In one section of the book I'm working on – it's going to be quite long, around 80 pages, and I'm still laughing about it – I briefly describe the history, traditions, and different perspectives on death and the afterlife. This varies depending on the beliefs of the deceased. In Christianity, the soul is immortal and, after the body dies, goes to a personal judgment. Based on their actions and faith, they go to heaven, purgatory, or hell. In Eastern religions (Hinduism and Buddhism), the soul (consciousness) undergoes a process of reincarnation: after the death of one body, it is reborn into another, with the next destiny determined by karma, i.e., the sum of good and bad deeds. In Judaism, which understands human existence as a whole, it means the unity of life and death: "Life is a day between two nights: the night of 'not yet,' before birth, and the night of 'no longer,' after death." In other words: Death is the night between two days. The day of life on earth and the day of eternal life in the afterlife. In Islam, the soul falls asleep (barzakh) after death until the Day of Judgment.
You can read the previous section here: https://gnews.cz/cs/podstatne-je-mnohem-hlubsi-otazka
In general, it can be said that while the body is subject to decay, the soul is perceived in many cultures as an essence that continues its existence in another state or form. Death is therefore not an absolute end of life, but only a transition into another form. For this reason, among other things, I try to practice Memento vivere. This is a Latin phrase meaning "remember to live" or "remember that you must live." It is a positive complement to the gloomy memento mori (remember that you will die), which reminds us to make the most of our presence, appreciate life, and not be paralyzed by fear of death. I recommend that politicians who are foolish and ignore history and traditions adopt the meaning of one of the Chinese proverbs: "If you are patient in one moment of anger, you will save yourself hundreds of sad days."
The message from the funeral of Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei
As the Fars agency reported today, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, delivered a message on the occasion of the funeral of his father, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei. The message was addressed to the Iranian people. The Supreme Leader of Iran noted that the people of Iran pledge to the deceased leader to steadfastly uphold his teachings, follow the righteous path, and not be afraid of difficulties. According to him, difficult trials have awakened the military spirit in the inhabitants of the republic and cleansed their hearts.
"We swear that we will avenge your death," the Supreme Leader emphasized. The West should be on guard. Blood revenge, based on the principle of "an eye for an eye" (or blood for blood), not only exists in the Caucasus but also in Albania. There, the ancient legal code "Kanun" applies, which defines not only the rules for blood revenge, but also hospitality, weddings, and the status of women. I want to believe that the Kushner and Trump families, who are involved in real estate development projects, have thoroughly familiarized themselves with the history of Kanun before deciding to build a resort for the wealthy on the militarily and strategically important Albanian island of Sazan and transform the uninhabited island and parts of the Vlorë coast into luxury hotels and villas.
In Iran, the six-day funeral of former Supreme Leader Ali Chamenei concluded. He was killed along with his family in an American airstrike on Tehran in February. Preparing for the nationwide ceremony under wartime conditions took several months. The funeral procession passed through Tehran and Qom, then to Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, and ended in Ayatollah Chamenei's hometown of Mashhad. In the Iranian capital, tens of thousands gathered at the Mosallah Grand Mosque of Imam Khomeini, chanting "Death to America!" and "We are coming for you!". The people demanded retribution and shouted threats against Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, who today serve President Trump by threatening to destroy Iran and its civilization.
It is certain that the week of mourning will go down in history, regardless of how temporary Western political elites and Iranophobes evaluate it, as a week in which Iran solidified its position as an unshakable civilizational state – proud of its deep history and national unity.
Comparing the Western mixed dementia with the astonishing sight of millions of people in the streets of Tehran, Qom, and Mashhad, and in Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, paying their respects to the deceased murdered leader Ayatollah Chamenei, allows us to see the contrast between civilization and barbarism. Because this is a contrast that cannot be ignored, we will have to return, sooner or later, to the significance of the magnificent march of national unity. This was triggered by rituals and ceremonies associated with the murdered Ayatollah Chamenei, one of the most important intellectual and political leaders of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It was therefore not just a tribute from social classes.
