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 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. 

Should We Save Democracy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more interesting conversations about complicated subjects, click here.

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

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

Inquiry into the Nature of Meaning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The State of Education: A conversation about Constructive Education

The world is changing. The development of the last 150 years has brought humanity to progress and evolved into a process called "Globalization." The process itself is healthy, as it connects people around the world. Promoting a general consciousness that, for the first time in history, can make us understand we are all humans. We are sharing the same planet and fighting to promote a better world. Without any doubt, ideas of fear and separation are still broadly held by many, making it the biggest challenge of our time.

Our capacity to share and create ideas between people and cultures is the primary tool that brought us the progress we are enjoying those days in the West. Nevertheless, the main obstacle to creating a better global future hides in our education. Individuals and societies are a direct consequence of local education. It is the educational system that constructs our way of thinking. It shapes the youth's main frame and creates and reinforces societal values spread into the general population.

Regardless of the technological advancement of the last 30 years, the direction seen in the academic and educational system is concerning. It does not follow the potential we all hoped for. The capacity to be exposed to vast amounts of information could decentralize knowledge. Allowing people to demand a more open and diverse approach to the rigid educational system that has existed for a long time. Unfortunately, our current era's education system teaches the young to be terrified, full of guilt, and hater. Contributing to their separation from their peers around the world. It doesn't promote progress or a society that sustains individuals. Oppositely, the recent decades have promoted values of separation and increased awareness of a subject that could be seen as being on the verge of resolution. Issues such as racism, sexism, and homophobia have become, in recent years, a central topic in the education world. The trend is very concerning for several reasons.

The first and most important reason is related to the fact that the state of racism, woman's status, and homosexual acceptance at the beginning of the 2010s could be considered a mainly resolved problem. Gay rights have been integrated or are in the process of integration in most of the West. Woman's liberation and rights have been achieved, and racism was at its lowest point in human history. This is not to say it was perfect, but we managed to reach a very advanced and positive point toward resolution. The general notion separated from the actual reality has been created by reintroducing these subjects to children and students. By resurfacing these ideas and putting them in the front, the nonissue returned to being problematic. There is something very unproductive in blowing out of proportion an issue, as it does not promote any constructive solution. Instead of integrating the success of recent decades, searching for a minor problem and making it big creates, in people, and especially kids' minds, a dissonance to promote separation, hate, and fear.

The second issue is that by making this topic the cornerstone of our conversation as social issues, our capacity to concentrate and have a real discourse about the real problems in our society drops to 0. We all have limited mental capacity, especially when handling negative feelings. Many real social problems exist, but concentrating on the wrong problems robs us of being able to address the relevant issues. Moreover, the topic itself of sexism, racism, and homophobia is not presented to the younger generation in a neutral manner that aims for any resolution that will promote love, unity, and acceptance. It is taught by angry and frustrated adults that mainly explain why the world is a bad place and how it makes them (the kids) problematic at their core.

The third issue concerns the confusion it creates in a kid's mind. I wrote a long article about the consequences of this movement in a different article called "The LGBH! Movement"! To summarize, kids are a very elastic population vulnerable to propaganda. The concept of identity and firm worldview are nonexistent. By promoting these issues, the amount of confusion created by this generation is immense and has long-term consequences for their well-being in the long run. Lenin famously said: "Give me four years to teach the children, and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." As I wrote in my article, most current social issues do not stem from a real need for social change but from confused young people who are lost. Without the capacity to understand who they are, what they want to be, or what to do in their society. These young people are lost in a world of fear, separation, hatred, and confusion. A reality I believe is directly connected to our failing educational system. 

