Unplugging from Tyranny

This post is taken from a chapter in my latest book - “The Slow Walk to Tyrrany”

Democracy is based on its people and reflects it. It is a characteristic of the mechanism itself. The system is built by the people and for the people. Its downfall normally represents a certain disintegration of the societal fabric itself. As I mentioned above, the introduction of the phone and high-speed internet changed how we interact with the world and see ourselves in it. It is a massive change that cannot be ignored when addressing the current crisis we are experiencing in the West. One of the outcomes of the development of phones, their various apps, and how we use them is that we all developed a dopamine addiction to a certain extent. It was created through our constant scrolling and intensified by the social media algorithms built exactly for that purpose. One of the consequences of our growing dopamine addiction is that it is negatively correlated with our capacity and willingness to focus, expressed in our diminishing capacity to read long text or listen to long-form content while sitting without moving. One of the most relevant books I read on the subject is "Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence" By Daniel Goleman. His book presents the idea that focus functions like a muscle. The less we use it, the less it works. I have no doubt in my mind that we all lost, to a certain extent, the capacity to focus. It is a mixture of our increased need to absorb as much information as we can as fast as possible, combined with our incapability to admit that learning and acquiring knowledge takes time and effort. The outcome of this trend is visible all around us and is well-known by politicians. The way they chose to use it against us is by shooting headlines and slogans we can repeat without truly understanding what stands behind them.

Furthermore, as society moved from a knowledge society into a group-thinking society, we delegated our opinion to our leaders, allowing them to summarize for us what we should think. By doing so, we habituate ourselves to work based on our feelings and our need to be part of something. Algorithms on social media understood it a long time ago and got more and more optimized to make sure we are exposed to extremities that fit our social box by presenting us with what reinforces our opinions or infuriates us. On many accounts, we have become emotional animals and have lost our capacity to think independently and in complex manners. The great contemporary philosopher Adam Sowell recently said, "Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good." This sad truth represents what I call "The end of reason" and is one of the main subjects we must address to save Western democracies.

Operating based on feelings is associated with immaturity. Every parent is familiar with this concept. children have very little reasoning power and lack the capacity to see beyond themselves and the moment. As they have not yet practiced managing their emotions, tantrums and disproportionate reactions are common occurrences. As humans mature, they learn to restrain and understand that their feelings are not always the best guide if one is searching to achieve long-term goals. It is not a painless process, nor one that is learned  quickly. It is a trial-and-error process in which one learns that life is not only unfair but that feelings do not and cannot always change or dictate reality. Humans have surpassed the rest of animals on earth and become their masters thanks to our capacity to think, control our urges, share knowledge, and create. It is a process that has been accumulated over many generations and passed down through stories, myths, and, later on, books. What truly separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our capacity to think and prioritize it beyond our feelings. It is a complex process that allows us to control ourselves and our environment. It is one of the foundational human aspects that allow us to build trust and is at the basis of any social structure and the genesis of all human inventions. As I mentioned previously, history can be seen as the development of philosophy. In other words, humanity reflects the outcome of a long process in which we learn how to use our capacity to think, acquire knowledge, and pass it down more efficiently and clearly throughout generations. The recent development in the West can be seen as a general regression concerning knowledge and independent thinking. Somehow, we are marching backward, prioritizing once more our feelings while losing our capacity to focus and share a common physical reality.

If we are to fully understand this phenomenon, I believe a deeper dive into the effect of social media is needed. Social media did not only make us all dopamine addicts; it changed our relationship with reality itself. This change is directly related to our relationship with our feelings and how we approach the world. In the digital world of social media, the rules are completely different. Online, one can be whoever one wants, talk with whoever he feels, and demand the world to be in a certain manner. If a person finds himself in an uncomfortable internet space, he can always change the platform, change his user, or just block everyone and everything that makes him feel bad. In this world, a male can be a girl, a wolf, a liberal, a Mexican, or a tyrant. One can die online and still be alive in the real world and vice versa-  die in the real world and still be alive online. It is an endless ocean with endless islands where one can be where and how he wants. It requires no accountability, has no consequences, and does not require to prove any real achievements. People who grow up in this reality or spend more time there than in the real world develop a distorted perception and relationship with reality. In their mind, they are so habituated to the online world that they believe they can demand from the real world to work in the same manner. Online, it is all about feelings. People there amass followers and supporters not based on their knowledge but on how they make others feel. Knowledge there is not absolute, as in the real world, and limitations and history do not apply there. Online, facts are relative, events are manipulated, and truth is subjective.

Differently from the past, people used to acquire knowledge and know-how about the world by spending hours and hours reading history and philosophical books and developing a deep understanding of specific topics of interest. The current population (especially the young generation) builds their worldview based on short videos and limited-duration podcasts about nothing and everything. The difference is great, as it is the difference between believing in something and knowing it. While some will say it is only philosophically semantic, I will strongly argue that it is not the case. Knowledge comes from curiosity and is built with confidence. People that pursue knowledge know how to explain themselves and are not afraid to be challenged. In many cases, the most curious people are actually searching to be wrong, as it represents a step in their pursuit of truth. The hours that have been put into studying a field give them the logic and the conviction to hold a deep debate without getting emotional or aggressive in the process. Beliefs on the other hand, are based on assumptions, hopes, and slogans. People who hold a set of beliefs do not have the depth of understanding or the capacity to have a deep, calm, and mature argument. When presented with data, a general negation will be their first reaction, accompanied by attacking the personality of the person presenting the data. As I will cover later, beliefs are not established based on facts or reality; they exist where knowledge ends.

A clear side effect of having a society that uploads itself out of reality is the general disconnect it creates with the local community and the perception of individuals toward it. It is not clear who was the first person to say the sentence "A person with a hammer sees everything as nails," but as psychology evolved, the term "recency bias" has been established to define this phenomenon. The simplest explanation for this bias is that we, as humans, have a cognitive bias that favours recent events over historical ones, a memory bias. In my previous book, "Meaning in the Age of Absurdity," I described what I termed "The Digital Bias Paradox." In short, it describes the beliefs formed and held by people who consciously or unconsciously prioritize information obtained from social media regardless of the lack of evidence or clear contradictions they observe in their actual physical day-to-day life. This phenomenon reshaped how people see the world and interact with it. It frames how people go out to the world (normally with a negative bias), affecting society as a whole. In numerous conversations I had with people on topics related to politics and the general social conditions in the West, I came across this phenomenon. It always reflected some sort of negative bias toward a group of people, the state of society, or the state of our economy. People who live long enough in this manner will, over time, prefer not to look out of the window to avoid a massive cognitive dissonance. Furthermore, as they go outside to the real world, they will not be able to see it differently from how they explain themselves to the world. The unavoidable consequence of a society that at large approaches the world in this manner is the loss of capacity seen in the West to have deep, peaceful, and meaningful conversations with physical people. This concerning development emerges for several reasons.

First, most people do not perceive the world in the same manner. Prior to the internet, a basic frame of reference existed between most people in a community as they shared the same reality. Once we uploaded our communities online, many people sharing the same physical space lived a completely different reality based on widely different reference points. Secondly, most people suffering from a "Digital Bias paradox" do not take the time to look at the data or frame it differently. Most just heard a variation of the same conclusion repeated by different sources, confirming their bias. The conscious or unconscious knowledge that one's opinion is not based on data or knowledge renders the conversation more emotional due to defence mechanisms. It is launched unconsciously to prevent a person from facing a cognitive dissonance. This reaction prevents people from having a real constructive conversation in which they share knowledge and aim to establish truth. Thirdly, we lost our capacity to debate by spending most of our time online surrounded by people who agree with us or alternatively finishing an online disagreement by posting a mean post. Debate is the foundation of knowledge, an integral part of the process of reaching for the truth, and the foundation of any democratic structure. It is paramount to any free society. As we lose it, so does our capacity to handle our own thoughts, the thoughts of others, and the complexities of reality. Finally, the online world presents us with the most extreme cases happening around the world constantly, creating in our own world an impression detached from the actual way the world functions around us. Anxiety and fear cannot be avoided as we see with our own eyes the worst of human behaviour. This emotional state, confirmed by what we perceive to be reality, prevents us from believing the world can be any different from the horrific bubble we got exposed to. Historically, we were never meant to be exposed to so much negativity and horrific events, especially in the Western world, where most of us live in a relatively safe, comfortable, and peaceful society. Once exposed to so much harshness, our capacity to overcome the emotional trauma requires enormous mental strength. A strength that we lose over time as we surrender to the digital world that replaces the physical world we are living in.

The divide seen in the Western world is a direct outcome of our introduction to a new tool that changed many fundamental aspects of our lives. It is too early to fully understand how it reshaped society, but I have no doubt in my mind that it had an enormous impact on our relationship with the physical world around us and how we perceive truth. Our approach to knowledge and our incapacity to focus are part of the changes seen all over the West. By changing how we approach the world and build our worldview, we change how we approach the topic of communities, truth, and knowledge. We became hectic and in need of instant gratification while developing an intolerance to contradicting opinions and started to see in people around us a threat instead of inspiration. It made us more divided and vulnerable to external threats, putting society and democracy in danger. I believe that this division is taken advantage of by people searching to control and rule us by force. As we become less focused, lose tolerance for each other, and become more detached from the real world, groups of interest can take over the system more easily. All they have to do is fuel this divide by presenting us online a horrible reality, regardless of the real world around us. As many people started prioritizing the digital world over real reality, social media and the internet became the main manipulation tools used by people pursuing power. In reality, and as I showed in the previous chapters, the current issues that are threatening Western democracy are partly structural and partly related to a societal imbalance in our communities. These issues persist only because we have lost the capacity to communicate with each other in the real world, share a reality, and address the real problems at hand. We are divided because we are distracted and forget what we have in common. We are ignorant as we are too busy scrolling for the sake of dopamine and too lazy to challenge our own set of beliefs. If we are to overcome this crisis, I believe we should first and foremost tackle these problems. In the next chapter, I will address the topic of community and culture and concentrate on our ignorance regarding the system. I believe that if we are to solve the current political crisis in the West, this is where we should start.

The lack of knowledge today in the population regarding fundamental topics such as the history of democracy, the history of ones own country, governance, basic laws, basic accounting, philosophy, and commerce is shocking. Many people pass more than 12 years of education and come out without having a clue about the system they live in, their rights, their obligations, the philosophy related to democracy, or the long fight that has been fought to protect freedom. Unsurprisingly, many people do not feel connected or part of their society, get crushed by the system, and fall into slogans. They just don't know and lose the capacity to ask to know. In a recent conversation I had with a dear person, when I presented this point, her reaction was that it is too much information for a single person to learn and that many people have other things to do in their lives. While she is right about the fact it requires time and motivation, I believe there is nothing more important than having this type of knowledge. This knowledge is the basic requirement that each citizen in a free democracy should have. Democracy requires active and knowledgeable individuals, as a society will reflect its citizens. Without it, democracy will not survive and will fall into the power of the people who control the media and have the best slogans. Without knowledge, we become all sheep waiting for the wolf to guide us back into tyranny. The price of freedom is self-responsibility and self-governance. It requires us to take responsibility for ourselves, our communities, and our children. We should learn to control our emotions and not allow them to lead our lives or policies.

Without having knowledge or the capacity to acquire knowledge, society changes in numerous ways. First, knowing your history teaches a person much about who he is. A shared history creates unity and trust. It allows a person to have heroes to follow and inspire from. We all come from a great history that is worth learning. Secondly, learning how to learn teaches a person to form his own opinion and encourages curiosity, plurality of opinion, and open conversation. It enables people to be capable and autonomous, creating stronger individuals who are less prone to tyrannical takeover. In the process of acquiring knowledge, one learns how failures are important and experiences one's own weaknesses, creating tolerance and humility. Most importantly, knowledge and history allow a person to understand where he lives and what is happening around him, allowing him to fight for his rights, control his destiny, and be free.

The advancement of the government's grasp on our lives, the increase in welfare and regulation, our incapability to have calm and deep conversations on subjects we disagree on, and the growing extremity of the progressive and conservative are all signs of the weakening individuals forming the western democracy. The demand of the younger generation to increase the Nany state is a symptom of laziness at best or acceptance of tyranny for the sake of short-term comfortability based on ignorance. Many people have asked me what I think is the solution to saving our crumbling democracies. While I covered many urgent subjects that should be addressed, such as the size of government, corruption, the economic disaster, the outcome of the national debt, and the need for a more balanced society (progressivism and conservatism), I truly believe that the most important step that needs to be taken is to recreate strong, active and knowledgeable citizens. Not by exposing them to the most extreme disasters in the world on their TikTok or flooding them with Fear porn about global warming, wars on the other side of the world, or suffering children living far away. Not by frying their brain with hate, shame, and momentary cat videos to decrease their cortisol level. It is only by taking them out to the real world, teaching them about the greatness of people who built their great nations, explaining to them why freedom and democracy are worth fighting for, and making them understand their rights and obligations toward themselves and their communities. Knowledge is power. The kind of power that builds curiosity creates trust, self-control, humility, and open conversation. Characteristics that we are currently lacking. It is time to come back to apply what works and not what makes us feel nice for the long-term benefit of ourselves and the security of our children.

If you like my content, check out my books for more meanigful and profound conversations.

Why Words cannot be a Subjective Matter

In many of my previous articles, the subject of the definition of words and their importance appeared as a secondary underlying issue. It is always in the background of many conversations. Especially the ones associated with progressive ideas. The topic is somehow always there but never discussed directly. Making all other arguments more complex than what they should be. Circling around this matter prevents the conversation from arriving to its a priori problem – What is the role of words in human interaction and society. As many of the issues of our current society have to do with emotions and acceptance, we have been taught that we need to be very careful with the words we use, in order not to offend anyone by mistake. Furthermore, a general weaponization preventing us from having this important conversation is the notion adopted by many that words are violence. A topic I dived into in my last article. I believe that if we are to solve our social malaise, addressing the importance of words and their role in our interaction is crucial.

To fully understand the topic, we cannot avoid defining what word is. While it may sound absurd to some, I find that in many conversations with people, I eventually reach a point where people decide to explain me that I do not have the authority to dictate definitions. Fortunately, they are completely right. Since if I had this authority, they would have it too, making all the conversation a chaotic emotional matter, bringing us nowhere. As I will show later on, it is exactly this point that needs to be tackled if we are to achieve peace, trust, and positive collaboration. The question regarding definition, why we need one we all agree on, and who has the authority to establish it, are the core ideas we will cover here.

