Global Quantum Ecosystem vs Aryentollah : Yes We Can Magastna in 200 Days !
March 20, 2026

The celebration of the life of the Reverend Jesse Jackson provides an opportunity to highlight his important role in the choice made for the first time since 1789 by the American people in favor of an African-American as President of the United States (November 4, 2008) and re-elected (April 3, 2012). "He laid the groundwork for my own campaign for the highest office in the land (Obama). This solemn sentence equates J. Jackson with a breaking factor since he would have paved the way for her and other black personalities.
The succession of events before the consecration of the "Yes We Can!" nevertheless invites us to revisit the theory of "wild cards", their impact on the different "family resemblances" that rub shoulders with them. While respecting the solemnity of this consecration of a promoter of peace and democracy through the struggle for civil rights embodied by Mr. L. King, whose assassination in his presence (April 4, 1968) marked him forever.

Jackson's role is all the more historic in that he ran for president twice in 1984 and 1988 in a context of political and cultural war in endless continuity in the United States, which was also described as "exceptional, not by its wealth, its size, its skyscrapers or its military power, but as the only nation in the history of mankind made up of people of all races, all religions and cultures, from the four corners of the world" (B. Obama e.a: Born in the USA; Fayard; 2021).
The election of an African-American in 2008 also calls into question the theory of predicates when the "family resemblance" that emanates from this country makes "americanus" the heir of "homo scientificus", attributing to it the regime of absolute domination imposed on the rest of the world throughout the twentieth century, classifying it as a model of liberal democracy. The theory of paradigms is also challenged when it behaves like a kleptocracy, takes refuge behind a confessional ethnolinguistic epistemology while denying so many others the right to inlay an ideological, theocratic, autocratic, plutocratic, kakistocratic nuance...

This is indeed a radical break in the attributive and classificatory logic underlying the predicate of traditional family resemblance in the exercise of political power in the United States. It remains to be seen what its true nature is: creative or destructive? Creative when it relies on political culture (politics) to promote peace in the world, confirming its central place in the long-awaited advent of "homo scientificus democraticus". Destructive according to the assessment he himself draws up two decades later. A somewhat easy way to bury everything with J. Jackson, including two presidential terms.

If all the comments provoked by the ceremony consecrate the role of the late Reverend, none of them refers to what was really decisive in this type of rupture: well before the real presidential election of 2008, a discreet virtual election having taken place within a mysterious network unique in its kind: neither technical-economic, nor social, even less politico-military, above all, not ubiquitous. Fomented within this digital microcosm at the origin of a supposedly "reproducible" "revolution", it displays such a high level of selectivity and total anonymity limiting to a limited participation (a very small number of hundreds?). Two criteria: promote a cultural work with arguments convincing enough to encourage other members to discover it; a total ban on remaining a passive consumer, thus obliging each member to regularly share a new cultural work. It doesn't matter what the field is: art, literature, science, a brilliant idea, an intellectual, natural curiosity, provided it arouses enthusiasm, gives rise to controversies that invite everyone to go deeper.
It is also a way of escaping the nauseating context resulting from the global war on terrorism, the weariness caused by the grip of the TINA, its avatar "Science Bush" and the specter of the twentieth century of barbarism.

Until the day when the idea of organizing a virtual election arises, if only to ensure the existence of a sufficiently robust political offer to put an end to it, to open a new page to the world and to humanity.

However, it was necessary to remove the major obstacle that was the neutrality of most of the members who opposed it. The argument that culture can in its political dimension be a source of peace ends up reassuring. After a period of discussion on a variety of visions available behind potential candidates, the virtual election takes place. The result destabilizes all these 2.0 voters: at the top of the votes cast, a woman and a black, without reducing them to another "family resemblance" or being convinced by their adherence to an epistemology sufficiently constructivist to promote a new federal ecosystem that is a unique source of stability, peace and solidarity as long as it remains scalable, defixator and assortative. That was all it took for the information to leak and land in the web space of a non-profit organization. Not just any team, since this "Public Allies" has maintained close ties with the two winners through their partners since 1993: one, founder and executive director, launched the Chicago version, while the other, current President, elevated it to the status of a model of national service.

The leak of the results of this revolutionary election nevertheless sounds the death knell for "Culture Cloud" given that the idea of having promoted two candidates harms the integrity and neutrality of its members. Hence the immediate decision to suspend the activities of this network at the risk of depriving most of them of any participation in another social network that is in vogue but does not meet such a high level of cultural requirements. A decision was nevertheless taken in 2007: to open CC to the public, in order to drown this network by reducing everything to the corporate culture, thus programming the obsolescence of its original version.