It is normal that as the world changes, the educational system and its values will change with it. Regardless, due to its importance, it should be closely observed and scrutinized if we are to keep its positive relevance. There is no doubt that Aa change is needed in this system. Like any other change, we should be very careful regarding how we do it, as it will determine the mental stage of our children and future societies. Change can come randomly or in a controlled fashion. As the state controls most Western education, the second option is unavoidable. The issue with this point is that government changes too often in the West, making the educational system vulnerable to the wishes of the current government's momentary philosophy. As this subject is essential in our society, I believe a general standard to judge the educational system should be determined and applied. In my Book "Back to Ourselves," I laid out such a standard for our current education system, which I called constructive education. I describe it in the following way:

"Constructive education is an apolitical education that fundamentally gives an individual the tools needed to acquire information from all sorts, to appreciate and doubt the source of information in hand, and to develop his conclusions while maintaining the general understanding of what he does not know."

Our current educational system is far from this definition. It promotes hate and fear. This is extremely dangerous, as it promotes violence and separation. These feelings are easy to manipulate as they exist in many. This social weakness has been built over time due to the malfunction of our society, problematic government, and the economic devastation caused by the explosive national debts that impose unproductive taxes on the masses. The need for better education is urgent. In many conversations I had with people around me, I realized that most people in the West understand that something is wrong with education these days. Many are trying to find simple answers to complicated questions. In many cases, after a short evaluation of the situation. Many conclude that the problem of our current educational system is related to the institution itself, the teacher's quality, the size of the classes, or the program itself. I believe the problem is deeper and more serious.

The abovementioned symptoms are part of an old reflection of a deeper problem. The state takes over the educational institution. By doing so, the governments in the West have robbed education of their much-needed freedom. In recent years, the constrained put on teachers and professors has come to the front. The requirement and political limitations imposed on many of them transformed a place of ideas into a prison of thought. The mixture of ever-increasing bureaucracy and educational restraints creates an institution more similar to a communist educational camp than an open, decentralized place of ideas. The educational institution of our days can not be called a constructive education. They do not promote values the young generation needs to create a better future, nor the tools needed to handle the complicated reality we call life.

I believe a second definition is needed to understand my last statement better. I have a long discussion in my books about the subject. Observing deeper the different aspects of education. In my Second book, "The Human Perspective," I went as far as to show how the bible, in its origin, exists to teach us fundamental lessons about constructive education. To come full circle about educational standards. I concluded that the opposite alternative to constructive education could be called "Depressive Education." I describe it as follows:

"Depressive education" gives an individual the "absolute" and "unquestionable" truth rather than tools to learn and question. In other words, depressive education teaches individuals what to think, not how to think. It is normally hostile to questioning and promotes hate and separation. Killing the drive of individuals to understand and question.

A depressive education will lead individuals to believe there's only one reality and truth. The core method of this system is to impose one belief system on reality and demand it will change based on it. The logic is simple, If I believe X, then it is X. If reality shows me it is Y, I can ignore it or demand (sometimes shout) at it until it becomes an X. If it doesn't, we will call it X anyhow, hoping it will change over time. This aggressive behavior is applied to all systems and people. It becomes a pattern that builds on itself. After a certain amount of time, any Y, regardless of its size or importance, symbolizes a general failure of the system. Making it dangerous and worth "Dying for." The implication of Depressive education can be seen all over the Western world. Making it a common denominator all over the Western educational system. Its implication is hard to ignore as one does not need to look far to see them daily. 

By teaching younger generations how things are and not how things should be done, we're taking away their ability to think, create, and survive. A long period of depressive education will inevitably cause society to view different opinions and qualities as negative while believing that only the majority opinion can be right. This promotes fear of the "other" and creates separation between people and their neighbors, peers, and society. Looking at and judging our current education in terms of "Constructive" or Depressive" education will easily allow us to notice the origin of the issues in our current system. Modern education preaches fear of strange and/or different opinions; it promotes self-concentration and social judgment and reinforces existing beliefs. It also ignores the growing paradoxes shown by day-to-day reality. Its effect can be seen all over the globe. Especially related to social topics promoting the legitimacy of questioning the definition of what is a woman can a man have a period.

