These Studies on Security contain only the results of my scientific views, research, analyses and models. In other words, they provide a SUMMARY of my MAJOR contributions to the Science of Security.
  
  STUDY 30. ON SOME ADDITIONAL CONCEPTS AND PHENOMENA DIRECTLY RELATED TO SECURITY
  
  A number of concepts and phenomena are discussed that, as a rule, were not the central objects of previous Studies, but are undoubtedly important for the Science of Security and are very directly and, one might say, inextricably linked with the disclosure of the amazing, unique nature and fundamental significance of the scientific category „Security“.
  
  My following monograph is devoted to a detailed consideration of the additional concepts and phenomena discussed here, which are closely related to security:
  Николай Слатински. Сигурността – същност, смисъл и съдържание. София: Военно издателство, 2011.
   [Nikolay Slatinski. Sigurnostta – sushtnost, smisal i sadarzhanie. Sofia: Voenno iztadelstvo, 2011].
  Nikolay Slatinski. Security - essence, meaning and content. Sofia: Military publishing house, 2011 (in Bulgarian)
  
  
  After clarifying a number of the most significant, in our opinion, conceptual models, approaches, principles and practical guidelines in the Science of Security, we will continue with the consideration of some additional concepts, which, again, in our opinion, reveal the amazing nature of Security and its direct connection with living matter, with social systems, with the state and society, with the individual psyche. Although they are complementary, these concepts are extremely closely related to Security.
  
  The modern logic of studying processes in security is based on four key elements.
  
  ⁕ FIRST ELEMENT of modern logic of studying processes in security:
The world is experiencing a qualitatively new transformation – radical and revolutionary, systemic and structural, epochal and epic, multidirectional and multi-encompassing (see Study 12).
  
  ⁕ SECOND ELEMENT of modern logic of studying processes in security:
The very essence of security is changing, in other words, security is no longer what it was before, it is completely different, filled with new meaning and new content (see Study 5).
  
  ⁕ THIRD ELEMENT of the modern logic of studying processes in security:
The Science of Security is changing, it is experiencing a Paradigm shift. From one of the social sciences, it gradually turned into the Social Science (see Study 19).
  
  ⁕ FOURTH ELEMENT of the modern logic of studying processes in security:
  The tools for studying security are changing; they increasingly use knowledge, models and approaches from various natural and social sciences (see Study 24)
  
  Explanation:
  Paradigm – a model of scientific thinking in a certain field of knowledge; a set of fundamental scientific understandings, ideas and concepts that are accepted and shared by the scientific community or, at least, unite a significant part of this community.
  Note. Clarifications for which no source is explicitly indicated are based on texts and definitions for them in Wikipedia.
  
  PARADIGMAL CONDITIONS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL SECURITY
  The awareness and research of the deep essence, broad content and high meaning of the amazing scientific category „Security“ in the conditions of the emerging Risk Society (see Study 19, Study 23, Study 24), as well as the development of a strategy for its effective guarantee, are directly related to the conditions in which we live and will live more and more. And these are conditions of growing uncertainty and increasingly high risk. That is why one of the priority, important tasks of Science of Security is precisely decision-making in conditions of growing uncertainty and increasingly high risk.
  The analysis of national security and the construction of such a structure of the national security system, which would generate, first of all ... national security, could not be carried out without the presence of two main and, undoubtedly, paradigmal models:
  
  ⁕ COGNITIVE SPATIAL MODEL of security, which systematizes FIVE different levels of security in the modern geostrategic, geopolitical, geoeconomic and geoenergy situation, as well as in the global (i.e. World), continental (i.e. Europe), regional (i.e. Balkans and Black Sea region) and national (i.e. Bulgaria) plan.
  ⁕ COGNITIVE TIME MODEL of security, which systematizes THREE different waves of security in the coordinate system of modern processes and trends and takes into account the main challenges, risks, dangers and threats.
  
  This is the only way to implement modern approaches to scenario planning and system design, as well as working security management technologies.
  And only in this way, comprehended by Science, will a clear – understandable, necessarily complete and sufficiently consistent, adequate to objective reality and subjective attitudes in a complex and dynamic social system, which is each human community and, above all, society – VISION be created and given for the applied field of national security.
  
  ⁕ In Study 1, „THE FIVE LEVELS OF SECURITY“ SCHEME was considered – a COGNITIVE SPATIAL MODEL of security.
  ⁕ In Study 3, „THE THREE WAVES OF SECURITY“ MODEL was considered – a COGNITIVE TEMPORARY MODEL of security.
  
  With the undisputed copyright of this Scheme and this Model, we will write the following:
  MY „THE FIVE LEVELS OF SECURITY“ SCHEME;
  MY „THE THREE WAVES OF SECURITY“ MODEL.
  
  DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPE AND THE USA IN TERMS OF THE UNDERSTANDING OF SECURITY
  In Study 1 it was said:
  „One of the most significant narratives in the analysis of the Second level of security is the narrative, the main content of which is the differences and dividing lines between the West and the East, in the sense of the civilizational specifics of individualistic and collectivist societies“.
  
  As part of the West and as a member of the Euro-Atlantic community (NATO, EU), Bulgaria has joined societies in which individual security, individual rights and freedoms, individual prosperity and individual well-being play a key role, they have a leading emphasis in the management of the government, in the range of goals and the values of society, of community (and common-unity) of people and individuals. This means that the key element in assessing the activities and competence of any government will be how it guarantees some normal level of individual (personal) security for as many citizens as possible.
  Please note that we said „as many citizens as possible“, and not „all citizens“! It is obvious that between the expressions „as many citizens as possible“ and „all citizens“ there are quite a large number of citizens, and they are not guaranteed this normal level of individual (personal) security. In other words, at their micro level the macro assessment for the state is not applicable – that it is rich and prosperous! In relation to these citizens, of whom there are quite a few, with greater or lesser remorse they think the following:
   „The unhappiness, even if acute, of the lesser number must, in consequence, be accepted...
  Let one steel oneself against compassion for the few – or action on their behalf – lest one damage the greater well-being of the many“ [1].
  
  Western type of state – with a market and democracy, i.e. with „market democracy“, is largely a utilitarian state. And if we replace the word „happiness“ with the word „security“ in the utilitarian principle (in the „hedonic equation“, in the „calculation of happiness“) associated with the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832), then a Western-style state should provide „the maximum amount of security for the maximum number of people“.
  
  In a state with a market democracy, the „happinesses“ of all people are weighted equally, and, at the same time, „everyone to count for one, nobody to count for more than one“ and then „these individual happinesses“ are again summed up into a social total“ and „finally, that social total is substituted for, or identified with, the common good or welfare of society“ [2]. If in a society of 10 people 8 are happy and 2 are unhappy, then according to the utilitarian principle, the „society“ has 6 units of happiness (8 – 2 = 6) – and in fact a completely happy „society“! What do these two unfortunate people think about this? Whatever they think, the main thing is that they get out of it themselves and how could and how they succeed.
  
  Explanation:
  Utilitarianism – a direction and category in ethics, economics, and social philosophy, according to which the moral value of an action or behavior is determined primarily by its benefit.
  Hedonism – a term meaning pleasure. For hedonists, pleasure is the highest good. Anything that gives pleasure is good. Anything that does not bring pleasure should not receive attention.
  
  We will explore the differences between the United States and Europe with regard to markets and democracy, as well as how their societies view social justice and the responsibility of each individual for his life, his life strategy and his happiness. These differences on both sides of the Atlantic are inevitable – since equality and freedom have different projections in the American and European subspaces of Western civilization.
  
  As a formal procedure, democracy is based on a simple rule: „Those who are more numerous, they are right!“ Those who are more numerous determine who should rule, by what rules (laws) to rule, what is expedient for the state and good for its security. But never before has the Majority been the subject (it was primarily the object) of progress. The Truth was never born in the heads of the Majority, the Majority never went to the barricades first, never paid with their lives, freedom and well-being – in the name of Truth. This has always been the work of the Minority, most often one person or a handful of „crazy people“ who dared to rebel against the empire, to look forward and seek Change, to show others the Path to Salvation. They were crucified, burned at the bonfires, shot at the walls, beheaded on scaffolds and guillotines, until finally the Majority was convinced that they were right and accepted their ideas
  
  As the Italian and American philosopher Giovanni Sartori (1924 – 2017) writes, in the beginning of the 16th century, the Italian theologian Marsilius of Padua (c. 1275 – c. 1342) used the expression „the greater and „most able“ part“ (major et valentior pars), and in those days the notion of „major pars“, of the „greater“ part was not separated from the notion of „melior pars“, of the „better part“. Gradually, the differences between the „greater part“ and the „better part“ began to grow until the complete (sometimes ominous) separation of quantitative and qualitative characteristics in society was reached during the Great French Revolution [3].
  
  Explanation:
  The Great French Revolution (1789 – 1799) is an amazing and stormy period in the history of France, associated with large-scale political and social changes that had a huge impact on public life not only in France, but also in Europe.
  