The definition of the word “WORD” in the Cambridge dictionary is – “a single unit of language that has meaning and can be spoken or written “. This definition is extremely important as it will allow us to build upon it in all our conversations. By its definition, what makes a word a word is the fact that it has a meaning attached to it. Without a meaning, it is just sound. Let us take it one step further.  Babies make a lot of sounds which are not words.  Moreover, parents learn over time the meaning of certain sounds or combinations of them. By doing so, a new vocabulary is created between the parents and the kid, making these sounds become words, as they have a meaning recognized by all sides. In her early stages my daughter started to call shoes “Titi”. It was one of her first “words”. We all understood what she meant by this “word”. From her side, she was getting her shoes when expressing the word Titi. Reinforcing in her the notion that the correct word for shoes is indeed Titi. From this example, we can extend our definition and say that words are “a single unit of language that has meaning and can be spoken or written, recognized and agreed between at least 2 people “.

This brings us one step closer to our current inquiry, back to the story of my daughter. While she was extremely adorable, after a short period we, as her parents, decided that we should explain to her that Titi is not the right word to describe shoes. Back then, it was a natural conclusion that we, as parents, reached simultaneously. But why? Why was it important for us to explain and teach her the “correct word” to describe shoes? The answer has to do with the word “correct” in the previous question. The notion of the “correct word” vs the “incorrect word” brings us a full circle to the most fundamental question presented at the beginning of this article: What are words? And why their meaning is so important?

Words are a tool of communication that allows us humans to collaborate better, build trust, and create culture. It is by using words that we tell each other stories, express ideas, create agreed-upon frameworks, and tell each other what we need. It is efficient. Furthermore, language helps us overcome violence and chaos. Our capacity to communicate with each other reduces the chance we will all burst into a rage as we have the tools to explain ourselves, listen to others' explanations of their inner world, and negotiate compromises. On many levels, it is language and the correct usage of words that make us humans the controllers of earth, as it gives us a tool to develop abstract thinking, social strategies and the tools needed not kill each other over random frustrations.

There is one important aspect of the usage of words that makes them such a powerful tool. It has to do with the extension of the definition above. For words to work on a scale that allows positive collaboration or for that matter any cooperation, it requires that all the people involved agree and understand the meaning of the words one is using. It is the building block of the successful usage of words and language. If we are to use words in a positive manner or at all, we must agree upfront on what specific words mean. This brings us directly to the concept of “correct words” mentioned before. We will address politically correct later on. For now, let us define “Correct” as the Oxford dictionary defines it:

1.       True or accurate: agreeing with facts: right.

2.      Having no errors or mistakes.

3.      Proper or appropriate in a particular situation.

Based on this definition, in a utilitarian simplistic manner, the “correct word” means – “a single unit of language used without errors or mistakes in the right context, with agreed upon meaning by at least 2 people and can be spoken or written promoting mutual communication.” Eventually, it all comes down to the successful act of communication. The level of easy and effective communication is directly correlated to the term “correct”, as less brain juice is required from one person to understand another person’s sentence if he knows exactly the words and their meaning prior to hearing the sentence.

The easiest way to understand the paragraph above is to understand that the reason we decided to correct my child with regard to the shoe word, is because we aim for her to communicate not only with us but with the rest of society at large. It is her capacity to use accurate words, expressed in the right context, and pronounced without mistakes that will allow her to communicate with people around her. It is what makes words so useful and effective. As I happened to learn, it may take years for children to learn it correctly. A painful process that requires a lot of effort and patience from parents.

Culture is based on common stories that create shared concepts and meaning. An integral part of the creation of these stories is the words that are used to compose them. As we saw above, one of the fundamental aspects of words is that they are understood by everyone in society. By having this structure intact, ease of collaboration and trust can be built. I will argue at this point that what makes words efficient is that they have a simple definition attached to them. The simplicity and clarity of the definition are crucial as they allow people to express themselves accurately with the confidence that the other side understands exactly what they are trying to express. Communication is not an easy business as it reflects the complexity of both reality around us and our inner world. After all, the purpose of words is communication, and the purpose of the communication is to pass a certain message. It is beneficial if the person who is trying to convey the message has a certain level of certainty that the other side understands most (if not all) of it in the first pass. Language and words are a facilitator at its roots, not a reason for complication.

The danger of having multiple meanings to certain words is that it hinders our capacity to understand each other correctly. By allowing multiple definitions/meanings to a single word, the chance of gaps in understanding grows. With it, our incapability to understand each other increases, promoting frustration and lack of trust. The case for variation of definition for a single word can work as long as the different definitions are connected (as shown in the example of the definition of the word “correct” above). On the other hand, when words have no clear definition or a contradicting one, our capacity to communicate and understand each other falls apart, promoting not only alienation between people but increasing the possibility of violence in society. After all, it is our capacity to believe we understand each other and the successful empiric experience reassuring us of that fact that helps us feel connected, understood, and part of something bigger than us.

In most of the advanced languages, a vast vocabulary exists, built over time to express the philosophical, cultural, and psychological depth of its people. The reason for it is simple:  The more words exist in a vocabulary; the more flexibility people have to express themselves accurately. There is a reason that in most cultures, part of each person's education is to learn its vast vocabulary. As humans, we are attracted to people who have the capacity to use words correctly and find it complicated to connect to people who do not understand us. It is the accuracy of the words we use that helps us build collaborative relationships and the belief other people understand our meaning when we speak that builds trust.

The topic of the definition of words has been part of the Western discourse in recent years. It seems the progressive part of our society decided that the best way to blow up our society and eradicate our culture is to start playing with the meaning of words. Creating chaos in society, promoting confusion, and playing with the foundation of what we all knew until yesterday was not only simple but constructive. This movement led by extreme subjectivism (see article)  and a general notion of deconstructionism, brought forward by the “protestant” notion that each person can define words as he pleases. Opening the door to a flood of confusion and chaos.

While this entitled part of our society truly believes they have the right to define words endlessly, their actions mainly promote communication problems and the general loss of meaning. I believe that their push toward this direction reflects mainly the inner chaos that they are trying to push on all of society.  The idea that no one has the authority to define words comes from their incapability to accept society and its culture at large – representing the fight against the limitation society requires from them. It is a reflection of their demand from society to bend to their will regardless of their lack of direction. This dangerous game is a losing one. As we bend our foundation for the purpose of not offending mentally unstable people at best or supporting nihilism at worst.

It is important to understand that what this movement is claiming is not that new words should be invented as new phenomena emerge, but that words should and can be redefined randomly based on personal wimp. We will all agree that any sports team will not work if each player has the capacity to change the rules of the game on the fly based on his needs and feelings. It is an absurd notion that is intuitive. On the other hand, when it comes to the rules of our society, it seems we are willing to accept this absurdity. As I wrote above, there is some hypocrisy involved, as many people who claim other people do not have the subjective authority to dictate definition take on themselves to do exactly the same thing. In other cases, they leave the argument explaining that no definition is possible to start with. A notion that is even more absurd, as they are expressing this notion by using words to start with.

Verbal communication is a facilitator of human interaction. It is a tool that was developed for the benefit of people. It is done by using words that follow very simple rules (as mentioned in our extended definition above) – “a single unit of language used without errors or mistake in the right context, that has accepted meaning by at least 2 people and can be spoken or written promoting mutual communication.” It is the accuracy and simplicity of this mechanism that makes it so fundamental to the human experience. Culture and society at large have been built on this simple foundation, allowing us to evolve and prosper.

As we enter what seems an advanced stage of social collapse, it is important we understand what our tools are to fight it. Order is necessary as it allows us to prosper and build. It gives us the peace of mind we need to find the commonalities we all share and separate the important from the unimportant parts. I have no doubt in my mind that the structure of order can and should change, as time and people evolve and differ from each other. In any case, the need for order is always there. It is the spoiled part of our society that never lived close enough to chaos and forgot its terrible outcome. It is an entitled part of society that does not understand what are the consequences of demolishing everything that gave them the peace and tranquillity they leaned upon in their pursuit of chaos in the first place.

Words are the building block of human prosperity. Our passive capacity to learn definition and use them on a mass scale is what built our culture, heritage, and prosperity. Without a solid and simple frame of communication, violence and chaos will emerge. This pushes us far away from what I believe is the wish of most humans – live in a peaceful and prosperous society that gives them meaning and the capacity to raise and protect their loved ones.  Words are not a game of subjective definitions. Unless you are a person who takes on himself to make the life of everyone around you complicated, a table is a neutral word that describes a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at. As long as we all know how to mentally identify a table and call it that way, nobody should really care about the word itself. Furthermore, this passive agreement saves us a lot of mental juice, as most of us have much better things to do in life: fighting a complicated reality, doing the best we can in the complexity of our own existence and hoping for a better future.

Reflection on the Outcome of Believing Words are Violence

Censorship, silencing of narratives, and the demand of spoiled generations to cancel people and destroy their careers are part of a growing movement, directly connected to the fall of democracy and the loss of freedom. It started slowly in the COVID period and has accelerated since then exponentially, eroding everything the Western world fought to protect for the last century. The latest steps of the UK government outlawing posting certain content on social media with the threat of jail time is just another step towards the general takeover of Western governments over our freedom of speech and apparently freedom of thought. Like most hostile takeovers of tyrannical regimes, general support is needed by the majority of the population in the early stages of the tyrannical grasp on power. It is only by having the support of a big part of the population that it rises from the first place. In many historical cases, a reality is created in which the population asks for extreme measures. Building legitimacy for the regime to rise and establish itself. While in some cases this social movement comes from external factors such as war or general depression, some other times it is built based on a divergence of the population perspective, regardless of the well-being of the population. In the latter case, it is done slowly and then all at once. For reference see  - Rudi Dutschke's “The long march through the Institution”.

The loss of freedom and demand from our government to censor, cancel, and eliminate all opinions that contradict the beliefs of certain minorities or the general population was slow and then happened all at once. It started with the defense of fragile soles and escalated to protecting any narrative that do not fit the indoctrination message of the controlling party. This movement is the hallmark of a falling apart population. One that historically, brings chaos, death, and poverty. Democracy and freedom of speech are one of the most fundamental goods developed by the West. Protecting its citizens and allowing them to thrive. In the case of the current movement supporting the censorship of voices, the lose of freedom of speech has been supported by a boomer generation that is too afraid to speak or offend anyone. Holding the line in the general belief of compliance to authority. The real poster child of the slow and certain fall of the Western system and its values is led by the young generation that not only supports the cancel culture, safe spaces, and controlled censoring but demands it from their government due to their lost and fragile souls.  (I wrote about it extensively in my latest book – “Meaning in the Age of Absurdity”).

The bottom line of all the supporters of this movement comes to a simple line repeated ad infinitum – the notion that words are violence. This is the line they protect. Giving them the support they need to move forward with peace of mind, believing logic is with them. As many other ideas repeated in that way, a logic exists that supports their insanity. One that some people find hard to handle with. It is not by mistake or by chance. It is part of the general propaganda pushed on everyone for half a decade now. Helping to create the necessary foundation for the general takeover of autocrats in our free and peaceful democracy. As I will show later on, this argument at best shows the fragility of people and supports the lack of capacity of many people to take control or responsibility for their own actions. Projecting their incapacity into humanity as a whole. At worst, it is just a blind repetition of an exhausted mind that lived too long in a state of fear and lost the capacity to fight propaganda. We are walking into autocrat socialism and the majority of the population is not only supporting it but asking for it.

I believe that if we are to save our democracy and protect our freedom, the idea that words are violence needs to be addressed and dissolved. At its core this idea mainly supports the logic needed for our government to increase its grip on our life, dangerously degrading our democracies. While allowing people to hide behind their comfortable wall of misery, justifying the victimhood story that they hold so dear.

The first argument people use to justify this notion goes as follows (and believe me, I’m doing here an intellectual favour to most of the people who hold this notion) – Words are used by humans to express ideas. Many people acquire their ideas from hearing them from someone else. Ideas can bring to action, which sometimes can be violent. Conclusion – words are violence. 

While this argument sounds solid, it has some wrong assumptions at its core. Words are a tool of communication. By itself, words are neutral and are part of the tool we as humans developed. Language is a human phenomenon used uniquely by our species, promoting collaboration, trust, and expression. Words are a tool, while violence is an action. Philosophically and logically words cannot be violent as at their core one is a tool while the other is an action. It is possible to use a tool for a certain action, which does not make a tool the action itself. A car is not dangerous, the driver is. A gun is not dangerous, the person who uses it is. Alcohol is not dangerous, irresponsible drunk people are.  As a first conclusion when approaching this subject, we can conclude that violence is dangerous but not words. Fundamentally, it is the people that should be addressed and not the tools they are given. The written sentence would be in this case – Some words can bring some people to commit violent acts. At this point, an important question arises – Do some words always bring all people to commit violence? the answer is no. Meaning that not all people will immediately commit violent acts upon hearing a set of words. Meaning it is neither the words nor the people in general that can be categorized as violent.

Now let’s move to the concept of violence. Violence is an important concept. It is an inevitable part of human existence and nature. The effect of physical violence is important to frame and withhold. By butchering the word and its concept, we bring society to a very dangerous place. One in which real problems and victims cannot be addressed and treated properly. Opening the door to absurdities and dissonance that do not help society. I hope we can all agree that we cannot compare a case of rape to a case in which an overweight person is called fat. Or the violent act of a bitten wife to a confused young adult when addressed based on his sex of birth and not his momentary pronounce. Or that a war veteran's PTSD cannot be compared to a woman who has been explained she is not physically equal to men due to her genetic composition. Crossing and blurring the line of the concept of violence is a dangerous game that will prevent us from helping real victims while preventing us from identifying violence and its danger when it erupts. Additionally, it promotes the overreach of government and the silencing of diversity of opinions, promoting tyranny and eroding democracy from within.

As I showed above, this argument attacks people and their actions. It collectivizes the usage of the word violence to absurdity and assumes humans have little agency or self-control. It strips people of their autonomy, capacity to evolve, and wish to be part of society. At its core, it reflects a general belief held by many people today claiming that the main issue with humanity is humans. An approach that I find to be devastating. The greatness of humans is based on our capacity to think, create, self-regulate, and peacefully collaborate. The fact we are all here is proof that most of the people are aiming for peace and prosperity. It shows how capable we are of cooperation and proves that we are not the problem but the solution. While some of us can be violent and fewer are psychopathically evil, generalizing humanity based on the sick minority is not only wrong but unproductive. Most of us are responsible adults, with the capacity to think, self-regulate, and aim for peace and prosperity in our own domain.

The second approach supporting the notion that words are violent goes along this lines – Violence creates physical pain. Words can offend a person. Offense can be described as mental pain. Mental experience is as relevant and existing as physical pain. This means words are violent. While this approach is less sophisticated it is a red flag and a symptom of the sickness that engulfs the current Western society.

This logic is a symptom of the progressive mind virus taking over our society. The logical tactic used in this argument is often used by the progressive, as it is extremely effective in shutting down opposition or healthy intellectual conversation. It has all the components that neo-progressives love and cherish. First, it is based on a subjective experience. After all, it is complicated to argue with a person about the level of pain one feels inside. Secondly, it distorts the words we are using in order to create mental chaos. By applying the word pain to every discomfort the word loses its value and with it the real horror of physical pain. Moreover, if met with resistance, the immediate reaction of the progressive will be to admit that pain comes in different levels but immediately counterattack by accusing the other side of lack of sensibility, empathy or in some cases (mainly reflecting low intelligence or just blind repetition) they will start to shout toxic masculinity/ racism/ bigotry or fascism.

