the Concept of Inverted Civilization – A Critical View of Economic Ethics

*
roots puritanical ،crisis of consciousness Economic tyranny.
*





*****
Motaz Nader: Poet and Writer








Introduction:




I look at life, at myself, and at the complex system of human whims with curiosity and caution, and sometimes with boredom. Nevertheless, I cannot help but listen to our frustrations and the sense of disappointment that overwhelms those who have not had the chance to speak their word in life. I feel the absurdity when this feeling toward others continues to haunt me for years, only to recede from time to time and transform in a specific moment into a mischievous and exhausting compassion, yet one devoid of conventional empathy—that is, empathy for the sake of mere masochistic satisfaction. Indeed, ideas cannot be presented with serious logic without a sense of general empathy, because the background of writing in its general form is one of empathy, yet ultimately it is a personal
empathy that extends to others. In that moment, something in my depths shouts:
My feeling of triviality and restlessness due to the loss of our talents and our incapacity to understand the extent of our latent power, capable of that daily dynamic ugliness, is not sufficient to extract pure beauty from within us and replace it as a substitute that allows my mind to comprehend and accept the misfortunes and sorrows of most of us generally as natural, and as a result of our choices and the lack of cleverness in those choices. Behind this situation lies a hidden, inner reason connected to diverse life systems that caused a crisis of consciousness and an erosion in the nature of thinking.
At the same time, there is no benefit in dwelling on our worries and problems and looking at ourselves as poor, incapable of taking action to change anything in our reality, no matter how small´-or-limited that space of change may seem. And because I am convinced, from another perspective, that when one begins to feel compassion for oneself, it means acknowledging that life has defeated him and that he has lost his battle against the hidden injustice within its decisions.
By our nature and strangeness:

The drive that makes me feel, think, and aspire is the same that makes me observe keenly as a human, also in our naivety and childhood, and in the absurdity of meaning: that all worldly achievements and the consequences of civilization are not sufficient for us to adapt to the nature of our different sufferings and destinies when it comes to obstacles and pitfalls that we see, feel, and recognize as the reason for obstructing our projects. For example, when you become angry with someone and desire a small revenge, you will feel satisfaction if your revenge is realized, regardless of the form of that revenge´-or-the harshness of its concept. No matter how small the feeling that you have received the justice you deserve, it will grant you satisfaction, and your self will have obtained its own justice—let us say its dignity.
Then, in the same context, when turning to the basement of human history and its brave thrust toward the hunger of its instinct with unique dynamics, away from the complexities of each individual at that time, I will feel the abyss and fragility between what is luxuriant and our behavior as individuals imposed on the reality of life, in confronting the meaning of those actions and their role in the continuity of the human condition.
If we attempt, here, and for argument’s sake, to set aside the instinctive side for a moment, the central movement of intellectual ethical questioning begins. I believe, specifically from this point, the broad question arises with awareness and seriousness: what does all that has been mentioned mean?
Undoubtedly, I have many conjectures for a natural and ancient question that harbors within it a traditional perplexity common to many curious minds. However, understanding the matter from this perspective does not mean obtaining a convincing answer, for I have long needed, and others as well, an answer that deeply satisfies us and makes us feel gratitude.
At this moment in the life of thought, the coherent mental achievement that can be reached, for me, is my question: the question of ourselves—why do we feel and think in the way that we do? And to what extent can we, as humans and as a cosmic product subject to perishability´-or-replacement at the end of the path, work on developing our ideas and impulses and protecting our feelings from damage amid the whirl of the ascending digital technological system, like a satellite, allied with the desire of millions of individuals—and this is their right—to exploit the visible opportunity on the screens of their personal devices in order to say their word and express their concerns?

The last lines are not a critique -dir-ected at the mentality of this digital age´-or-its development compared to another era, because technology—a human product—helps us -dir-ectly´-or-in-dir-ectly to understand our feelings and attempt to dedicate ourselves to the magic of questioning, developing it, and accessing our hidden self. Rather, these aforementioned lines represent the eternal existential reflection on the role of the mind, which incessantly demands endless explanations for things that will end´-or-will change one day-;- and these things are every material that our mind deals with and every idea that our impulsive nature tries to access.

