The Political Aftermath of Covid

The post is part of a chapter in my book “The Slow Walk to tyranny”. Learn more about my book by clicking the link.

The effect of COVID-19 on society and the political system can be considered one of the most meaningful destabilizers to Western democracies since the French Revolution and the Civil War in the United States. It changed many things and opened many doors which arguably should have never been opened. The topic is not widely addressed, and I believe it is not understood correctly by many. Nevertheless, it marked a drastic change that has not been concluded or brought to its end. For many people, the Covid period is an emotional black hall that should not be addressed. The emotional weight, the many controversies about its origin, and the real health impact on society are still unclear, and for many, they are better left alone. It was a tragic moment that changed everyone's reality, changed how we see health, and changed our interaction with society, our friends, our neighbours, and our government. While I have a lot to say about the subject in general, for this book, I will concentrate only on the political aspect of this period and how it affected us as a society. I will avoid speculating on medical data and its origin or making judgment calls about people's behaviour. I believe the line that the government crossed in this period is so meaningful and impactful on the structure of democracy that this topic, above all, should be the first and maybe only conversation we should have at this moment.

In a democracy, the relationship between the government and its citizens should be a relationship of service. The government, elected by the people, functions as a management body that should promote the healthy and productive function of the market by overseeing it and limiting it in the form of regulations and laws. The process in which it is done should be straightforward and require a vote of the elected representatives after passing a process of scrutiny and numerous committees formed by professionals, overseen by the ruling system. In a democratic system, government power is theoretically limited by the Constitution and the court, both in its reach and capacities. Preventing extreme oppression of minorities or the takeover of a tyrannical group by manipulating the system. From the citizens' side, democracy promises freedom, private ownership, transparency, and equality in front of the law. Due to its Constitution, the US has a more solid foundation in reference to freedom than other Europeans. Regardless of the clarity and variation of constitutions, Freedom to express oneself, ownership of properties, and the right to defend oneself, work, gather, and move are all rights shared in Western democracy. It is exactly these rights added to equality of opportunities and equality in front of the law that people expect their government to hold and fight for. Not so long ago, many people sacrificed their lives fighting for these values and rights, allowing the Western alliance to win the Second World War and paving the way for a freer, more equal, and prosperous world.

Accountability of the government was always on shaky ground in the West. Most citizens accepted on themselves that a limited amount of corruption existed in the system and lived with it. Some fought it more, and some others less. For many people, the belief in their capacity to replace the government in the next election and the overwatching eye of the courts sufficed. On many occasions, if politicians crossed the line, they resigned by themselves due to social pressures and to avoid public humiliation. Investigative committees have been established over the years to protect the integrity of democracy and keep politicians at bay, promoting government transparency. Over time, a general equilibrium has been established, dictating the relationship between the government and its citizens and their limitations. This general equilibrium and its basic assumptions are what I define as "the Western democratic social contract." Not like the Social contract discussed by many great philosophers (Hobbes16, Lock17, and Rousseau18), which delves into a philosophical argument regarding the original state of humans and how we come to be a society, The social contract I'm referring to is only quasi-philosophical and address only the current status quo, ignoring anything that came before it. Practically, it refers to the set of beliefs all citizens in the early 21st century held regarding their relationship with the government, its role in society, the general structure, and its limitations. I call it quasi-philosophical because this "agreement" or set of beliefs held by the public is originally built upon a constitution and the foundation of democracy as a whole. There is nothing philosophical about it once it is written and integrated into law. On the other side, and as I will show in a moment, it is somehow philosophical because the system and the social contract at its core hold true only as long as the government upholds it. From this perspective, the social contract is not held on equal footing but is based on the belief we all hold as citizens that the government will hold its end of the bargain. After all, the government can break it at any given moment. The power is always in its hands. Furthermore, many of the assumptions held concerning the "Western democratic social contract" exist only because they were never really tested. We just all consciously or unconsciously prefer to believe they are true.