"Culture Cloud" was undoubtedly more decisive than any other in the election of a black man to the presidency of the United States. However, no lesson has been learned, neither by the latter, nor by his successors. None of them deigned to launch an investigation, even if only to verify the hypothesis on the real cost of the Iraq war on the occasion of a No-Fly-Zone put forward in 2003 by J. Stiglitz - Three Trillion Dollar War (Nber) - increasingly robust and confirmed, as if by chance, the year of the presidential election (2008). A diagnosis that is all the more severe because it is pronounced by a scientist and Nobel Prize winner (economics) whose independence and integrity have always been manifested, including by contributing to one of the richest "paradigm wars" (Mumbay; January 2004) devoted to "another world is possible (WSF"), "another century for development is possible (S.D Sy)", in the context of "free software, free society" (R. Stallman).

However, the future President Obama had firmly opposed the Iraq war since 2003, recognized as a mistake with monumental consequences when it results in the loss of all the attributes of this country's sovereignty to the benefit of interest groups, to the point of doing it again in 2026 by organizing another No-Fly-Zone over Iran, no doubt to carry out a holdup on another $2 trillion" saved by Doge out of the $6.75 trillion of the federal budget; Probably to make people forget the previous one. This is how we take refuge behind the funeral of the Reverend Jesse Jackson when he "inspires us to take a more difficult path... to be heralds of change" and allows us to take refuge behind the slogans of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Another mistake that went unnoticed was the differential treatment between the three countries that openly opposed the American desire to attack Iraq because of the possession of nuclear weapons. This treatment was denounced in cynical terms by the military-industrial, academic and monetary complex (Miam) through the words of this Admiral (T. d'Arbonneau) during a Round Table dedicated to the "foundations of power" when he attacked C. Rice who was then translating the American position: "a very beautiful woman especially when she was angry and a very beautiful woman when she spoke of France. So first remark, Russia, we'll forgive it, it's in a period of transition, it's not a big deal. Germany can say what it wants, it's not a big deal. France is going to be made to pay... ». However, according to the available data, of the 13 other countries that possess or host nuclear weapons, only the United Kingdom joined the Coalition against Iraq in 2003.

Why then does this country still remain locked in a succession of traps in Libya, Syria, the Sahel, West Africa, Davos, Iran..., dragging its continent into a vicious circle while providing the USA with a cautery (BoP), a counter-fire (Iran) in 2026 just to cover up a serious affair (Epstein) and if possible preserve its status as a Hegemon at the service of lobbies? Contrary to the assertions of this Admiral, the explanation for this relentlessness against France lies elsewhere. We must go back to the famous "little mediatized" speech delivered at Harvard on June 5, 1947 by the American Secretary of State George C. Marshall, in order to celebrate the "Birth of a peaceful Europe" provided that the paradigmatic underlying that consecrates the regime of absolute domination to the benefit of Hegemon is decoded, thus reducing the European protagonists of the 2nd World War - all defeated contrary to popular belief - into vigilantes, even if it means authorizing them to recruit/install robots in their colonies to sequester their resources in the absence of the counter-value device to the Marshall Plan.

France has nevertheless tried to circumvent this system, first by setting itself up as the winner of the war and by exercising strict control over the robots that it selects freely, unlike the United Kingdom, for example. However, it is not part of a logic of rupture like Russia, which has reduced its neighborhood to a glacis within an empire. Hence the difference in the modalities of the collapse of the empire of each of these countries: brutal for the Soviet, soft for the French. But the same treatment within the future Security Council or BoP when they are de facto excluded in 2026, which explains why none of them is in favor of the enlargement of this United Nations body to other former colonies: there is no question of sitting next to a robot, let alone giving it the right of veto. Instead of paying $1 billion to BoP to have peace, France prefers to use them for tourism purposes in Kenya. Instead of showing up in Hormuz, prefer to take a boat ride in the South Mediterranean, which is entirely robotic.

The funeral ceremony thus provides an opportunity to shed tears when "Every day we wake up to a new attack on our democratic institutions." We live in a time when it is difficult to hope for ... Every day, we discover a new attack on our democratic institutions. A new setback for the rule of law. An attack on elementary decency... Every day, we discover things that we never thought possible... Every day, the upper echelons of power incite us to fear each other, to tear each other apart. We are told that some Americans matter more than others, and that some do not count at all. Greed and bigotry are glorified everywhere, and intimidation and mockery masquerade as force... ».

A decade of presidency has therefore been as decisive in this vicious circle as CC was in his election.

So many mistakes should in no way be used as an excuse to do nothing. Without avoiding pointing out the responsibility of the state model, its vulnerability to interest groups and the high level of attraction of the figure of political entrepreneur. "Stop your game..." The secret to surviving in this place (the parliament) is to understand that this is business" (A Promised Land; Fayard. P. 59). The injunction, which remained unanswered, from a lobbyist to the parliamentarian in office (2005-2008) explains the high level of fatalism that challenges all the actors of the QWC. Will they be able to address these questions head-on instead of "selling the bear's skin before it has won it" as shown by the emphasis placed on their own rather than on the obstacles to quantum science? To be followed very closely in 200 days.

Sams Dine SY, 03/20/2026 Super Ager Retired
Facilitator of the Open Science https://samsdinesy.org/ platform dedicated to Distance Science and its reproducible impacts: Volitional Dynamics, Exploratory Foresight, Policy Analysis, Systemic Transformation