The Required Historical Balance between Progressivism and Conservatism

The western society seems to be on are crossroad. One that has not been seen for many decades. Some will even say that we are in a potential turning point, that will change all our values and shake our culture. The clearest sign of this important moment in history can be reflected by the concerning social divide seen all over the west. It varies in its degree in different country but follow the same trajectory. One of self-destruction. If we are to understand how to overcome this divide and rebuilt a society that is walking toward a better future, I believe we need to start by understanding what is standing behind the two opposite camp that can be identified so clearly in our current society and the imbalance threatening our society.

A period of unrest is not new or special. It is part of human history regardless of time, location or social system. It reflects a reality in which the system does not benefit a big part of the population normally created due to a disconnect between the ruling party and its people. All revolutions have sprung from such a tipping point, built slowly and exploding all at once. The reason for the revolution or the violence normally has little to do with the actual problems individual people have, but with a wide enough catalyst that will group all the unhappy people under a specific banner. While historically humanity live under hierarchical social structure with a clear elite controlling power and resources, our current structure is different. It is easy to understand how a king/ tyrant/ or elite group will go too far in the process of maintaining their own power and wealth, building resentment over time in the local population. On the other hand, the current democratic system we developed is more complex. As it promised to fight exactly this outcome.

As I explained in detail in my first book “Back to Ourselves”, democracy as we know it today is a recent phenomenon, dating less than 250 years. The US is the most radical and revolutionary when it comes to its democratic structure. Leading the way and establishing the structure many people in the west take today for granted. Europe took its time to establish the democratic system. Most of the western people are well aware of the French and their revolution, but do not know that many countries in western Europe established their democratic structure well into the 1900’s, while the eastern countries did not reach it until the fall of the USSR – less than 50 years ago. Democracy as we know it today has been built on important values that revolutionized society as a whole. Free speech, equality in front of the law and the authority of an elected changing representatives are all part of the new way western culture built itself toward freedom.

The fact that democracy worked is not obvious in any stretch of the imagination. On many levels, the system can be seen as an experiment, created by progressives that believed in the capacity of society to overcome their differences for the purpose of creating a better future for all its participants. Free market, self-autonomy, equality of opportunity and meritocracies were the foundation structure that allow the west to prosper and give to the world as standard of living never dreamed of few generations ago. As an experimental system, it has many flows. From which the biggest one is how fast can it fall back to tyranny (or at least autocracy). After all, we never had historical evidence that democracy should work. It was built on a vision and the belief that humanity can do it. for a deeper conversation on the historical variation of democracy and the danger of our current system read my post - “Should we save Democracy”).

I doubt many western people can argue with the fact the democracy as a whole is the best way to govern ourselves. While many people do take the system for granted, I have a deep believe the most if not all hold a deep understanding that tyranny, communism or a single ruler system is not superior to democracy. Regardless, looking at our current western society can give one the impression that many people forgot what the idea of democracy fights again and for. It seems a general socialist movement is becoming the dream of many people (especially the young adult), that the fear of tyranny has been lost and replaced by the wish for comfortability and that society as a whole forgot what unite us.

History can be seen as a fight between our need to conserve our security and our wish the evolve and progress. While in any other social system, the control of this process is held by a small amount of people, dictating its general direction, democracy is different. It assumes that humanity can find a balance. One that will support and cherish the culture that brought us to this great reality we are living in, while encouraging progress. It requires flexibility, self-regulation, the capacity to accept the needs of others and the willingness the believe in the good existing in all people. It is unique in the fact that it allows diversity of opinion and protect it for the greater good. Creating a continuous balance between security and exploration.  

After a long thought process, I came to realize that the current divide seen in western democratic societies can be categorize as development of two historically complementing camp, that forgot over time the need each have for the other and dig themselves into extremity. The two camps can be defined as the conservatives and the progressives. For the purpose of this writing, we will define conservatives as people that hold the belief that our culture needs to be preserved at all costs, including but not limited to our history, religion, institution, political and economic structure. The progressives from the other side can be categories as people that hold the belief it is time for a change. Most of the progressives believe that our culture, institution, history and economic structure are old, in urgent need of reinvention for the benefit of aligning with the new open, global, inclusive society we came to be.

