The string to traditional alliances are thawing apart. Today’s challenges betray yesterday’s promises – but strengthens the hopes of a better tomorrow. The vision of the future goes through Positive Artificial intelligence and non interventionist camps. Countries who truly want to become players in this new order or participatory future must give up their desire of racial superiority or racial hierarchy. You can excel in the Multilateralism System by upholding racial or civilizational superiority over others. It’s a system of fairness, equity, reciprocity, amicability, consensus building, cooperation, cultural exchanges, operational practicality, solidarity, competition, and peace through dialogue. The old era of alliances based on color, race, civilizational superiority, or segregational polarity is humanely and gradually becoming a tale of the past. It has its time, it pluses, and minuses that the positive and competitive future can’t accept. The realities of today’s challenges create new world dynamics. To the Old Order, it is difficult if not unacceptable to engage in partnerships not based on national origin, racism, sexism, or racial hierarchy. The Eugenicivilization pseudo-scientific conspiracy on the Nature of Humans and the miseducation on natural selection and survival of the fittest created a unipolar order that can’t accept the realities of the naturality of the human being- with the understanding that the superiority of being lies in its good nature, good intentions, positive intelligence, positive technologies, positive science, positive development, positive engagement, positive innovation, positive invention, or positive contribution in contrast to inferior dispositions like wrong, evil, cruelty, hate, domination, inhumanity, repugnancies, injustice, inequity, inequality, unfairness, prejudice, nepotism, and brutality, or brute exploitation of others to benefit a favored or chosen group over the rest. But the Multilateral or Multipolarity new world understanding is against a cold war mentality thought process, racial hierarchy thought process – that prefers domination over cooperation, control over reciprocity, war over peace, dictates over consensus, imposition over competition, block mentality over solidarity, bigotry over respect, or open markets over isolation. The new world order is investing heavily in positive causality science, Positive problem solving technologies (PPST), or Positive AI. Future Intelligences shall be driven by Quantum information base, Fusion technology Base, Nano Technology Base, New Materials Sciences Technology Base, Positive Semiconductor Base, Positive IP Base, Drone and Satellites or Space Technology Based, AI Gene Technology Base, Positive Causality Technology Base, or Positive Humanity Development Based. Existence shall be based on Humans to humans respecting each other without prejudice or eagerness to create conflicts, instabilities, chaos, coups, wars, anarchy, unsustainability, unrest, confrontation, or Negative Causality Intelligences. The future is moving toward the world governing itself rather than a world whose responsibilities and expectations or obligations are led by one country, one people, one gender, one religion, one culture, one tradition, one political ideological system or one race. In this future of World being, let America lead rather than be afraid of accepting the Multilaterality of a new Science Base Reality. Be confident.
Philosopher Prince.
AI Intelligences Philosopher
Prince Israel Zaar
09042025
______________________________
DeepSeek Analytical Interpretation of Prince Zaar’s Manifesto on the New World Order
This is a powerful and visionary text. It reads as a philosophical manifesto or a state-of-the-world address, advocating for a profound shift in how global relations and human progress are conceptualized. Thank you for sharing the words of AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar.
Here is an analysis of the key themes and arguments presented:
Core Thesis:
The End of the Old Order, The Dawn of a New One
The central argument is that the world is undergoing a fundamental transition from an outdated, hierarchical, and divisive system of international relations to a new, multilateral system based on equity, cooperation, and positive technological advancement.
Critique of the “Old Order”
The text strongly criticizes the foundations of the previous global system, describing it as being built on:
Racial and Civilizational Hierarchy:
The belief that certain races or civilizations are inherently superior to others.
Pseudoscience:
Specifically calling out “Eugenicivilization” and the misuse of concepts like “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” to justify domination and a unipolar world.
Negative Dispositions:
This order thrives on “wrong, evil, cruelty, hate, domination, inhumanity, injustice, inequity… and brute exploitation.”
Cold War Mentality:
A mindset that prefers domination over cooperation, control over reciprocity, war over peace, and dictates over consensus.