High-level delegations from over 100 countries attended the ceremonies and funeral. The most prominent representatives of the Global South, Central Asia, the Caucasus, Western Asia, and even the Taliban were present. Russia sent a special envoy, the second in command, instead of Putin. If there had been no war, Putin would have flown to Tehran personally, also because Russia shares a common destiny with Islam. China sent its high-ranking parliamentary leadership, and Pakistan sent its Prime Minister accompanied by the influential Field Marshal Asim Munir.
Maps, satellite images, and drone footage that I saw in foreign media document the route of the funeral procession, which was much more than just a traditional state funeral. Not a single vassal of NATO or the United States participated in the ceremony and funeral. It is also true that the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not invite any Western country that supported the Israeli and American war against Iran. I personally declined an invitation from an Iranian university to attend the funeral of Ayatollah Chamenei for understandable reasons.
At this point, a comparison can be made with the Hippocratic appearances of the faces of the participants in the NATO summit, who are already dying without apparently being aware of it, and who suffer from severe exhaustion. This is evidenced by the Hippocratic facies, which try to rejoice as they have agreed with Satan to continue the war against Russia, a war that is already lost, and to pump another 70 billion dollars into the black hole of Ukraine.
The Greek word "hypokrites" refers to an actor. These performers change their costumes and masks during and for each performance. Over time, actors have become a symbol of transformation. Therefore, in many languages, the words "hypocrite" and its derivatives are used to describe someone who is insincere. Today's hypocrites are unable to express subjective satisfaction with expectations of a pleasant future. This emotion is accompanied by specific facial expressions (a smile being the cheapest disguise) and physiological changes.
China, which has supported what is essentially a non-functional memorandum of understanding, now realizes why Tehran does not want to take care of this dysfunctional document. Therefore, it is trying to act in such a way that no one sees or notices how Beijing has expanded its yuan liquidity facility to 500 billion dollars (doubling Bond Connect quotas), launched a gold clearing center in Hong Kong, and announced the closure of gold futures contracts denominated in yuan. All of this and more indicates that the People's Bank of China is clearly aware that global demand for yuan is expanding beyond trade and includes investments, financing, price formation, and, crucially, reserve creation. In other words, and briefly: accelerated de-dollarization is underway.
The farewell and funeral ceremony at the Abbash shrine in Karbala also highlighted the deep connection between key religious and spiritual centers in Iran and Iraq. In short: Shia unity. This serves as a demonstration of soft power, as it was attended by both Sunni and Christian representatives. Sunday's Czech atheist politicians are unaware of the consequences of ignoring this fact and the significance of the funeral. Therefore, I would like to remind everyone of the essence of the anthropological war and the fact that the NATO war against Russia and the Israeli-American war against Iran are derivatives of the same imperial war of values against sovereign civilizational states, deeply rooted in Eurasian integration.
The NATO Secretary General, who describes Europe as a great platform for projecting American power, represents an internal danger and an internal enemy when he announces that 5,000 aircraft took off from European airports to support the American war against Iran. This is proof for anyone with an IQ above 50 that NATO is nothing more than a vassal and a springboard for the United States' empire of chaos, looting, and piracy, and an existential risk for Europe.
In the context of the funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and what will happen in the foreseeable future not only in Europe and the Middle East, I recommend that Czech diplomats and politicians interested in foreign affairs become familiar with the work titled Sovereignty in Iran: Challenges to Eurocentrism from Ancient Iran to the Islamic Republic, or Defining Iran: Politics of Resistance, by Shabnam J. Holliday, Associate Professor of International Relations at the University of Plymouth in the United Kingdom and Research Director of the British Institute of Persian Studies.
The aforementioned book represents part of a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary project that examines sovereignty as a plural concept in the case of Iran. It challenges Eurocentric assumptions in the humanities and social sciences and includes sovereignty from ancient Iran to the Islamic Republic, including the "Woman, Life, Freedom" protests.