  The ancient Greek poet Homer (VIII century BC) said that „it is not good to have the rule of many“.
  According to the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (c. 427 – 347 BC), „democracy is the worst of good constitutions, though the best of bad ones“.
  For the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (ca. 384 – 322 BC) „extreme democracy is tyranny“ [4].
  The French historian Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859) believed that democracies are „subject to a „tyranny of the majority“, in which popular opinions crowd out genuine diversity and difference“ [5].
  Giovanni Sartori wrote about the „arithmetic tyranny of the majority“ [6] and argued „that numbers create might, not right“, and that „a majority is a quantity, and a quantity cannot engender a quality“ [7].
  
  Democratic society and market society are in direct and reverse relationships, in unity and struggle of opposites. A Democratic society (i.e. „one person, one vote“) „implicitly assumes some degree of economic equality“ [8]. In a Market society (i.e. conventionally „one dollar, one vote“) economic inequality is the main characteristic. Democracy carries within itself a strong desire for community, and without community feelings it is unlikely to be able to fully perform its functions and effectively realize its goals. While in the Market, the pursuit of individual, personal interests, focusing and fixing on one's own Self and its ambitions is coded. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to combine such polar, often antagonistic ideas, views and ambitions. And as the American political scientist Benjamin Barber (1939 – 2017) wrote, „capitalists may be democrats but capitalism does not need or entail democracy“. He also believes that capitalism is transforming „from a system that serves needs into a system that creates and manipulates them“ [9].
  
  In the Euro-Atlantic community (USA and Europe), it is believed that if the majority of people live in security and well-being, then society lives in security and well-being. The goal is to reach that optimal number of people who constitute this „majority“. With the exception of the super-rich – those who live in a carefully guarded and inaccessible world of maximum security and enormous prosperity, the defining part of this „optimal number of people“ is considered to be the Middle Class. How numerous this Middle Class is, and how far security and well-being for it are accepted as necessary and sufficient for a society to be considered to be secure and well-being, depends in no small degree on the character, culture and traditions of the society concerned.
  
  In Europe, as attitudes and thinking, as a mentality and political culture, excessive stratification in society is not tolerated and the redistribution of a significant part of the national resource in favor of people who sink to the social bottom is accepted. This leads to some horizontal „lengthening“ and vertical „shortening“ of the so-called Middle class, associated with a partial decrease in the level of its wealth and security. The Middle class extends over a wider range and covers more sections of society; it, relatively speaking, is located with its larger part BELOW, and with its smaller part ABOVE the line reflecting the average income in society (for example, the arithmetic average of the material condition and income of the 10 percent of the richest and 10 percent of the poorest people).
  In other words, slightly more of the Middle Class has „sunk“ BELOW and slightly less of it has „floated“ ABOVE this median income line. Let's imagine a floating body, a slightly larger part of which is UNDER the water and a slightly smaller part is ABOVE the water (Illustration 1). It is logical to realize that this body can float – stably and for a long time. In European society, the Middle Class gives a certain part of its income and its wealth to the lower („close to the bottom“) strata in order to reduce the distance from them and not push them to despair and radical actions. Through blood, tears and sweat, Europe has finally learned the fateful historical lesson that if strong divisions occur in its societies, this can lead to social revolutions and to various totalitarian and authoritarian „isms“ – to fascism, nazism and communism. The Middle class in Europe has an income that is partly lower than the average income in society, precisely because it pays extra for its security and for the stability of society.





  
  Illustration 1. Conditional (metaphorical) representation of the attitude of the Middle Class to the „lower“ („close to the bottom“) strata in Europe and the USA
  
  But in the USA, as attitudes and thinking, as a mentality and political culture, a greater degree of stratification in society is tolerated and, accordingly, a smaller part of the national resource is redistributed in favor of those who sink to the social bottom. This leads to some vertical „lengthening“ and horizontal „shortening“ of the so-called Middle class, associated with a partial increase in the level of its wealth and security. The Middle class extends over a narrower range and covers fewer sections of society; it, relatively speaking, is located with its smaller part BELOW, and with its larger part ABOVE the line reflecting the average income in society (for example, the same average value of the material condition and income of the 10 percent of the richest and 10 percent of the poorest people).
  In other words, slightly more of the Middle Class has „floated“ ABOVE and a slightly less of it has „sunk“ BELOW this median income line. Let us imagine once again a floating body, this time with a slightly smaller part located UNDER the water, and a slightly larger part located ABOVE the water (Illustration 1). It is logical to realize that this body is unlikely to be able to float, et alone steadily and for long. In American society, the Middle Class is not inclined to give (and it gives reluctantly) a certain part of its income and its wealth to the lower („close to the bottom“) strata. The reasons for such „harsh“ behavior are encoded in the genes of Americans – through FAITH (Protestantism) and BELIEVING (Liberalism). Americans are convinced that each person is the creator of his own destiny and has himself to blame if it is not the best; a person is responsible for his own life and must fight for his own success, without waiting for the state (whose primary duty is not to redistribute income at all, but to enforce the rules). God has given each of us some abilities and we are obliged to discover them and through them to work tirelessly, to forge our personal happiness. There are people who have never discovered the abilities given to them, and there are people who have discovered them, but are not satisfied with them and therefore do not use them to achieve something more meaningful and significant in life. The main thing is that the life of all of us is a constant competition and struggle to succeed. In the USA, „winning isn't everything; it's the only thing“, and „second place is the first loser“ [10].
  Again, let us state explicitly that in American society the Middle Class has an income that is in part higher than the average for society, because it refuses to pay „out of pocket“ for the misfortunes of those falling to the bottom of society. This behavior is due to its belief that the significant transfer of public finances to the socially weak will demotivate them to fight for their survival and turn them into parasitic groups. The middle class in the USA most strongly believes that what can be effectively done for the marginalized strata is for the state to create such conditions in which they, with will, work, risk and enterprise, get more chances for a better life.
  If in the USA it is believed that a person is mostly responsible for his life and his material condition and therefore he is obliged to fight for success without waiting for the state, then in Europe it is considered that a person's success is determined not only from what responsibility he bears for his life and material condition, how he fights for success, but also from the market, often mainly from the market. A person can do what he was born to do and do it in the best possible way, but what he does may not be „valued“ by the market, resulting in his life strategy to fail. Therefore, Europe is much more social than the United States – it seeks to guarantee social protection, which to some extent protects people from the elements and the arbitrariness of the market. Europe insures against failure, while the United States rewards for success.
  The American Dream is vertical, i.e. it requires work, struggle, colossal efforts on the way up. Out of 100,000, 100 will succeed, but that is how they keep the dream alive for 100,000,000.
  The European dream is horizontal; it guarantees an acceptable standard of living even for the socially weaker sections of the population. This is why tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people look at Europe as a paradise with its social networks of protection. Thus, faced with many tsunamis and Ninth Waves of migration, Europe becomes a victim of its success, its horizontal dream.
  
  ▪ EQUALITY (it is the European belief) contains statics, balance, the search for stability, the desire to maintain the status quo, to maintain homeostasis. It is argued by moral, ethical and religious ideas. But society can be harmed by such a high degree of equality (with a large redistribution of income), and thus more capable, gifted people lose the motivation to be creative, struggling, enterprising, because no matter how hard they try, no matter how dedicated they are to their work, everyone receives more or less the same reward as the less capable and less gifted.
  According to Giovanni Sartori, equality is „Janus-faced, and unique in being such, in that it can associate itself with sameness and with justice simultaneously“, and that when we talk about justice we must distinguish between social justice (everyone gets approximately equal shares) from individual justice (everyone gets the share that they deserve) [11]. Europe sees equality as justice, but understood as social justice. And the US believes that equality means sameness, and they are shifting the emphasis from social justice to individual justice.
  ▪ FREEDOM (it is the American belief) brings with it dynamism, interaction of differences, instability, striving for change. It is focused on the significance of the individual and unleashes colossal creative powers. But society can be harmed by such a high degree of freedom (everyone gets to the maximum extent what he can and deserves), and thus the more incapable, less gifted people lose the motivation to be creative, struggling, enterprising, because, no matter how they tried, no matter how dedicated they are, they will still receive much less reward than those who are more capable and more gifted.
  
  Explanation:
  Homeostasis – the ability of an open system to maintain a constant state of dynamic equilibrium, as well as to return to it in a short period of time if, due to internal and external reasons, it was forced to move far from this state.
  
  PARAMETRIC MODELS IN THE STUDY OF SECURITY
  The socio-economic dimensions of security are studied using various 4-, 3- or 2-parameter models based on all or some of the security dimensions related to Politics, Economics, Defense and Social activities.
  ▪ THE POLITICAL DIMENSION of security emphasizes STABILITY of society.
  ▪ THE ECONOMIC DIMENSION of security emphasizes EFFICIENCY of society.
  ▪ The DEFENSIVE DIMENSION of security emphasizes DEFENSIBILITY of society.
  ▪ The SOCIAL DIMENSION of security emphasizes SOLIDARITY (cohesion, the absence of unacceptable stratification) of society.
  