The clear and old philosophical difference between what we used to called left and right (democratic and republican) no longer exit and has even flipped. A change that does not help to the general crisis we are currently experiencing. The left parties for decades use to represent the working people, promoting family values, supported peace, promoted liberty and freedom of speech. The right from the other side was traditionally supportive of war for the benefit of control and superiority, economic intervention, support of big cooperation and economic globalism. As of recent, it seems a shift has occurred that can be seen most clearly in the USA. The left became a supporter or war (pushing budgets to Ukraine and Israel), the support for LGBTQ has overshadowed the promotion of nuclear family, a general support of big cooperation and a general collaboration has been clear since COVID, the working people when down in the priority list for the benefit of supporting immigrant and minorities and a strong support for censorship has appeared in the democratic party. From the other side, it is the right that recently talk about controlling deficits for the benefit of the working people, the need to stop promoting wars, express resistance the big corporations take over, preaches family values and liberties.

Like many other people that considered themselves left leaning a decade ago, I came to realize that I’m currently considered a right-wing supporter. This shift can be attributed in some part to my personal development following COVID but mainly due to the political shift mentioned above. Many famous people have experienced the same. Examples are – Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Brett Weinstein. Historically it is not the first time the poles are changing in such a manner. The National Socialism and the fascist movement both started as left wing movement and shift in a crucial moment in history to the right under the progressive banner. The best way to understand this phenomenon is to look at the political scene not in terms of left and right, democrats and republican but in terms of Conservatives and progressives. Let me explain you why.

 The power struggle and its outcome between progressives and conservatives is as old as humans. It is the foundation of most of our myth and appeared until recently in all the best movie. It is the struggle between the need to preserve and maintain security in the price of rigidity and possibly structural social limitation vs the need to progress, regenerate and explore in the price of chaos, new and dangerous. Most of our myth are built this way, represented in two different story lines- the first is the story of a rigid and old king (sometime a tyrant) that uphold order and demand discipline that do not benefit any longer the reality. The son or protagonist is normally going in a journey that involves exploration and bravery leads him or her to a direct confrontation with the authoritarian system (normally with the help of an old mage, a magical creature, a snake or a guiding soul). By killing the system and its leader the protagonist creates a new system that has been regenerate and rebuilt based on the progress needed, creating a better environment for all. In this case the story is depicting the need of the progressive side to fight back in case the conservative side went too far and became tyrannical and not beneficial for the people.

The second story normally depict a protagonist that live in a chaotic reality. One in which chaos reign due to a general disaster, prolonged war, invasion, a takeover of an extreme socialist movement or machine that had overturn reality. In this story line, it is the protagonist capacity to follow a path based on his wish to restore order that make him the leader needed. Allowing him to build a following big enough to tame the chaos and reestablish a secure system for society at large. In this case, it is many times his connection to an old civilization, a prophecy, a vision or enlightenment that pushes the protagonist. In many case his mission as part of a resistance or feeling of self-responsibility allow him to win his fight, sometime in the cost of his own life. This second scenario depict a world in which the progressive part of society had gone too far, leading society into chaos. It is a quest toward reestablishing order and save the culture, history or roots of the people that is needed to recreate security for the benefit of all. For a very long and interesting reading on the subject, I will recommend Jordan Peterson book “Maps of meaning”.

While the two powers can go out of balance, it seems most likely that through our human evolution, it is exactly the healthy balance and support of both groups that allow humanity to prosper.  After all, security and familiarity are what allow human to spend time developing new inventions and philosophizing, while it is exactly this progress that render a system progressive and prevent rigidity and tyranny. Meaningful progress requires many time the existence of security and stability. it is the peace of mind, time and resources that allow many individuals and societies to see beyond the frame they are in. Maslo’s hierarchy of needs introduce the idea that as humans, we need to achieve or to obtain certain basic needs before moving to a more abstract and creative aspect of the human capacity. In many cases, it is not the wealth or plenty of an individual that allow him to spend time on creative work and self-development, but the general security and prosperity of the society he lives in. It is the structural culture that create a comfortable environment to develop progress. After all, if one is mainly busy with the daily need to find food, shelter and security for the next day, little time he will have to philosophize or be creative. Survival mode is not productive by itself. It is the existence of security and comfortability that bring forward the human capacity to think, invent and progress.