A great example of this is the case in many European countries. In most countries, the people agreed to not hold any weapons, allowing the government to monopolize guns. The assumption underlying this agreement between the citizenry and the government is that the government from its side will never use it against its law-abiding citizens. Practically, the only reason this assumption holds true is just because it has never been proven wrong. The harsh reality is that if this assumption does not hold, Most European citizens will be unable to defend themselves. Hopefully, it makes the Second Amendment of the US Constitution more relevant.

The Social contract creates a status quo and stability for society and the political system. It creates boundaries to the game we are all playing and allows people to concentrate peacefully on their own business. It is a fundamental aspect of a functioning democracy as it is for any other social game we decide to play. It builds trust and promotes healthy collaboration. Covid changed it all. It was a tragic moment that broke the status quo and the social contract. It was neither the Virus nor the potential danger. It was the actions that governments worldwide almost anonymously decided to take and how they executed them. Actions that only a few years before Covid would have been unimaginable in a free democracy. Actions that used to be associated with communist regimes in China. By doing so, they crossed a line by changing the game's rules and breaking the social contract. Many, if not all, governments in the West decided to take an anti-democratic approach, closing by force the economy, locking citizens in their homes, limiting their movements, capacity to work, meet, and mainly having the freedom to choose for themselves. This decision and many other policies that followed were imposed as decrees that never got voted on or have been only in a later stage. A general censorship campaign has started for the sake of "protecting" adult-free people from being exposed to what the government arbitrarily considered to be "misinformation" and "Disinformation." They forced people to vaccinate as the only route to get back limited freedom and imposed draconian measures on all the uncomplying population.

Questions relating to the necessity of these measures and the efficacy of their outcome are not relevant to this discussion. Personal opinions or the answers to these questions do not affect in any way the validity of the problem I'm trying to raise in this conversation. The only relevant aspect of the government's draconian actions is how they were taken and their implication concerning democracy and the existing social contract. It is all that matters in the long run and the source of many problems that evolved since then. A line has been crossed that was never crossed before. It broke the structure we all believed we were living in. Opening the door to chaos, violence, and exponential disintegration of democracy. The main issue with crossing this line is that we never reestablished a new frame or contract that clearly limited the game's rules. We just all understood that we were living in a new reality in which the old rules no longer applied. The terror associated with facing the unknown spread in the system, creating chaos as a lack of trust and violence started to spread. I will even go as far as to say that the violation of the game's rules had such a profound effect on the population that it affected all aspects of life for most citizens, promoting distrust in our neighbours, friends, family, and communities.

One of the most devastating effects of breaking the social contract we all used to hold is that it pushed us all into chaos. This chaos prevents us from framing the reasonable expectation we can have regarding the political power the government can have on us. In short, it broke our belief that we are living in a real democracy that has a system in place to protect both its citizens and itself from tyranny or autocracy. A clear example of this can be seen in how politicians in recent elections addressed their opponents and the extreme belief people hold regarding the potential outcome in case some opponents win. Since Covid, we have seen in several elections, including the one in the US, doomsday predictions about a dictatorial takeover of the right and the left. The fact that citizens are willing to hold these ideas as truth and have a real fear of such a possible future is a clear symptom of the non-existing social contract and the confusion about the validity of the structure of democracy itself. The general chaos built as the game's rules crumbled, turning people against each other. As time went by, politicians became more vocal and extreme in their tone, accusing their opponents of Fascism and tyrannical ambition and even suggesting similarities with Hitler. Elections in many Western countries turn into a fear festival. The outcome of this change is that for many voters, it is no longer a question of the best candidate to promote a better future but avoiding the next dictatorial takeover. Fear is a horrible virus created by our incapability to control the future. It is the outcome of facing the unknown, brought by the realization that the game's rules no longer stand. Without a clear structure, no trust can be achieved, and the most horrible scenarios seem more realistic than ever. The division and extremism all over the West is a direct result of the notion we all have that we are no longer living in what we consider until recently to be a fair, free, and equal democracy.