  Explanation:
  Cohesion (social) – refers to the extent of connectedness and solidarity among groups in society. It identifies two main dimensions: the sense of belonging of a community and the relationships among members within the community itself. It stems from a democratic effort to establish social balance, economic dynamism, and national identity, with the goals of founding a system of equity, sustaining the impulses of uncontrolled economic growth, and avoiding social fractures (https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2...).
  
  The logic of scientific reasoning is that each of these four dimensions cannot be entirely realized at the expense of some of the other three:
  STABILITY – yes, but not at the expense of efficiency, defensibility and solidarity;
  EFFICIENCY – yes, but not at the expense of stability, defensibility and solidarity;
  DEFENSIBILITY – yes, but not at the expense of stability, efficiency and solidarity;
  SOLIDARITY – yes, but not at the expense of stability, efficiency and defensibility.
  And the goal is to achieve MAXIMUM SECURITY, while guaranteeing a certain degree of stability, efficiency, defensibility, solidarity and their synergy.
  
  Previously, social cohesion (non-stratification in society) could at least partly successfully stimulate economic efficiency and vice versa. Today, multinational, but also national companies are increasingly disconnected from reality, and financial results create „hollow“, fictitious growth and distort the prices of shares and tangible assets. The social contract is being violated, according to which both rules were in effect simultaneously: „What is good for General Motors is good for the USA“ and „What is good for the USA is good for General Motors“. Now the second of these rules is increasingly fading into the background and is not even in effect.
  
  ‣ Four-parameter models are too complex to develop and analyze, because if each parameter takes only 2 values, then we have 24 or 16 types of societies.
  ‣ Three-parameter models are also quite difficult to develop and analyze, because if each parameter takes only 2 values, then we have 23 or 8 types of societies.
  ‣ Researchers usually prefer two-parameter models. In such models, if each parameter takes only 2 values, then we have 22 or 4 types of societies.
  
  Following the French historian Emmanuel Todd (1951) [12], we consider societies according to two parameters – toleration or non-toleration of liberalism in politics (respectively +l, –l), as well as toleration or non-toleration of egalitarianism (equality) in social relations (respectively +e, -e). In this case, societies are divided into four types:
  • Societies of the Anglo-Saxon type (for example, the USA, Great Britain) are societies that are politically pro-liberal and socially anti-egalitarian, i.e. [+l, –e];
  • Societies of the Franco-Spanish type (for example, France, Spain) are societies that are politically pro-liberal and socially pro-egalitarian, i.e. [+l, +e]
  • Societies of the German-Italian type of societies (for example, Germany, Italy) are societies that are politically anti-liberal and socially anti-egalitarian, i.e. [–l, -e]
  • Societies of the Slavic-Orthodox type (for example, Russia, Bulgaria) are societies that are politically anti-liberal and socially pro-egalitarian, i.e. [–l, +e].
  
  THE STATE AS A PRODUCER OF SECURITY
  The minimization of the role of the state is related to an inexorable, silent, located under the surface of public ideas and visions, revolution that the elites gradually carry out without giving the necessary opportunity to the societies to consider whether it is in their interest – we are talking about the replacement of public goods with products and services [13]. The distribution of any good is based on the principle of unconditionality, on „unconditional justice“ – everyone receives their (approximately equal) share. The distribution of any service is based on the principle of conditionality, „criterion injustice“ – from it everyone receives their share according to market conditions, i.e. corresponding to his ability to pay for this service. When guaranteeing security as a PUBLIC GOOD, each citizen receives from it as much as the state can guarantee and provide for him, but there is a critical minimum below which one cannot fall. And when security is guaranteed as a PUBLIC SERVICE, the market principle works, and everyone gets from it as much as they can buy. The state „provides protection and enforcement services only to those who purchase its protection and enforcement policies. People who don’t buy a protection contract from the monopoly don’t get protected“ [14]. Health, education, security are all public goods that have been completely or largely converted into services. Result? In its rawest form you can see what is happening to the state of Bulgarian healthcare. It in Bulgaria profits from the production of more and more sick people! Because for the most valuable thing – the health – a sick person pays three times! Firstly, by law, through health insurance; secondly, consciously about the service provided; thirdly, forcibly – in cash – „under the table“ and „above the table“, „behind the door“ and „in front of the door“. A healthcare system that enriches itself by increasing the number of sick people is absurd. In Bulgaria, a sick person who has no money, positions of power, familiar doctors, friends, children, relatives who are ready to take care of him, simply lies down and dies.
  
I  n ancient historical times, the state was the sole producer of security, including personal security as well as social and economic security. Then security was, first of all, a GOOD that is produced for everyone – to one degree or another and to some acceptable minimum.
  Therefore, for security S could then be written:
  S = S_g.
  
  Later, the state is still the main but not the only producer of security. Other actors also intervene in the production of security – private business, non-governmental organizations, citizens' associations, etc. Security is no longer just a good that is produced for all. In it, the element of SERVICE appears, for which the market principle operates – i.e. everyone gets only as much as they can buy (as much as they can pay for).
  Therefore, for security C can be written:
  S = S_g + S_s.
  
  The question is this – how to find a good, acceptable balance between the component of security as a good and the component of security as a service? The liberalization of social and economic relations and the withdrawal of the state from its main activities dictate a tendency to increase the component of security as a service and decrease the component of security as a good. If this trend is maintained, then in the most extreme version the component of security as a good would become negligibly small.
  Therefore, then for security S it will be possible to write:
  S = S_s.
  
  This will mean that the market principle will act in a monopolistic manner in providing security. Society and individual citizens will be forced to devote more and more resources to their security, which will lead to their rapid decapitalization. The complete withdrawal of the state from the production of security will be paid for by society and citizens with reduced social status and with a deteriorated standard of living, and this will increase social stratification. In order to preserve the State as a security-producing mechanism, it must maintain its (albeit different) role in the four basic dimensions of national security: political, economic, defense and social. These aspects of the state's role in ensuring security are a priority for society. With effective security management, the stability, efficiency, defensibility and solidarity of society are guaranteed jointly and separately – to a completely acceptable degree and with a completely acceptable expenditure of resources.
  
  Philosophers, statesmen, and military leaders have pointed out since ancient times that the main reason for the emergence of the State is precisely the need to guarantee the security of society (tribe, clan, polis). Therefore, it is completely logical that the State is the result of the desire of the society and the individual for more, for greater Security.
  The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) described the natural condition in which people live in anarchy, without a common authority over them to respect them, i.e. without a supreme arbiter to bring order and enacting laws. This natural condition is a „war of every man against every man“ („bellum omnium contra omnes“), „and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short“. That is why „when establishing a state, people are guided by the desire to get rid of the disastrous state of war“ [15].
  For the French philosopher Charles de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755), security was a term in the definition of the state.
  The German philosopher, mathematician and diplomat Gottfried Leibniz (1646 – 1716) explained: „My definition of the State, or of what the Latins [in ancient Rome] call Respublica is: that it is a great society of which the object is common security („la seuretè commune”)“ [16].
  According to the French political philosopher Frederic Bastiat (1801 – 1850): „The state will manifest itself only through an invaluable guarantee of security“ [17].
  Or as the German historian and politician Roman Herzog (1934 – 2017, President of Germany in the period 1994 – 1999) wrote: „Security in relation to enemies has always been an excellent motive for the founding and strengthening of states“ [18].
  And the German philologist, philosopher, linguist and statesman Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767 – 1835) says: „I hope to derive the first positive rule: the preservation of security – both against external enemies and in relation to internal strife – must exhaust the state and completely embrace it activities“ [19].
  
  STATE – SECURITY RELATIONSHIP
  The State – Security relationship is complex and non-linear. Between the two there is a constant process of interaction, mutual penetration, mutual strengthening or mutual weakening. Over the centuries it was believed and thought that more State means more Security, and most often this was exactly the case (and it could not possibly be otherwise). From one point onwards, however, with the multiplication of risks and threats, the relationship between State and Security could no longer remain direct and unidirectional. More State ceases to always mean more Security, and sometimes it begins to lead to less Security. Because in addition to Security, some other goods and values, such as Freedom, Human Rights and, above all, Democracy, are developing and „boldly“ competing with it.
  Democracy slowly and painfully, but irrevocably shifts Security from the pedestal of absolute value, removes from it the aura of absolute good, making it a relative good, and this not only affects the attitudes and goals of people, but also becomes their logical function. Society no longer wants to remain obediently and passively in the golden cage of Security. And not only society – this also applies to ordinary people.
  The question „What is Security of the State?“, but first of all – „Of which State?“ arises very acutely. Of the States as History, as a spatio-temporal material and spiritual extension that people inhabit, build, compact, populate over the centuries – together with their traditions, with their faith, with their ideals? Or of the State as Power, as a specific regime of government? The State as Power constantly strives to present its Security above all as the Security of the State as History and thereby gain legitimacy and support – sometimes incommensurable with its specific merits and deeds.
  This is to some extent acceptable, since society should not constantly be faced with a schizophrenic division of which of the two States it actually supports at the moment. Society is much more willing to endure hardships for the sake of the Security of the State as History – for the Bulgarians this is Bulgaria, which existed in the 13th-14th centuries. But if it withdraws its affiliation with the State as Power because it does not like a particular government, it knows that this could seriously undermine the Security of the State as History.
  A full-fledged Democracy separates the security of society (i.e. the governed) from the security of the political elite (i.e. the governing). The security of the society is a priority for Democracy. The security of the political elite cannot be the goal of the State, but is a consequence of its normal functioning. Otherwise, instead of maintaining order and security, the security forces are assigned the functions of protecting the regime. The national security system is not a sword against society, it is a shield for society.
  In a non-democratic (totalitarian or authoritarian) state, the merging of the security of the regime (elite) and the security of the state is complete, while the security of the individual and communities of individuals is directly sacrificed. Through violence, ideology, brainwashing, disinformation, propaganda, the search for external or internal enemies, citizens and society in a non-democratic state are forced to merge their security with the security of the regime (elite) or, at least, live with the idea that their security and the security of the regime (elite) are of the same priority and of the same order. Thus, the State can „eat“ the Security of its society.
  