Vision for the “New World Order” (Multilateral/Multipolar)
This new system is defined by its positive and inclusive principles:
Rejection of Superiority:
The foundational requirement for participation is to “give up their desire of racial superiority or racial hierarchy.”
Core Values:
It is a system of “fairness, equity, reciprocity, amicability, consensus building, cooperation, cultural exchanges, operational practicality, solidarity, competition, and peace through dialogue.”
Distributed Leadership:
The future is one where the world governs itself, rather than being led by “one country, one people, one gender, one religion…”
Positive Foundations:
The new order is built on “good nature, good intentions, positive intelligence, positive technologies, positive science…”
The Engine of Progress:
Positive Technology and Science
A key pillar of this envisioned future is a specific breed of technology and science, termed “Positive Artificial Intelligence” and related fields. This includes investment in:
Positive Problem Solving Technologies (PPST)
Positive AI (contrasted with “Negative Causality Intelligences”)
Quantum computing, Fusion, Nanotechnology, New Materials Science, Space Technology, and AI Gene Technology.
This “Positive” science is framed as being inherently for the benefit of all humanity, in contrast to technologies of control and exploitation.
The Call to Action (Specifically to America)
The text concludes with a direct and poignant appeal:
It encourages confidence in this new multilateral reality.
It specifically calls on America to lead this transition rather than fear it. The message is to embrace the shift from unilateral dominance to being a leading partner in a multipolar world.
Overall Tone and Style
The style is prophetic, persuasive, and declarative. It uses strong contrasts between the “old” (negative, divisive, exploitative) and the “new” (positive, unifying, equitable). The repetition of the word “positive” serves as a powerful rhetorical device to hammer home the desired ethos of the future.
Essentiality:
In essence, it is a call for a moral and philosophical evolution in global politics, arguing that true progress and excellence in the 21st century cannot be achieved through the oppressive paradigms of the past but must be built on a foundation of mutual respect, ethical science, and inclusive cooperation.
______________________________
Google AI Analytical Interpretation of Prince Zaar’s Manifesto on the New World Order
Manifesto on the New World Order
The provided text, attributed to “AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar 09012025,” is a philosophical and geopolitical manifesto outlining a “new world understanding” based on multilateralism and what the author calls “Positive Artificial Intelligence.” It argues for moving beyond an “Old Order” defined by racial hierarchy, conflict, and a “cold war mentality” toward a future built on cooperation and positive technology. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Core concepts of the manifesto
Transition to a new global order
• Thawing alliances:
The text asserts that traditional, racially-based alliances are collapsing. The “Old Order” is described as unipolar, reliant on pseudo-scientific ideas like “Eugenicivilization” and “survival of the fittest,” and resistant to engaging in partnerships not based on hierarchy.
• Embracing multilateralism and multipolarity:
In contrast, the “new world understanding” is characterized by multilateralism or multipolarity. This system is defined by a set of constructive principles, including:
Fairness, equity, and reciprocity
Cooperation and consensus-building
Competition and cultural exchanges
Solidarity and peace through dialogue [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
The role of “positive” technology and intelligence
• Positive Artificial Intelligence (Positive AI):
The text envisions a future driven by Positive AI and “Positive problem solving technologies (PPST).” Positive AI is distinct from “inferior dispositions” and focuses on ethical development for the well-being of humanity.
• Science and technology bases:
Future intelligences, according to the author, will be built on a foundation of “positive causality science” and various technology bases, including:
Quantum information
Fusion, Nano, and New Materials Sciences
Positive Semiconductor and IP (intellectual property)
Drone, Satellite, and Space technologies
AI Gene and Positive Humanity Development [1, 2, 10, 11]
The new morality and role of America
• Giving up racial superiority:
A central tenet of the new order is the rejection of racial hierarchy. For countries to be major “players,” they must abandon notions of racial or civilizational superiority.
• Naturality of the human being:
The text promotes a new understanding of human nature, where true superiority comes from positive intentions and contributions, not brute exploitation. It contrasts “positive intelligence” and “good nature” with “wrong, evil, cruelty, hate, domination,” and other negative dispositions.