The most important aspect of this argument is that it sits beautifully with the main philosophy of the progressive – Victimhood. In the mind of a progressive he is oppressed. Which on many levels is true. We are all oppressed in one way or another. That’s life. Life is hard, demanding, and complicated and nobody is coming to save you. The real question is what you do about it. The oppressed card is always amusing, as it comes with a baggage of emotional distress. Most of the time, the mixture of facing an emotionally distressed person who explains he is in pain, combined with the direct attack claiming the other person is at best unempathetic and in the worst case a fascist, toxic bigot, degrades the level of the intellectual conversation to zero. Making one side highly uncomfortable and the other believing he or she just got the confirmation that they are not only right but also increases the validity that they are a real victim or protectors of one.

The real difference between this argument and the previous one is that unlike the first, the second has to do with the weakness and mentality of the people using this argument. It has nothing to do with human behavior or the fear of a violent Armageddon. This time it has to do with how the people that use this argument see the world and their place in it. It represents the standardization of fragility and the general softening of a spoiled, peaceful entitled Western society. One that has been promised that they deserve everything at the price of nothing. And that what really counts is not the world and the capacity to integrate into it but how they feel and the requirements of the world to bend to that. It represents the failure of our educational system. The loss of meaning and the need to be a victim for the purpose of being something in this world. In my last book “Meaning in the Age of Absurdity”, I address this phenomenon in detail, including its cause, social symptoms, and the potential steps we can take to start to overcome this crisis.

The disturbing aspect of the second argument is that for most people, it is impossible to handle. The logic itself is impact. It is the fundamental truth of the statements which is the problem. The twisting of words and their redefinition is a tool often used by manipulators and sales personnel. It leaves many people defenseless as they do not have neither the time nor the intellectual training to handle with such problems. Additionally, it touches on a very peculiar feeling most humans have – the wish to feel we are good people. A direct attack of this kind will leave people frozen and make them retreat to agreement or acceptance of the argument presented.

After all, if someone calls me fat and it hurts me it can be for two simple reasons. The first is that I share the notion that I’m fat and I’m unhappy about it. Making the other person simply stating a fact that I feel bad about. If it is a fact and I get offended, it is because of my inner world and my uncomfortably with it and not the problem of the other person stating that. On many levels, people need to hear the hard truth and learn to handle with it. It is the basic requirement for development and real friendship and maturity.  While it is not nice to state the obvious to a struggling person, it is a big stretch to call it violence or to blame my mental dissonance on an external existence. Additionally, if I do not believe I’m fat or do not know the person claiming it, I find it hard to understand how I can be offended in the first place. Not taking hard every nonsense that a stranger throws at you is a big part of maturing. As a father to a 6-year-old child, I can attest to the fact that we all start there and hopefully evolve over time. A young adult who gets offended by false statements heard from strangers mainly reflects a weak mind with a lack of confidence. Which again reflects the weakness of the individual and not the violent aspect of words. If we are to emerge from this chaos, it is strength that we need. Creating policies base on the lower denominator of our society promise continual and evolving weakness. A General trend that will not benefit our current generation or any future one.

of opinion is what makes me different than you and what creates curiosity and creativity. Democracy is based on plurality of opinion and the belief that we don’t have to agree on everything but still fight to allow others to express their opinions. (see Voltaire). Without allowing people the freedom to speak their minds, democracy collapses. It makes us weaker and dumber. Words are not violence. They are the most incredible tool we ever invented. Let us not be guided by the weakest denominator of our society or the fear of hearing we are wrong just because it is uncomfortable. We ought to our future generations. Words are the solution to our problems, they allow us to understand each other better, overcome the gaps of cultural diversity, and make us feel we are heard and relevant.  After all, we all knew until yesterday that it is when diplomacy fails (the usage of words) that wars begin (the usage of violence). Let this one sink in.

Reflection on Extreme Subjectivism

Subjectivism is, by definition, the story we tell ourselves and the way we choose to interact with the objective world. Some stories are held with such a conviction and by such a number of people that it can create the illusion of being Objective. This phenomenon can be observed throughout history. The most common example is religion. It is important to make this distinction from the get-go, as it is one of the fallacies that hold us back from truly having a deep discussion on the subject. This fallacy can be called "the subjective objectivization fallacy." In simple words, it is the idea that if enough people believe that something is true by itself, it makes it true. This can explain why, in our current age, there is a need for people to censor other opinions or shout the loudest opinions.

In numerous conversations, I had recently, the topic of Objectivism came up and ended what could have been a very meaningful conversation. Subjectivism became the hallmark of the West. Sometimes, disguised as liberalism and some other times as self-justification for actions we all knew until yesterday were wrong. Sentences such as "everything is subjective" and "Nothing is really objective in life" are a form of what I call "Extreme subjectivity." As a person who delved into the debt of Nihilism, I can tell that extreme subjectivism is somehow a positive version of Nihilism. Instead of saying – There is no meaning, people moved to – There is no objectivity. It is less depressive and allows detachment from any accountability or social responsibility.

Extreme subjectivity is very concerning as Objectivism is the essence of our capacity to cooperate and hold the key to personal sanity. Moreover, at its core, objectivism is what allows us to cooperate and feel true empathy towards others. As I will argue later, I came to believe that the rise of subjectivism is mainly a defence mechanism for many lost people who do not know what to believe in and who to trust. By adopting subjectivism, they allow themselves to justify and validate their fear and anxiety toward the world around them and their inner world. As I mentioned previously, Subjectivism is just the story we tell ourselves. In many ways, extreme subjectivity reflects a lack of story. It is a syndrome of people who lose belief and do not find a solid reality to hold onto. By adopting this philosophy, a defence mechanism is built first toward the world and then towards one own feeling.

Before delving into the reason for the rise in subjectivism and its outcomes, I would start by proving simply that Objectivism exists and that subjectivism, at its core, cannot exist without Objectivism. At its essence, subjectivism is a byproduct of Objectivism. Never the other way around. I will not argue at any point that there is nothing subjective. Oppositely, a big part of our inner world is subjective. It is part of consciousness and human existence. Regardless, Objectivity is the base of life and the human experience. It is only because Objectivism exists that subjectivism could develop in the first place. The belief that nothing is objective or that subjectivity is at the core of everything is not only wrong but also very dangerous. Lies require Objectivity to lean on. Lies can be invented only because we agree on some basic ideas or events. Language is based on Objectivity as it requires we all agree on what we describe when using words. Relationships require it as well. Without trust, we will never be able to establish relationships. Shockingly, trust cannot exist without a fundamentally objective environment we agree upon.

For those who lack patience, here is the conclusion of this article- Subjectivism, in essence, is interpretation. It is the story we tell ourselves. At the core of subjectivism exists a deep requirement for Objectivism. As interpretation needs events to happen in the first place. Everything that has to do with explanation, opinion, or ideas is subjective. Our inner world is an endless interpretation mechanism, making it subjective at its core. Regardless, no interpretation can exist without actual events, and no real-life events need interpretation to happen or evolve in the first place. Extreme subjectivism is created from a lack of frame or data.

A simple example will be as follows – If we are to observe a single ball floating in empty space, all we will be able to say is that there is a ball and that it is floating (objective reality). We cannot say if it is moving or in which direction, as we are missing a frame of reference. By introducing a second ball into the empty space and making them move slowly toward each other, different people will interpret the movement of one of the balls differently. Some people will say both of the balls are moving, some will say that only one is moving, and others will say that the other is moving (this is subjective). From the moment a third ball fixed in space is introduced, we will directly go back to Objectivism, as the directional movement will be clear by having three balls.

Now, let's start with proving the undeniable existence of Objectivism. First and at the most basic level, Objectivism can be defined as an external truth that will remain so regardless of who perceives it and his interpretation. It is a fact (very important word here) that is undeniable and predates any interpretation (Interpretation at its core is a subjective explanation of fact). Let's start with the most obvious examples of Objectivism. We are all born into this world and die at a certain point. Theories about where we come from, where we go after, and the potential of all of this being a simulation do not contradict this objective fact. Gravity is another objective fact. Since we remember ourselves on this earth, when we let something go in mid-air, it falls to the ground. The explanation of how or why is not relevant to this objective truth. The last example I will use for the most basic level of objectivity is that we all wake up in the morning regardless of our wishes or efforts. This is true for all animals on earth.

Just to reinforce the fact that objectivity exists, let's name a few other first-level examples – We all have a body, we need water and oxygen to survive, the fire burns, water is wet, we grow older and not younger, A lion is physically stronger than us, a cheetah run faster than us, we are all having a shared experience, there is a limit to the strength we can use in any given moment and time, we cannot physically be in two separate physical locations simultaneously, We cannot pass through walls, alcohol, and coffee affect our body, and finally I'm not you, and you are not me (It is a basic definition – we will arrive to it later on)

It is very important to separate the concepts of interpretation and objectivity. Having multiple possible explanations or none does not make something less Objective. It means our collective consciousness didn't come into agreement about the phenomenon. One of the most important things about first-level objectivity is that it is above the human capacity to explain it and doesn't need it to start with. I hope that at this point, we can start to agree that objectivity exists. If one still insists objectivity doesn't exist, it probably reflects an inner struggle of the person with his own pain rather than anything close to an intelligent, truthful conversation.

The essence of learning is based on Objectivism. It is a process in which one acts and adjusts based on external feedback. Babies learn how to speak by getting positive feedback from their surroundings. Any hypothesis requires external validation. It is a fundamental truth in the human experience. Social cues are part of this process. A person who decides to dress strangely will immediately get feedback from his friend (if he has any real one). Our capacity to be good at something is evaluated by the grade and acceptance of our society, based on an objective comparison. It is just how it works. Now, to be clear, the feedback we get in many cases is based on the subjective opinion of other individuals, which doesn't make the feedback by itself an objective truth. Practically, it is the act of feedback that can be defined as objective, while the content of the feedback can sometimes be subjective. The last statement is proof of the existence of objectivity and the line between objectivity and subjectivity without cancelling each other. For those of you willing to delve into more philosophical arguments, I will add that subjectivity is an objective human experience.

At this point, we can all agree that not everything is subjective. As you can see, it is not an argument that takes too long to prove or too much intellectual power. Regrettably, many people in the West still hold onto their beliefs even after being confronted with these simple arguments. As it bothered me greatly, I think that "Why?" is an unavoidable question that needs to be asked. The answer to this question is part of the solution for many social problems I raised and will continue to talk about in my blog. It is a phenomenon that should not be ignored, as it represents one of the biggest problems we face in the West. The simple answer is that we lost trust. The mixture of hyper information online, with the miserable performance of our politicians, institutions, and economists, broken family structures, and globalization that do not benefit its people are all part of what creates the "Extreme subjectivism crisis."

Young people are subjective in their essence. They cannot perceive a world in which they are not in its center. The raging hormones, lack of experience, and the brain's unfinished development all play a part in it. For young adults, adopting subjectivity is the default. Objectivity at this stage is adopted by many young adults when it proves to work and is favorable for them. To get over this notion, many young people need a trustful and guiding system that will walk them through the process of accepting objectivism or a terrible misfortune that shows them how much objectivity there is in life regardless of what they wish and believe in. They need a guide and help to make them not only accept but also understand what to do with a world in which their subjectivity means little in real terms. It seems that one of the processes that involves passing from childhood to adulthood involves a process in which a person understands the boundaries between subjectivity and objectivity. It is a process that allows people to agree on the general terms of the game we are all playing. An understanding that feelings are a subjective experience that shouldn't always be acted upon. This process is what allows society to function and a general framework of trust to be built.

The growing extreme subjectivity movement can be seen as a refusal of many young adults to grow up and a regression of many adults who lost trust in their beliefs. As I mentioned, I believe this movement is a cry for help on a societal level. It is the lack of new heroes, the demonization of our old ones, and the broken value system in the West that prevent people from handling the uncomfortable truth that the world is indifferent to their interpretation. In their book –"The Coddling of the American Mind", Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explain that it is our wish to protect our kids that raised a generation of people that cannot handle life and its requirements. I will add that it is a broken system of values and the lack of tools available today that hinder this important step.

Extreme subjectivism is a reflection of our breaking society. Not because we don't have enough, but because we are having too much. In my conversation about individualism, I showed the terrible effect of the belief that society's main purpose is to serve individuals' self-fulfillment. These two topics are directly related to each other. They both reflect the lack of capacity of individuals to integrate in an healthy manner into society. There is a lot to be said about the fact that governments and the state of most economies in the last 20 years were not favorable toward their individuals. That trust in our "Expert" system broke down in the last 5 years, and an optimistic approach toward the future is hard to maintain. Regardless, hiding behind extreme subjectivism is not the answer we currently need. It is a retracement of all participants into themselves, bringing the degradation of trust, healthy collaboration, and elimination of the tools needed to create a better future.

Life is hard, unfair, and sometimes beyond our capacity to understand. It is just how it is. On the other side, this world we are living in is a world that allows us to build, collaborate, and prosper if we choose to do the hard work. The first step in the path is to agree on fundamental ideas such as where we are, what we are doing, what our goal is, and how we call things. It is our objective commonalities that unite us. It is the objective world that teaches us and the basic understanding we share that builds trust. Understanding the relationship between Objectivism and subjectivism is a crucial step we need to take. Without it, collaboration and trust cannot exist. The consequences of choosing to stay in such a predicament are clear – Instead of working together on bringing us all a better future, we will continue screaming in fear at each other, arguing about questions as "What is a woman?". And between us….who in his correct mind really wants that?

The Dark Side of Individualism

Individualism is an interesting topic debated in philosophy for millennials. At its core, it addresses the balance that exists between the individual needs of each of us versus our need to be part of a society. It is undeniable that each of us has its own needs, and at our core, we all prioritize our own survival. Regardless, the act of self-sacrifice for one cause is a known phenomenon observed throughout history, culture, and race. This human tendency reflects how philosophical we are as humans. It shows how the end goal we believe in can override our animalistic code. Making it one of the most important motivators of human actions. The balance between our individualistic needs and our need for a social life is crucial to human evolution, as it creates different variations of social structures and constitutions. After a long reflection, I came to believe that this topic can explain the essence of the shift we currently see in the West. A shift that seems to bring us all more suffering and misery than Happiness and prosperity.