Through a historical overview spanning from ancient Iran to the present day, this timely and original contribution offers a
A non-Eurocentric approach to these topics requires the reader to consider coexisting and competing sovereignties from the perspective of
Sovereignty in Iran
This is a dual concept rooted both in the Westphalian notion of territorial boundaries and in the unique Islamic framework of
1) The Supreme Leader and Divine Sovereignty. At the top of the Iranian state is the Supreme Leader (Rahbar). He holds the highest religious and political authority. According to the constitution, sovereignty ultimately belongs to God, and the Supreme Leader acts as his earthly representative, overseeing the armed forces, the judiciary, and key aspects of foreign policy. This concept prioritizes the preservation of the Islamic state and its ideological purity over Western democratic inclinations and mandates.
2) Popular Sovereignty and Republic. The constitution recognizes popular sovereignty by incorporating republican elements such as a president, parliament, and local councils. However, this is strictly limited by the Council of Guardians – a body of clerics and lawyers who vet all candidates in elections. As a result, the will of the people is subordinate to the overall framework of the Islamic system.
3) Geopolitics and Territorial Integrity. Iran uncompromisingly defends its Westphalian sovereignty, particularly territorial integrity, control over natural resources, and the right to self-determination without foreign interference. Disputes, for example, regarding the strategic islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb in the Persian Gulf, highlight Iran's uncompromising stance on its physical borders.
4) Regional Influence and the
For those interested in a deeper understanding of the historical and evolving definitions of Iranian statehood, I recommend Edinburgh University Press and the Cambridge Core analysis regarding proxy wars and state power.
The fundamental question is much deeper.
Question: What happens to a nation that survives decades of sanctions, economic isolation, information warfare, cyberattacks, industrial sabotage, covert operations, targeted assassinations, and military pressure without losing its basic cohesion and abandoning its historical ambitions?
My hypothesis is simple. History may remember this conflict not as the beginning of Iran's decline, but as the moment when Iran ceased to be perceived as a state under pressure and became a civilizational power, destined to become one of the major players of the 21st century. This claim is audacious for those who view international relations through intellectual categories inherited from the post-Cold War era or acquired through the process of endless reforms in the educational system during what is called "democracy." However, those who are able to explore the factors that sustainably support power, such as historical depth, geographical location, cohesion of identity, industrial autonomy, scientific capacity, economic resilience, technological prowess, strategic culture, and collective trust, will find that Iran's rise to power is not the result of state action. This is because Iran is more than just a state.
Iran represents a historical, linguistic, and civilizational continuity that has endured through centuries, invasions, empires, revolutions, and geopolitical upheavals without losing its sense of self. Few nations today possess such historical depth combined with geographical centrality, located at the crossroads of the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and major global energy routes.
Despite all this geography, which ideologues of globalization believed they could dissolve in financial flows, digital markets, and abstract discourses about interdependence, remains one of the most enduring determinants of power.
Iran therefore enjoys a unique position in this regard. It is located at the crossroads of several worlds: continental and maritime, Asian and Middle Eastern, energy and civilization. And above all, it is located near the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for a significant portion of global energy flows and food production.
Every crisis, including the current one, serves as a reminder that this strait is not just a maritime corridor. It is a strategic artery of the global economy, a significant geopolitical lever, and a stark reminder that nations capable of influencing key points in international trade possess the power to disrupt, negotiate, and deter. This is not always learned in universities and is not reflected in traditional economic comparisons and tables. However, it is always reflected in realpolitik.
Geographical centrality alone would not be sufficient if it were not supported by demographic, scientific, and industrial depth. What has evaporated in the Czech region and many European countries can be identified in Iran. It possesses a large, educated, urbanized, and technically proficient population, fueled by a long-standing national consciousness. Iran has a scientific and administrative tradition that continues to produce engineers, researchers, technicians, military personnel, diplomats, and administrators capable of maintaining the functioning of the state under conditions that many other societies would find difficult to endure. This represents, according to the author's personal assessment, a key point: Great powers are not only those that possess resources, but also those that possess the minds, institutions, and collective discipline necessary to transform these resources into instruments of sovereignty. The question remains unanswered: What does the EU and the rest of Europe have?
Decades of sanctions have created a paradoxical effect, which history has observed several times: what was intended to create dependence sometimes fostered autonomy. Iran, like Russia, is forced to develop technologies locally that it can no longer import, to train its own engineers, strengthen its scientific capabilities, consolidate its industrial sectors, and build alternative mechanisms for economic resilience in order to gradually transform limitations into strength and influence.