The young generation in the West holds onto a philosophy of fear and terror, creating concern about humanity's ability to create a better future for our children. My personal belief is that a depressive education controls the Western world and makes the younger generation feel that the world is a dark, dangerous place that has no hope or capacity to create a better future. By any standard, this is not an education that promotes a better future or one we should actively or passively support.

Before ending this post, I would like to elaborate on "Constructive education." I genuinely believe that identifying a problem is only the first step toward finding a solution. Identifying the Depressive education system will bring us nowhere if we do not hold a valid alternative with clear principles. The points below are some general points written under the principle of what I consider to be a constructive education. These points do not reflect an educational system but the ideas that should stand behind it. As different societies in the world have different ways of passing information to each other, a custom educational system should be built based on the habits and norms of the local population.

I will start with a list of guiding values that must apply to all educational systems and the people who participate in education. 

·       Know yourself as you are.

·       Be an example of your demands.

·       Respect your surroundings as you ask to be respected.

·       Take the time to understand.

·       Accept opinions as they are all part of the same reality.

·       Embrace the needs of your society as they are your own.

·       Strive to be the best version of yourself.

·       Encourage love and understanding.

·       Ask to learn and learn to ask.

·       Accept failure as it's a part of learning and success.

The list below reflects what I believe should be the frame of ideas guiding the system and its activities as a whole:

• Words exist to express reality, never the opposite. Creating a reality based on words will create a lack of healthy communication, which will bring fear, separation, and loneliness.

• Our past is what brought us here. We cannot move forward productively without understanding where we come from.

• Demolition is easy, while construction is difficult. Do not break for the sake of progress, as the existing structure brought us to the prosperity we live in today.

• The collective, as a whole, is always problematic as it is a conceptual invention. For a better society, the individual should be educated as an individual and then as a part of a realistic group. (which does not imply a personal teacher for each student or the lack of importance of being part of a defined group).

• Knowledge is a positive power only when it comes out of peacefulness. Change is a positive thing that should be encouraged and not feared. Knowledge is positive only if an individual or a group uses it to benefit future generations based on the principles of unification, peace, and curiosity.

• A person is better at doing one simple task at a time. A complicated task is complex for an individual if the person didn't master the simple tasks separately before putting them together or if a person lacks the understanding of the task itself. 

·         The best way to optimize an individual and a society is to outsource everything that is not the core activity of an individual while keeping an active part in the creation process.

·         Core activities of an individual are the activities an individual naturally feels comfortable doing for long periods, creating an intellectual sense and purpose. Naturally, these activities are intuitively understood and developed in the individual's mind.

• To help people, an individual must focus on people's needs and dreams, not on his own.

• The educational system should lead the individual not to compare themselves to what they think they should be but to what they were yesterday.

• People must know how to make decisions based on their own inner truth but should live by making as few decisions as possible.

• Positive productivity means creating better quality, not creating more. For positive productivity, time and peacefulness are required.

It is important to remember, when approaching the idea of education, that its purpose is to enrich the students, give them better tools to handle life and make them better in the field they are trying to learn. As Alan Watts said - "The reward of learning French should be the capacity to enjoy their culture and people, not to hold a certificate." The first and most important standard of education should be the answer to one simple question – does it promote the student's well-being and create a healthier society? I believe the answer is intuitive to most people. If not, it is probably because we are too busy defending a paradox.

Learn more about the hidden lessons concerning education in my book “the Human perspective - New Lessons from Genesis”.

Subscribe now to get an update about my future publications and exclusive material.

Lost of critical thinking in an era of confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The LGBH! movement — Separating Sexual Preference, Self Identity and Anger

“I Believe we are all unique but not special.” The Human Perspective — New Lessons from Genesis

This post is written due to a personal necessity. One that has been imposed on me as it has been imposed on many others. It addresses the general violent confusion about the ever-growing alphabet salad, which we should all accept and adopt regardless of our beliefs and our inner and unexplained confusion. It is a topic built on slogans that we must all repeat regardless of the inner dissonance it creates. Most importantly, we should all agree that it is the most critical subject of our time, regardless of the small to nonexistent minority that it addresses.

