Why Words cannot be a Subjective Matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.      Having no errors or mistakes.

3.      Proper or appropriate in a particular situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflection on Extreme Subjectivism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dark Side of Individualism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Digital Bias Paradox

In this conversation, I will present what I call the “Digital Bias paradox.” This concept is affecting our lives both on individual and social levels. I define it as the beliefs formed and held by people that consciously or unconsciously prioritize information obtained from social media regardless of the lack of evidence or clear contradictions they observe in their actual physical day-to-day life. People immersed in this bias will try to impose their beliefs on society to resolve the dissonance emerging from this paradox. Usually justifying their set of beliefs on how they feel or how they think the world ought to be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.