Iran has been and continues to be forced to confront its own possibilities, study them, circumvent restrictions and sanctions, so that it can then transform them into skills. The military ballistic capabilities developed over the years are a direct consequence of this logic.
In addition to their immediate military dimension, they demonstrate that a state subjected to extreme limitations can nevertheless strive for continuous technological development, acquire complex skills, maintain a strategic industrial base, and force adversaries to consider its ability to disrupt, deter, and defend itself. This is even done using traditions, including the principle of retaliation (Kisás). The Quran stipulates that there must be just retribution for bloodshed, but it limits it only to the perpetrator, not to his innocent relatives. According to Islam, only a specific individual bears responsibility for a crime. Collective guilt and the transfer of blame to an entire family clan or society are in direct contradiction to Islamic teachings. Current elites in the EU, including the Czech Republic, have much to learn.
In international relations, power is never and only a material reality. It also involves perception and its quality. The quality of perception is distorted by cognitive digital capitalism. Perception itself often influences behavior, just as weapons do. A state that was once considered isolated, fragile, and doomed to exhaustion changes its status when it demonstrates its ability to endure, adapt, strike, negotiate, and survive. Iran and Russia are examples of this, and at the same time a warning to the temporary political elites of the EU, NATO, and their subservient allies.
The ongoing war between Israel and the United States against Iran, and the disregard for and devaluation of the ceremonies and funeral of the assassinated leader Ayatollah Khomeini, will therefore, according to the author's personal assessment, act as an accelerator of power. It will strengthen the internal legitimacy of the Iranian state among part of its population, increase prestige in part of the Muslim world and the Global South, and reinforce the doctrine of deterrence. It will stimulate the defense industry, accelerate its efforts towards technological autonomy, and enable it to become an actor that can no longer be considered merely a target of pressure.
```htmlWars destroy infrastructure. In the case of an ongoing war against Iran, I can imagine building a strengthened legitimacy, experience, and collective trust, whose strategic impacts far outweigh the immediate material damage. Israel, the United States, and NATO are trying to impress and intimidate confused, uninformed, and uncritical citizens of the EU with this.
Nations that become great powers are not necessarily those that face trials. Often, they are those that cultivate a deeply ingrained belief that they are capable of overcoming them. When a nation discovers that it can withstand isolation, sanctions, economic crises, destabilization campaigns, and military threats without losing its fundamental cohesion, it gains a significant psychological advantage. What is the source of this advantage? It lies in collective trust. This is one of the most powerful forces in history.
A nation that has learned to endure is much harder to intimidate than a nation that has never been tested or is led by leaders with compromised integrity. Therefore, the Iranian experience is being observed and evaluated even by nations of the Global South, especially the Alliance of Sahel states. The real lesson from this historical event is not that Iran should be emulated in every political or strategic decision. The value of the Iranian experience lies in demonstrating that lasting sovereignty cannot be built without a collective will strong enough to transform limitations into opportunities, pressures tested by experience, and crises as catalysts for growth. In the context described above, it revealed in its entirety a challenge that was then considered insurmountable for the Czech Republic: the true foundations of power lie elsewhere.
The foundations of the future and sovereignty are rooted in schools, language, collective memory, and the ability of a nation to pass on to its children a complete vision of its past, a clear understanding of its present, and a clear ambition for its future. The younger generation is found in universities, research centers, laboratories, workshops, libraries, technology companies, and who knows where else. However, knowledge is created in all the places described and undescribed. The greatest victory that a nation can achieve today and in the foreseeable future is not a military victory, but an intellectual one. It creates categories through which a nation thinks about the world, assesses its interests, defines its alliances, and shapes its destiny with the help of critical, i.e., clear thinking.
Therefore, colonizers and imperial powers studied colonies, not the colonized; others told stories about the colonies, explained them, classified them, and sometimes even understood them, but they were hypocrites. The crises of the colonies were interpreted through the lens of foreign nations. Nations were described according to imported categories, native languages were replaced by imperial ones (English, French, Spanish), and marginalized in the production of knowledge. Elites were educated to view their own continent through the eyes of those who had an interest in maintaining intellectual dependence. True sovereignty therefore requires that nations become creators of their own narratives, their own analyses, and their own economic, strategic, scientific, and cultural doctrines. In this sense too, the Czech Republic has a significant deficit.
