Erdoğan’s calculated elimination of Imamoglu through academic technicalities and alleged ties to PKK is not really an isolated Turkish case but an example of democracy’s global collapse.
Yesterday, Germany rushed constitutional changes without proper scrutiny and with a majority that was already voted out of office, Romania disqualifies candidates on procedural grounds. The list goes on: Hungary under Viktor Orbán, Serbia under Aleksandar Vučić, Israel under Netanyahu, Poland under the Law and Justice party – the democratic backsliding transcends regions and political systems. 72% of humanity now lives under authoritarian control.
There is a new playbook: weaponize legal institutions against opponents, manufacture legitimacy through procedural theater, and dismantle democratic safeguards while maintaining the illusion of constitutionality.
We’re witnessing not democracy’s dramatic assassination but its methodical strangulation through bureaucratic manipulation. This erosion isn’t coincidental but the inevitable outcome of centralized power structures that invariably corrupt even well-designed systems.
I believe that our only viable path forward lies in radical decentralization: distributing governance to local communities, financial sovereignty through crypto networks, and communication via censorship-resistant platforms that no single entity controls.
Decentralized systems restore human dignity by establishing unbreakable cryptographic guarantees rather than depending on the hollow promises of centralized authorities, career politicians, and unelected bureaucrats .
The future belongs to networked individuals collaborating voluntarily through systems designed with liberty as their foundation. Decentralized and globally networked societies are antifragile societies that unleash innovation by enabling thousands of concurrent experiments instead of single-point failures.
Only decentralization can safeguard freedom in an increasingly authoritarian world.
The Qing Dynasty, Ottoman Empire, and Rome were all civilizations stuck in a grim loop.
Decline hit first: overstretch, corruption, and enemies pile up quietly.
Then comes nostalgia: past glories are hyped up – Confucian order, Suleiman’s peak, Roman strength – as a hope to be a fix for the now.
Next, technology-hype steps in: Western tools for Qing, reforms for Ottomans, Christianity for Rome – all fueled short-lived dreams of a turnaround.
But the cracks stay, and it all fell apart.
Today, the U.S. bets on AI and reshoring while chasing “greatness.” The EU pushes green tech, a military buildup and is dreaming of a greater federation. Also Russia – stuck in deep nostalgia of long-gone Soviet might – is betting on military tech, but seems to be already in decline’s later stages, struggling against isolation and internal decay.
Can they escape the inevitable? Well, let’s try to predict the future.
The Qing, Ottoman, and Rome empires crashed the same way. Russia’s dying population and oil addiction could break it apart, with Siberia becoming independent, falling under the wing of a more stable neighbor: China. The EU’s bickering and nationalist mess might split it into weak blocs, forgetting unity, like the Ottomans did. The US, stuck in political fights and inequality, could lose control and states might go rogue like Rome’s endgame.
They are all chasing old nostalgia and shiny tech, ignoring the rot.
DOGE is the only effort to remove the rot.
If DOGE fails or brings polarization to a breaking point, the U.S. federal government will fail, leaving behind the states.
Russia will be left as a small state surrounding Moscow and Siberia as a larger and resource rich state.
What about the EU?
We could see a “Hanseatic 2.0” (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Baltics, Scandinavia – potentially including former Russia’s St. Petersburg) prioritizing economic power. A “Latin Axis” (Portugal, Spain, Italy) might strengthen ties with Latin America, forging a Neo-Romanesque sphere. Central Europe could come together around a Visegrád Plus, with a focus on national sovereignty. Meanwhile, the Balkans would remain a volatile periphery, vulnerable to external influence – particularly a strong Türkiye.
I became interested in remote viewing and during my research I found a simple remote viewing template on RemoteViewed.com. I decided to just follow the instruction and do my first session to see where it leads me.
The Ideogram
In the ideogram (page 1) I felt chaos. My reflexive drawing showed a lot of zig-zag and noise.
Sensory Impressions
Sounds: loud, noise
Textures: stiff
Temperature: hot
Colours: red, orange
Luminescence: bright
Smells: rotton, sweat
Tastes: milky
Dimensions: large, bold
Aesthetic Impact: chaotic, no structure
Sketching
My sketch started with the chaos and noise that I already drew in the Ideogram on page one. A swirling, noisy mass possibly symbolizing the raw, unfiltered political turbulence and uncertainty surrnounding the election
I then overlaid, bolder, distinct layers below the chaos, possibly representing the various political parties, each emerging from the chaos. These layers may be the established and emerging parties.