When I was first introduced to the subject, the topic seemed unimportant. It has been presented to me by exposing me to the “pronounce” idea. As a first reaction, I categorize it as something that sounds like an adolescent tantrum that should be ignored. I had an inner need to distance myself from it. There was something wrong with this topic. One that I knew, based on first principles, was wrong. But I couldn’t put it in words or build relevant logic to defend it. Over time, and as the subject became more prominent, I realized that I was not alone in this predicament, differently from the extreme and well-articulated slogan-based argument made by the defenders of this madness. I was not prepared, neither had the time to formulate a genuine idea about a topic that until yesterday seemed insane.

The creation of the infinite and ever-growing alphabet salad is not built in that way by mistake. It allows extremely small minorities to group around a bigger group that merits its existence. Doing so allows this angry and confused minority to downplay the importance of the original movement and elevate their unjustified cause. They do so by eliminating any obstacle in its march forward and making us all forget why we gather here in the first place.

After a long and painful process of trying to understand what all this mess is about, I came to realize that we are missing an essential point in our social debate (If you can still call it a debate). As we were busy trying to understand what their arguments are all about, we took one of their fundamental ideas for granted — The idea that it is all one unified group. I believe the key to solving this hellish alphabet salad is connected to this point. And I hope I will surprise you in the way I will present it all.

To seriously start a conversation about the topic, I believe a separation needs to be established. I would divide people and the general population into three separate categories representing the totality of any population on Earth. The first is a category of people that know what they are and have a certain sexual attraction to another category of humans. The second is a group that is obsessed with who they are regardless of their sexual orientation, and the third group is constructed by confused people that have a deep need to feel special and are in desperate need of attention.

I decided to call the first group LGBH! The acronym is for Lesbian, Gays, Bi Sexual, a Heterosexual. The exclamation point, in the end, is there to make sure no more letters exist in this acronym. This group is addressing a question of sexual preference. They clearly know what they are and normally are relatively certain about whom they find attractive. There is no confusion on the subject. The conversation occupying this group concerns one’s preference for his private life, generally in his private bedroom. The main fight (won to a certain extent in big part of the Western world) have to do with equality of opportunities (not equity…and yes, it is not the same) and legal rights in our society.

It is clear to me that there are many different people with very different aims in this group. A statement that is true regarding any kind of group. Douglas Murray famously said there is nothing in common between gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. While it is undeniably true, this statement does not help address the philosophical issue. If we are to make sense of this absurd alphabet salad, the construction of logic and not a deconstruction is what we should aim for. Following this statement, I will repeat my point. This group has something in common (yes, including the heterosexual); they want their sexual business to be a private matter that does not affect their status, opportunities, and rights.

I will intentionally ignore Asexual people, as their statement is something along the line of “I’m sexually nothing.” A statement that by itself declares that there is nothing to look or talk about. After some research, I didn’t encounter any oppression, negation of rights, or lack of equality for people who were sexually nothing. The only visible place where this can be uncomfortable is in front of one own family, as some questions will emerge over time about the family’s expectations for relationship and family creation. But this does not justify in any way the need for a general social discourse.

The second and third groups make all the rest of the letters (as many as they are). These two groups require a delicate observation (and no, not for the sake of not offending them). The reason for it is that without a clear understanding of what separates them, they can seem like one group. The distinction is extremely important if we are to move forward in our understanding, as it separates between a small minority that needs to be addressed properly in our evolving society and a big majority that need to be ignored and put back in its place.

The second group can be categorized as people that genuinely believe they are something else. Not too long ago, it referred only Transgenders, but now we must also include people that think they have multiple souls, wolfs, giraffes, etc. (a development I believe is not doing any favor for the transgenders).

