When I look at our time, I feel as if I am witnessing the downfall of the Roman Empire. We have achieved so much, and now Europe only wants one thing: war with Russia, or perhaps I should say the USA wants war. How can we shape a society where secret societies or lobbies do not always determine the course we take?

In fact, the problem is not new; even Plato, the inventor of democracy, predicted that after a democracy, a time of oligarchy would come. So, a time of corruption and falsehood. Then, after Plato, there comes again a time of monarchy, then again an oligarchy, then again a democracy. It is a cycle. Can one break out of such a cycle? And if so, how – where should one even look? In religion, perhaps. Well, religion can provide an individual with support and has also provided many examples throughout history; our welfare state comes from the monasteries. But every time a religion takes power, an oligarchy, as Plato described, is not long in coming. The Muslims began to spread violently relatively early and did so for a thousand years, and the Christians exploited their own people like Christmas geese, not unlike today. Back then, one paid for heaven; today, it is called taxes. This is not about principle but about measure; giving a tithe is quite appropriate. Taking half of a normal person’s or a small business’s earnings is a state crime. Since the Jews discovered Zionism, they have increasingly shifted from victim to perpetrator and now want to establish Greater Israel. Nothing is to be expected from there either; moreover, Judaism, like Islam, is a legal religion, and legal religions are very limited in their developmental possibilities. If God has already said everything, what else is there to develop? Taoism or Christianity, with its storytelling and then interpretation, would be more creative, but one cannot build a state with that, as history has shown.

Since politics and religion disappoint us, we are left once again with philosophy. For over a thousand years, Europe lived under the philosophy of Plato. Until Thomas Aquinas replaced the Platonic worldview of Europe with the worldview of his student Aristotle. This ultimately brought us the natural sciences. Physics, chemistry, biology—none of these sciences would have emerged without Aristotle. This comes with an objective worldview. This has since been replaced by an individual worldview by Immanuel Kant; Aristotle is also not infallible, but that took at least 500 years. If Aristotle could provide us with a new approach in politics that lasts 500 years, I would consider that worth a try. Kant’s individual worldview has since been confirmed by quantum physics, but without the Aristotelian foundation, both developments probably would not have existed at all. And without Kant’s individual worldview, there would probably also be no quantum physics, as the relatively young science of the physics of consciousness should slowly teach us. There is a collective memory, as the GCP (Global Consciousness Project) of Princeton University has repeatedly demonstrated for 30 years; one could call that the ether of Plato. Therefore, we must fill the ether with good ideas, and when we reach a critical mass, it will have an impact.

Aristotle recognizes 3 forms of government as good: monarchy, polity, and aristocracy.

We have partial monarchies today. I do not mean noble families. We have three major monarchies in the world today, even if their forms of government have different names: the three monarchs are Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping, or America, Russia, and China. These three are indeed trying to change the world for the better, according to alternative news. May they succeed, but these three will meet the same fate as Alexander the Great or King Arthur of Camelot (if the latter ever truly lived). They will die. Our civilization still rests on the roots of Greek philosophy that Alexander spread in his Hellenistic Empire. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have equal access to this knowledge; only the Christians have really done something with it. For the original empire of Alexander was already over shortly after his death. It could not hold. Structures and societies had to be found that could implement this way of thinking. And perhaps the BRICS states of Putin are a new beginning; hopefully, they are. But with the old structures

it will not last long.

Aristotle sees the ideal form as the rule of the aristocracy: a group of people who are the best in their field and also have a moral compass. If I include our secret world, which has kept me busy in recent years, I must say that being the best does not necessarily mean having a university degree; on the contrary, our education system is also severely impaired. What was the pinnacle of science 1000 years ago has degenerated into a robotic education, and I mean the people, not the machines. And the education of these people is programmed by our known secret societies, lobbies, and whoever else filters the knowledge here. We need to find other methods to identify specialists in their field.

Thus, a transport minister could very well be a truck driver with many years of experience. A baker would not be suitable for this job. Why should a midwife not become the health minister? Of course, a doctor would not be bad, but our doctors are educated by the pharmaceutical industry, which only produces tablets; we need frequency medicine practitioners as ministers. An economics minister can very well own or have owned a company. Experience has always been the best teacher. We need to look for people with experience. Best without titles and independent of parties. One way to achieve this would be a law stating that a minister must have experience in the field they are to manage. And the salary must also be reasonably regulated. With 5000 euros, one does not become rich, but one can live well today. In this way, Aristotle might still help us out of a bind and give us a form of government that we might then develop further in 500 years, just as we have done before.

If we take a few people for the administrative apparatus from the classical party system alongside the specialists, we have something similar to a polity, a mixed form of aristocracy and democracy. But something like a transatlantic bridge must no longer exist; we should simply tear it down. One question remains to be clarified – how should such ministers be elected?

I propose public tenders; the only condition is that the future minister must not be a member of a party. Otherwise, we would have the old system again. The employees of the ministry could elect him; even better would be an external committee, but I just do not know where we would get that from. It should not come from the parties. We need to move away from this right-left, up-down, red-blue, or whatever system. One possibility is that one gives up their party membership when one becomes a minister. This is also legally feasible for existing governments. There should be calls for the people to stand for election if they have relevant experience. The council of ministers should not consist exclusively of people who simply give up their party; one could establish a quota of 50% so that 50% of the ministers must always be elected from the people. A minister can enact simple laws themselves, like a mini-monarch, so to speak. Major upheavals require the approval of the entire council of ministers. The duration of a term is at least 5 years, a maximum of 30 years. Every 5 years, the council of ministers conducts an evaluation to determine whether someone should be replaced or whether things should continue as before. A simple majority in the council is sufficient to remain in the council of ministers. For each evaluation, someone from the people can also offer to replace an existing minister.

I always think of this expert government that existed in Austria for about 7 months as a transitional government after the Ibiza scandal in 2019. A non-partisan expert government. Completely in the spirit of Aristotle. I do not know where these people came from so quickly, but in this relatively short time, these people, along with the first female chancellor in Austria, managed to create a unified health insurance system. A project that has been planned by all sorts of governments for decades but has never been implemented. The chancellor was from the Constitutional Court. What I am proposing here is therefore quite possible if one wants to or, as in the case of Austria, must.