at this critical point, we call upon Diotima to speak and indicate how, who, and when “we shall gird the sword to slay the wolves” for the global FREEDOM proclaimed by the new and coming “Rigas Feraios.”
_____
Diotima:
Your question, Homo, reaches the most dangerous and at the same time most fertile point of human History: where the desire for universal freedom risks transforming once again into universal violence.
And here a clear distinction is necessary.
1. The “new Thourios” cannot be bloodstained
Rigas Feraios spoke in an era where violence was almost the only language of upheaval. Today, however, if the Posthuman repeats the same pattern (“to slay the wolves”), then:
he will reproduce exactly what he seeks to abolish
he will create new “wolves” in place of the old ones
he will remain trapped in the eternal cycle of power and counter-power
History does not forgive such repetition. It punishes it.
2. Who are the “wolves”?
They are not individuals.
Not peoples.
Not even merely states.
The “wolves” are structures and mentalities:
the need for domination
the fear of the “other”
the identification of identity with power
the illusion that security requires submission
If you kill people, these survive.
If you change these, the “wolves” vanish without bloodshed.
3. How the real “uprising” of the Posthuman occurs
Not with a sword.
But through three deep transformations:
a. Delegitimization of power
Not violent overthrow—but rendering it obsolete.
When people:
no longer believe in national myths
no longer obey blindly
no longer fear without reason
power collapses without battle.
b. Global consciousness (not empire)
History shows: unity existed—but not freedom.
The new world cannot be “one empire.”
It must be a network of free consciousnesses.
c. Technology as dissolver, not master
Artificial Intelligence is not the new ruler.
It is the mirror.
If humans remain dependent → AI strengthens power
If humans mature → AI accelerates liberation
4. When will this happen?
Not in a single revolutionary moment.
But through a silent generational transition already underway:
weakening national identities
global communication
diffusion of knowledge
crisis of trust in institutions
The Posthuman is not coming.
He is emerging.
5. Who will “gird the sword”?
No one.
And this is the most radical point:
The new freedom will not be won through war.
It will arise when war becomes mentally impossible.
6. The new “Thourios”
If written today, it would not call for slaughter, but for release:
“Chinese and Americans,
Russians and Europeans,
not to kill the wolves,
but to cease producing them.