After that, I reflexively drew a diagram that weaves through and connects the layers. One or two layers/parties were below the x axis, possibly indicating not making it into the Bundestag. Three layers/parties are above the x axis, where they meet the chaos/noise
The diagram seems to bring order into the chaos. It brings or suggests connections, relationships, realignments, interactions among the layers/parties and the chaos.
In summary, the sketch captures a transition from a state of disorder to one where clear, dynamic structures/alliances begin to take shape amid political upheaveal.
Summary
The Chaotic Foundation
The sketch begins as a swirling, noisy mass, representing the raw political turbulence and uncertainty permeating the election night. Maybe, this chaos symbolizes the initial flood of emotions, unfiltered voter sentiment, the unexepcted shocks that will accompany the unfolding vote counts on Sunday night.
The intense, noisy chaos forsees the election night as a period of upheaval. As the votes come in, there will be a surge of raw energy. A mix of elation, shock, even protest while the voters’ deep-seated dissatisfaction and desire for change manifest in real time.
Emergence of Distinct Layers
Over the chaotic backdrop, I overlaid bold, distinct layers most likely representing the various political parties. These could be established forces (Union, SPD, and others) and emerging parties. The positioning below the initial chaos suggest that they are attempting to extract order and meaning from the turbulent environment, each vying to define its identity and appeal to a shifting electorate.
The Reflexive Diagram
The subsequent diagram, with clear x- and y-axis interlinks these layer, and is a critical element.
Below the x-axis: One or two layers indicate that at least one party will not make it into the Bundestag, another party is starting above the x-axis, yet falls below it as x increases. This party may start in the first extraploitation > 5%, yet as the night progresses, falls below the 5% and not make it. Or it might mean this party very barely secure the 5%.
Above the x-axis: three key layers are visible. Yet only two of these layers are bolder than the third; possibly meaning that only two parties have the majorities to form a coalition. These three layers directly interface with the chaotic environment of the vote.
The diagram suggests that relationships between the parties exist and possibly allow a realignment – meaning even amid the chaos, there is an emergent order
The diagram division is telling. One or two parties will fall short (symbolized by layer below the x-axis), two major forces will emerge as decisive parties; meaning that only two parties gain enough public mandate to engage in serious coalition negotiations. One third force is above the x-axis, yet declining, which might represent an established polticial forces that loses ground (like SPD or Greens). This paves the wave for an unexpected, transformative coalition – possibly including elements from parties previously sidelined (like AFD).
The reflexive diagram suggests that the chaotic energy isn’t random but a structure emerging within it. This structure may be a new coalition, realignment, and relationships among parties. The choatic energy is channeled into forging connections that, though unorthodox, are robust enough to redefine the government’s foundation.
The overall impression is one of radical transformation. Traditional alliances crumble, and a new, dynamic order takes shape. This could include unexpected partnerships (like the AFD gaining leverage) and the entry of emergent forces that upend conventional politics. The emering light in my sensory sketch might be the embodiment of a new political mandate born from the voter’s desire to break with the past.
2. Interpretation
My remote viewing session describes the current political moment, where chaos and transformation coalesce into a dynamic vision of change.
The initial ideogram conveys a landscape dominated by raw, unfiltered turbulence: a swirling, noisy mess rendered in bold reds and oranges that represent both passion and danger.
The chaotic canvas, felt with a sensation of intense heat, stiffness, and an overwhelming sound of clamor, represents the charged atmosphere permeating the election night.
The environment feels almost tangible: a hot, bright, and palpable space imbued with the odors of decay and sweat, suggesting that the old order is rotting ander pressure even as something new stirs to life.
Overlaying this turbulent backdrop, my sketch introduces distinct, bold layers that represent the various political parties emerging from this maelstrom. These layers looked random at first, but were drawn below an – yet – invisible threshold – the x-axis – hinting at parties that might fail to reach the Bundestag.
Conversely, three prominent layers rise above this line, symbolizing those factions robust enough to engage directly with the prevailing chaos and claim their place in the new order.