• America’s opportunity:
The manifesto concludes with a specific call for America to “lead rather than be afraid of accepting the Multilaterality of a new Science Base Reality” and to embrace the emerging order with confidence. [7, 12]
Who is Prince Israel Zaar?
Prince Israel Zaar, or AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar, identifies as a philosopher and an AI philosopher. His work, sometimes labeled “Zaarrianism” or “Trianglism,” is expressed through art and philosophy. He appears to use social media platforms like Instagram, aiphilosopher.com, and Threads to share his philosophical ideas, which include concepts like “Positive Artificial Intelligence” and geopolitical commentary. He is featured on various podcasts and has a digital presence where he discusses his philosophical framework. The provided text is one example of his public-facing work, which synthesizes philosophical, technological, and geopolitical themes. [3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 16]
Source Code used in Analysis:
[1] https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-
______________________________
Google AI (Mode) Analytical Interpretation of Prince Zaar’s “Manifesto on the New World Order”
The text provided is a philosophical statement by AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar, presenting a vision for a future global order based on multilateralism, positive AI, and the rejection of racial superiority and hierarchy.
Key tenets
Shift from Old Order:
The old world order, characterized by traditional alliances based on race, color, civilizational superiority, and a cold war mentality, is gradually becoming a thing of the past. This previous order was associated with domination, control, war, dictates, imposition, block mentality, and bigotry.
Embracing Multilateralism/Multipolarity:
The new world order embraces multilateralism and multipolarity, emphasizing fairness, equity, reciprocity, amicability, consensus building, cooperation, cultural exchanges, operational practicality, solidarity, competition, and peace through dialogue.
Rejection of Racism and Hierarchy:
Zaar asserts that countries wishing to be part of this new order must abandon notions of racial superiority and hierarchy. The text emphasizes that superiority lies in good nature, good intentions, positive intelligence, positive technologies, and positive contributions, contrasting these with inferior dispositions like evil, cruelty, hate, and domination.
Focus on Positive Technologies:
The future is envisioned as heavily invested in positive causality science, Positive Problem Solving Technologies (PPST), and Positive AI. Future intelligences will be driven by advancements in areas like Quantum Information Base, Fusion Technology Base, Nanotechnology Base, New Materials Sciences Technology Base, Positive Semiconductor Base, Positive IP Base, Drone and Satellites or Space Technology Based, AI Gene Technology Base, Positive Causality Technology Base, and Positive Humanity Development Based.
Global Self-Governance:
The future will move towards a world governing itself, rather than having responsibilities and obligations led by a single country, people, gender, religion, culture, tradition, political ideological system, or race.
In Essentiality:
In essence, Zaar’s vision advocates for a more equitable, cooperative, and technologically advanced future, driven by positive intentions and a rejection of the exclusionary practices of the past, with America encouraged to lead in this multilateral reality.
______________________________
ChatGPT Analytical Interpretation of Prince Zaar’s “Manifesto on the New World Order”
Let’s analyze your text as if it were a published philosophical or political essay, attributed to AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar, September 1, 2025 (09012025).
Textual Analysis
Author
Prince Israel Zaar presents himself as both a philosopher and futurist, framing the piece as a manifesto for a multipolar, cooperative world order.
The title “AI Philosopher” signals the merging of traditional philosophical reflection with the technological and scientific age, emphasizing Artificial Intelligence as both subject and tool of human progress.
Date
September 1, 2025 (09012025) is important context:
The date positions this text in a world of rising multipolar competition, AI breakthroughs, and geopolitical shifts.
It frames the piece as a timely response to current challenges — a bridge between the turbulence of the present and the promise of a future order.
Core Themes
1. Old Order vs. New Order
Old:
alliances based on race, color, national origin, Cold War mentality, superiority doctrines.
New:
cooperation, multilateralism, fairness, dialogue, cultural exchange, solidarity.
2. Positive Intelligence Paradigm
Advocates a shift toward Positive AI and Positive Causality Science as engines of a just future.