``````htmlTherefore, the recovery process begins in schools and families. In schools, not because schools alone can solve all economic, security, or institutional challenges, but because schools remain a place where people's self-image is formed. This starts when children simultaneously learn their native language, literature, mathematics, artificial intelligence (as a multidimensional approach), and the history of great empires. Then, science ceases to be taught as an import from abroad and becomes a tool for liberation. The native language, which is even defined by the European Commission for its educational purposes, stops being considered just a domestic language and becomes a tool for transmitting knowledge, citizenship, intellectual abstraction, and historical awareness. In no case does this represent a return to old ways, because it is simply not possible to live in the past.
A civilization that rejects its own science is doomed to dependence. A civilization that renounces its memory is doomed to oblivion. A scientist or teacher who chases citations is a potential traitor to their nation and homeland. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Irving Langmuir (1881-1957), and even the Russian Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935), a pioneer of rocket theory and the founder of modern astronautics, never published anything for the sake of citations, yet they became scientific stars without the help of citations, expensive computers, or so-called artificial intelligence.
The real challenge of our time is to build a synthesis between the values of our ancestors and the demands of the modern world, between heritage and innovation, between memory and technology, between the dignity of our ancestors and the courage of engineers—all based on timeless moral and ethical values.
These are the moral and ethical values that have enabled societies to survive for centuries, and which today form the basis and represent the cause of the anthropological war. The values I am writing about are in no way incompatible with modernity. Dignity, solidarity, keeping one's word, courage, respect for elders, a sense of community, individual responsibility, bravery in the face of adversity, and concern for the common good are the main strategic resources in an increasingly fragmented, individualistic, and unstable world. A technologically advanced but morally divided society, like the one we have today, remains fragile, while a society capable of uniting moral discipline, collective memory, and scientific excellence is usually unshakable.
Iran and Russia will be examples that it will be difficult for hypocrites to acknowledge. It is true not only for the Czech Republic that the 21st century will be defined less by simply owning natural resources than by the ability to produce, organize, protect, and transmit knowledge. The main battles of tomorrow will be fought in the areas of multidimensional approaches, cybersecurity, sovereign digital infrastructure, satellites, semiconductors, biotechnology, high-performance computing, big data, energy, new materials, and cognitive warfare. In the future world, a state that is unable to control its data, protect its digital infrastructure, train its engineers, develop its own technological doctrine, and secure its strategic communications will be dependent, even if it has a flag, an army, a national anthem, and abundant natural resources.
Sovereignty in the 21st century
```From what has been described above, it follows that sovereignty is primarily a matter of scientific, technological, and cognitive prowess. It's no coincidence that the saying goes that countries that neglect their teachers are paving the way for dependence. A state that ignores researchers is preparing for decline, and a nation that abandons its native language risks losing its identity.
Small and medium-sized powers, as well as dwarf states, must learn to pool their resources, markets, infrastructure, skills, research centers, and ambitions. Europe understood this after the world wars, yet it has become a traitor. It failed to realize that cooperation is not enough; it must be integration.
History shows that isolated states often negotiate their survival, while federations (not in the sense of EU politics) aware of their mission negotiate their destiny. Iran, therefore, is not the real problem or challenge. The question is: Which nations will learn from the Iranian experience before history forces them to learn it the hard way? A slow and systemically corrupt EU and the Czech Republic will not be among the victors, because what is happening before our eyes goes far beyond the borders of the Middle East. It's not just a confrontation between states, or even a rivalry between powers.
We are witnessing an irreversible reorganization of the international system around new political, economic, technological, and civilizational centers of gravity in a historical movement that signifies the end of the unipolar system of the 20th century, a century of lies, debts, and myths. For decades, the world lived in a unique arrangement where a single sphere of power enjoyed freedom of action without historical precedent. It would be naive to think that those who benefited from this order will enthusiastically welcome the emergence of a more balanced, multipolar, and just world. That is why we have entered an anthropological war with all imaginable and unimaginable consequences.