Evolution is a natural and unavoidable process in nature. It is emotionless and persistent. The outcome of this process is no more than a natural advancement of one unit from the one that came beforehand. As a product of the present, we assume that evolution is positive as it brought us everything we know today. Practically, this notion is wrong, as evolution and its wrong turn brought the extinction of societies and species. At its core, the process of evolution tries variations that survive by luck, strength, or momentary circumstances. One of the downsides of this process is that, in some cases, a variation that survived based on the first or the last options moves forward and continues to evolve based on an unproductive or even defective base. The fact that history is a continuation of fallen empires and extinct predators is a validation of this point.

The current state of the West is in decline and seems to accelerate in the last decade. The signs are everywhere. As I will cover here, I believe that the main reason for it is a defective aspect of the human experience that survived and was built over time. Not like other animals in nature, we are a philosophical being. One that is led by proactive motives and abstraction. The argument I will present here is that the main reason for the fall of the West has to do with the loss of meaning and the twisting of our core values. The first value I will address is Individualism and the role it plays in maintaining healthy individuals and society as a whole. If I am to put it simply, I genuinely believe that our current society and its leading social movements are driven by an absurd end at best or, in many cases, no end at all. Let me explain it before entering into several examples. If we are to look at the dominant social movements of the early 21st century, we will discover two motives that encompass them all. Extreme Individualism and hatred toward the past.

Extreme Individualism is a new type of Individualism. It is different because it took the original concept and turned it on its head. From Aristotle's time, we could all agree that the good of the individual is what describes the good of society. Conversations on this topic have been numerous throughout history. The commonality of all was that while humans are, first and foremost, individuals who take care of themselves and their needs, they are all part of society. In this view, humans need society and have personal interests in ensuring they play an active role. While many philosophical arguments debate why humans need society and the best way to organize it, all agree on one principle. We are all part of society, as it is a need we all share. It is an important point, as by accepting it, we agree that the good of society is related to our individual good.

Aristotle expresses in several books the concept of happiness related to the question of goodness. Based on his writing, Good can be divided into Primary good and secondary good. To simplify it, the first is done for the sake of itself, while the other is done for something else. In his view, there is only a Good that is categorized as primary worth doing if we are to aim for Happiness. This Good is what we should all aim for and the only path to Happiness. This distinction is crucial to this conversation as it lays down a fundamental idea the state that not all our motives are equally contributing to our Happiness.

Additionally, he makes a very important remark. He states that a society is a reflection of its individuals. Highlighting the notion that a society is a bottom-up structure, not a top-down one. By doing so, Aristotle paints an essential picture with several fundamental points we can extract relevant to our conversation. The first is that Happiness is achieved based on the end goal one has. Secondly, Only an end goal defined as a primary good can truly bring us closer to Happiness. Lastly, it is the Happiness and success of the individuals of a society that make it prosperous, not the opposite. An important additional conclusion we can reach from the statements above is that a society can reach prosperity and Happiness only by having its individuals live and act based on an end goal based on the primary good. I will add here that I believe that only by having a primary good shared by all the members of a society can a harmonious and prosperous society be developed. It allows collaboration and trust to develop naturally and hold for a long period.

Many years after Aristotle, the Economist declared that humans do things from two different motives, diminishing suffering and pleasure. There is a big difference between the two, as one is based on avoidance and the other based on creation. The distinction between diminishing suffering and promoting enjoyment is an important aspect of individuals and society as a whole. Diminishing suffering on many levels can be seen as a reactionary secondary good, as it describes actions that aim to handle momentary discomfort for the sake of another cause. On the other hand, actions done for the purpose of promoting Happiness can be categorized as proactive primary Good, as they are done for the sake of itself. The difference between proactive and reactive is crucial if we are to understand Individualism and what it promotes. Animals are reactive as they only and always act due to momentary urges, while humans have the unique capacity to act proactively. From this philosophical point of view, humans who act without an end goal and are motivated based on secondary goods are no better than any other animal.

Until recently, we could all agree that on an individualistic level, we all shared a clear end goal - survive, multiply, and make sure the process continues. It worked well for all of human history as it made humanity the innovative creature that finished ruling Earth. The fact that humans had a common end goal created healthy societies that survived over time. Those values were clear for millennia to all humans regardless of gender, race, and time. First, the creation and survival of one family and kids were the highest purposes we all aim for. Secondly, all humans understand the importance of the creation and maintenance of a strong society for the sake of security and productivity. Finally, individuals understood that collaboration was needed, led by the most capable part of society. The population that did not follow these principles felt various forms of tyranny, corruption, or general degradation.

One of the most remarkable developments based on these values is Capitalism. As the term is not clear to many people today, we will need to start by defining it. Capitalism is an economic system based on values of property rights and free trade in a nonaggression framework that allows individuals to prosper as single units while benefiting society and its actors as a whole. At its core, it is a direct positive evolution demonstrating the balance between each person's needs and the maintenance of society that protects them. If we are to look at this philosophy by identifying its end, it could be said that the main claim of Capitalism is that the Happiness and success of each individual is what makes a good or thriving community. This idea works amazingly well when applied based on an end goal defined as the wish for a prosperous society. After all, the exercise of Social-economic practice is society itself.

The balance held in Capitalism is not obvious and has been challenged many times at the end of the 20th century. All sorts of socialism can be defined as trying to tilt the delicate balance between Individualism and society toward the latter. In their view, society is more relevant than its individuals, their need, or their capacity. Different forms of socialism approached Capitalism from different angles, but eventually, they all had the same philosophy in their heads. Individuals left free will not benefit the majority of the population or society. As history has shown us, socialism has been the main cause of death in the last 100 years and the denominator of massive starvation, mass homicide, and general social degradation.

The other side of this socialism can be described as extreme Individualism. It holds the notion that the individual is not part of his society but above it. This new type of Individualism is different from anything we have ever tried. Not because it promotes the individual in society but because it turns the fundamental assumption of society on its head. It dictates that each human's main and only end goal is the maximization of their self-fulfillment. It is the most and only relevant aspect that matters. The definition of self-fulfillment is based on a subjective approach of a specific individual, reflecting his momentary values and feelings. Its direct implications are very straightforward. For people who hold this belief, whatever and whoever is not directly contributing to the realization of one individual's self-fulfillment is deemed an obstacle that should be avoided. This kind of Individualism detaches the individual from society and, in many cases, positions him against it. As we will see, this kind of new philosophy has dire second-order consequences seen worldwide. Making it one of the most important philosophical shifts of the last centuries.

The fundamental concern associated with his movement is that it shifts the end goal of individuals from a social one to a self-centric one. Moreover, it should not be ignored because, at its core, it redefines primary and secondary Good. While old philosophies were based on the idea that humans' final goal is the success and survival of society itself. This new movement places the individual himself and their needs before society, making it the highest good. In this world, society's role is to serve the individual instead of requiring the individual to integrate and be a productive part of it. It promotes need and feeling instead of capacity and intellect. It requires blind obedience based on social terror instead of promoting an open, constructive conversation based on multiple ideas.

The flip between the two principles becomes clear when observing the outcomes and actions of people driven by Extreme Individualism. Money, status, and dominance are hailed by people who hold this set of values. Topics such as politically correct speech, doomsday prevention, and deconstruction are the leading social topics promoted as the primary and urgent problems we all have to solve. Society and its health are never discussed as it is a secondary consequence of the needs of its individuals. Money, careers, and status are secondary goods as they are done for the sake of achieving something else. Regardless, in the extreme individualistic view, they are positioned as primary Good and hailed for the sake of themselves. The creation of a family, the purpose of knowledge, and the strength of a nation are seen as archaic obstacles that should be avoided.

Moreover, doomsday panic and politically correct speech are both reactionary movements. Demanding the shift from proactive social activities for the sake of satisfying the lowest and more psychotic denominator of our society. Extreme Individualism, at its core, is anti-social, instead of categorizing Happiness as derived from a shared success defined by the creation of a healthy family and society. It positions momentary self-realization and diminishing suffering of its weakest part as its main goal.

One of the side effects of running a society in that way is that its social failure requires a social net to support the breaking apart of society. The purpose of this social net is to feel the holes unavoidably created by diminishing societies, with broken families and a lack of support for individuals when reaching old age. After all, divorced families require more resources to raise a child, single kids cannot support both aging parents, and society does not function without unity. If correct, the increase in the welfare state and the demand for more of it by younger generations is not a mistake or an exaggeration but a real necessity to maintain a falling apart society.

Extreme Individualism can be seen in several parts of society today. One of its most terrifying consequences can be seen in relation to the population decline trend. I have no doubt in my mind that the drop in the birth rate, the rate of marriage, and the huge number of single-house families are all connected to it. The decline in the birth rate is a very concerning trend with a clear and unavoidable end. Making it one of the most urgent and alarming trends of the early 21st century. While factors such as improved education and the liberation of women can be attributed to factors that affect this trend. I came to believe that the most important factor is the introduction of the values of extreme Individualism to the West.

The distaste toward Nationalism is another reflection of extreme Individualism. At its core, Nationalism requires the sacrifice of one toward his society. Positioning people who are willing to sacrifice their time, resources, and lives for their heroes. On many levels, it contradicts the notion that self-fulfillment is the most important aspect of life. Moreover, putting the well-being of society before one own needs requires sacrifices. In many cases, it requires that one contribute his time and resources toward this goal. An act that requires, on any level, to hinder the selfish self-fulfillment of individuals.

As I mentioned elsewhere, humans need a purpose. Without it, our inner world collapses into itself. I believe that the rise in suicide rate, depression, anxiety, and general unhappiness can all be related to the fact that the philosophy of extreme Individualism dominating our current society is not only wrong but empty of any true content. It leaves people lonely, angry, and frustrated. It is a philosophy with a twisted end goal that preaches to hate everything that makes us good as individuals and as a society.

To prosper, humans need to believe in something bigger than themselves. The pursuit of Happiness cannot be simply the elimination of suffering. Family, society, and nations have been the cornerstone of human advancement since we remember ourselves for a reason. Extreme Individualism concentrates on promoting secondary goods while ridiculing all primary goods ever worth fighting for. By adopting it, we are all racing to the bottom of self-destruction and misery, led by the lower denominator of our society. With all honesty, we cannot allow ourselves to live a life dictated by a minority of angry and unhappy individuals just because they scream louder. Eventually, we need to realign our end goals. Only by doing so can we hope for a better future. A society needs strong individuals who have the freedom to express themselves, reach their goals, and provide for their future families. We all have more in common than we think. Our society lost itself in the pursuit of Happiness. We concentrated so much on how we wished things to be that we forgot why we were here in the first place. I believe that if we are to truly address our problems, we don't need to look far. We just need to ask ourselves, why we do what we do. It is all about the end goals we have guiding our daily actions. 

Reflection on Power and Democracy

 Power, is not a bug but a fundamental function of human existence, nature, and the universe. It can be observed all around us. In nature, it is the strong that dominates the weak, and it is the violent natural event that changes the structure of nature. Gravity is another example that can be seen as an example of strength. The fact that a bigger mass has the natural effect of attracting a smaller mass is an effect of Power. After all, Power is the capacity to dominate your surroundings and make them move based on one need.

In this conversation, we will explore why the concept of power is currently seen in a negative light in western society, and how it is connected to the type of democracies ruling these nations. The widespread concepts of aggression, micro-aggression, and toxic masculinity are all part of the growing culture in the West. Dictating that Power should be eradicated for the purpose of the common good. For those who hold this view, it makes sense on many levels, as it is an unavoidable feature of the mental structure hold in the mind of people that support what I call "Poor Democracy." This feature is not a bug but an inevitable end of how Democracy evolved in the West. A development that makes us weaker, vulnerable and will bring about the unavoidable collapse of the West and its culture.

Democracy can exist in many forms based on its constitution. It can be divided into the following categories – Democracy operating based on capability, Democracy operating based on wealth, and Democracy operating based on the weak majority. In all the types, the structure is built on the vote of the majority of the voting people. And in all kinds, a constitution exists binding all its citizens to the rule of law. In general, a society that is not operating based on the vote of the majority of the voters' opinions can be considered tyrannical, while a society in which some people can change the law based on their needs can be viewed as a monarchy. To make this topic clear, I will add that a monarchy can be considered tyrannical in some cases, while a tyrannical regime doesn't have to be a monarchy. If you want to learn more about these differences, I recommend reading Aristotle's "Politics."

Before delving into the different types of Democracy, I find it relevant to define a fundamental concept. Democracy, at its core, is created as a system to restrain and create accountability for the most powerful. It is a structure that gives the weaker part of society control and dominance over the powerful by grouping them into a singular part of society. Rich, capable, and powerful do not need to approval of the weak. It will help them create a more pleasant and efficient way to reach their end goal, but in no way is it a requirement they cannot do without. From this point of view, Democracy is created and maintained to support the weaker part of society, never the powerful.

I find it relevant at this point to address the role of Power and the nature of humans as part of the universe. While we evolve to a point in which we dominate the globe - (a development that couldn't happen without the usage of Power), we are still a product of evolution and come from the same nature as any other species on earth. We reach where we are and get what we have, all thanks to a struggle that we won thanks to our superior Power. The most obvious example  - (one that, for some reason, is controversial to some) is the fact that peace is a consequence of war. No peace has ever been achieved without a war to form it in the first place. The notion that peace is a natural state is based more on wishful thinking than historical reality.

Another clear example is that everything we have requires our effort. Effort requires strength, self-control, and endurance. All features of Power. Power is the rule of nature. It is controlling everything around us. It is used in any interaction, day, and social construct. It is a core feature, not a bug.

If true, it is worth asking how we have arrived at a point where a big part of society is convinced differently? To better understand this phenomenon, we will have to delve into the different types of Democracy, their core ideas, and their natural development. By doing so, we will understand where we currently stand, what went wrong, and where we are proudly marching.

Now, let's dive into the different types of Democracy and the role of Power, to get a better understanding of what makes them different from one another. A democracy operating based on capability can be called a meritocracy. In many ways, it can be described as an aristocratic democracy. The term aristocracy is not defined in this case as a group of people that hold Power due to lineage (this is monarchy) but the fact that they hold Power due to their higher capabilities. All the people involved are bound to the rule of law that promises equal treatment in front of the law, making it an egalitarian society in a democratic sense.

Furthermore, in such a society, all its citizens have the right to vote, but the candidates in question are chosen based on their demonstrative capabilities in the relevant field. Power is necessary in such a social structure as capacity is based on competition, which is a power struggle. Moreover, the fundamental value of such a society is productivity and the well-being of society itself. Power is admired in such societies as it is used for good. It is the engine that run social progress. If such a society is based on demonstrative superiority. Mentally and physically power is promoted as a core value wished and admire by all. In such a structure, the combination of capability with a democratic general vote renders the motive of the ruling party with the general good of society aligned, creating a natural positive cooperation for the greater good.