Their main concern has to do with “Who” they are (different from the first group that has a clear answer for it). This is a metaphysical question that needs to be addressed in that way. The belief that one is mentally different from what he physically is is rooted in the notion we have a separate soul and body. It is an old argument, and transgender people can be seen as an extreme branch of this line of tough. The development of the virtual world of social media didn’t help either, as it reinforced the idea that one can and is something else online from what one is in the physical world. This group contains a very small minority that, in any other socio-political subject, will not even get mentioned due to their size.

Many people I spoke with on the subject conclude the argument by saying it is a mental disorder called “Gender Dysphoria,” and on many levels, they are right. Regardless, having an argument circling the question of mental sanity does not help us progress constructively, as it presents us with the same conclusion on both sides. If it is a mental problem, what should we do about it? And if it is not a mental problem, what should we do about it? Do you see my point?

My approach to it is a bit different. I believe the problem is not with its categorization but with its socio-political implications. Let us assume it is a mental disorder. It seems to me we all have some, each and his own. While many people with mental problems will justifiably search for help, I find that for some others, the solution is not to try and solve their disorder but to allow the person to live with it to the fullest. After all, all great artists or historical figures could have been categorized with a certain level of mental disorder. The fact that they took it to the fullest of its extent made them great. Looking at the transgender issue makes me believe that our problem is not with this small minority and their life choices but with their requirements from society at large.

Taking this logic forward, I would say a clear line should be drawn. One that has to do with the effect an individual’s mental disorder has on society. It is true for all mental illnesses and should be the gold standard. The line should answer the question — does this mental illness hurt anybody except the person in question? If the answer is no, it shouldn’t be addressed socially. If it does, the following questions should be — In what way? And how can we mitigate the danger? It is important to ensure that when we ask the first question, we judge it by the standard of physical harm and not the mental or philosophical aspects of the question. After all, if an adult man is convinced he is a woman and is willing to go as far as castrating himself for it, it probably proves something about his own conviction. As long as this change is not inflicting physical harm on another and is not pushed on kids, I don’t see why to stop him.

Following some reflection on the second group, I truly believe that if the Transgender community would peacefully handle their business, accepting they are a small and very peculiar minority. I doubt it would ever arrive where it is currently. The idea that we should all accept it as normal is the root of the social problem with the second group. To understand it fully, we must stop and define the word “Normal .” Everything that happens only occasionally or represents a small minority of people in a society is the definition of something that is not normal. Normality is a word that represents repetition and/or the majority. Asking people to address transgenders as “normal” created dissonance and started an important conversation based on a lie. If we all accept that it is not normal but still significant enough to address, we would have a better chance of finding good solutions for this new phenomenon.

Eventually, the majority of the second group is searching for recognition in society (Not acceptance, yes, there is a difference). At the same time, they are very different from the LGBH!. Their goal seems to be the same as the first group — Ensuring they have equal opportunities and rights as humans. I believe this request is something the majority of the people will agree with. and an argument we can and should address honestly and uncomfortably.

Transgender’s in the second group have attached themselves to the LGB because they eventually search for the same status. It is different people searching for the same end. The problem with this approach is straightforward. Since we are talking about a different category of people, they will have different needs. Meaning that the solutions need to be addressed separately. Adding themselves to the LGB, they lost the capacity to address their need and rob the other group from addressing their struggle.

Asking society to change and accept a new phenomenon is one complex task. One that requires delicacy, patience, humility, and endurance. If society as a whole needs to change, it is probably not the society that is the problem but the way a person approaches society and its problems. Before passing to the third group, I will conclude by saying the that the two first groups have the legitimacy of their own existence by being who and what they are in the real world. Democracy aims to give everyone equal opportunity based on meritocracy, equal rights, and the freedom to be what you are in your private space. None of the group seems to violate these ideas. Transgender’s are a relatively new phenomenon that must be addressed in this context. I believe they have the right to ask us to find a solution for their needs in a way that does not make us abandon our principles.