In their book “the fourth turning “Neil Howe and William Straus present a cyclical pattern in social evolution. One that follow a pattern of construction after a period of chaos, that leads to prosperity, then to an imbalance between the forces in society that brings to chaos (I made some slight adaptation based on the conversation mentioned above). From their side they speak of stagnation that appear after two generation as they do not remember the chaos and mainly enjoy prosperity, leading to a general decline in the third generation that bring chaos. After giving it a lot of thought I came to believe that while the idea “that strong man create good times that creates weak man that in their turn creates bad time” has a lot of sense to it, but ignores the fact we are a political being constantly fighting to establish a balance between the known and secure and the discovery of the unknown which can bring chaos on us all. I came to believe that it is not only the creation of weak man that promote hard time, but the rigidity of a system that push its people to demand progress in the price of potential chaos. As the weak generation is not only weak but ignorant of the dangers and outcome of the chaos they are playing with.

An important aspect of Neil Howe and William Straus theory can be used for this conversation. The reconstruction of societies after period of chaos are led by a healthy mixture of the need to progress with the fear of chaos. In such periods a need to conserve what has been saved from the chaos harmonize with the wish for progress. Pushing society forward. Historically and naturally, it is a healthy combination of the young energetic and curious part of society leading the progress, leaning on the knowledge, experience, calm and conservative older part of society that allow society to prosper. In other historical cases, a group of elder was established and respected. Their purpose was not to lead (as in many cases a young leader was appointed) but to consul and create a frame of healthy boundaries. It is in historical moments in which the young lose their belief in the system or decide that nothing is worth preserving, while the old do not maintain their roles as preservers of security and knowledge that chaos start to appear.

In our current days, it seems we reach a certain extreme. One that will potentially bring chaos and destruction on us all if we do not carefully manage to rebuild balance between the two forces. As I will show in my following articles, I believe that we are currently living in such an imbalance. One that is heavily leaning toward progressivism. In my previous book, “Meaning in the age of absurdity”, I dedicate a full section to the discussion about the relation between the loss of meaning and this dangerous state. Moreover, As I showed in my book, a counter movement is unavoidable. As we have seen in recent elections in the west a strong and extreme right movement is on the rise. Reflecting partly a cry for help from the conservatives in our society. If we are to maintain peace and prosperity in the western culture, the growth of extreme camps needs to be tamed. A new balance should be established for the benefit of future generations and the survival of democracy.

While I have no doubt in my mind that the current system has been hijacked by a group that do not have the interest of the people at heart, it is the growing population of extreme progressives that support it that allow it to prosper. It does not require a degree to understand that western society is in a dire need for change and progress, as the current system do not benefit big part of its population. From the other side, we cannot sacrifice our culture, values and countries just because we are unhappy with the current reality. I truly believe that if we are to find a solution to this crisis a deeper understanding of the two camps, how they emerge and what they represent is needed. Only then we will be able to honestly speak of where we are standing and from there hopefully find a peaceful solution. After all, history has taught us the horrific danger of allowing extreme progressivism and extreme conservatism to take over our societies. While it is clear to me that many people are angry, frustrated and mainly ignorant, I doubt most of us if not all of us truly support returning to such depressing, violent and tyrannical future.

Why Words cannot be a Subjective Matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.      Having no errors or mistakes.

3.      Proper or appropriate in a particular situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflection on the Outcome of Believing Words are Violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The State of Marriage

The state of marriage and its success rate have constantly declined in the last decades. Based on recent data, the marriage rate in the West has felt somewhat 40% over the previous 30 years. While data shows the rate of divorce felt, the data is misleading as it represents a crude number that does not take into account the marriage decline rate. To make it simple, if the number of divorces stays the same while the number of marriages diminishes by half, it means that the true amount of failing marriages doubled. Based on recent stats, half of all first marriages end in divorce, and the rate of second and third marriages is drastically higher.