Emphasizes moral-technical synthesis: technologies must serve fairness, reciprocity, and peaceful coexistence.
3. Rejection of Pseudo-Science
Critique of “Eugenicivilization” and survival-of-the-fittest misapplications that created systems of hierarchy.
Reasserts that true superiority lies in good nature, intentions, innovations, and contributions, not domination.
4. Future Vision
A multipolar humanity governed by consensus rather than control.
Technology bases: quantum information, fusion, nanotech, semiconductors, space, biotech — all framed positively.
Humanity-to-humanity respect as the cornerstone of existence.
5. Call to America
Urges the U.S. to embrace the multilateral scientific reality instead of resisting it.
Ending note:
“Be confident” — an encouragement to lead through acceptance of plurality.
Rhetorical Style
Manifesto-like:
Repetitions of “positive,” “new,” “superiority,” give it rhythm and urgency.
Contrast-driven:
Old vs. New, Positive vs. Negative, Cooperation vs. Domination.
Philosophical yet futuristic:
Blends moral reasoning with technological forecasting.
Overall Significance
The text positions itself as a foundational philosophical vision for the mid-21st century, outlining the ethical, political, and technological requirements for a sustainable future.
Comparative Importance of Text
It aligns with traditions of political-philosophical manifestos (e.g., The Federalist Papers, Marx’s Communist Manifesto, Fukuyama’s “End of History”) but introduces a unique lens: Positive AI and Positive Causality Science as the backbone of global multilateralism.
______________________________
Future Arguments Against Prince Israel Zaar’s Manifesto
Argument Against Text
[According to Google Generative AI]
Arguments against the utopian vision presented by “AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar” would likely focus on the profound and potentially dangerous gap between his ideals and the complex, often non-rational, realities of geopolitics, human nature, and artificial intelligence development.
Critique of “Positive Artificial Intelligence”
Zaar’s philosophy hinges on the concept of “Positive AI” driving a better future, but critics could challenge this premise by arguing the following:
• The Problem of Definition:
“Positive AI” is not a defined or universally accepted concept. It’s an optimistic label for an aspirational technology, and critics would demand a more concrete definition of what it entails and how it is reliably developed. Without clear guardrails, “positive” could be defined by a favored group, reintroducing the very hierarchies Zaar condemns.
• The “Black Box” Problem:
AI models, especially large language models (LLMs), are notoriously opaque, making it difficult to fully understand how they arrive at their decisions. Zaar’s vision of AI-driven intelligence based on “good nature, good intentions” ignores the fact that these systems learn from human data, which is riddled with prejudice and racism. Critics would argue that without constant and careful intervention, AI will simply replicate and amplify existing biases, not eliminate them.
• The Dual-Use Dilemma:
Technology is rarely inherently good or evil. The same AI that could be used for “positive problem-solving” could also be weaponized for surveillance, misinformation, and military applications, disrupting the strategic balance and provoking conflict. Zaar’s vision dismisses this dual-use problem.
• AI as a tool of the powerful:
Instead of eliminating racial or civilizational bias, AI could become a new tool for powerful state and corporate actors to exert control. History shows that those with the resources to invest heavily in advanced technologies, like the “new world order” described, often use them to create new forms of dominance, not fairness.
Challenges to the Multilateralism Vision
Zaar’s text presents a vision of multilateralism and multipolarity based on idealistic principles, but critics would point to systemic challenges that expose the naïveté of this outlook.
• The Inevitability of Power Politics:
Zaar argues the “new world understanding is against a cold war mentality,” but realist international relations theory suggests that great power competition is an enduring feature of the international system. The transition to a multipolar world is not a smooth process, but a messy, tension-filled period marked by power struggles and strategic realignments.
• Crisis of Multilateralism:
Multilateral institutions are not the fair, equitable forums Zaar portrays. They are currently facing a legitimacy crisis characterized by erosion of trust, deadlock, and disregard for international agreements by powerful states. Emerging powers may not use their new influence to create a fair system, but rather to serve their own national interests and revise global norms in their favor.