Another outcome of the breach of the foundation of democracy seen in the post-COVID era is the new outreach of government. As the rules have been broken, a new step into new territories has been made. Questions regarding how far a government can go became a new testing ground for many Western governments. The recent increase in surveillance, the mounting amount of censorship, the open corruption, and the increase in regulation observed all over the West are undisputable. I believe that it is all part of a process taken by the government to test how far they can go.  The fact that it contradicts some fundamental democratic principles does not seem to bother them much, as many understand that the Constitution can be violated or changed. The recent call of the progressive party in the US to cancel the First and Second Amendments is a clear example of this process. The latest step taken in the UK, jailing people for expressing their opinions on social media, is another horrible step that would not be imaginable in a free democracy ten years ago. Governments that discovered their newly obtained power are searching to understand their limits. These concerning developments are playing a major role in the increasing division and polarization of society. The violent action taken by governments sets an example for many young people, legitimizing the use of violence for what they subjectively believe is a just cause. As the rule of law is falling apart, people start taking the law into their own hands. Creating new standards for what is legitimate based on their personal notion of justice.

The shift we all experienced in the COVID period needs to be addressed if we are to reestablish a functioning democracy held by the rule of law. By refusing to address this issue, we are robbing ourselves of the capacity to truly understand the source of our problem. If we are to handle with it and reestablish a stable and fair democratic system that people can trust, clear lines should be drawn again. Not based on the newest standard of tyranny but based on the old values of democracy. The old democracy dictated that the government exists to serve the people, with as little interference possible by the government under rules that allow people to be as free as possible. Without it, we cannot reestablish trust with our government, communities, and neighbours.

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. 

The Digital Bias Paradox

In this conversation, I will present what I call the “Digital Bias paradox.” This concept is affecting our lives both on individual and social levels. I define it as the beliefs formed and held by people that 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. People immersed in this bias will try to impose their beliefs on society to resolve the dissonance emerging from this paradox. Usually justifying their set of beliefs on how they feel or how they think the world ought to be.

We are living in unprecedented times. One of the most important developments of our age is the development of technology. While it has many positive aspects as a tool we can use. Like any other tool, we should be aware of its negative aspects. Social media is one of those. It allows us to connect to people worldwide while being exposed to a stream of information like never before.

Social media has two different aspects. The social part and the information part. In its early days, Facebook allowed people to stay in contact and share their lives with people they did not have the time or capacity to meet. Over time, and with the development of the platforms and their algorithms, our feeds have evolved to be much more than that. It became a new channel to absorb the news and shape our worldview.

Humans are living in a simulation. Not the one presented in the matrix, in which we are all sleeping in a water container, dreaming of an alternative reality and waiting to wake up. But a simulation in the sense that we see only what we are trained and can see. The human experience is highly selective. Out of the endless information that reaches our senses, we filter most of it and concentrate on a tiny part. It is part of the human existence. We are built this way. It is not a matter of our wish but a limitation of our capacity. This mechanism is a reinforcing loop. We see what we search for, and that creates ideas in our head that guide us to look for more information of the same type. Over time, it makes a worldview that unconsciously guides our senses toward a certain reality. Which, over time, creates what we call our belief system.

This is a known process that takes a lot of energy from us. In many cases, and especially when tired, we prefer to lean on trustworthy sources. In ancient times, it was the oracles or our leading figures. With the development of Monotheism, it became the priest and the bible. Recently, it became the expert. Advertisers know this and take advantage of it. Hitting the soft spots that allow them to manipulate our thoughts into buying whatever they are selling.