  Security in a democratic society – all other things being equal – is CHEAPER than security in a non-democratic society. For the same level of security, more funds are allocated in non-democratic societies than in democratic ones; and, accordingly, with the same allocated funds, the level of security in democratic societies is higher than the level of security in non-democratic ones.
  
  We will illustrate this as follows. Let Σ_d be the expenses that a democratic society spends on security. Then we can write down these expenses as follows:
  
  Σ_d = Σ_a + Σ_r + Σ_t + Σ_s
  
  Σ_a are the actual expenses of maintaining the people and institutions of the national security system.
  Σ_r are the expenses associated with the security of the environment (situation) in the region, i.e. they take into account regional characteristics – if the region is calm, these expenses are lower, if it is turbulent, the expenses are significant.
  Σ_t are the expenses that must be allocated for the purpose of transforming the national security system in relation to new challenges (the fight against terrorism, next generation wars, revolution in military affairs, etc.).
  Σ_s are the expenses associated with membership in the collective security system. In any collective security system, some states are more security producers (contributors) and their Σ_s are larger, while another part of the states are more security users (consumers) and their Σ_s are small, often even negative.

  If we denote by Σ_n the expenses that a non-democratic society allocates to security, we would have an almost similar result:
  
  Σ_n = Σ_a + Σ_r + Σ_t + Σ_s + Σ₀
  where Σ₀ > 0 – see quite a bit below.
  
  In the general case, other things being equal, for two types of societies the corresponding Σ_a, Σ_r, Σ_t and Σ_s are commensurate. Then we get the following (conditional, of course) dependence:
  
  Σ_n = Σ_d + Σ₀
  Σ₀ > 0, i.e.:
  
  Σ_n > Σ_d
  
  This shows that the cost of security in a non-democratic society EXCEEDS the cost of security in a democratic society. And they are superior to them precisely by Σ₀!
  
  It is not difficult to define Σ₀ – these are the means that an undemocratic regime allocates for its own (personal and power) security – for example, for the praetorian guard, political police, secret services and other bodies with repressive functions.
  
  This is why a non-democratic society, as a rule, invests more in security than a democratic one, and this is why security in it is MORE EXPENSIVE for society.
  
  This is why a non-democratic society, as a rule, invests more in security than a democratic one, and this is why security in it is „MORE EXPENSIVE“ for society.
  The appearance of a significant amount of Σ₀ in a society that claims to be democratic is a sign, a criterion or a trend that something bad is beginning to happen to the political regime, that it is taking on the characteristics of an undemocratic and even an immoral regime because it uses citizens' money, in order to strengthen its power over them and-or to separate itself with impenetrable guards and walls from those who elected it through democratic procedures.
  At the same time, we must be vigilant so that the fight against terrorism is not used as a pretext by self-replicating political elites to strengthen their power over their own peoples through the creation of powerful police and huge special services. There is a real danger, caught up in the counter-terrorism (when society and citizens are ready to limit their rights in the name of greater security), that one day it will turn out that under the slogan of fighting terrorism, the elite has created bloated and proliferated power structures, which serve to protect it from those who disagree with its excessive power.
  
  Democracy is a complex form of government from the point of view of achieving optimal conditions for the security of society. Democracy is the separation of powers, discussion, balance of personal, group, party, private, corporate and national interests. Democracy is not the optimal mechanism for action in crisis situations, when categorical measures are needed to strengthen security, create stability, order and peace.
  In democracy, competence and electability, liberalism and the need for order, common goals and personal egoism, the interests of rulers (related to statics, since they received power from the balance of forces on election day, but this relationship can change and most often it changes) and the interests of society (related to dynamics, to constant changes) often come into (sharp) contradiction.
  Security not only determines people's views and goals, but also becomes their function. The opposite is also true – security is not only the result of the state of society and its function, but also itself gives rise to a number of processes in society. We see how cause and effect periodically change places and influence each other: both positively when the cause „calms“ the effect, and the effect „extinguishes“ the cause; and negatively, when the effect „excites“ the cause, and the cause „ignites“ the effect. These are all manifestations of non-linearity, self-organization and complex dissipative structures.
  
  Explanation:
  Dissipation – dispersion, scattering of energy, transition of part of the energy of processes characterized by order and structure into energy of processes in which disorder and destructuration prevail, and ultimately – into heat.
  
  With serious social problems and poor economic development, society easily becomes willing to trade more democracy for more security (the first thing it is willing to sacrifice is democracy). But while democracy is not a panacea, its strengthening and consolidation are key means of protecting and guaranteeing security. Democracy is the medicine – security problems can be treated with more democracy – not with formal, but with full-fledged democracy (civil and parliamentary control, transparency and accountability, free press, independent judiciary, alert and incorruptible civil society structures). But like any medicine, here too the dose is important, so that it does not turn into poison. The question here is, How much security does a society need to keep it democratic, and how much democracy is enough for it to prevent its security from collapsing? A very difficult question with a very complicated answer…
  Often the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other. First, we see a tendency towards the absolutization of democracy. Then comes the time for rehabilitation of security. Security becomes a corrective against the absolutization of democracy, avenging it for its deprived status. It is necessary to understand and remember that democracy and security are only relative, not absolute, goods. Those who want a little more security instead of too much democracy should not be made to feel guilty. Nor should we assume that societies have the same need for democracy and the same tolerance for insecurity. These are quantities that vary from one security environment to another, from one society to another, and from one state of society to another.
  
  Security and Democracy are sometimes Siamese twins (the separation of which is risky, but sometimes one has to be sacrificed to save the other), sometimes interconnected vessels, sometimes radical opposites. They interact with each other or oppose each other, try to infringe on each other or „swallow“ each other. Their relationship is sometimes symbiosis, sometimes indifference, sometimes incompatibility. They are in conflict and agreement, in competition and cooperation. From time to time they find themselves in a state of truce and, above all, strive to prevent any of them from becoming an absolute. The role and place of political leadership are important: to find a balance between them. Because for them there is no predetermined ratio, there is no predetermined constant, like for the speed of light or for gravity, and everything depends on the specific situation, on traditions, mentality, culture and historical memory.
  In some situations, this complex, dynamic and non-linear relationship between Security and Democracy may have no solution, and sometimes it may have several solutions that attract it as attractors. And it is very important which of these solutions will be preferred by society. And sometimes, alas, which of these decisions will be imposed from the outside or from above.
  
  Explanation:
  Attractor – an equilibrium state towards which a dynamic system tends; a state or set of states (points, curves, surfaces, volumes, complex structures) to which the trajectory of a system evolves, and the system tends to follow them or at least remain as close to them as possible (for example, a pendulum at its lowest point).
  
  Let's say it again – the effective management of the state is a constant search for a balance between Security and Democracy. Since there is no single formula for finding this balance, everything depends on the specifics of society, on its specific political, economic, moral and psychological state. In certain situations (of crisis, of tension), society has a greater need for security. In other situations (of stability, tranquility), it emphasizes more on the need for democracy.
  The State has various procedures, mechanisms and tools to ensure security. It is (still) the main player in the security sphere, it is the only legitimate body that can – as the German lawyer, economist and sociologist Max Weber (1864 – 1920) wrote – use force and apply violence. For now (the question is for how long?) a number of functions, tasks and powers to guarantee security are a monopoly of the state.
  
  There are two extreme points of view on the development of the State-Security relationship.
  ‣ According to the first point of view, the state must preserve its monopoly on the production and protection of security and the normative, informational, resource and personnel provision of the national security system for as long as possible and as much as possible.
  ‣ According to the second point of view, the state should withdraw as much as possible and as soon as possible from many of its functions, powers and responsibilities in the security sphere.
  The truth is again somewhere in the middle, in the balance taking into account the specifics of society. However, the last rights and obligations that the State can give are those related to security. By realizing and recognizing this unchangeable and inevitable role of the State, we can seek an answer to the question: „How much State?“. Of course, this answer depends on both the ideological basis of the analysis and the specifics of the region. This dispute is political, and that can easily turn it into a politicized one.
  