Moreover, a recent study shows that nearly 25% of kids under 18 grow up in single-parent households in the US. In her book “You Can Be Right, or You Can Be Married,” Dana Adam Shapiro wrote that as few as 17 percent of couples are content in their marriage. Vicki Larson, journalist and co-author of “The New I Do, Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists, and Rebels,” cites that six of every 10 married couples are unhappy, and four out of 10 have considered leaving their partner.

This by itself is troubling. It reflects a deep problem in our current Western society. One that affects the level of happiness and productivity of our adult generation and will directly impact the next one. The reasons given for reaching this point vary. Women's liberation, the fall of Christianity, the internet, and the general Disney model of love contribute to this trend. Couple therapy became a flourishing industry together with lawyers who specialize in divorce. YouTube is full of channels that cover all topics related to these issues, giving each unhappy person the exact answer he or she was looking for to validate their perspective. As a person who took part in numerous couples therapies and spent some time searching for answers online, I can attest to that fact. It is an industry of misery, one that is probably based on a lot of good intentions and some profit-seeking.

After hearing many professional talking points about the subject of couple problems and the web of possible solutions, I realized that most, if not all, of the current conversations on the topic are based on the capacity of couples to develop healthy communication. One that will allow them to share and accept each other, feel safe, and become one happy cell. The focus on this topic is normally more demanding from men as, by nature, women have a higher capacity to connect to their emotions, give names to them, and speak about them. Some new development psychology movement has started recently to popularize the topic of attachment problems, promoting the idea that by understanding and focusing on this topic, couples could understand each other better and heal together into a better-shared future.

After giving it some thought, I came to realize that the main issue with our current mating world can be referred to as a “Problem of first principle.” Let me explain. In essence, people today don’t enter into relationships knowing consciously what they are searching for. Most of the generation that grew up on Disney just want to be in love, search for a magical mystic connection, and want to be understood. By itself, those are all noble causes, but there is no clear understanding of what a person wants and needs in a relationship in the long run. Many people will search to be understood and fall in love more for the sake of being in love than anything else. Disney and Hollywood's dream of happiness ever after played a big part in this. Eventually, in most of the movies, the story concentrates on the meeting process, the shared struggle of two people against the world, and finishes at the wedding. Doing so made us all unconsciously programmed with a clear vision of how things should look from the start. We all search for and create it by acting as closely as possible to this model. By doing so, we concentrate on the wrong thing. We choose our mates based on an emotional reaction based on a fictional dream nobody lives in.

Like all the good magic stories, it is a question of time until the magic disappears, and we are left with the reality we put ourselves into. It is part of any long-term relationship. For some, it requires time, and for others, a baby or a misfortune. Eventually, all relationship reaches this point. It is the moment one realizes that the person he is spending his time with is no longer reflecting the image one has built for himself in his head when the magic is up. This happened for several reasons. First, when we fall in love, we do so by creating an image of the other person that is half based on the actual reality and half on what we would like and want the other person to be. It is never really based on the actual person. We develop feelings toward a representation that mixes what we need, dream, and wish for. Secondly, as time passes, people change. It is part of life.

Sometimes, people change in a manner that fits the other person's mental image. Those are by far a minority of cases that do not represent the experience of most couples. This change process repeats itself many times during any long-term relationship, building one on top of the other. In this process, not only does one partner change, but the person itself changes simultaneously. As both partners are changing, it is just a question of repetition before the couple reaches a point in which they can no longer be recognized as the one at the beginning of the process. It is an inevitability of life. Third and most importantly, we are creatures that excel in adapting to living in a world where we get bored very easily. The good and exciting traits that we find so unique in a person become the norm, and we start taking them for granted, making only the problematic aspect of the other person float. This is all part of a normal relationship that started based on emotionally Disney-structured love.