Social media has taken a new role in our lives. It replaced, in many cases, the experts and the legacy media. This development is due in many to the loss of trust in our government and authority while lacking true and admirable figures to follow in the older generation. Many young people have shifted and consumed most of their information from social media. Putting aside the clear effect it has on the capacity of young people to focus or read in-depth articles. One of the most important effects of the deployment of social media and the way we consume it is the importance this tool has in shaping the way we see the world. To truly understand how and why, we must get familiar with a concept called "Recency Bias. In simple terms, Recency bias is the tendency to place too much emphasis on experiences that are freshest in your memory—even if they are not the most relevant or reliable. This is one of the most important aspects of the change we see around us and, in my opinion, the main reason for most of the social and psychological chaos we all experience.

The algorithm running social media aims for one simple thing – To make you stay longer on the platform, like and comment as much as possible. As it requires excitement, the algorithm will lean toward showing us extreme cases of negative information. It is not the algorithm; it is us. As humans, we are more attracted to negative news and outrageous topics. After all, if everything is good and normal, it is not really interesting. We can ponder this issue and try to understand why, which is an important question. But one that is irrelevant to our current conversation. Eventually, social media evolved to be more of a tool for media than any tool for socialization. It is there to show us two things: First, it reinforces what we already believe in by showing us more data to make us feel nice, and second, it enrages us by showing us data that will make us protest and be angry.

As time passes, social media and phones have become our main source of worldview-creation tools. After all, for most people, real life in their house, social area, and city is less exciting, less accepting, and, in many cases, just boring. It is not a bug of our current way of life; it is an important part of human existence. Boringness is a sign of security. It is a characteristic of leisure. Free time and peace are needed for philosophy and personal development, and most importantly, they motivate to improve.

As we all plunge into social media and make it our main point of reference and self-worth, a few interesting things seem to happen to us. First, we become dopamine addicts who cannot control ourselves. It is an addiction like any other. Secondly, it promotes depression. This happened for two reasons – the fact that we become more isolated and the unrealistic role models we are exposed to. Thirdly, and the most relevant point to our conversation, it promotes anxiety and hate. It is fundamental to understand why this happened. As I believe it is one of the most unlooked aspects of social media. The short answer to it is this – It expose us to the worst of human experience all at once and reinforces the notion that the world is a bad place and that there is nothing we can do about it. Additionally, the most outrageous ideas are the most popular, as the algorithm sees any negative comment as a reaction to push the post forward.

I believe a few examples are needed if we are to fully understand this point. I had the chance to have a fascinating conversation recently with an intelligent woman I hold in high regard. In this conversation, I've been explained that men are toxic and dangerous. When I asked, based on what data these statements are reinforced, the woman in question pointed out that in Italy, while all crimes are in decline, the homicide of women by men is steadily rising. Since it is data we are discussing, I checked this claim rapidly and discovered she was right. As I admitted the validity of her point, the validation gave my lovely friend a backwind and a sense of rightfulness. Although there is no doubt homicide is evil, and especially the one of women, I noticed a very interesting thing in the data. The total amount of women killed by men is indeed rising, but it is under 200 a year. When pointing this point out, I noticed a dissonance in my friend's eyes, as she understood I had something to say that would contradict her point.

Her immediate reaction was to double down on her worldview. She explained to me that men need to be stopped and put on a leash, and they are all violent and see women as their personal possessions. A claim I found to be unreasonably wrong. After listening to her, I decided to raise an obvious point. In Italy, there are currently around 57 million people, of which around 50% are men. If we consider that two-thirds of these men are above 16 years old (the number is higher), that makes around 20 million potential violent murderers. At this point, I concluded that even if the total number of men killing women would be 200, that represents 0.001% of the male population. This dry statistic put my friend in a difficult position. As she started to understand where I was going with it.

 Her main problem and the reason for the rising dissonance in her head can be easily understood. In many ways, it is a clear example of the "digital bias Paradox." In her existence, and thanks to social media trends, her framing on the topic was completely different. After all, if 200 women are killed a year each on a different day, it would feel like men are killing women almost every day. A notion that could be terrifying for any woman. On many levels, it should make women worried, and it is a subject that must be addressed. The reason I pointed out this data is not to argue that we should take lightly violence toward women. My motives were in no way aimed toward defending these terrible men who probably see women as their property. The purpose of my point was simple: regardless of how it feels, the conclusion deducted from her social media experience is wrong and very troubling.