The second type of Democracy operates based on wealth. In many cases, highly concentrated in the art of commerce. This Democracy can be described as an oligarchic democracy. In this structure, money is Power. What makes it a democracy is the fact that the rule of law still stands and that a majority vote exists to define its rulers. There are two different types of oligarchic Democracy. One in which only people with wealth can participate in the democratic process, but the size of the wealthy population is a significant majority of its citizens. And one in which all citizens can participate in voting for election, but the way to be nominated is based on a minimum entry bar valued in wealth. While the first type is hard to find in our current age, the second structure is more common today than what many of us would like to believe. Power in this society is king, and it is bought in wealth. Unlike the Democracy I described previously, this type is built on Power. It is the Power to hold dominance in society that allows the ruling party to govern. Money is Power, as it can buy one way into the relevant position. In this structure, the limitations of the governing party are based on the fact that wealth is distributed to enough people to create a big enough opposition due to personal interests. While it serves to rest of the population in ways of second-order consequences, the structure can still be considered democratic due to its election process and the rule of law governing all citizens equally. In this society, Power is seen as an inspiration for individualistic motives and something to be feared by the rest of the population. On many levels, it can be said that nature is organized in an oligarchic democracy structure. In the sense that it is the balance of the powerful that dictates reality while allowing the weaker part to survive as a secondary consequence of their own motives.

Oligarchic democracy in many cases evolve as a middle stage between free society and one rule by a single ruler. As I will show, this structure is the most vulnerable to tyrannical overtake. Interestingly, in the period of ancient Greece, this type of democracy was practice in many states. Making it a relevant and viable option when discussing democracy.

The third kind of Democracy, which I believe dominates most of the West, is a democracy operating based on a weak majority. This type of Democracy can be described as one in which the weak majority runs the show. As a structure, the rule of law governs all citizens, and everyone has the right to vote or be elected based on a popularity contest regardless of capability or wealth. A consequence of this structure is that the purpose of society and its governing party is to satisfy the weakest part of society. Bringing the goals of society itself to equal the lowest denominator of its participants.

While the other types of Democracy exist to restrain the powerful and allow them to deploy their resource most constructively, this type of Democracy exists to crash Power at its core, as it threatens the weak that control the system. In such a structure, Power is seen as a bug. One that, if eradicated, will eliminate the natural balancing power existing on the weak. Power is seen as something to be afraid of. Something that should be socially detested and ostracized.

Societies that operate in this way are doomed to collapse. Not only due to the lack of Power to hold against neighboring societies that naturally accumulate Power and capacities but also because the general philosophy of such a population is toward mediocrity. One that dictated that we should all be more like the less capable and hide our inner drive for greatness.

The reason I call this kind of democracy - a "Poor Democracy" - is not based on the economic status of its majority – (even if it is unavoidable) but due to its social denominator, its growth potential, and its poor chances of survival. It is a structure in which everyone loses over time. The capable are pushed out of society, productivity will unavoidably decline and innovation will stop. Furthermore, due to its social structure, individuals lacking any worthy role model will have no choice but to individuate themselves based on a new scale of victimhood, as it is the common language of the weak. Victimhood is a poor way to run a society. One that can be described as a race to the bottom.

Furthermore, it is just a matter of time before a natural movement of historical deconstruction will emerge. After all, all existing flourishing societies reached their status due to their victory in a power struggle. One that is based on the fundamental principle of the superiority of Power. As a "Poor Democracy" is preaching values that demonize the concept of Power, it is only a matter of time before they will have no other choice but to try to erase any memory of its existence historically. The fact that this process requires the complete elimination of all aspects of their culture and everything that made them great is an unavoidable side effect. As Power is seen as the main threat to weak society governed by a popularity contest based on victimhood.

Different types of Democracy have their own risk and need to be addressed if we are searching to understand Democracy and its flaws. It is obvious that in all types, when the rule of law does not apply to all its citizens or the voting process does not reflect the majority opinion, the structure loses its democratic characteristics. It turns to be monarchical, tyrannical, or both. Regardless, some types are more prone to some failures than others. One of the most important aspects of a good social constitution is the barriers and checks in place to prevent such unfortunate developments. Another important aspect of the various types of Democracy has to do with their chances of survival in case the tables turn and Democracy is lost. After all, on a long enough scale, the most crucial question concerning society is its survival. As bad as a period of monarchy or dictatorship can be, the survival of its population is the first requirement for the chance to reestablish a democracy over time.

The easiest and most obvious type of Democracy to analyze is the Oligarchic Democracy. The fact that the structure is based on wealth and domination in such a straightforward manner makes it vulnerable to tyranny. All it requires is that wealth will, for some reason, suddenly be concentrated into the hands of a small group for this change to occur. To avoid such a development, it is highly important that laws restrict such development and that the balance of wealth is kept. As such, balance and the capacity of the law to hold are not obvious; Oligarchic Democracy is vulnerable and doesn't seem to be a viable option for an extended period of time.

 A Democracy based on meritocracy has its own risk. The most obvious one is the creation of an elite layer in society that will alienate themselves over time from the rest of the population. In this case, it is highly likely that a kind of monarchy will form or alternatively, that Democracy will move from this form to an Oligarchic one. While it is not recommended in any way, the risks of such a society are associated with the loss of its values over time and not the capacity of a ruling party to overtake the system. In both cases, the nation will not cease to exist. It is only the governing system that is at risk.

Not like the two previous cases, A democracy ruled by its weakest part not only has the risk of tyranny due to its weakening population or backlash from its extreme movements, but its more significant risk is its decomposition and collapse. As I explain above, decomposition is a feature of this social structure on many levels. The self-inflicting destruction of its own culture and the standard of victimhood leave the population weak and divided. A state that will inevitably bring to one of the three following scenarios – The first is the takeover of the nation by a neighboring state that operates on values of Power and survival. On any geopolitical level, it will be a natural consequence that will occur at a certain point in time. While this will require a prolonged period of deterioration or a sudden, unproportionally fast rise of Power by a neighboring country, this outcome is unavoidable if society is left alone to deteriorate for long enough. The second option that could emerge sooner is the collapse of the social structure of society from within, bringing about a civil war. This scenario will unavoidably bring to the rise of some form of tyranny and the potential takeover of a neighboring country if a clear win is not obtained quickly. In any case, the foundation of Democracy will collapse on the eve of a civil war, and society will stop functioning in the way it did previously. As a matter of fact, the act of the civil war will mean that the experiment of eradicating the notion of Power has failed. As the act itself is an admission that the only solution to restore order is violence, which is the ultimate and most crude manifestation of the usage of Power. Interestingly, the third option is the rise of socialism in its many forms.

In many ways, socialism is at its core based on the Power of the many weak over the capable minority. Equal outcomes, equal pay and equal distribution regardless of contribution or capacity benefits only the weakest part of society. Ironically, socialism is based on regulated and concentrated control in the hands of the few. Making it, at its core, vulnerable to tyranny. Historically, all forms of socialism have led to tyranny, poverty, and an unavoidable collapse. In this third scenario, socialism is just a road taken to tyranny, civil war, and the inevitable return to the most crude way of Power. In case of tyranny, the nation as a whole still has a chance to survive and remain in existence under a tyrant or alternatively vanish and get conquered by a neighboring country. 

The West has lost its way as it lost its philosophy promoting meritocracy and its relationship with Power. It is Power that allowed the West to achieve all its greatness and be what it is. It is by aggressively demanding capacity and casting aside the ones who are not willing to play that the west reach it amazing standard of living and prolong period of peace. Life is hard and uncomfortable. It is not by downgrading ourselves to the lowest denominator that we will thrive, nor by explaining ourselves we evolve to be a better existence than what brought us here.

Peace requires war. Achievements require effort. It is easy to destroy and hard to build. Hiding behind utopian rightfulness is not only not promoting a better future, but it also promises a worse one. If we are to walk straight into our own destruction, let us at least be honest about it and not explain to ourselves we are superior. Somebody said, "Good periods create weak men, which in turn create bad periods that create strong men." I don't think good periods create weak men. I believe that in good periods, strong men are not needed and are cast aside. While in hard periods, the weak disappear as they hide behind the strong man. If we are to save the West, I believe the first and most important step is changing our relationship to Power. It is an essential step if we are to maintain the current democratic experiment. As only democracy can promote the betterment of society and individuals all together. It is essential if we are to follow the significant steps that our ancestors did for our current prosperity. It is Power that allows us to be free, and our capacity to hold it prevents our enemies from taking the greatness that we have created.

Reflection on Neo-Feminism

The development of the feminist movement is relatively young, Starting in the 60s. The number of “waves” associated with the movement vary based on one world view, but the general agreement is that some “waves” were established, each adding a new layer to the complexity of the fight towards woman's equal right and liberation. Since its inception, society and women have walked a long way, achieving improved status, freedom, and equality decade after decade. Women in the beginning of 2010 achieved everything the first feminists dreamed of. Most women in the West have achieved equality, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. Making it one of the most successful and significant campaigns of the last 70 years. Women born in the 80s (meaning all women under 40) grew up in a world that allowed them to chase their dreams, pursue their careers, control their capacity to reproduce, and stand proudly under the slogan of a “strong, independent woman.” On all objective levels, these achievements could be the end of the “struggle” of the feminist movement. It is true that the reality was not perfect and that some small margins had to be aligned. But to the extent of the movement in general, the primary goals have been achieved, and all that was left to do was to maintain it and build together (men and women) a better world for ourselves and our children.

Unfortunately, like many other overstretched campaigns, after achieving its goals, most reasonable people went home to celebrate their achievements, while a group of fanatics stayed behind, frustrated and confused. This phenomenon is not unique to this movement. It can be observed in all levels of long struggles. After all, the fanatics dedicated themselves to the cause. Making it the center of their world and, in many cases, their source of income. They never thought about the question of “the day after .”After all, these people enjoyed the process so much that it became their endgame. Now that it is over, they have a serious problem. Their meaning in life is gone, and their income is with it. These fanatics get marginalized in many cases. They create niches and retreat into their own communities. Over time, they reintegrate into the new reality and find joy with their friends and families. Some never do. They are the “victims of peace”. They are the price society pays for overstretching a campaign. In the case of feminism, the movement went for so long and had such a success, that entire social structures have been erected for the cause. The demolition of these structures would be so significant for such a big group of fanatics that it couldn’t be done naturally. The war for women's liberation couldn’t finish just like this. It had to continue. A new, stronger, more abstract, and demanding “wave” was needed. But what can they ask for? What is there more to fight for when everything is going in the right direction?

The answer came fast in the form of the “4th feminist wave”. After listening to their claim for a while, I realized something very important. This wave is different than any feminist movement that came before it. At its core, it is a reconstructionist movement. It places men and women not as two units that complete each other but as two camps fighting for domination. At their core, the movement demands not only to have but be everything man “can be” while trying violently to explain that men should be less than what they “Want to be .” I’m calling it the Neo feminism. On many levels, I believe it is the worst development that the first wave of feminism could ask for. Its contradiction and consistency is far from anything woman in the 60s and 70s were fighting for. Making it probably the leading cause of the potential destruction of everything good women fought for decades. I believe that most people miss these changes due to the continuity of the movement and its name. They associate any woman movement with its original feminist movement. It is a tragedy for many, as it prevents us as a society from having a real discourse about the movement's outstanding achievements and makes us blind to the destructive forces leading the current Neo feminist movement. As I will cover in the rest of this article, the current movement's goals devastate our society. With all my heart, I believe that if we are to build a better society that equally serves men and women based on their nature, neo-feminism needs to be stopped.

In my view, Neo feminism can be called Marxist feminism. At its core, it is based on the struggle between oppressors and oppressors. Its techniques and cry are based on opening closed wounds to create a cause. The cries of the movements are based on abstract concepts and slogans, making intelligent, logical debates almost impossible. In this Neo Marxist view, Women are the oppressed, and men (and the patriarchy) are the oppressors. At its core, this philosophy is a zero-sum game, positioning man and woman on two opposite sides of a power struggle. Like all good historical Marxist movements, the core cry of the neo-feminist is based on theoretical slogans, at best, based on perception (feelings) and not reality. Making it one of the most unconstructive ideas on a social scale. This kind of Marxism has been tried many times, bringing misery, pain, and destruction to entire populations. The current iteration uses power struggle slogans. Presenting men as toxic, violent, incapable, and oppressive. While simultaneously presenting women as intelligent, slaved, struggling, oppressed, and victim. In this game, women can do everything men do, while men, at best, can be marginalized as they are an obstacle on the way to a utopia. There is no middle ground, no healthy collaboration concept, and no equality regarding entitlements.

Unlike other Marxist movements, Neo feminism believes in the superiority of women over men. An idea that reflects narcissistic immaturity. Overall, the idea that one of the sexes is superior to another is not only unprovable historically, it is an aggregate absurdity. Practically, we are all here thanks to men and women equally. Each played his role in the game of evolution.

Moreover, it is safe to assume that only a retrospective healthy collaboration between both sexes allowed the creation and survival of new offspring. A level of patriarchy existed in the family structure for an extended period. But even then, men couldn’t go to work in the field without women taking care of the house, while women couldn’t do their part without having food and shelter security offered by the men. The status of women was not equal in any way to men but was nevertheless necessary for family and society as a whole. Even in societies (as the Nordic) in which women had what could be described as more masculine roles, men from their side automatically took other roles. The general idea was that men and women are different in their nature and necessary for each other to create wholeness and continuity.

 To achieve their goal, the neo-feminists had to eliminate the biggest obstacle in their way. The idea is that men and women are different. By doing so, they could create an illusion allowing them to compare both sexes and put themselves on the top of their self-made pyramid. In their imaginary world, women can do everything a man can do (some claim even better), while men are obviously incapable of excelling in being a woman. From an egocentric, narcissistic perspective, it could never be different. If a subjective side is to be the person who sets the standard and then judges it with a self-proving bias, the idea that one can be like everybody, but no one can be like him (her) is understandable. By elevating women to an imaginary pedestal, a big step has been achieved in establishing the oppressed oppressor notion in society.

Many young women are attracted to this notion for the wrong reasons. All young adults growing up under the Boomer generation have been promised everything. The notion that we are special, that we can achieve whatever we want, That we deserve something, and that life is a game made for our win are all part of the notion of this new and young generation. Men and women have been fed this golden spoon. A dream that is based on wishful thinking of hoping parents. Unfortunately, life is more complicated and demanding, leaving many young adults unprepared for reality, which is hard, demanding, and ruthless. As people grow up, they realize that most people are not rich, famous, and not extremely successful. And for women, a serious challenge exists physically and economically in bearing children. This generation of lost women had to face reality, showing them that life is not what they thought it would be, comfortably positioning them in a self-imposed position of victimhood. As most women will not blame their parents out of love or already blame their parents for too many things, an alternative had to be found.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not blame parents or generations. They all came from love and hope for their children. TV didn’t help, either. After all, they are the first generation growing up in a world dominated by Disney movies and TV shows. The bottom line is that a structural dissonance has been created in many men's and women's minds between what to expect from life and what life really is. Unfortunately, this made many confused and wishful women search for a reason to explain their misery. One that will support the notion that they deserve something. One that will validate that they are the victim of an oppressive system and one that will justify their feeling of superiority. Not surprisingly, the Neo Marxist feminism ticks all these boxes.