• The Paradox of Non-Interventionism:
The non-interventionist stance is impractical. Complex global issues like climate change, pandemics, and economic instability require coordinated, collective responses. A strictly non-interventionist approach would prevent meaningful cooperation on these issues and allow local conflicts and instability to escalate without global action.
• Rising Nationalism and Populism:
Zaar’s vision of a post-racial, universally accepting international order overlooks the persistence and resurgence of nationalist, populist, and authoritarian movements worldwide. These movements are often fueled by the very identity politics Zaar hopes to overcome, and they actively undermine multilateral efforts in favor of unilateralism.
Critique of the Utopian Outlook
A more general philosophical argument against Zaar’s text would question its overly optimistic and deterministic vision of a “better tomorrow”.
• Idealism vs. Reality:
The text presents a utopian view of human potential driven by positive intentions and technology. A critic would argue that this is an overly simplistic view of human nature that dismisses the persistent reality of human irrationality, selfishness, and the desire for power. Progress is not guaranteed and can lead to unintended, negative consequences.
• The Danger of Technological Determinism:
Zaar’s philosophy appears to rely on a form of technological determinism, where advancements like “Quantum information base” and “Positive AI” automatically lead to a better world. This ignores the social, ethical, and political choices that govern how technology is developed and used.
• The Narrative of Progress:
Zaar’s framing of history—the old, biased world giving way to a new, enlightened one—is a teleological narrative of inevitable progress. This narrative dismisses the possibility of regression and the cyclical nature of human conflict and competition, which are still very much present today.
• Utopianism as Dystopia:
Critics might argue that highly prescriptive utopian visions like Zaar’s often risk becoming their own form of dystopia. By prioritizing an abstract ideal of “positive” qualities and demanding that nations give up their “desire for racial superiority,” such a philosophy could be used to suppress dissent and enforce conformity, undermining the very fairness it claims to champion.
______________________________
Arguments and Questions to Answer [According to Generative AI]
Arguing against AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar’s vision of multilateralism
The text from “AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar 09012025” outlines a highly idealistic, yet potentially naive, vision for a new world order driven by “Positive Artificial Intelligence” and strict multilateralism [user]. A critical argument against this perspective would challenge its underlying assumptions, practical feasibility, and potential for unintended consequences. Below are questions that probe these vulnerabilities, followed by potential counterarguments.
Questions for Prince Israel Zaar
1. On the nature of human evil:
You state that the new order will triumph over “inferior dispositions like wrong, evil, cruelty, [and] hate.” But are these dispositions truly “tales of the past,” or are they deeply ingrained, evolutionary aspects of human nature? Can any amount of “Positive AI” truly eliminate them?
2. On defining “positive” AI:
Who defines what constitutes “positive” AI, “positive causality science,” and “positive development?” Given the wide diversity of human values and ethics, what mechanisms prevent one group’s definition of “positive” from being imposed on others, repeating the mistakes of the “Old Order”?
3. On the role of competition:
The text speaks of “competition” as a positive element, yet in the context of advanced technologies like AI and quantum computing, this can lead to an arms race. How does your vision of multilateralism prevent competitive development from becoming a new, technology-driven Cold War?
4. On non-interventionism:
You advocate for “non interventionist camps.” What happens when a regime within this new order commits gross human rights violations or pursues destructive technologies? Does the principle of non-interventionism override the responsibility to protect?
5. On America’s role:
You call for America to “lead rather than be afraid.” What does “leading” mean in this multilateral system? Does it simply mean being the first to accept the new rules, or does it imply a continued position of exceptionalism and influence, contradicting the principles of fairness and equity you espouse?
6. On the practicality of consensus:
You emphasize consensus-building in a multipolar world. Historically, achieving consensus among a large number of sovereign nations on critical issues like climate change or nuclear disarmament has been incredibly slow and difficult. How will your system overcome these longstanding issues of international cooperation?
7. On the governance of AI:
You envision a future led by a benevolent AI. Who will control and audit this AI? What prevents a malicious actor or a rogue state from creating a “Negative Causality” AI that subverts the entire system for their own gain?