The reason this conversation troubled me to that extent was that my friend truly believed with all her heart that men are toxic, violent, and possessive based on 0.001% of men's actions. The fact was completely hidden from her. Practically, she condemned 99.99% of men as monsters without any justification. Additionally, if taking into account that 1.5% of the population are considered to be psychopaths. The fact that such a small number of them actually act upon it can be seen as a real reason for optimism. My point here is neither to show ignorance nor to attack women. I can truly understand how the structure of social media built over time a twisted reality in my friend's head. Unfortunately for her, for me, and all men out there. Her conclusion is logical if considering the simulation she was forced into.

Another example of the tragic effect of the Digital bias paradox can be seen in all that has to do with Global warming. The state of natural disaster is another fantastic example of the social media bias I encountered in recent years. To make it simple, it can be seen by the perception that people have about the number of natural disasters and its related deaths. It is easy to understand how some people can hold the view that both has increased drastically in recent years. It works on the same principle mentioned above. As we are now exposed to all the natural disasters occurring on earth and see them on our phones, the notion that they are increasing is understandable. Most of the people I spoke with are alarmed and have adopted the narrative of global warming disaster looming and developing. Most, if not all, believe that we live in an unavoidable global looming disaster. One that we don't do enough to avoid. It is a hard notion to live with as it is very alarming and simultaneously paralyzing as there is little that can be done in the matter. A lot of social anger and general frustration is based on the belief held by people that other human beings are not doing enough to tackle this imminent issue that puts all of us in danger.

Lucky us, this notion is wrong. Practically, the number of deaths from natural disasters has diminished drastically by over 90% in the last 80 years, and the total amount of natural disasters did not increase at an unprecedented pace if looking at the data for a long enough period. Regardless, the issue of global warming exists and should be addressed. However, the perception of it due to social media is unrealistic and destructive. It prevents us from having a mature conversation and doing what humans do best- Finding new solutions to our problems.

In recent years, a new term has been thrown around by the left liberals. They called it "Lived experience". While we can all have only a lived experience, the notion is worth considering. Eventually, these words are used by the youngest generation living in a digital world to express their personal overexposure to the worldview imposed on them on social media. In other words, what they are trying to say is that if taking into account only their emotional eyebrows, their exposure to terror is relentless and frightening. In many ways, it is a cry for help. Not one that should support everything they feel, but one that will assert their confusion and give them tools to overstep from the digital to the real world.

We live in a world that is shaped not based on reality but on what we perceive to be the virtual reality we are exposed to. The nature of this reality is scary and isolated. It is a worldview that pedestalizes crime, disasters, and misfortune to catch our eyeballs. The tragedy in all of it is that we didn't evolve sufficiently in the technological era to understand it. Life online is playing a vicious game against our well-being, both personally and socially. It pushes us into forming a worldview and a belief system that leaves us isolated, depressed, and anxious. The reality is that most people living on earth are good people who wish to live a happy life surrounded by people to love and be loved. Most people want and need to be part of a society and aim for peace, justice, and the flourishing of their society. Unfortunately, most of the people currently hold terrible beliefs due to their lack of capacity to relate to the life they are living instead of the world they are digitally exposed to.

A real need emerges in our society to address this topic and understand how to handle it correctly. Society is currently self-destructing due to thoughts and beliefs shaped by an algorithm that does not have our best interests at heart. Not because it is evil but because he is indifferent. It is true that a small minority of bad people exist, that some disasters happen in the world, and that people are unnecessarily dying every day. But it is not by generalizing all of us to the lowest denominator of our kind, nor by terrorizing ourselves based on the margin that we will be able to have a serious and productive conversation about how to create a better future.

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.

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.