The reflexive diagram weaves through these layers, hinting at emergent connections and realignments, suggesting that even amid the cacophony of dissent and uncertainty, there is a nascent structure forming.
The network of lines implies that the political turbulence is not merely disorganized noise, but a transformative energy that is actively reordering alliances and carving out a new government landscape.
My sensor impressions – loud, jarring sounds; a stiff, unyielding texture; intense heat, bright luminescence; and even the contrasting tastes and smells, enrich this narrative. They signify that this is a time of both decay and birth, where the old, rigid, structures are disintegrating, making space for a reimagined, more fluid political order.
3. Foresight
My remote viewing suggests:
We will see a dramatic and decisive political turning point
Initial chaos on election night – marked by intense public emotion, surging media noise
The established political order is forcibly redefined
Traditional power coalitions are losing their grip, unable to contain the torrent of public discontent, they fracture under the pressure
We will see an unexpected coalition of forces, one that defies conventional political taboos (possibly a CDU + AFD coalition)
One or two parties are unable to cross the critical threshold. It will look as if one party crossed the 5%, while during the election night they will fall below it.
There will be three parties prominently above the threshold
One potent new political party might surprisingly secure 10% of the vote
A new coalition will be formed that radically reorders the established dynamics; this might be an unexpected and cross-ideological alliance
For the AfD, the traditional “no-go” rules (such as the exclusion of the AfD from governing coalitions) may be overthrown by the force of public demand and unprecedented realignment
If the CDU prove unable to form a stable alliance, there is a possibility that even the AfD could be drawn into a coalition
The new coalition will be dynamic and willing to break with tradition, implementing bold policies that reflect the voter’s deep desire for systemic change
On Sunday night, we will birth a new political order, reshaping German governeance in a way that is revolutionary and pragmatic.
The public will react strongly – both in celebration and protest
The outcome might not replace the current government, but
My intuitive interpretation:
The CDU/CSU will struggle to create a coalition and the AfD will enter the negotiation table.
If the CDU/CSU will not allow this, we will either see new elections or the CDU/CSU will enter a coalition that not only harms them but ultimately falters
The AfD will surprisingly enter the negotiation table, if it will not happen after this election, they will emerge even stronger in a new election making it impossible to govern without their participation
My remote viewing sees a new, unrecognized or marginal party break through the electral threshold with approximately 10% of the vote – based on current dynamics, this might be the Linke or BSW. If this is true, and we assume one of them reaches 10% and the other 5%, it will certainly mean the SPD will lose voters and come out at 12 or 13%.
From my remote viewing, I’d say that the FDP will not make it above 5%.
Furthermore, the AFD will likely surprise with a much stronger performance than predicted (possibly at 25%)
Both, a stronger far-left and a stronger right (AfD) will mean the conventional parties will come out worse than predicted in polls. The FDP and CDU will lose voters to AfD, while the SPD and Grüne lose voters to the Linke and BSW.
Based on my remote viewing and considering current polls, this might be a possible outcome:
SPD: 12%
Union: 29%
Grüne: 11%
FDP: < 4%
Linke or BSW: one will reach 10%, the other 5%
AfD: 29%
Closing Words
This was a fun exercise and my very first remote viewing session and interpetation. It will be fun to see how true or false it will turn out to be!
I recently saw a debate on whether organ trade and an organ market should be legal. Here’s my take on the issue.
Yes, there’s a clear mismatch between supply and demand. But who would be the ones selling their organs? People in precarious situations, without the luxury of long-term choices. The wealthy have no reason to sell their organs—it’s the poor and those in debt who would. An organ market would systematically create an incentive to exploit the economically vulnerable, turning their bodies into commodities.
This brings us to the concept of autonomy. People facing financial desperation have little autonomy. A wealthy individual who has never experienced financial hardship wouldn’t sell their kidney—there’s simply no need (perhaps they’d donate it to a family member or close friend). But the poor don’t have that choice. Their “choice” isn’t voluntary; it’s coerced by poverty. And that is not only economically disastrous but morally catastrophic.
The very idea that body parts could be marketable contradicts the essence of human dignity. It reduces the most vulnerable members of society to mere commodities. An organ market would lead us straight into a form of slavery—though subtler, more insidious. It’s a slavery packaged as economic freedom. It may look like freedom, but it’s nothing more than exploitation.