One of the main problems with adopting the Neo feminist agenda is that it requires women to adopt its ideas and integrate them into their personality and self-identification. Once a woman has integrated into Neo feminism, everything is seen from that length regardless of reality itself. It becomes a game of how it feels instead of what it is. Paradoxes are unavoidable as most women in the West do not live in a patriotic world with no real aggressive and oppressive masculinity. Most importantly, Neo, feminism does not elevate women to a state of happiness and self-fulfillment. Oppositely, over time, most of the neo feminists find themselves lonely, angry, in bad relationships with their partners, and many times without a relationship at all. At this point, many women will double down on their madness and blame men for not reaching their standards. They will explain to themselves that kids are not the biggest source of happiness and fulfillment but a hurdle that should be avoided. Women who oppose neo-feminism and prosper are seen as the enemy on the women's front. And eventually, any social resistance to their narcissistic demands is categorized as a bigot, misogyny, phobic, or just men. It is a tragic paradox. One that cages many women in a corner that brings them misery. 

Old good feminism is one of the West's most meaningful and important movements. The notion of equality in front of the law is unquestionable. The equality of opportunity (not outcome) harms a functioning and healthy democracy. Regardless, equality in front of the law does not mean equality in personal relationships. In any group of people, no one is equal. Each person brings to the table their unique capacities and problems. Asking people to be more of what they are not for the sake of self-elevation is a bad tactic for healthy relationships. Pretending that oppression exists in a relationship that has been created by free choice is absurd. Explaining to a person he is bad at his core can not produce trust and love. Explaining to yourselves you deserve anything or that you are socially superior due to being born with a certain sex is unrealistic. There is nothing good or positive about the first principle of neo-feminism. It is destructive and oppressive for any person adopting it.

I believe most men and women would love to have a functioning long-term relationship with the other sex, but they are in dire need of guidance and forgiveness. Many people are missing a healthy path to walk by. One that will show them how to love instead of hate. A practical explanation that will remind them that they are not the same but complete each other. One that is based on trust and dependence. Not as enemies or oppressed people but as a couple that chooses to fight together the complicated process of succeeding in life and creating a functioning, happy family with kids and a supporting cycle of friends. I believe many people need to be reminded that their life is good and that their own demons are the main obstacle to their happiness. Life is definitely hard and demanding, but it is and has always been the case. Society and its individuals exist to support each other toward joy, love, happiness, and acceptance. On many levels, it seems neo-feminism is contradicting many of these pursuits. I find it hard to see how a philosophy that is busy hating and ridiculing 50% of the population can promote anything good.

Feminism has been hijacked by a group of fanatics who couldn’t leave the battlefield after a clear victory. A group feeds on young women by developing negative feelings about the world, their place in it, and themselves. As the rate of marriage falls, the amount of single-family homes increases, and a general divide is everywhere. I believe it is time we address this issue, give it a name, and start to tackle the problem. Men, as a whole, are not toxic, and women, as a whole, are not great. We are all humans trying to make the best of the little we have, and we need each other to achieve it. Purpose is born out of creation, connection, and effort. We are all good and bad. We will all prefer love over hate and prosperity over misery. Men and women are different, and they need each other. Most importantly, we are all in it together, whether we like it or not. It is time to stop this extremism, look each other in the eyes, apologize, and forgive. Let's celebrate feminism for what it achieved and move on together toward building a better society. Neo-feminism is a cancer that is eating us alive. We need to stop letting our demons guide us. We can do better as men, women, and society at large.

 For more interesting conversations about complicated subjects, click here.

If you like what you read, please consider subscribing to my newsletter.

In my books, I cover important topics in dept, hoping to start constructive conversations and promote a better future. Click here to see my books.

Should We Save Democracy?

Democracy is part of the Western culture. It has been developed and maintained by its people as part of their development. For many people in our current generation, democracy is a given. They have been born in this system, raised in it, and educated to see it as the best option available for human governance. Wars in recent decades have been fought under its banner. Making its defense the primary justification for violence all over the world. The West and the world as we know it today exist thanks to democracy and its values.

After many generations living within a democratic framework, people find it hard to truly define what democracy is. Or at least the fundamental ideas that support it. We all know how to repeat that democracy is a governing system that promotes freedom and equality. We all hold the notion that it is a governing mechanism that allows people to elect people for the people and promotes fairness and accountability. Regardless, when asked, most people are not aware neither of how young is the concept of democracy nor what were the fundamental philosophical ideas that brought it all to be. 

Democracy is revolutionary for many reasons. It flipped the concept of governance on its head. Before the creation of democracy, as we know it today, all governing systems were created to support the ruling class. Kings, aristocracy, tyranny, and autocracy are built in a way in which the concentration of power and unlimited control support the ruling class. In such a system, the majority of the population exists to support the ruling class. Their rights are limited to nonexistence, laws are made and changed by the ruling class, and oppression is part of the system. Democracy is different. It is the first system that comes from the people for the people. As such, the interest of the people takes the main stage. A separation of forces exists between the ruling, judging, and enforcing powers, creating a balance of power to protect the system and its people. In a democracy, the government exists to serve the people. It is a revolutionary idea that cannot be taken for granted. After all, in the majority of the world, for the most significant part of human history, this was not the way we did business. This principle underlying the idea of democracy and defining it is a fundamental concept we should keep in mind throughout our investigation. This principle by itself should always be the first standard with which one should evaluate the state of a specific democratic system and its legitimacy.

A long and complicated philosophical path has been taken in the West to achieve what many people see as obvious. To create the system and justify it, a long process of thinkers had to develop, debate, and establish ideas about the human condition that allowed the creation of such a revolutionary system. Human rights, duties, equality, freedom, and states were not evident at all. Nation-states did not exist before the 17th century in Europe. Passports did not exist before the second world war. Income tax was uncommon before the middle of the 20th century, and a court system equal to or above the governing elite. Democracy as we know it today is young and can be seen as experimental. The US can be seen as the first one to establish it 200 years ago, while Europe, in its majority, didn’t establish it much later. In some cases, toward the end of the 20th century, and in others, only after WW2.

There is nothing obvious about our current society. Making it vulnerable to attacks from outside and from within. The core ideas holding democracy are the cornerstone of the system itself. They exist to protect, justify, and defend the system. If not withheld and constantly reinforced, nothing will stay in the basics of the system, allowing it to survive and grow. The separation of the three heads of democracy is fundamental and should be emphasized. It protects the system from itself. The idea that government power should be limited by predetermined standards, upheld by a separate body, should be restrained by the natural process of concentration of power. It promises by itself the incapacity of a momentary electorate to take over the system. The limitation of the judging arm as a supervisor and watchdog by itself limits its power to a certain extent. Making it a great balancing force. The third part of this trio is the executing part, which by itself is problematic. The correct line to draw in this case will concern only the inner population executing units. The governing part directly commands the military, making it irrelevant to our conversation.

On the other hand, the police, which are in charge of executing laws and keeping orders, are in a democratic structure independent to a certain extent from the governing party. Its original purpose is to keep the citizens safe in their own cities. Working for the sake of the safety of the citizens. This claim is more complicated to evaluate as the state of this separation in most Western countries is not clear-cut. Making it by itself a complex subject. Nevertheless, some level of autonomy exists, as the police force is not operating as a private army of a politician, making it separate and autonomous to a certain extent.

Following several generations of peace and home, it seems the Western societies and the democracy that support them are falling apart. A general dissatisfaction is felt all over the West. Creating waves of violence and polarisation of its people. This process has been observed in the last 20 years, accelerating in recent years. It seems we are living in a “Democratic Crisis.” Putting all the project in question. This is seen all over the Western world and can be identified by the decline in trust in the governing institutions, the rising corruption seen all over the West, the polarization of its population, and the waves of violence erupting more often than before. The development of democracy is at a crossroads. The rise of communist ideologies can be seen as promoted within Western society. A growing part of the population seems dissatisfied with the current system, making the conversation and request for a better, valid, and relevant alternative.

To better understand our options, I believe we need to start by understanding the problem at hand. It seems the issue has to do with the deterioration of everything that made democracy possible to begin with. It is a fact that on many levels, the outcome of the last 20 years has not been favorable for a big part of the population, regardless of the leaning of any specific government in this period. It seems democracy has failed many people, making them want to explore alternatives to avoid continuing with the current state. As I wrote in one of my previous book called  “Back to Ourselves,” many extreme changes happened to us in the last 150 years. Changing the rules of the game and creating a new reality. The changes speed and impact did not give enough time to assimilate and regroup before moving forward. Leaving us vulnerable to small social issues that became, over time, the foundation for the reality we are currently living in. It seems we have walked a long way without reevaluating the philosophical and practical ideas that hold democracy. I believe the irrelevance of the current Political Right and Left (Republicans and Democrats) is a direct consequence of that process. They are both running after their own tale. Concentrating on solutions for the symptoms and not the sickness of our society.

The general dissatisfaction we are currently experiencing is the end of a process that evolved for a few decades. The division of society and it's leaning toward extreme left or right are a clear symptom of this process. Covid definitely didn’t help in any way. The West is currently at a crossroads in which a change is inevitable. The most relevant questions are what change it will be, who will lead it, and whether it will create a better future. Looking back on Western society, many similarities exist between our current state and the late  18th century. Back then, society was in the process of changing its fundamental governing structure hand in hand with the elimination of the power the traditional Christianity and the church had for centuries. This societal change, led by the Enlightenment movement, has redefined society and its human condition. It allowed democracy to emerge after over 1,700 years of absence in the West. Establishing new philosophical ideas that lead the people to demand a new order.

The striking similarities can be seen everywhere. The redefinition of words and concepts, the increased disparity between the ruling and the working class, the development of new dogmas, and the deep understanding of a coming change are all parallels. Democracy as we know it today has been created, formed, and spread based on the thinkers and actions of that period. It shaped the new man as part of his nation, introduced the concept of subjectivism, and laid down the philosophical basis for the majority of the socialist movements that evolved since then. It was a period of revolt and change. One that arguably was much needed. Redefining Europe as a whole and the rest of the world with it. In their book “The Fourth Turning,” Neil Howe and William Strauss Spoke of a cyclicality observed in human evolution. The general explanation is that every four generations, society reaches a point in which the system no longer satisfies the needs of the young generation, bringing to war and destruction, allowing the reconstruction of a society that fits better the needs of the people fighting their fight. Many people who consider themselves knowledgeable conclude that we are in a fourth turning moment. Making the issue a problem that will pass if we let the time do its thing. Their underlying assumption is that while a change is needed, the new system rebuilt by the new generation will be a different variation of what we know with a twist after the hardship to come. Their assumption is based on a recency bias. One that assumes that if things were in a certain way until now, they would probably continue in kind of the same way.

I will argue differently. I believe the democratic establishment is at risk. The majority of the people who address this crisis as a “Fourth Turning” miss the biggest picture. Democracy is young and fragile. The system has failed many people in the last 20 years, creating a new generation that does not take for granted that democracy is an absolute good. It is not evident to me that democracy will prevail this time around. Socialism is on the rise, hailed by many young adults. The incapacity of the Bommer generation to justify democracy doesn’t help either. If history can teach us anything, I would say that all the foundation for the general collapse of democracy has been laid out in the open. It is just a question of how much more deterioration is needed and where the alternative will come from. Organizations such as the WEF that aim for a one-world technocrat government, the rise of the Chinese, and the power grab of many Western governments are all powers that push society into such alternatives. The voices supporting democracy are fading away as they find little explanation to justify their failure in the last 20 years.

History can be seen only from a specific point of view. One that follows a particular pattern. History, as a general concept, does not exist. It is everywhere and always a well-defined social process, concentrating on its advancement and consequences. If I’m right, Looking at history as the development of philosophy (engulfing in its politics. Yes, there is no politics without philosophy, but we will arrive at this point later on), It can be said that the end of history has been reached with the death of Nietzsche. This is true if one believes that no more development is possible and that the current human state is the best we can reach. I am confident that this is not the case. If this is the best humans can create, maybe the cynicism movement is right, and we have no hope. Our current state is poor at best, if not catastrophic. When writing the lines above, I’m not referring in any case to the human standard of living or its current freedom. Undeniably, we are living in the best period ever lived by humans. The technological advancements of the last 150 years, the development of free democracies, and the introduction of medicine have created a standard of living never dreamed of 200 years ago. My pessimism expressed above is unrelated to all of that, as it addresses the state of our society and the philosophy that supports it.

The great philosophers of the past have created a path that allowed us to march toward democracy. I do not doubt in my mind that democracy is the best way to govern ourselves. My point is that we are far from finishing our work. We are much closer than ever, but still far enough to call it a day. I believe that if Nietzsche was the last philosopher, the end is clear. One that will bring us back to a non-democratic governance. We will return to our old habits, erasing all the fundamental work that man has done before and for us. There is no doubt in my mind, as I wrote in my 2018 book “Back to Ourselves, that the current structure of democracy is doomed to fail. It is a natural path for any new experiment or unknown pass. It requires a long process of trial and error. One that creates some misery and harshness in its process. Nevertheless precisely, these failures will allow us to build a better structure of democracy. One that will bring prosperity, freedom, equality of opportunities, and peace to humans as a whole.

After long reflection on the subject, I came to believe the only way to save the democratic establishment is to reorganize and refine it. To make it relevant to our current existence based on this organism's development and natural evolution over time. I believe that there is a solution for this crisis that will make democracy more relevant and potentially the best governing system for humans as a whole. The fact that democracy is failing should have been predicted by many thinkers as it has been established in a different period and is by itself an experiment. Which doesn’t mean it is the wrong mechanism. It implies that a change is needed. One that takes the new developments of the last 60 years into consideration and brings back the system to be relevant for the people living in it.

As I mentioned previously, The democratic structure we knew no longer existed. Some still claim it exists mainly due to their mental need of delusion, and others due to their incapacity to accept it is lost. A change is upon us whether we like it or not. If we are to continue to live in a democratic society, we need to reshape it is unavoidable. If we, as a Western society, will not manage to do so, it is just a question of time until we lose it. It is not too late to make this change. It is going to be painful and challenging. But in my mind, any alternative is just much worse.

For more interesting conversations about complicated subjects, click here.

If you like what you read, please consider subscribing to my newsletter.

In my books, I cover important topics in dept, hoping to start constructive conversations and promote a better future. Click here to see my books.

Inquiry into the Nature of Meaning

Humans are a complex dual mechanism. On one side, we have a body, and on the other, our consciousness. Both are unstoppable and inseparable. Practically, it can be said that one supports the other, and the body maintains our consciousness while our consciousness operates our body. I refer to consciousness specifically, not our brain, as it makes a big difference. Our brain is a biological mechanism that operates as part of our body. It can continue to work without consciousness if the body is artificially maintained. This separation is crucial, as we will see, as it holds one of the main keys to understanding the human condition.