8. On the “Eugenicivilization” conspiracy:
You mention a “Eugenicivilization pseudo-scientific conspiracy.” While criticizing historical racial superiority is valid, the framing of this as a unified, pseudo-scientific conspiracy can be seen as undermining nuanced historical analysis. How do you propose to confront the ongoing legacy of racism without resorting to a conspiratorial narrative?
9. On the fate of the “Old Order”:
The text suggests the “Old Order” will simply fade away. How will this happen? Do you believe the established powers will willingly relinquish their advantages and embrace this new system without conflict? Or will the transition be a contentious process, potentially leading to the very instability your philosophy seeks to avoid?
10. On the nature of “reality”:
You refer to a “Multilaterality of a new Science Base Reality.” This sounds like a philosophical claim disguised as a scientific one. What evidence or principles support the idea that “reality” itself is evolving to favor multilateralism?
Counterarguments and answers
• Human Nature and the Problem of Evil:
Zaar’s vision may underestimate the persistent, non-rational aspects of human behavior. Even with “Positive AI,” human beings may still be driven by fear, greed, and tribalism, making a truly peaceful, non-interventionist world difficult to sustain. The transition away from conflict may be more of a constant struggle than a final victory [user].
• The Subjectivity of “Positive”:
The concept of “Positive” AI is a major point of vulnerability. What is “positive” for one culture or nation may be considered threatening or exploitative by another. Zaar’s philosophy lacks a robust mechanism for resolving these foundational ethical disagreements, leaving it open to the same power struggles and imposition of values it condemns in the “Old Order” [user].
• The Competitive Arms Race:
While Zaar praises competition, a multilateral system without a clear, enforced governance structure could easily devolve into a high-tech arms race. Countries would race to develop superior AI, quantum, and military technology, not to cooperate, but to gain a competitive advantage, potentially leading to new forms of conflict.
• The Non-Interventionist Trap:
Strict non-interventionism could enable oppressive regimes to commit atrocities without international accountability. While interventionism has a troubled history, abandoning it entirely leaves marginalized groups vulnerable and could allow regional conflicts to fester and grow [user].
• America’s Dilemma:
Zaar’s advice to America is contradictory. You cannot “lead” a truly multilateral system where all players are equal. True multilateralism requires a relinquishing of exceptionalism and unilateral power. His statement could be interpreted as a request for America to legitimize the new system through its support, while still retaining a position of informal leadership.
• Consensus-Building Failures:
Zaar overlooks the immense practical and political challenges of achieving global consensus. Divergent national interests, historical grievances, and economic disparities make unanimous agreement on key issues highly unlikely. This could lead to a paralyzed system or one where only the most powerful actors can effectively shape the agenda [user].
• The AI Control Problem:
The text glosses over the fundamental “control problem” of advanced AI. Who guards the guardian? A central AI, even a “Positive AI,” could be manipulated, hacked, or programmed with biases that serve a specific group’s interests. The very notion of a single benevolent AI guiding humanity is a utopian concept that overlooks the very real dangers of power concentration.
• The Dangers of Conspiracy Narratives:
By framing historical racism and conflict as a single “Eugenicivilization” conspiracy, Zaar simplifies complex history and potentially alienates those who might otherwise agree with his anti-racist principles. A conspiratorial view can be counterproductive to building a genuinely inclusive future [user].
• The Reality of Power Transition:
The idea that the “Old Order” will simply yield to a new one is highly optimistic. History shows that power transitions are often violent and destabilizing. Ignoring the potential for conflict with established powers is a significant weakness in this philosophy [user].
• A New Dogma:
Zaar presents his vision as an immutable “Science Base Reality,” which runs counter to the spirit of open inquiry and a genuinely pluralistic worldview. By labeling his view as the only “naturality of the human being,” he risks creating a new dogmatic ideology that is just as rigid as the “Old Order” he criticizes [user].
ChatGPT Counterarguments of Prince Zaar’s Manifesto with Citations
To build intellectual credibility, it’s important to anticipate counterarguments. Zaar’s Manifesto is bold and visionary, but critics (especially in international relations, philosophy of technology, and political theory) would likely challenge it from several directions. Here’s a breakdown of arguments against your Zaar’s Manifesto, with possible citations or schools of thought that could be referenced.