Now, let us move to the main issue at hand. The third group is currently our main problem, bringing all the alphabet salad issue into the main stage and defending it as if their life depends on it. This group, which can sometimes look like the second group, but sounds completely different, is making this topic a hell of sentimental confusion. It is constructed from people I will categorize as confused, attention sicker lost children. That needs to reinforce the notion that they are special and unique. The way they go about it is through hateful, violent victimhood. One that does not come from knowledge, logic, understanding, or wish for a positive resolution. Deep inside, They understood that adults don’t have the time or the patience to hear noisy kids (especially if they are not their kids) and that demolishing morals and social fabrics is easier to do than building something new and better.

Their problem is mental, and it is a problem that needs to be addressed on a social level. It shouldn’t be ignored by itself, as it is a cry for help. It reflects a generation of lost kids. They are afraid, lost, and hurt. Afraid of the world and afraid to face the fact that in life, to arrive from nowhere to somewhere, you need to fail and give it all and that sometimes it is not enough. They are lost as nobody slaps them and shows them the right direction, leaving them to rely on arbitrary influencers that tell them what they want to hear for momentary fame. They are hurt as they have been explained that they can be whatever they want and discovered that they are nothing. They cry for help since nobody ever taught them that they do not need external validation to be themselves. And most importantly, They believe that rights are given by birth and not a privilege you acquire by obligations, making them feel entitled to ideas they cannot even explain. For them, pride does not represent a value that signifies inner greatness. It represents the right to scream and get attention. Respect for them is not something you earn by actions but deserve by being alive. Victimhood is their weapon, and we are all their oppressors.

To achieve their infinite war against everything and everyone, they created absurdity and extreme, mainly because it reflects their inner world. It allows them to take us all on the hellish trip that they are trying to escape from. They demand everything at the price of nothing, explaining to us that it is our duty. This group is the real problem we all have. It feeds on the weakness of the good people, our current politicians’ greed and our loving parents’ fears. They do not promote peace, humility, love, or the creation of a better society.

When this group realized that the Transgender movement required real actions (such as starting to take medications and pass castration), they took a step back and then two steps forward. The invention of all the rest of the letters in the alphabet salad is a manifestation of the need for attention that does not require anything from the people that claim it. The “Pronounce” topic that jump-started this insanity is a wonderful example. It requires society to twist and redefine its language and inner world without requiring anything from the person that claims it. It is a perfect solution for this group, as it gives them the freedom and flexibility to always be oppressed while getting rid of the need to practically do or prove anything.

This group is at the center of all the general social movements in our society. They are the noisy few that understood that they could jump on the wagon of an even smaller minority for the sake of promoting their anger. They don’t represent the good of the group they claim to be part of. They are there to be noisy, angry, and hateful. Preventing us from seeing the real issues we need to address. Distracting us from having a real debate about possible solutions.

I believe a separation need to be done between the LGBH!, the transgenders, and the lost kids. It is the only way we can get out of it and bring back some sanity to our discourse and our life. It requires a clear understanding of this separation and each group’s problems. Each needs our attention, and non is unimportant. Continue to play this game, heart everybody. From the LGBH! People that need to make sure that what they achieved in our democracy is secured, to the Transgender that needs our attention and solution for their existing problems. And most importantly, to the lost kids that are crying for help and truly need a responsible assembly of adults that will discuss how to fix their predicament in a peaceful and respectable way.

The Alphabet salad is the poster child of our sickness. Our loss of philosophy, fear of talking about hard subjects, and the destruction of our family and community structure. It is time to separate this salad and start to address our problems with the right words. I hope and believe this article will give some clarity and to others words to express their thoughts. We have a hard road ahead of us. Ignoring it or hoping it will pass by itself is a delusional lie at best. We have come a long way and built great things as individuals and as a society. We are standing at a crossroad, and a decision need to be made.

Disclaimer: Do not search for my books if you feel offended or unsafe by reading this article. However, leave a comment. I am searching for people that are willing to debate with me. After all, if you have never spoken with people that do not think differently than you, it probably means you never truly spoke with anybody.