Differently from the physical world, we associate ourselves with our consciousness. While consciousness cannot exist in the physical world without its body and arguably does not exist without it. When referring to a person, we rarely refer to him/her as his body. A fascinating proof is that if a person's consciousness will be swapped with another body. People will no longer refer to the body as the person. At the same time, if a consciousness suddenly appears with another body, if showing enough proof for it, people will consider the new body as the old person (consciousness). When a person acts differently from what he is anticipating to be, sentences like “Who are you?” or “Where the husband/ friend/ brother that I know went?”. This human perspective shows how we currently perceive human existence. In many ways, it elevates and separates the human consciousness from the obvious physical mechanism called the body.

The two parts of human existence are separate mechanisms operating on different time scales. The body always operates in the present, reacting to external stimuli and maintaining itself, aiming for mechanical optimization and survival. For our body, there is no past or future, only a reaction to the present stimulus and constant maintenance for the sake of its survival. Our body functions by itself. The blood circulation, digestion, etc., are all self-operating mechanism that the consciousness take for granted. 

Moreover, for most people, it is only when a part of the body stops functioning smoothly that we become aware of it. We are aware of our eyes and sight only when something goes wrong with our eyes. We become aware of our hearing capacity only when it starts to ring or whistle, and we are aware of our heart only when it has a severe problem. To us, the body is so well self-managed that we often forget to recognize how significant it is in our existence.

On the other hand, consciousness is a mechanism mainly occupied with predicting the future based on past experiences, positioning its operation everywhere except the present. Our subconscious (which we will discuss later) is probably more attentive to the present. Managing all the external cues and connecting the data of the present. Our consciousness from the other side exists in three different states. It can operate in the past, revisiting our subjective perception of past events. It can be in the future, calculating the potential outcomes (especially the ones we prefer to avoid) or in the abstract. As a state in which wishful imaginary scenarios are constructed that are not part of our past or a real potential practical future. The consciousness is never in the present. As a processing mechanism, it is always one moment too late or too early.

Our lives have moments when both the body and the consciousness are aligned. It has been called in many names. Currently, the most spread word for it is “Flow.” This stage is usually categorized as a moment in which a person is so immersed in the present that nothing else matters. In this stage, many people lose the perception of time. We are all familiar with this state. It is always achieved when doing something we are physically habituated to do and find pleasure in doing. A “negative flow” moment is also achieved in extreme danger. In a “fight or flight” moment, our focus is so high on the present that everything around us disappears. Interestingly, moments can be categorized as moments in which our consciousness is not operating. Without any evidence, I will claim a mixture of our physical body patterns and our subconsciousness operates in those moments.

The brain and consciousness can be trained in and for different purposes. Our body can be trained toward optimization of muscle, reaction, or immunity. While our consciousness can be trained to ignore, add, or exist in different states. In our current day, both our body and our consciousness are not fully understood to us. We have made significant progress in both, but we are still far from starting to understand fully its essence or its details. Nobody can fully explain the mysteries of our body molecules, DNA, and even the functionality of our cells. When it comes to consciousness, we can map the brain and recognize patterns, but this is the best we manage to do.

We are only alive because we wake up in the morning. It is as easy as that! We cannot stop it from happening. We close our eyes when the physical system signals that it needs recovery, and after a limited time, we wake up, and here we are again. There is no nihilism in this sentence. It is just a fact we are all aware of. Our body, unlike our consciousness, is just running its mechanism. It is a question of the unpreferable continuity of any well-functioning system that is powered up and constantly continues to get what it needs to operate. On the other side, our consciousness is extremely different. It is a by-product of our body that wakes us up constantly without giving us a good explanation, as consciousness is busy calculating outcomes based on past experiences. It works by constructing inner mechanisms of “logical” and constant cause-and-effect structures. It is a reinforcing machine that is optimized to predict successful future outcomes. We know how to add things together, creating combinations that, in their turn, make new variations. After all, if one is searching to predict the future, some basic past cause and effect should exist. Without it, it is pure guesswork, which cannot be trusted for survival. In many ways, our consciousness can be described as a relentless self-correcting mechanism that optimizes for successful prediction and not survival.

When using the words trust and control, we mean predictability. Trusting someone eventually boils down to being able to predict one action. It reflects the consistency of patterns and our trust it will continue to do so. In many ways, we can trust our enemies to be who they are if they follow a certain code. Trust is a function of subjective belief in our capacity to predict one future behavior into the future. Sometimes, we agree upon it aloud; sometimes, it is part of an observation process. Control is not different. It is our capacity (or belief) that we have and will have the power to influence the future the way we want it to be. When referring to the idea that somebody is in control, it usually means that he has a conscious belief in his capacity to influence the future favorably. Anxiety comes from recognizing we do not control future outcomes, and mistrust is created when our predictive mechanism fails us. Both refer to future outcomes and our predictive capacity based on our past experience.

One of the by-products of advanced consciousness is the requirement of meaning. It is the essence of human existence and the common denominator of all of us. We require meaning; without it, our consciousness cannot truly validate its existence. Let me explain this statement. Our bodies exist as part of the physical and objective world. We feel hunger, pain, and variation of heartbeat that constantly validate its existence. The enjoyment of pain felt by some people is a consequence of the need to validate our body's existence or compensate for a lack of deeper meaning. Consciousness is not physical.

Moreover, it is not part of our present in most of our lives. In many ways, consciousness is the essence of what we call abstract, as it represents an entity that we know exists that is always there. One we cannot see, touch, or physically validate. We know it is there, but we cannot prove it. Due to that, humans require meaning. One that will justify and validate the existence of consciousness. It is an unstoppable process, as consciousness is unstoppable. It is part of the human mechanism. It is human's biggest blessing and its biggest curse.

Historically, human actions can be understood as a search and validation for meaning. Eventually, the human experience is based on the creation of meaning and its protection. It can come in many forms that all boil down to what we call Identity. Identity is meaning. It is the structure we attach to ourselves. One that allows us first to create a logical path that explains our existence and secondly (and more importantly) it validates our existence by attaching ourselves to something recognizable and accepted by other people around us (which is an extension of the physical world we are part of). As we will see later, meaning and identity come in many forms, and a lack of them will create havoc by forcing people into extremism. It is the only denominator of human existence and its capacity to flourish. All other aspects of our life are just a second or third order from it.

As I mentioned previously, conscience has two separate ways to validate itself. The first is to recognize its pattern and prove itself it is successfully constant over time and accurate in its capacity to predict itself, which is internal. The second is by external validation. This is done by associating itself with outside factors that react to it, validating its existence. It is unclear if only one can exist without the other for a functioning healthy system. Possibly, both are required to a certain extent, balancing and reinforcing each other. As we will see later, the need for power, obsessive need for control, religions, the pursuit of money, and most mental problems can be explained and traced to a lack of internal meaning or a general collapse of its validating principle. Relationships, family, and affiliation to society are also part of meaning in the form of purpose. (We will delve into it as well later on). Meaning is the essence of our existence. Whether we like it or not, it is built into us.

I believe that most, if not all, of the problems we face in the West are part of a meaning crisis. Extreme liberalism, depression, suicide, hate, extremism, and social crisis reflect it. It is a lack of internal meaning and a lack of positive and constructive external validation that makes us feel lost, detached, lacking control, anxious, and angry. God gave humans an internal source of validation by creating a relationship with his consciousness. In my latest book, “The Human Perspective- New Lessons from Genesis,” I discuss the idea that God can be seen as our consciousness. Based on that assumption, the “Death of God,” referred to by Nitzsche, can be seen as the death of our clear connection and pursuit of understanding with our inner world. By reaching this point, the only validation people are left with is external, making them more meaningful than they should be. This is also reflected in the little space and studies we apply to Philosophy in our current society. Philosophy is an alternative path toward internal meaning. By “killing our gods” and leaving philosophy behind, our capacity to understand, speak, and positively evolve from our meaning crisis seems complicated.

Before moving forward, I will add a short discussion about the subconscious. Without it, we cannot move forward peacefully and reach true conclusions that can help us understand ourselves, life, and the possible solutions. Zigmond Frued has popularized the concept of the subconscious. Making it familiar to most of the Western world. To explain it simply, subconsciousness is part of our thinking mechanism that works outside our consciousness. It works faster and on a larger scale. It constitutes a lot of different patterns and memories we cannot always recall. It is a mechanism that spits to the consciousness conclusions. Some parts of the subconscious process can be reached by a concentrated effort (as rebuilding a certain logic slower), and some other parts of it are unreachable. In other cases, we become aware of our subconscious assumptions only when reaching a new point in life.

A good example is the discovery most people reach when they first become parents. A complete set of beliefs and mental structures flood their consciousness from one moment to another. They are full of values and ideas about which kind of parent they should be (we will come back to), how they expect their spouse to behave, and what person they should become. These values were always there in the subconscious, built up over life but never addressed or reached. They become real and relevant from nowhere, moving forward to the consciousness.

While it is all true and fascinating, when it comes to meaning, I believe the role of the subconsciousness needs to be seen as a secondary machine that serves ideas to the consciousness. It is a bit like a coffee machine. It will spit coffee based on the capsule you insert into it. As long as the machine works (meaning the subconscious spits things out), what is happening in the machine is irrelevant. Life and meaning are, in many ways, all about what you do with the coffee once it is out.

Additionally, the relation between consciousness and the subconscious is not a one-directional path. Consciousness affects the subconscious and vice versa. Controlling and exploring the subconscious is a fascinating topic that can occupy a lifetime. Still, it is not relevant or practical if we are to understand the role and importance of meaning truly. The belief that there is an untouchable void in ourselves that we cannot reach and affect our lives is not helpful (and even destructive). If we are to bring ourselves from nowhere to somewhere, it is only the concentration on what we can control and our reaction to it that matters. Only our consciousness can be controlled, trained, and understood in this context. Making it the only relevant conversation worth having.

Consciousness is a given, and so is our need for meaning. It is not a question of will. As our body needs food, our consciousness needs meaning. How we handle it and the path we choose to adopt in the subject matter will determine our life, happiness, and peacefulness. There is not a single true meaning to fit them all. Oppositely, endless paths fit each person and possibly each period of an individual life. I believe that how we build and maintain this meaning makes all the difference to start with. I will develop the concept and detail it in my following posts.

When we lack purpose, life is meaningless. With a meaning, our consciousness gets lost and requires a power struggle and external extremism to validate its existence. Most people look for simple external answers to deep and complicated topics, making them vulnerable to bad actors that pull them into their madness for the sake of power and fame. I believe it is not our society that is broken but our capacity to create internal meaning and positive external validation. Only by addressing this subject can we start to understand how to get out of our current crisis united and with better youth. Our youth need guidance (and most of us, too). It is our duty to help them as they are our future. Meaning is the essence of the human experience and our shared denominator. If we stop arguing about gender, pronounce, patriarchy, politics, and all the rest of the temporary nonsense that mainly makes us feel weak, lost, and victimized, and start talking about shared meaning, internal purpose, and positive role models. Maybe we still have a chance. A chance to give ourselves and our children hope for a better future.

Overcoming Nihilism

Meaning and purpose have been part of human existence for as long as we know ourselves. Diversity of meaning has been one of the most crucial factors in the separation and division of human societies throughout history. Questions surrounding the subject have been discussed by philosophers for millennia's establishing it as the core denominator of all religions, political movements, and social revolutions. The capacity of a person to accept and respect the fact that different people have different meanings and purposes in life has been the foundation of democracy, allowing the West to prosper and reach its current stage. Christianity and monotheism, in general, are based on the need of humans to have a clear, articulated, and applicable purpose. Creating meaning for each person based on their personality. Such a frame allows societies and the people in it to concentrate on other social matters as a generally comfortable framework accepted by everyone participating in the community.

Our current Western society is evolving toward Nihilism. It is reflected in many places in the West. Making it one of the most concerning developments of the last decade. The implication of such a philosophy is destructive to any society that seeks to cooperate and evolve constructively. At its core, it contradicts the idea of society to start with. The Oxford definition of Nihilism is "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless." If I need to put it in my own simple words, I will define it as follows: The belief that our existence has no more significant meaning or importance than a rock, ant, or a tree. It is an equality of nothingness, making humans not only not important but, in many cases, less relevant than the trees in a forest. The term nihilism emerged in several places in Europe during the 18th century, notably in the German form "Nihilismus." However, it was also used during the Middle Ages to denote certain forms of heresy. The concept first took shape within Russian and German philosophy, representing the two major currents of discourse on Nihilism before the 20th century.

The recent increase in Nihilism is not surprising. The fall of Christianity, the fear of Nationalism, and the deconstruction of the historical family structure all contribute to this movement. Another factor is the recent doom day extinction rebellion that the media and our government constantly push in our faces. Concepts such as the alarmist Global Warming, Covid, the last 20 years of economic instability, and the aggressive liberal call to cancel everything we used to be proud of all bring people to the unavoidable conclusion that life is meaningless. Loneliness in big cities and the advance of social media do not help either, as it diminishes our interaction with real people, diminishing our social skills and our need for accountability. Nietzsche saw it coming and warned us about it. His full quote about the death of god goes around the lines of – "If people stop believing in god, they will start to believe in anything presented to them." Not very optimistic at its core.

The subject of Nihilism is very close to my heart, as I have fallen deeply into its shadow. It was not a voluntary choice but seemed like an unavoidable logical conclusion at the time. At first, there was something very comforting and liberating to the idea that there is no meaning or purpose in my life, as it freed me from any responsibility or demands I had from myself. The idea that there is no point as there is no meaning meant that accountability or true responsibility is needed. I was free to be nothing and do everything. A true childish dream of a dreaming Peter Pan. Unfortunately, this comfort very fast changed into darkness. The more I dug into it, the less meaning I had. The more I tried to get out of it, the more I found around me good reasons that pushed me back down. It is a hard place to be and to be honest, it almost killed me.

An interesting thing about being part of the Nihilist clan is that it reinforces itself in circles. As more people join in, less meaning things start to have around. After all, if nobody cares, many things truly become unimportant. Moreover, I noticed that for some people, The idea that they are not alone in this dark place makes them feel more powerful and important. It gives them a reinforcement and, in some way, a new meaning – To spread the gospel of Nihilism and meaning in a half-prophetic way. Funnily enough, it is a paradox, as a Nihilist who believes he has a mission by itself makes him unconsciously believe in his own importance, making him a believer in meaning itself. Maybe, it is our inner need to have a purpose for meaning or our unconscious mechanism that cannot avoid it over a long enough period.