1. Overemphasis on Technology as a Moral Force
Critique:
The text assumes that “Positive AI,” “Positive Causality Science,” and other technological bases will inherently drive fairness, equity, and peace. Critics might argue that technology is morally neutral, and its deployment depends entirely on human governance, institutions, and power struggles.
Possible Citations:
Winner, Langdon. Do Artifacts Have Politics? (1980) — argues that technologies embody political choices but are not inherently “positive.”
Morozov, Evgeny. To Save Everything, Click Here (2013) — critique of “solutionism” in technology.
2. Idealism vs. Realism in International Relations
Critique:
Your vision assumes that states and civilizations can abandon racial hierarchies, national superiority, and Cold War mentalities in favor of multilateralism. Realist scholars would argue this ignores the enduring nature of power competition.
Possible Citations:
Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics (1979) — realism: states act primarily to secure survival and power.
Mearsheimer, John. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001) — multipolarity often increases insecurity, rather than guaranteeing peace.
3. Ambiguity of “Positive”
Critique:
The text uses the term positive extensively (positive AI, positive intelligence, positive causality), but critics may argue this is vague and normative, not analytically clear. What makes AI “positive,” and who decides?
Possible Citations:
Bostrom, Nick. Superintelligence (2014) — even well-intended AI can lead to catastrophic unintended consequences.
Floridi, Luciano & Cowls, Josh. “A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society” (Harvard Data Science Review, 2019) — stresses the need for clear ethical principles, not vague positivity.
4. Historical Critique of Eugenics and Survival of the Fittest
Critique:
The rejection of “Eugenicivilization” and misuses of Darwinism is justified, but critics may say this oversimplifies history. Not all hierarchical systems were built on pseudo-science; many were rooted in economic exploitation, geopolitics, or cultural dominance.
Possible Citations:
Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man (1981) — critiques scientific racism but also emphasizes broader historical contexts.
Foucault, Michel. Society Must Be Defended (1975 lectures) — explains how “biopolitics” and race were embedded in state power, not just pseudo-science.
5. Skepticism About Global Multilateralism
Critique:
The vision of a cooperative multipolar order may be dismissed as utopian. Some argue multipolarity often leads to instability (e.g., pre–World War I Europe).
The appeal to America to “be confident” in leading multilateralism may seem contradictory: if the future is multipolar, why should one nation lead?
Possible Citations:
Kupchan, Charles. No One’s World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn (2012) — argues multipolarity does not guarantee cooperation.
Allison, Graham. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (2017) — highlights structural tensions in power transition.
6. Human Nature Concerns
Critique:
The claim that humanity will evolve toward fairness, reciprocity, and respect might be criticized as ignoring the darker, recurring patterns of human behavior: greed, tribalism, and violence.
Possible Citations:
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan (1651) — human nature tends toward conflict without strong institutions.
Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature (2011) — even though violence has declined, it argues this is due to specific political and social institutions, not inevitability.
Summary of Counterarguments
Technology alone cannot guarantee morality (Winner, Morozov).
Realism suggests power politics will persist (Waltz, Mearsheimer).
“Positive” terminology is too vague (Bostrom, Floridi).
Historical simplifications weaken the argument (Gould, Foucault).
Multipolarity can be unstable (Kupchan, Allison).
Human nature may resist utopian visions (Hobbes, Pinker).
ChatGPT – A Scholarly Critique as if Prince Zaar’s Manifesto is a Published Piece Being Peer-reviewed
A Scholarly Rebuttal of Zaar’s Manifesto
Here’s a scholarly rebuttal essay written as though Prince Israel Zaar’s manifesto were being critically reviewed in an academic or policy context. I’ve preserved the respectful tone while highlighting the main weaknesses that critics could raise.