  ‣ Those who advocate the maximum role of the State cannot imagine otherwise a well-organized, orderly State in which there are strict rules. For them, the State is the one who can and should set the rules and who should and can control their observance, and people are free as long as they do not violate the rules established by the State, and as long as they do not come into conflict with the interests of the State.
  ‣ At the other pole are the classical liberals, followers of the father of classical, and indeed modern liberalism, the Scottish economist, philosopher and thinker Adam Smith (1723 – 1790), who was convinced, according to the British economist Eamonn Butler (1953), that:
   „The power of government must be limited. It has inalienable functions such as maintaining defense power and internal order, building infrastructure and developing education. It must ensure a free and open market economy and not take actions that hinder its natural course“ [20].
  Classical liberals believe that the role of the State in ensuring security should be limited to the State as a „Night Watchman“, whose functions are „limited to the functions of protecting all its citizens against violence, theft, and fraud, and to the enforcement of contracts, and so on“ [21], and this role „appears to be redistributive“ [22]. Therefore, the State as goals and powers is minimized and its main task is to ensure that everyone can achieve their goals as long as they do not break the law. Naturally, the role of the State in such a society will be counterproductive from the moment the State begins to prevent citizens from realizing their interests within the framework of the law.
  This is so not only because no one other than the State can have the right to legitimately use force and apply violence without exposing society to the risk of unrest, but also because when the State escapes from this mission, it is difficult to predict how far the privatization of its powers and responsibilities will go. And what will then be left of the State? Will society not collapse into the Hobbesian state of „war of every man against every man“? And from a single, cohesive whole, to degenerate into an amorphous mass of individuals saving themselves one by one and as best they can. A complete rejection of security-related functions and tasks will lead to the collapse of the State. Therefore, when we talk about the functions of the State in Security, we cannot accept the cry of the brilliant demon, German philosopher, philologist, writer Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900):
   „State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. It even lies coldly, and this lie crawls out of its mouth: „I, the state, am the people“ [23].
  
  Very limited intervention of the State in the private life of citizens, functions in the economy, reduced to the establishment of rules and strict control for their compliance by all, without exception and without privileges, citizens – yes, yes, indisputably yes! But undoubtedly, in guaranteeing security, the role and importance of the State remain. Of course, they remain – in accordance with the conscious choice of society, with its historical and cultural traditions, but also within the framework of democratic norms and values.
  Yes, this is undoubtedly true, but we should not close our eyes to the objectivity of some trends – the process of withdrawing the State from security, the process of optimal decentralization and maximum privatization of its functions is gaining strength. There already exist private structures for firefighting, private detectives, private security agencies, for participation in peacekeeping (including rescue, search and mine clearance) operations; there are private information (often intelligence services in general) services of corporations. Consequently, all this is very close to the idea that the State can entrust specialized information activities to non-state institutions and think tanks (especially since 90% of information is collected from open sources). And gradually we come to the private police and the private armed forces – which are increasingly organized and spread more and more widely!
  The State will continue to withdraw from its maximum commitment to security responsibilities. But in this process of withdrawal, it is possible – in actions subordinated mainly to the logic of the market and primarily to the pursuit of profit – that the private structures that have replaced the State will do only what is profitable, which compensates for the costs they have incurred and with which they will not be at a loss, and they will be „at a plus“. And it is quite possible that a private fire department will refuse (due to financial disadvantage) to extinguish the house of some poor person.
  
  As the main producer of security, the State is interested in the macro-parameters of the socio-economic condition of the society. But today the main dimension of socio-economic security is at the micro-parametric level, the level of individuals and groups of individuals. In modern democratic societies, people are increasingly reluctant to support strategies and policies from which CAN GAIN ALL (state, society, communities) and prefer more and more often to support strategies and policies from which CAN GAIN EVERYONE (individual, citizen, taxpayer), that is then and there, when and where everyone can see their personal, individual share of security and social programs, education and health, environmental protection and fight against crime, culture, recreation and sports. (For more see Study 28, Study 11)
  
  The state does not possess skills and abilities inherent only to it that allow it to produce security. It realizes this production through structures, people and equipment. But any structure, regardless of the type of ownership, can, through people and equipment, do practically the same things. And since each function in security is performed by structures, people and equipment, the corresponding function can be divided into separate activities, for the implementation of which private business can be involved. That is why there is an undeniable logic in the accelerating processes of the „privatization of security“. However, if we remove national goals and values from ensuring and protecting national security, if we remove strategic planning, management, control and coordination, if we „drop“ feedback from society, if no one cares (anymore) about the common and community interests and priorities, about the legitimacy of decisions and for finding public support for them, i.e. about the essence of the political process in democracy, then won’t we thus create conditions for an irreversible, ever-accelerating reduction, weakening and dismantling of the State?
  
  THE EVOLUTION OF SECURITY
  Based on the analyzes and conclusions made in these Studies, it could be summarized that the evolution of security is reflected in 10 dimensions and security is becoming more and more: individual; identity; internal; soft; complex; integrational; informational, networked; civil; risky.
  
  • (1) Security today is becoming more and more INDIVIDUAL, because (see Study 1):
  Societies and citizens used to support strategies and policies from which, as said, can gain all (state, society, communities). Now they are more supportive of strategies and policies from which can gain everyone (individual, citizen, taxpayer). Everyone wants to see his „piece“ of the „social policy“ pie, of the „healthcare“ pie, of the „education“ pie, of the „fight against crime“ pie; everyone asks where is his interest in these strategies and policies, and also where is his benefit from them.
  
  • (2) Security today is becoming more and more IDENTITY, because (see Study 10):
  Aspects related to ethnicity and religion, memory and history, culture and traditions gain more weight in the perception of security. Identity and its preservation correspond to the notion of societal security or identity security introduced by the Copenhagen School [24]. According to this school, societal insecurity exists when communities of people view a condition or development as a threat to their existence as a community. For Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman (1925 – 2017):
   „One thinks of identity whenever one is not sure of where one belongs; that is, one is not sure how to place oneself among the evident variety of behavioral styles and patterns, and how to make sure that people around him accept this placement as right and proper, so that both sides would know how to go on to behave in each other's presence. „Identity“ is a name given to the sought escape from that uncertainty“ [25].
  
  Explanation:
  The Copenhagen School of Security Studies – a school of academic researchers and university professors who gave an original reading of the modern dimensions of security, above all of its social aspects, as well as the problems of securitization. Its leading figures are the professors of international relations – the American Barry Buzan (1946), the Dane Ole Waever (1960) and the Dutch Jaap de Wilde (1957).
  
  • (3) Security today is becoming more and more INTERNAL, because (see Study 2):
  As the probability of military conflicts, the object of which may become democratic, liberal, market states, decreases (another question is how much this probability reduction is real, actual, and not deceptive, illusory), politicians, societies and citizens (in the Euro-Atlantic community) „shrink“ their strategic horizon of fear, uncertainty and vulnerability to the borders of their countries and link their security to its internal components. For these societies and citizens, what is much more important, and sometimes the only important thing, is what happens in their own countries – fighting crime and corruption, living standards and the environment, healthcare and education. Interests, missions and tasks in distant regions remain far in the background.
  
  • (4) Security today is becoming more and more SOFT, because (see Study 12):
  The hard, forceful aspects of security are gradually giving way to the soft, non-forceful aspects. Qualitative rather than quantitative dimensions of security, such as quality of life, education, health and science, human potential, environment, culture, morality and governance, are becoming increasingly important. States no longer rely exclusively on their military power, i.e. of hard power. They are paying more and more attention to soft power – to culture, ideology, education, etc. Unfortunately, however, this underestimation of the hard, forceful aspects of security could prove fatal for the West, given that Putin's Russia behaves today as a belligerent, aggressive, imperial and expansionist geopolitical monster.
  
  • (5) Security today is becoming more and more COMPLEX, because (see Study 19):
  The complexity of security, which is increasingly called „wide security“, means that much more aspects and dimensions of security are becoming important and priority for the state, society and citizens – i.e. not only military, external and related to the fight against crime, but also economic, financial, social, ecological, ethnic, religious, cultural, informational, civil, and a number of other elements of security are gaining increasing importance, and by this – how it deals with their management – the power's ability to guarantee security is judged.
  
  • (6) Security today is becoming more and more INTEGRATIONAL, because (see Study 28):
  It is already very difficult for the state to cope alone with the new challenges and risks, dangers and threats. Therefore, it should be integrated into a collective security system. But satisfaction with the achieved Bulgarian membership in NATO and the EU should not lead to excessive complacency. The achieved membership is only the beginning of a long and complex process that requires constant efforts of the state and the whole society. The main question facing the Bulgarian foreign, security and defense policy now is the following – How can this membership be full-fledged and effective, how can Bulgaria benefit from it?
  