Eventually, after a certain period of marriage, many couples reach a point where they see their partner for who they are. Not because they were hiding it but because the magic of being in love diminishes. In many cases, a person will become highly aware of the other person's true nature and mainly focus on his partner's undesirable traits. It is a kind of Bias to the negative. At this point, sentences such as “You changed so much,” “Where is the person I married,” and “Why are you so…” start to appear. In reality, those are natural stages of any long-term relationship. It is the hard part. The part that actually builds strength and true meaning in the relationship itself. Only by overcoming it can a couple start to create a real relationship built on trust, appreciation, and acceptance. One that is not based on uncontrollable feelings but meaning, shared purpose, and acceptance based on both partners' actual personalities and needs. It is part of any maturation process. One that is not easy requires courage and, as we see around us, fails many times.

Many couples divorce at that stage, while others live miserably together. Circling and spiraling around frustration with a hidden wish, the other side will understand and finally change. I will tell you something right now: your partner will not change and will not become the person you wish him or her to be. Not because he won’t but because he can’t. He or she was never this person and never planned to be. The memories of a different person are probably more of an inner construction of the story you told yourself when you were in the middle of the ecstasy stage of being in love. It never actually reflected the person standing before you – (well, on some metaphysical level). I will add a caveat and say that, in some cases, people actually change over time following a traumatic event. In these cases, pushing aggressively into the face of the person how unhappy the partner is with the change and insisting he should come back to what he was is genuinely destructive and unhelpful.

There is nothing wrong with growing apart. We all experience it in our life. Friends in the early period of life don’t always fit the person we become when we grow up. It is part of life and evolution. Regardless, it should be seen differently when it comes to marriage. Marriage is a different game with a different purpose. Especially when kids are involved. Marriage is a commitment. One that is built to maintain structure for the creation of a family. Divorce without kids is a bureaucratic hustle that should make any person think twice before entering into it if no wish for kids exists. Kids are the reason for the commitment to holding an accountable structure that will allow them to survive and even flourish. We enter into marriage for that purpose, which should be the most important reason to ensure it works well.

When presenting this topic to many people, the argument I encountered many times was – “It is better for kids to have a happy divorced marriage over unhappy married parents.” While I agree with this argument on many levels, it is not what this conversation is about. As parents, we are the first and most important example kids grow into. They absorb and imprint some unconscious ideas. The parents' structure, love, availability, and happiness will guide kids into adulthood and be their north star. Without a true example of responsibility, happiness, and good communication, kids grow up in a world where they are unaware of what a healthy relationship looks like. Moreover, The idea that life is hard but that it can and should be handled with the utmost courage and responsibility is lacking in a divorced family. Concepts such as compromising for the greater good, overcoming difficulties, and the notion that life is not perfect can all be learned from parents who manage to create a healthy and stable household, regardless of all the hardships.

Good things are hard to get and require hard work in the process. Marriages are not different. We can choose the wrong people for the right reasons or the right people for the wrong reasons. Marriage is not about what we did and who we were, but what we have right now and how we can make it work. It is unavoidable that a couple will grow apart at a certain point in time. The needs of both of the people involved will certainly change. It is undoubtedly true that in certain periods, it will feel as if it will be better to be alone than together. But this is not the game played in a long-term marriage. Love is something you build! There are no bad reasons to fight for love. It is hard, demanding, and sometimes seems impossible. But nothing worthwhile is easy, and children are the biggest, if not the only, real responsibility we have in life.

If you find yourself unhappy in your marriage, please remember that it is normal. It happened to all married couples. The difference between the one that survives and the one that fails is not that hardship doesn’t come their way. It is all about their capacity to understand what they are fighting for and their willingness to sacrifice for it. Your partner will not change in the way you wish for just because you do, but if you are lucky, he or she will be willing to listen to your needs, express their own, and find a way to make it better together. In the long run, you deserve a good marriage worth fighting for. And if you don’t find it to be true, your children definitely do. This is the purpose of marriage in the first place.

 If you like the content please consider subscribing to my email list. By doing so, you are helping me taking another step in my wonderful journey. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.