In our current day and age, most of our environment promotes hopelessness and meaningless existence. It is everywhere. From the "end of the world" movies to the futuristic TV shows that show us how we destroy ourselves. The promotion of alarming global warming that is mainly based on twisted statistics (and no, I'm not a global warming denier), the neo-feminism that explain man they are primarily a toxic unneeded aberration of woman, and the general deconstructive movement that scream we are all bad in our core and that we should all be ashamed and disgust from our history. It is a relentless propaganda that feeds on itself—evolving as a social chimera infecting every aspect of our life.

The ease with which this idea spread seems almost too natural. It pops up from nowhere and seems to resonate with many young people in the West. I came across many young and old people explaining that there is no meaning and that any trial to create one is artificial and based on hypocrisy. After reflecting on the subject for some time, I believe that the rise of Nihilism has two requirements that allow him to flourish. One is the aggressive push for Doom mentioned above, and the second is that many people no longer have a clear and solid value proposition to hold onto in difficult times. For millennia, religion, Nationalism, and social structures were taken as an obvious given. It made everything easier as it dictated its core meaning: one that framed people's life, purpose, and role.

Many spokespersons in our current age explain that the reason for our increasing Nihilism is based on the push for Doom propagated around us. They normally pick one specific reason and make a short career out of it. Some blame the church, others the government, feminism, or the economic stagnation of the last 20 years. I have no doubt in my mind that this approach is excellent for a career, but I believe it is an easy and unsatisfactory path to take if we are to find a real solution to our problem. All the reasons mentioned above are justified. They can explain to lost souls what is happening around them. It answers the question of "What is happening?" convincingly, allowing people to repeat to themselves and the people around them. Regardless, I believe that concentrating on these issues becomes part of the problem over time, not the solution. After all, explaining why reality is problematic without outlining a real solution is no different from any other doomsday they complain about.

Following long reflections, I believe there is one denominator to all these social movements and the rise of Nihilism. It is a meaning crisis. We lack purpose, and we are told there is none. We are explained that all the ancient purposes betrayed us and that believing in one brought only misery to humanity and our world. On many levels, it is true. Many values we had have brought violence that benefited a small part of the population at best, in the price of the suffering and sacrifice of the many. Ignoring or denying it is not helpful and easy to prove. Regardless, the solution is not to get rid of it altogether.

My biggest issue with Nihilism and the reasons I believe we do not have a real constructive discourse about it is that, at its core, the ideas behind it are right. They reflect a scary truth. One that we just called bigotry and heresy for millennia. The idea is that, in the most simplistic and basic manner, there is no fundamental meaning and purpose to our life. It is a hard pill to swallow, but one we should address if we are to move forward. I genuinely believe that the only reason we wake up in the morning is because we open our eyes, and here we are. It is an unavoidable truth that we never really manage to contradict without creating tales about the afterlife, gods, and nationalist folklore. Our actions are temporary, and on a historical level, only a few people are remembered. It is all true regardless of how it makes you feel, but it is missing the point. The only point that really matters, and what I believe to be the solution to our problem, have nothing to do with why you wake up in the morning but all to do with what you do with it now that you are here. It is not an obligation; it is a choice. Which probably is the reason it is so complicated and demanding.

Meaning is a classic example of something we can do without but shouldn't. It is not given or inborn by the universe. It is created in our minds. It creates purpose, cooperation, happiness, and joy. It helps us overcome hardship and bring out the power we never believed we had inside of us. Making it the most powerful force in the human arsenal. A person can pass an entire life without meaning, holding to the idea that there is none. But in that case, his life is unimportant, and his actions are irrelevant. A person that believes in Nihilism is just waiting to die. In case the nihilistic person in question has some form of benevolence, the person will wait for its end, trying to hurt or damage his surrounding as less as possible, making him psychologically more of a disease on earth than part of a bigger interconnected cosmos (Sounds familiar Greta?). We can all live like this or just die in mass suicide altogether tomorrow. After all, there is no point. I find it to be a miserable way to live a life. One that I will not wish for any person I love. Not because it is wrong but because we can do much better.

Meaning is there in abundance if one is searching to have one. It is found in beauty, art, and music. It is there and affects all humans regardless of their culture, age, or race. The fact that we find a universal joy in music can prove that meaning exists irrespective of our conscious effort. It uncontrollably moves something in all of us. It is done without any conscious effort. Music is sound. It is the combination of sounds we enjoy hearing not for reaching its end but for the sake of the process of listening to it. It has no purpose, but it has a deep meaning. It is different for each of us, but it exists in all of us. This by itself shows meaning is there. We can ignore it and live without it. But if we wish and want, it is there for the grab. Most importantly, it is nice and adds to our lives. Making it a better place and giving us a good reason to live another day.

We are currently experiencing a crisis of meaning and purpose on a mass scale. We became addicted to holding into problems, making them the depressing center of our reality. Peaceful solutions require effort and a messy process of trial and error. Something many people will be reluctant to engage with as they are exhausted from the fear-mongering of the loud minority of extremism that took over our perspective. It is a challenging path that we are reinforcing and solidifying. It is a race to the bottom. Jordan Peterson said while talking to a crowd that: "There's this idea that hell is a bottomless pit, and that's because no matter how bad it is, some stupid son of a bitch like you can figure out a way to make it a lot worse." It is true and somehow became a sport some people are proud to partake in.

Meaning, at its core, is a solution. Not a perfect one, but a solution at its essence. It is what makes life count. It is a subjective purpose based on beauty and promotes the creation of more of the same beauty. We can live without it on an individual level, but on a social level, we cannot. Order is based on meaning. Love is a manifestation of our willingness to have meaning. Hope builds on the meaning we choose to allocate to our future, creating purpose. It doesn't have to be grandiose or fancy. It just needs to exist. I believe that at our core, we would all wish for health, security, and happiness for the people we love. I believe we would all prefer to be happy and not sad. That love is better than hate, and that trust is better than mistrust.

The hardest part about it is that having a purpose and holding into it is a choice. One that requires discipline and mental strength. Life is long, complicated, and usually not what we tough it will be. Living constantly tests our conviction and strength. Giving us all the reason in the world to give up and cave to Nihilism. Being alone and isolated hinders our capacity to hold onto our meaning as it puts all the weight on our psyche that weakens over time. Regardless, if we are to create a better life for ourselves, the people we love, and the future generation, we need to believe we have a purpose. Not because it is a must but because it is the only path that creates hope.

I believe in my capacity to create a better future as I believe in the capacity of humans to wish for prosperity. Some people call me naïve, and they might be right. But I would prefer every day to live in a naïve way with meaning, rather than a life based on a realistic, depressing way that will bring me nowhere good. Meaning is a choice and a responsibility. One that we can help each other hold. Not because it brings us to a known end but because the alternative is clearly getting us nowhere.

Check out my latest books or post if you want to learn how these ideas can be implicated in an educational system.

Lost of critical thinking in an era of confusion

During the pandemic, we all passed many changes as individuals and as a society. A long period of terror and confusion has been induced by the lack of clarity and incapability to fully understand what we are fighting against. One of the biggest development observed throughout the Western world in that period is the development of violence, frustration, and dichotomy. We have lost trust. Some of us in our government, some in sciences, some in their neighbors, and some in society.

In her book “The Shock Doctrine,” Neomi Klein describes in detail how the effect of an economic and physical shock can reshape society to its core. While we can disagree on how we change as a society in this covid era, I believe it is clear to all everything has changed. We all became something new, personally and as a society. 

The creation of society and its prosperity is based on some kind of social understanding and the willingness of its individuals to cooperate. This cooperation is the root of any prosperous society. Since society is based on the many actions of personal actors, the fundamental ideas of tolerance and acceptance are the core value of any productive society. Accepting others, accepting that others think and act differently, and accepting that we are all entitled to our thoughts and action, are the basis of any healthy social contract.

To maintain such a healthy relationship between individuals in a society, two things must exist: Tolerance and critical thinking. Tolerance is based on the capacity to accept that different people can think differently. Furthermore,, it is the acceptance that different thoughts are healthy and create the variety and riches of society itself. It is not only important that people think differently and can share it openly. It is a fundamental need to create progress, uniqueness, and advancement.

Critical thinking is probably more complicated but not less important. A person can question and doubt his assumptions. The world is complex and constantly changing. Many things that are true today will be false tomorrow. In many cases, many think that are good and relevant today change over time. The basic idea of critical thinking can be summarized as follows: when evaluating a thought, search to be proven wrong instead of seeking affirmation of what you already know. To pursue such a path, a person must confront (peacefully) another person holding different values. This is the only way. In most cases, a person cannot be aware of what he doesn’t know. It is a hard process that requires humility and honesty. Nevertheless, it is the only way to truly understand what is true.

In today's day and age, it seems our society lost both tolerance and critical thinking. We prefer to let the authorities dictate truths, as we are exhausted. We attack any person who thinks differently and categorizes him as a conspiracy theory radicalist because it makes us uncomfortable. This feeling of uncomfortability comes from the deep understanding that we could be wrong. We hate it! Not because we hate the idea that another person can be right. But because it reminds us how much we don’t know and how much it scares us.

Crises are temporary and pass over time, and Societal changes affect generations ahead. In this reality of fear and dichotomy, friendships are broken, and families are falling apart because of a lack of tolerance and critical thinking. Those losses and scars make us more lonely, fragile, and scared. Our society is falling apart, hailing for our government to save us all from what is eventually our incapability to recognize ourselves in the mirror. We can blame only ourselves for what we have become. Not the pandemic, our neighbors, or our government.

Let us try to listen to each other again. Accept and support each other regardless of our differences. Bring back small hopes and beautiful moments together. Slowly slowly, step by step. Because the happiness and health our each of us and our society as a whole

Learn more about the subject by reading my other post and my latest books.

Change is possible- It is a matter of how we decide to see the world.

In recent conversations I had with people around the world regarding my latest book on education and economy, I encountered a lot of reactions that expressed frustration and a lack of belief regarding a possible change. Many people correctly pointed out that the system of our days brings individuals to feels invisible, that the poor by themselves do not have the power required in front of the rich, and that the system is so strong an rooted in our society that talking about the creation of a real change is not realistic.

I notice that the majority of the people that have these opinions are expressing themselves with fear and hate. They are frustrated, concerned about growing discrimination, and tired of fighting fights they find unwinnable. Unfortunately, I understand them completely. 

The reality we are living in does not look very bright for the masses. The rich get richer while the poor stay the same; the educational system is degrading as the teachers do not have the tools and support needed to do a better job. The income of the majority of the people does not allow them to live decently while the taxes and the cooperation's profit rise. Our governments are so busy promoting their self-interest that they do not have the time to take care of their citizens, and racism is growing as people become lost and afraid of their own existence.

The reality we are living in these days is complicated. A realistic approach can very easily bring people to despair and nihilism. Something is indeed very wrong with the way we are living today. On the other side, looking back on the history of our kind, in many cases, we had to arrive at a certain extreme before we managed to get up and create a real change that counts.  

To be honest, I find that it is not our government that is maintaining our suffering (even if it is true they are helping); it is our mentality and the way we choose to see life and the action we take every day. It is true that the educational system of our days is depressive, that the media is pushing on us propaganda of fear and separation, and that the economic system we are taking part in is not helping us become wealthier or happier. But we, each of us individually, decide to wake up every day and see life the way we do.

We are led by a philosophy based on values of fear and separation, which will inevitably create a general feeling of terror and misery. We are busy looking and searching for what is wrong and different instead of praising and reinforcing what we have in common and what makes us better. We are busy, constantly concentrating on our past with frustration, fear, and anger instead of looking up to our future with hope, self-determination, and a wish for a better world. As I wrote in a different post, it is not how many times we felt that matters but how fast and motivated we get up.

The idea of separating the masses for the sake of control has existed for thousands of years. It is no longer relevant in an era in which we develop the capacity to communicate, share, and see each other worldwide. It is time to group and help each other! Let's concentrate on grouping ourselves with people we like and finding things in common instead of being busy avoiding the people we dislike and feel threatened by. By being an active part of our society, we will be able to start a change. Hate and fear weaken us and teach us how to be alone in a dark corner of despair. 

We are better than what they teach us and more powerful than what they want us to believe. Searching for our similarities is the key to a real and meaningful relationship. The path is hard and full of people that are too tired and weak to understand we can create a better world. Only by waking up every morning and giving a personal example others will get the courage and wish to learn and change. I have no doubt in my mind that effort is part of the success.

To learn more on the subject, check my recent books and other posts.

It is not how many times you fall, it is how fast you get up

Life is not a straight line. Every domain of our life has ups and downs. We are happy in some moments and sad in others. There are periods in life in which people surround us and moments in which we are alone. We are energetic and then tired. In reality, this is the meaning of life. If it were not like this, it would just be boring, too predictable and without any fun. The uncertainty in life creates romanticism, heroism, faith, and hope.

Recent research has proven that in our society, it is not talent that will always make us the most successful. Surprisingly enough, it is neither intelligent, hard work, or personal capacity, even if it helps without any doubt. The research showed that the main factor for one individual success is luck. When I encountered this research, my first reaction was to dismiss it with reluctance, as I was raised in a family that explained to me that success is part of the privileges of intelligent and hard-working people.

As with any subject that creates an immediate reluctance in my head, I decided to take a few moments to think and re-evaluate my opinion. I quickly realized that, based on my life experience, it makes sense. I met many very intelligent people living in mediocrity after a few turns in their lives exhausted them and made them decide not to try any longer. Undoubtedly, the social system we live in today is not built on values such as justice and equality of opportunities. There is no direct reward for hard work or good deeds.

On the other side, I met many successful people with a very medium to low level of intelligence or professionalism. Without any doubt, believing that being good in what one is doing will bring one success is important from a motivational standpoint. I have no doubt in my mind that effort is part of success. On the other side, it does not promise in any case success or riches.

The principle of luck is essential almost as the idea of hard work. I come from the retail industry; I own stores and have handled import and trade for nearly a decade. I trained endless salespeople and consulted a few businesses in my life. I had the pleasure of meeting all kinds of people with different personal capacities and motivations. My operation spread to many countries in different periods. In all of these experiences, I managed to find a repetitive pattern. It is not the most talented or intelligent people that finish successful, but the most motivated.

Life is random; it sometimes goes as planned and often does not. For every good day, some bad days follow. Intelligence, hard work, and practice are, without any doubt helping one to master his field, which is necessary for any occupation. On the other side, self-motivation and positive thinking brought all the successful people I know to success. They all tried and failed. They all saw their dreams shatter by a reality proving they were not the master of their own story. But they got up fast and with a belief it will work better next time. This is the real secret of success.

The Principle of life is simple –

You must work hard and aim to be the best in your field. There will always be somebody that performs better. If it does not exist now, it will appear with the time. But as the main factor of your success is luck, it is not how many times you will fall but how fast you will manage to get up and your belief in your capacity to make it happen that will bring you there. Failure is the key to success. More you try, the luckier you get.

Thomas Jefferson said: “Harder I work, Luckier I get.” Can you see it in your life?