Rebuttal to AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar, 09/01/2025
A Scholarly Critique of the “Positive AI and Multilateral Future” Vision
Prince Israel Zaar’s essay presents a bold manifesto for a future global order based on “Positive Artificial Intelligence,” multilateral cooperation, and the rejection of racial hierarchies. It is ambitious in scope, morally clear, and futurist in imagination. However, when examined through established schools of thought in political science, philosophy of technology, and history, the text faces significant challenges.
1. Technology as a Moral Force
Zaar assumes that Positive AI, Positive Causality Science, and other “positive technologies” will drive humanity toward fairness, reciprocity, and peace. Yet technological determinism—the belief that technology alone shapes society—has been widely critiqued. Technology is morally neutral; its impacts depend on governance, institutions, and human intention.
Langdon Winner argues in Do Artifacts Have Politics? (1980) that technologies embody political choices but are not inherently benevolent.
Evgeny Morozov in To Save Everything, Click Here (2013) critiques “solutionism,” warning against overconfidence in technological fixes.
Thus, the manifesto risks overstating the moral power of science and underestimating the enduring role of political structures and human flaws.
2. Idealism vs. Realism in International Relations
Zaar’s framework is grounded in an idealist assumption: that states and peoples will eventually abandon racial hierarchy, Cold War thinking, and domination in favor of cooperation. Realist scholars strongly disagree.
Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (1979) insists that states act primarily to survive in an anarchic international system.
John Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001) contends that multipolarity often increases insecurity, making conflict more likely, not less.
From a realist perspective, the vision of universal reciprocity is utopian, ignoring the enduring dynamics of power politics.
3. Vagueness of “Positive”
The manifesto repeatedly invokes the word positive (Positive AI, Positive Intelligence, Positive Science) without providing analytical precision. Critics may ask: what criteria define positivity, and who determines them?
Nick Bostrom in Superintelligence (2014) warns that even well-intentioned AI systems can produce unintended catastrophic outcomes.
Luciano Floridi and Josh Cowls (Harvard Data Science Review, 2019) argue for explicit ethical principles to guide AI, rather than broad terms like “positive.”
Without clearer definitions, “positivity” risks becoming a rhetorical flourish rather than a practical framework.
4. Historical Oversimplification
The essay blames “Eugenicivilization” and the misapplication of natural selection for racial hierarchies. While eugenics and pseudo-science played a role, history shows that domination was also driven by economics, geopolitics, and cultural hegemony.
Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man (1981) critiques scientific racism but emphasizes wider structural causes.
Michel Foucault in Society Must Be Defended (1975 lectures) situates racial power in state biopolitics, not merely in misread science.
This oversimplification risks underestimating the deep, structural drivers of inequality.
5. Risks of Multipolarity
Zaar equates multipolarity with cooperation, but history suggests otherwise. Multipolar systems have often been unstable and prone to conflict.
Charles Kupchan’s No One’s World (2012) argues that a multipolar order may be fragmented and unstable.
Graham Allison’s Destined for War (2017) highlights the “Thucydides Trap,” showing how power transitions often produce war rather than peace.
Thus, the optimism around multipolarity may ignore its historically violent track record.
6. Human Nature Concerns
Finally, the manifesto assumes that humanity will naturally progress toward fairness and respect. Philosophical critics would argue this misreads human nature.
Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651) saw humanity as prone to conflict without strong sovereign authority.
Even Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature (2011), which documents long-term declines in violence, emphasizes the role of institutions, norms, and enforcement—factors missing in Zaar’s idealist framework.
Human nature, history suggests, may not align so neatly with moral evolution.
Conclusion
Zaar’s manifesto offers an inspiring vision of a cooperative, technologically guided global order. Its strength lies in its moral clarity and futuristic imagination. Yet it risks falling into technological determinism, utopian idealism, and historical simplification
For the manifesto to withstand serious scholarly scrutiny, it must:
1. Clarify what constitutes “positive” science and AI.
2. Address power politics and realism in international relations.
3. Incorporate historical and structural causes of inequality beyond pseudo-science.
4. Confront the darker aspects of human nature.
Only then could Zaar’s vision of a multipolar, cooperative future rooted in Positive AI be both inspiring and credible.