  • (7) Security today is becoming more and more INFORMATIONAL, because (see Study 28):
  More than three decades ago, the American philosopher Alvin Toffler (1928 – 2016) spoke about the Third Wave – the Wave of the Information Society [26]. Today, communication and information technologies are rapidly entering the activities of states, societies and citizens. The communication and information revolution acutely raises the issue of information security in all key aspects (including cybersecurity). This dramatically increases the role of the quantity and quality of information for the reliable functioning of society and has a multidirectional and practically unpredictable influence on the politics and economy of countries.
  
  • (8) Security today is becoming more and more NETWORKED, because (see Study 15):
  Institutions of the national security system remain predominantly hierarchical, but challenges become networked, and this requires changes in structures and approaches, principles and resources. Networking requires a radically different way of thinking and acting. Hierarchical structures pursue resource-oriented strategies, i.e. they strive to do what they can do, and to do it the way they can do. While network structures pursue goal-oriented strategies, i.e. they strive to do what they have to do, and to do it the way they have to do.
  
  • (9) Security today is becoming more and more CIVIL, because (see Study 11):
  One of the most significant trends of our time is the increasing role of natural, anthropogenic and technogenic disasters, accidents, catastrophes and other emergency situations. Examining through the prism of emergency situations the role of the State as a complex mechanism for the production of security, we will emphasize above all the following:
  Until recently, the State was created for the management and maintenance of normality, and non-normality, a-normality was perceived as an exception, as a rare and almost impossible emergency situation. Undoubtedly, the Risk Society will make the extraordinary more frequent, it will begin to become a norm, a rule; crises will be our everyday life. This means that normality will become an exception, it will become increasingly rare, more and more impossible. It follows that all traditional logic is reversed, that the extraordinary and the (in-)ordinary, the non-normality and the normality change places. Which cannot fail to lead to inevitable changes in the construction of the State, in its institutions, in its laws, procedures, resources and in general – in its functioning until now.
  We will focus on the strategic institutional pillars of the Security State (i.e. the State as a producer of security). We will explicitly clarify that when we talk about the „pillar“ of the Security State, we are talking about a complex of institutions and structures that are integrated primarily horizontally and increasingly combine coordination and decentralization at the expense of command and centralization.
  
  The CLASSIC Security State has four strategic institutional pillars
  ▪ The Army (with a capital „A“) – it was created to protect the external security of the State, i.e. it is an armed institution for protection against external threats.
  ▪ The Police (with a capital „P“) – it was created to protect the internal security of the State, i.e. it is an armed institution for protection against internal threats.
  ▪ The Special [intelligence] services – they provide information, i.e. the software of the national security system.
  ▪ The Defense industry – it produces the weapons and equipment, i.e. the hardware of the national security system.
  
  The CONTEMPORARY Security State has five strategic institutional pillars: The Army, The Police, The Special Services, The Defense Industry, and The Civil Security.
  
  The Civil Security is a complex of institutions and structures („network of networks“) directly involved in disasters, accidents, catastrophes, pandemics and other emergency situations.
  The Civil Security is committed to the emergency and is the main instrument of the State in its operation in the space and time filled with traditional and non-traditional challenges, risks, dangers and threats as a result of various crises and emergency situations.
  
  • (10) Security today is becoming more and more RISKY, because (see Study 3):
  In a short period of time, we went from the Wave of safety through the Wave of security to the Wave of risk. We are talking about a process that must be managed to achieve a certain level of minimized risks. Our efforts are directed towards risk management, because if the risk materializes, the consequences will be enormous. It is not enough to protect safety and even to guarantee security: we must manage risks, i.e. to develop a radically different sensibility and perception of the State and society.
  As it was said, regardless of the ongoing processes, the State retains its leading role as a complex mechanism for the production of security. This leading role of its is located in radically different situations, in situations „on the edge“, „on the brink“, in situations of strong non-linearity (small impacts lead to big consequences – mainly in the manifestations of crises; and big impacts lead to small consequences – mainly in the efforts to control of these crises). Public anxieties, fears and reactions are changing radically, the feeling of insecurity is increasing. The French sociologist Gastón Bouthoul (1896 – 1980) called this feeling the „Damocles complex“ and defined it as a cause of aggressiveness [27].
  
  UNDERSTANDING SECURITY – A BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH
  
  Article 2 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted by the French National Assembly, included security among the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man, along with liberty, property and resistance to oppression [28].
  It is an act of visionary, statesmanship, humanism and democracy. In fact, this remarkable Declaration does not use the word sécurité, but sûreté, i.e. not security, but safety – a fact of far-reaching importance. Therefore, a little excursion into the past is necessary for the understanding of and attitude towards security.
  In her article „What is Security?“, British professor of economic history Emma Rothschild (1948) argues that in the 1990s the concept of security expanded in four main directions (forms):
  (1) From the security of nations to the security of groups of individuals and the security of individuals: extension „downwards“ – from states to individuals.
  (2) From the security of nations to the security of the international system, i.e. supranational physical environment: extension „upwards“ – from the nation to the biosphere.
  These two extensions deal with entities that need to be secured.
  (3) Horizontal extension to the sorts of security that are in question, because different entities – such as individuals, states, „systems“ – cannot be in a state of security or insecurity in the same way. Therefore, the concept of security is extended from military to political security, economic security, social security, environmental security or „human“ security.
  (4) The political responsibility for ensuring security (or for invigilating all these „concepts of security“) is also extended. This responsibility is diffused in all directions from national states, including upwards to international institutions, downwards to regional or local government, and sideways to nongovermental organizations, to public opinion and the press, and to the abstract forces of nature or of the market. We are witnessing a „dizzying complexity of political geometry in which individuals, groups, state and international organisations have responsibilities for international organisations, states, groups and individuals“.
  As Rothschild notes, the understanding of security as an individual good is part of eighteenth-century liberal thinking and is a consequence of political ideas shared in Rome at the time of the ancient Roman politician, philosopher and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 – 43) and the ancient Roman philosopher Lucius Aeneas Seneca (4/5 BC – 65 AD). She also recalls that, according to the Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith (1723 – 1790), „the liberty and security of individuals“ are „the most important prerequisites for the development of public opulence; security is understood, here, as freedom from the prospect of a sudden or violent attack on one’s person or property“ [29].
  In the early, liberal period of the French Revolution, Emma Rothschild argues, „the word „security“ in fact assumed a new public significance“. The Swiss philosopher, who worked for much of his life in France, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) described the social contract, „as the outcome of the desire of individuals for security of life and liberty“. In this collective enterprise, the individual is precisely an individual with a unique and individual willl.
  We said that the natural and imprescriptible rights of man in the „Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen“ of 1789 consisted of Liberty, Property, Security, Resistance to oppression. Let's also specify that „security“ (sûreté – i.e. safety, but then security was thought of precisely as safety) is understood in relation to the individual, i.e. it is a private right which later, in the days of the Terror, is opposed to public salvation and public safety, for which the Committee of Public Safety and the Committee of General Security are „responsible“ respectively.
  
  Article X of the 1793 Draft Declaration of the Natural, Civil, and Political Rights of Man by the French philosopher and politician Marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794) states: „Security [sûreté] consists of the protection which society accords to each citizen, for the conversation of his person, his property, and his rights“ [30]. As Emma Rothschild writes, increasingly the emphasis on security takes on the dimensions of economic security. „Fear and fear of fear, were for Condorcet the enemies of liberal politics. If people were so insecure as to live in fear of destitution, ... then they were not free to take decisions, including the decision to be part of a political society“ [31]. And in Art. 8 of the „Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen“ from the Constitution of Year I (1793) also states: „Security consists in the protection afforded by society to each of its members for the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property“ [32]. In this sense, Rothschild believes, for liberal thinking in the Age of Enlightenment, individual security is both an individual good and a collective good, both a condition, and an objective. It can be reached, at least to some extent, as a collective enterprise. So „security is not good in itself, without regard to the process by which it is achieved. The state (together with powerful small collectivities such as guilds or communities, operating under the protection of the state) can be a source both of insecurity and of a security that is itself oppressive“.
  But in the time of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, security was transformed from an individual to a collective good, and it had to be secured through military and diplomatic means. Thus in France (as well as in England), probably at the end of the 18th century, in the meaning of the words „sûreté“/“sécurité“ (i.e. „safety“/„security“) the „collective“ began to have a strong predominance above the „individual“. And it was during the military period of the French Revolution that the security of individuals was subordinated to the security of the State [33].
  From the end of the 18th century, two centuries passed, while at the end of the 20th century, the return to individual security (human security) began as an important and now increasingly leading dimension of the concept of „security“. But the increasing fixation of the individual on his security can hide serious stumbling blocks and pitfalls. But the individual's growing fixation on security masks stumbling blocks and pitfalls that are serious in terms of their potential impact. The natural desire of the individual to protect himself from expanding sources and manifestations, as well as increasing potential and consequences, risks and dangers, can easily turn into denial. Elevation into the cult of security is an invitation to the dilemma of (in)security – let it be welcomed and take its considerable toll in material and psychological dimensions.
  