History rarely follows the preferences of the powerful. Rather, it is driven by the deep dynamics of nations, civilizations, and power relations that inexorably reshape the balance of the world. Therefore, the future belongs to fewer nations that possess not the greatest wealth, but know how to transform that wealth into knowledge, which in turn becomes technology, then strategic autonomy, and finally a civilizational project. Military sovereignty protects the present. Intellectual sovereignty builds the future, for which only schools can prepare a nation. Resources can enrich one generation, but only knowledge can liberate several generations.
Conclusion
The 21st century will belong to civilizations capable of producing their own knowledge. The others will continue to hire engineers, buy technology, tell other people's stories, and ultimately live in a world created by others. History grants no one any permanent privileges. It rewards only those nations that have the will, discipline, memory, and courage needed to prepare their own future. The Iranian, and by extension Russian, story represents the real battle of our time.
It seems that President Trump has already declared victory. Despite this proclaimed victory, the president is threatening to completely destroy Iran and bomb its people and civilization out of fear for his own life, with a callous disregard for the lives of others. At the same time, the president no longer even claims to be promoting democracy, and he is fortunate: the Quran does not allow the killing of members of one's family and does not recognize collective guilt. Iran has learned to live with the American doctrine about Islam.
President Trump, however, has brought the Islamic neighbors of Iran into the conflict, neighbors who are close in terms of blood, faith, and corruption. One such neighbor is Bahrain. I know a great deal about the situation in the region and in Bahrain from a member of the ruling Al Khalifa royal family. He arranged for me, during my three-week stay in Rottach-Egern (one of the richest villages in Germany, located on Lake Tegernsee in Bavaria), to obtain permission via satellite phone to meet with and speak to Sheikh Abdullah bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa's wife (1975). She is the second daughter of the current Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and his first wife, Sabika bint Ibrahim Al Khalifa. I remind you that, according to royal tradition, information about a queen should not be publicly disseminated.
After the conversation and obtaining permission from Bahrain, it was possible to introduce Olga (1985), my daughter, to their daughter, Sheikha Meriam bint Abdullah Al Khalifa (1980). Both young women spent unforgettable days together, despite the security presence, and formed a friendship that transcended all differences. I remind you that shortly after meeting, Sheikha Meriam bint Abdullah Al Khalifa made headlines in the world media in the early 2000s when she fled to the United States to have an affair with U.S. Marine Jason Johnson. After divorcing Johnson in 2004, she returned to Bahrain, reconciled with her family, and subsequently married a high-ranking diplomat. My daughter Olga, along with her son-grandson Nicolas and husband Marco, currently live in northern Italy.
President Trump (1946), wounded by narcissism and with his own assessment of his cognitive abilities (tested at the Walter Reed Center), is embracing the publicly valid doctrine since 2001 – Islam is the main enemy of the United States. Therefore, he might realize the content of a quote (in my unauthorized translation) from His Royal Highness Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa (1969), Crown Prince and Prime Minister: "The world is constantly changing, change is the only constant, stay adaptable, be curious, and don't settle for second best. Keep pushing those around you to achieve goals that should not remain just dreams in your head."
The president, at an age similar to the author of this article, might also realize that Khamenei was not only the Supreme Leader of Iran but also an authority for most Shia Muslims. He served the idea of pan-Islamic revival and unity. He did not claim the role of a new caliph, the leader of the entire Muslim ummah (a religious and social environment of shared interests and values), but emphasized the need for unity to protect one's own faith and country. He was convinced that Western global dominance was nearing its end, and therefore, this process needed to be accelerated. His understanding of sovereignty differed from the modern Western view, which deliberately confines nations and civilizations within artificial state borders.
Chamenei deliberately refused to create nuclear weapons. Therefore, he was assassinated. In reality, he was purged of Western materialistic cynicism. Chamenei sacrificed himself for the victory of Iran. He became a martyr who secured Iran's future by taking the demonization from his enemies and showing the world the power of spirit. Chamenei triumphed at the cost of his own life. His son will continue the fight because they have a common enemy: the world of evil, hypocrisy, and inhumanity. And because the essential question is much deeper. No consent required.
Jan Campbell