  Explanation:
  Declaration Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789) – the main document of the Great French Revolution; was adopted by the National Constituent Assembly (l'Assemblée nationale) on August 26, 1789.
  Committee of Public Safety (Comité de salut public) – existed during the French Revolution from 04/06/1793 to 10/26/1795. Acted as the de facto government.
  Committee of General Security (Le Comité de sûreté générale) – existed from 10/02/1792 to 10/26/1795. Became a weapon of terror.
  The Declaration of the Natural, Civil, and Political Rights of Man (Déclaration des droits naturals, Civils et Politiques des Hommes) was drafted by the Constitutional Commission and mainly by Condorcet, who presented it to the Convention in 1973.
  The National Convention (Convention nationale) was the highest legislative and executive body during the French Revolution. Valid from 09/21/1792 to 10/26/1795.
  The Constitution of 24 June 1793 (Acte Constitutionnel du 24 Juin 1793), also known as the Constitution of the Year I, was the second constitution of the French Revolution, after that of 1791. It envisaged large-scale democratization and redistribution of wealth, and this distinguished it from many of the relatively moderate goals of the revolution of previous years.
  Guild is an association of people, specialists in a certain field, craft, position, etc.
  The Revolutionary Wars of France were major military battles between 1792 and 1802 between the French revolutionary government and several European countries.
  The Napoleonic Wars were a series of military conflicts that were fought during the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte in France from 1799 to 1815.
  Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 – 1821) – a great commander, statesman, ruler of France after 1799 and the first French emperor under the name Napoleon I the Great (Napoleon I le Grand, 1804 – 1814, 1815).
  Dilemma of (in)security is a situation in which measures to improve the security of one state do not lead to an increase in its security, because they provoke countermeasures from another state.
  
  Let's return to the understanding of the Swiss-American international relations scholar Arnold Wolfers (1892 – 1968) about objective security. He distinguishes between objective security and subjective security, with objective security being associated with the absence of a threat [to the values of the system] and subjective security being associated with the absence of fear of threat [that those values will be attacked]. In order to have real security, both objective and subjective security must be present [34, 35].
  German scholars Christopher Daase (1962) and Oliver Kessler (1973) consider two types of insecurity – ontological and epistemological. They understand ontological insecurity as dangers to life, body, freedom, and well-being, and epistemological insecurity as the uncertainty with which we perceive and evaluate these dangers. In fact, ontological insecurity is characterized as insecurity, and epistemological insecurity is characterized as uncertainty. The following reasoning by Daase and Kessler is indicative and significant:
   „This distinction allows for an explanation of how one measure that increases security by decreasing actual danger may, at the same time, increase the sense of insecurity by enhancing uncertainty about other potential dangers... As knowledge also produces ignorance, security produces uncertainty. This is the reason why relatively secure societies are also anxious societies“ [36].
  
  Zygmunt Baumann writes that the German word for safety Sicherheit „encompasses all three meanings existing in English – safety, security and certainty“ [37]. And in French, as in English, there are three different words with three different meanings – sûreté, sécurité and certitude. How things stand in Russian and in Bulgarian – see Table 1.





  
  Table 1. „Safety“, „Security“, and „Certainty“ in different languages
  
  Explanation:
  Ontology – a branch of philosophy that studies the general foundations and principles of the existence and reality of being, its structure, categories and patterns.
  Epistemology – a branch of philosophy, a general theory of knowledge that defines the foundations and criteria for the validity of scientific knowledge in relation to both the exact sciences (mathematics and logic) and the natural and experimental sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, etc.).
  
  The Risk society changes security from relative to transformational (see Study 2), i.e. it changes our attitude towards security, but it also changes the attitude of security towards us. In the Latin tradition, as the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927 – 1998) wrote, securitas meant a subjective mental attitude such as freedom from care, and in its negative meaning – heedlessness; in French sûreté and even more so the later sécurité acquire an objective meaning [38]. Security starts from our inner world and moves gradually to the external world for us. It initially affects us from within, from the individual intimate environment that belongs to us and is cherished as a connection to our personality, to be transferred – more slowly or quickly – to the outside world and affect us from outside, from the communal public environment, to which we belong and which is sacred as a connection with our personality.
  
  Based on the above considerations, the following generalization can be made (Table 2):
  
  ⁕ For the LATIN understanding of SECURITAS,
  security is primarily thought of as an INDIVIDUAL GOOD
  and a SUBJECTIVE MEANING is then generally attributed to it.
  
  ⁕ For the FRENCH understanding of SÉCURITÉ,
  security is primarily thought of as a COLLECTIVE GOOD
  and an OBJECTIVE MEANING is generally attributed to it.
  
  ⁕ For the ENGLISH understanding of SECURITY,
  security is again beginning to be primarily thought as an INDIVIDUAL GOOD
and an OBJECTIVE MEANING is still generally attributed to it.
  
  And what can we say about the Risk Society with its understanding of securitization (see Study 10)?
  In our opinion, a kind of double transition awaits us – of thinking about security mainly as a collective good and of attributing generally a subjective meaning to it.
  In other words:
  
  ⁕ For the RISK understanding of SECURITIZATION,
  security will come to be thought of primarily as a COLLECTIVE GOOD
  and a SUBJECTIVE MEANING will be generally attributed to it.





  
  Table 2. Evolution of security as a meaning and as a good
  
  INSECURITY AND FEAR
  At the heart of the frenzied pursuit for security, which begins to turn into the search for complete and absolute security (see Study 5), lies a culture of fear (and of the fear of fear). The British scientist of Hungarian origin Frank Furedi (1947) writes with alarm:
  „Our culture of fear discourages people from taking risks. It is a culture that continually promotes precaution as a virtue and fosters a climate where risk-taking is equated with irresponsible behaviour... And those who dare to radically extend the frontiers of science are often castigated for their arrogance. „Tampering with nature“, „Letting the genie out of the bottle“, „Opening Pandora's Box“, „Scientists playing God“, „Science running ahead of ethics“, „Promethean Arrogance“ are some of the metaphors used to indict those who dare... Western societies are obsessed with safety“ [39].
  
  Explanation:
  Pandora – a heroine of ancient Greek mythology, an artificially created mortal woman. Curious Pandora secretly removed the lid of the large vessel. And the misfortunes, vices and diseases contained in him spread throughout the entire earth. Countless disasters befell the people who lived happily, knowing no evil. Hence the meaning of the expression „Pandora's box“ as a source of trouble.
  
  The German and American theologian Paul Tillich (1886 – 1965) wrote that „so long as we are in a state of anxiety our minds become a „factory of fear“, because it is only when we have successfully translated our anxieties into fears that we may take the necessary steps to avoid and protect ourselves from an anticipated danger“.
  The American psychologist Rollo May (1909 – 1994) emphasized that „what will always be true in anxiety is that the threat is to a value held by that particular individual to be essential to his existence and, consequently, to his security as a personality“ [40].
  Fear is a psychological state of an individual or social group characterized by extreme anxiety and abnormal uncertainty due to the anticipation of an approaching or actual, real or imagined danger. Fear is a negatively „colored“ external emotional process, closely related to the internal physiological processes of the individual [41, 42].
  Scientists (including psychologists and psychiatrists) distinguish the concepts of „fear“ and „anxiety“. As a rule, fear is thought to have an object „that you can face“, something definite, while anxiety has no object, it is „state of being uneasy or worried about what may happen“, „an agonizing expectation in the face of danger, all the more terrifying because it is undefined: anxiety is a global feeling of uncertainty“ as „excessive anxiety can produce a state of confusion and maladjustment, affective blindness, a dangerous wildness of the imagination, and unlock a mechanism that impedes development, through the creation of an internal climate of insecurity“. Therefore, it is more difficult to bear than fear“ [43, 44]. It is also noted that „in those prone to obsessions, anxiety becomes a neurosis, in melancholic people it becomes a form of psychosis. Because imagination plays an important role in anxiety, its cause is more with the individual than in the reality around him, and its duration is not limited to the removal of threats, as is the case with fear. Therefore, anxiety is more characteristic of humans than of animals“ [45].
  
  Explanation:
  Affect – an extremely strong, sudden, but violent short-term feeling caused by certain reasons; emotional explosion.
  Obsession – an compulsive anxiety associated with a fixed idea, an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety and restlessness.
  Neurosis – a class, a group of functional mental disorders that include stressful conditions.
  Melancholy – a type of human mood characterized by low levels of enthusiasm and low desire for activity.
  Psychosis – a severe mental illness characterized by loss of contact with reality and profound disruption of relationships with other people.
  
  We are interested here not so much with the medical as in the social aspect of fear and consider fear as an objectified manifestation of objectless anxiety, or anxiety as an objectless manifestation of fear. We are talking about a generalizing phenomenon – Fear (with a capital F) and its connection with Insecurity, without dividing it into two specific manifestations – fear (with a small F) and anxiety.
  The French historian Jean Delumeau (1923 – 2020) is very right to emphasize explicitly:
  „From the distinction between fear and anxiety, we should not fail to notice their connection in human behavior. Repeated fears can cause deep maladjustment in the subject and lead him to a state of serious malaise that gives rise to anxiety crises“ [46].
  In this sense, Fear is strictly individual, i.e. it depends on the attitudes, ideas and psychological state of the individual, but there are also fears that have become common to a given group of people (community, society).
  
  FEAR CAN BE DEFINED AS A REACTION TO INSECURITY WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL CANNOT CONTROL AND MANAGE.
  
  This means that when insecurity is increased, an individual can control and manage part of his or her response to that insecurity. That which is „above him“, above his ability of self-control, is called fear.
  That is why the American scholar of international relations Donald Snow (1943 – 2023) argues that the classical understanding of security is reduced to „a state or feeling of freedom from fear, worry, danger“ [47].
  Precisely for this reason, „human consciousness constantly produces fear – in order to avoid morbid anxiety that would end in the destruction of the Self“ [48].
  Fear plays the role of a certain protective mechanism that prevents entering areas of increased risk.
  The French sociologist and writer Roger Caillois (1913 – 1978) noted that the fear of animal species is unique, one, unchanging – not to be eaten, „while human fear, the product of our imagination, is not one but multiple, not fixed , but continuously variable“ [49].
  And the remarkable German theologian Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) bitterly stated:
  „In my opinion, the fear that the devil instills in the souls of poor people is the most dangerous plague“ [50].
  Fear accompanies man throughout his long and painful, but amazing humanization. Early man, as well as the man of Ancient Hellas, who reached amazing intellectual heights, perceived the fear he experienced as a result of the indignation of the Gods against human affairs, from the disobedience of people and from their continuous transgression of the invisible line that separates Good from Evil and Honor from Dishonor. That is probably why, with all the power of their reason and with all the elements of their subconscious, the ancient Greeks considered fear precisely as a punishment of the Gods, and therefore they „deified Deimos (terror) and Phobos (fear), trying to attract them to their side by time of war“ [51].
  In fact, man is a creature that constantly experiences fears, and this is his essence – it is human nature to be afraid.
  The French psychologist and theologian Marc Orezon (1914 – 1979) says that man is by definition „a being that is afraid“.
  According to the French philosopher and writer Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 – 1980), „all people are afraid. He who does not feel fear is not normal“ [52].
  
  That is why we can rightfully say that:
  MAN IS A FEARING BEING;
  and say that:
  MAN IS HOMO TIMENS.
  
  Explanation:
  Deimos – the personification of horror in ancient Greek mythology; one of the sons of Ares (god of war) and Aphrodite (goddess of beauty and love, as well as fertility, eternal spring and life, marriage and childbirth).
  Phobos – a deity personifying fear; son of Ares and Aphrodite and brother of Deimos and Harmonia (goddess of consent, harmony and understanding, personification of happy marriage).
  Homo timens (Lat.) – fearful being, being that lives in fear.
  
  But, as Jean Delumeau notes:
  „Fear is ambiguous. Inherent in human nature, it is a basic shelter, a guarantee against dangers, a necessary reflex by which the organism temporarily avoids death. „Without fear, no species would survive“. But if it exceeds the tolerable dose, it becomes pathological and causes blockages. You can die from fear, or at least become numb from fear“ [53].
  In relation to fear, a person struggles with two mutually paralyzing and intensifying sensations: with fear itself and with the fear of this fear, and under their influence he is sometimes powerless to find a point of support, a harbor, a refuge. The resulting from fear can be both external and internal. A person loses the ability to adapt to reality, but also loses the ability to self-control. Becoming a victim of fear, he „risks disintegrating, his identity „cracks“, „being becomes separate, different, alien“, „time stops, space narrows“ [54].
  Moreover, fear also causes strong, sometimes abnormal physiological reactions, about which Jean Delumeau writes again:
  „Fear (individual) is a shock emotion, often preceded by surprise, caused by the realization of an imminent danger which we believe threatens our survival. The hypothalamus reacts to the alarm signal with a full mobilization of the organism, which unlocks various types of somatic behavior and, in particular, causes endocrine changes. Like any other emotion, fear can produce contrasting effects according to individuals and circumstances, even alternation of different reactions in the same person: acceleration or deceleration of the pulse; excessively rapid or slow breathing; constriction or dilation of blood vessels; hyper- or hyposecretion of the glands; constipation or diarrhea; anuria or polyuria; numbness or jerky movements. In extreme cases, inhibition leads to pseudo-paralysis in the face of danger (catalepsy), and externalization leads to chaotic purposeless movements characteristic of panic. Simultaneously an external manifestation and an internal experience, the fear emotion therefore releases unaccustomed energy and dissipates it throughout the organism. This unloading in itself is a useful reaction of legal protection, which, however, the individual, especially under the influence of the frequent aggressions of our time, does not always use wisely“ [55].
  
  It is perfectly normal for a person to constantly seek not only physical, but even more so social shelters, where he can hide both from fear and from the fear of fear. And because man is a social being, he seeks to find a community of like-minded people among whom he can hide from his fears.
  It is not without reason that Zygmunt Baumann asserts that:
  „Society is an escape from fear; it is also the breeding ground of that fear, and on that fear it feeds and from it the grip in which it holds us draws its strength“ [56].
  
  Explanation:
  Hypothalamus – a section of the midbrain (located deep inside the brain and connecting the midbrain with the hindbrain; it consists of two hills and a subtubercle); this is the highest center of the autonomic nervous system, i.e. autonomic nervous system; covers and regulates internal organs – heart, stomach, lungs, liver, intestines, blood vessels, glands, etc.); it is divided into three parts – front, middle, back.
  Somatic – med. corporeal, relating to the body.
  The endocrine system – consists of endocrine glands located in various parts of the human body. Endocrine glands produce chemicals called hormones, that are released directly into the blood. Hormones are delivered through the blood to the relevant organs, regulating their functions.
  Hypersecretion – the release of larger amounts of hormones, which significantly accelerates a given process (for example, growth).
  Hyposecretion – the release of smaller amounts of hormones, which hinders a given process (for example, growth).
  Constipation – occurs when a person has difficulty passing stool.
  Anuria – retention of urine.
  Polyuria – increased excretion of urine.
  Catalepsy – a condition characterized by a momentary loss of sensitivity and voluntary contractility of muscles. The patient's body becomes plastic like softened wax (wax flexibility) and maintains the positions assigned to it without visible fatigue.
  Exteriorization – the transition of action from the inside to the outside; the process of transforming internal mental action into external one.
  
  Russian psychologist Yuri Shcherbatykh (1955) gives the following classification of fears:
  ‣ biological – directly related to threats to human life or health (e.g. fear of disease, injury, suffering).
  ‣ social – related to fear and concerns about a change in a person’s social status (fear of poverty, loss of respect and prestige).
  ‣ existential – related to the very deep essence of a person and characteristic of all people, regardless of specific situations (fear of space – of open or closed space; fear of time – of the unknown of the future, in particular of death; fear of the unknowability of life – fear of the incomprehensibility and enormity of the surrounding world, of the mysterious and enigmatic phenomena in life, of the meaninglessness of life; fear of oneself – fear of misunderstanding oneself, of possible actions, of losing control over oneself, of going crazy/going mad) [57].
  
  Another Russian psychologist, Vyacheslav Kuznetsov, separates the positive and negative aspects of fear. According to him, fear has the following positive aspects:
  „‣ fear signals a person about the presence of danger and possible damage;
  ‣ fear promotes communication in the family and in social groups, as it stimulates the exchange of how dangerous situations arise, how to get out of them, and the nature of the damage;
  ‣ fear contributes to the formation and preservation of historical memory in an individual and a social group, contributes to the creation and continuation of cultural memory, especially in the form of myths, taboos, prohibitions;
  ‣ fear actually connects the past, the present and the future: the experience of dangers in the past (myths, taboos, phobias, prohibitions) allows to minimize the consequences of dangers in the present and prepare for future dangers (or to make efforts to block them in advance, to „bypass“ them);
  ‣ fear helps a significant number of people to make decisions to choose „risky professions“: military, firefighters, emergency responders, rescuers, etc. At the same time, fear forms a whole area of business and amateur activity in the 21st century: provision of security products and services for physical protection; extreme types of recreation and extreme sports with a range of services“ [58].
  
  Among the negative aspects of fear, Vyacheslav Kuznetsov notes the following:
   „‣ fear deforms people’s goals, ideals and values;
  ‣ fear destroys the content and structure, the meaning of a person's life and dreams – either directly or indirectly, if at their base there are already deformed goals, ideals and values;
  ‣ fear distorts human historical memory and the culture of patriotism, since the deformed meaning of life, deformed dreams, deformed goals, ideals and values can transform the constructive, humane context of memory and patriotism into a negative, anti-human one;
‣   fear of catastrophes, fear of the future, of the other person, of the other religion, of the other culture can destroy the personality and psyche of the person, can deform the normal, critical and optimistic perception of life“ [59].