The thinking individual—let us say the person with the contemplative vision, the delicate sensitivity, and the private feeling of isolation, who often yields to the needs of reality in its everyday sense with minimal psychological losses—will choose, regretfully, after long efforts to fortify the self, through pragmatic imitative behavior, while there remain moments to define himself as a person created to be a contemplative artist, even if his private stillness does not necessarily have to be so in reality. Yet this self-image may be comforting and sufficient for the individual, allowing him to resist the loss of the value of his existence.

We live in a constant challenge between the effectiveness of abstract thought and the force of instinct in its genetic aspect, which gives the challenge its value-;- and this does not represent a setback´-or-a problem in itself, nor an existential question. On the contrary, this challenge is mostly exhausting, but rather it is an attempt to emulate what the mind has provided and will provide, together with its artistic implications worthy of continued existence for as long as possible.

It is scientifically certain that the brain is divided into two halves: one half concerned with calculations and practical details, and the other dedicated to reflections and dreams. The process of struggle´-or-negotiation between them does not negate the fact that they are one brain of two halves-;- the continuation of living matter—which is us—is impossible without either half. Therefore, the process of attraction between them is a kind of ongoing loyalty with a dialectical flavor to the nature of our material body, so that we continue to feel, think, and reflect—to continue striving to be humans seeking to understand our essence better.

Today, delving into such narcissistic self-related issues provides fertile ground for modern experimental science, through hundreds of videos presented on YouTube channels primarily based on experiments and research by biologists, detailing the nature of the living being’s behavior and how it develops genetically in a way that is consistent with it.

Consequently, this allows the attempt to create new ethical questions and philosophize them, in order to project them onto the expectations of such research and attempt to adapt to them mentally. Despite the excitement of visual media in promoting such research, the use of allusion in this context has a special sensitivity and is appreciated by many.

Literary theory always remains. Let us consider the above an introduction to what the narrative of the idea will contain later.

The Reverse Orientation of Human Output:


This title is not intended to present a form of human self-flaying driven by a fragile, harsh, and volatile reality on the social and political levels, given the violations occurring across the world. Ultimately, as thinking and contemplative beings, we remain grateful for the opportunity that allows us to express what we are convinced of, and grateful for this moment called life.
Writing does not aim to endlessly yearn for a pure, flawless world untouched by imperfection-;- rather, it aspires to a world that continuously grants us the possibility of expression, and to imagining the world in a better way. This, in turn, allows us to sense a world rich in details and complexities of profound beauty and provocation, igniting questions within us.
The state of desire to seek and to develop—through rejecting the conventional reality saturated with injustice, and resisting it through major artistic works, music, and diverse intellectual movements throughout history—was never merely a fashionable trend completing the livelihood of those eras. It was, instead, a serious, internal, and vast chaotic search for the best possible formula to balance the essence of the idea and its kinetic echo, as expressed through human nature, behavior, and systems of life. In other words, it was a search for the highest harmony between the essence of the idea and its tangible, real, qualitative release.
The act of seeking, precisely, is an attempt to continually bring the strangeness of the new idea closer, so that it may become a public viewpoint striving toward absolute beauty.

The Concept of “Stirring the Illusion”:

It is self-evident that individuals shape their expectations, modes of thinking, and anxieties through the material of both past and present. From my perspective, reflecting on the details of past events allows us to engage with the present in a deeper, more comprehensive, and more beautiful way.
Accordingly, we may take as an evocative example the rich and profound psychological experience of Buddha. Siddhartha Gautama—the original name of Buddha—was not presented by circumstances as a traditional prophet who -dir-ectly communicated with higher powers, nor did he possess miraculous tales´-or-mythical abilities that would enhance his value among his followers. Rather, he presented his ideas as contemplative philosophical notions through a deep psychological experience that called for asceticism and mystical reflection.
He did not ask his followers to recite specific Buddhist rituals-;- his teachings were oral. What he sought was unity and contemplation of the vast beauty of the universe. Yet, over centuries, Buddhism transformed into an institutional religion, complete with grand, ornamented temples across India, Nepal, Thailand, China, Vietnam, and other regions of East Asia.
This religious architectural evolution was not something Buddha himself advocated, nor did he witness it. The intention here is not to place blame upon Buddhists in particular for animating Buddha’s ideas through the stirring of their psychological illusion—which, from their perspective, represents salvation and security—but rather to indicate that all peoples tend not to adhere strictly to the founder’s original proposition, regardless of whether it was correct´-or-flawed. Instead, they add to it and -alter-it in accordance with their need for security and eternal salvation, on one hand, and the structural needs of society, on the other.
Salvation for the average Buddhist does not resemble salvation for a creative and exceptional figure such as Siddhartha. This same projection applies, though to a lesser degree due to differing circumstances, to Christianity. According to historical narrative, Christ never saw churches, and the concept of the cross was generally ambiguous and not central to Christian doctrine during his lifetime. Later, beginning with the Roman Emperor Constantine, it transformed into codified traditions, perceptions, and aesthetic architectural systems that mirrored the meaning of Christ’s presence in consciousness and the purpose of his existence as an idea—regardless of what that idea originally was.
Such is the idea and the conditions of its formation.
Human societies always require a socio-political identity that shields them from the unknown before anything else. The concept of stirring the illusion has no relation to the founder of the idea-;- rather, it is a symbolic, self-generated illusionary state anchored in the core idea and operating within the targeted group as a result of its need for it. Consequently, it seeks further expansion by introducing additional creative forms that grant the foundational idea new horizons, even if they no longer fully resemble it—regardless of any moral´-or-ethical projection.
Religious systems have no relation to ethical systems, because religious systems are fiduciary systems operating on reward-and-punishment logic. This, in itself, is a dangerous and costly human game according to historical narrative, as it is built upon numerous illusory and inaccurate stories. This differs fundamentally from the natural evolution of thought across generations, wherein a thinker introduces a new´-or-developed idea building upon what preceded it.
In the case of philosophers, for example, no foundational texts are required to legitimize this continuity. The Greek philosopher Socrates (469 BCE – 399 BCE), one of the most influential figures in Western philosophy, left no written works to be read.
It is well known that the philosopher Plato undertook the task of disseminating the teachings of his teacher.
If we examine Socrates’ biography closely, we find that his value as a rebel of a rare kind surpasses his identity as a philosopher—despite the fact that he is one of the founders of Western philosophy. He paid for his ideas and courageous beliefs, which were alien to his era, with his life, at a time when many were incapable of emulating his actions. The ruling elite therefore decided to dispose of him either through exile´-or-poison-;- he chose poison. He committed suicide through a conscious and singular decision before the authority could carry out its sentence of exile.
Socrates’ immense influence on two of the most prominent Greek philosophers—Plato and Aristotle—is well known. What is also known of him is that he stirred the contemplations of ordinary people whom he met and spoke to daily in the streets, through conversations that were close to their minds and anxieties. He believed that this method was more effective than committing ideas to paper.
Western philosophy was developed through Plato, Aristotle, and the philosophers who followed them thereafter, yet academic studies and popular historical narratives did not present Socrates as a rebellious value of a rare kind, nor as a revolutionary condition, but rather as a popular philosopher with a tragic ending.
Over time, Socrates transformed into a highly radiant symbolic idea—into a substance capable of bearing subtle shifts in philosophical thinking that echo his experience, because his very existence constituted a great, unwritten idea. And this is its most beautiful aspect: there is nothing more beautiful than for a person to become an idea.
The concept of illusion in our discussion, as something secondary and seemingly insignificant—adopted by people who are often dismissed as eccentrics—does not stem from madness, but rather from psychological needs and a specific mental environment governed by the conditions of a given society. Such an environment is aware of what it seeks from this non-materialized illusion, yet simultaneously lacks the capacity for rational judgment regarding what it desires and yearns for. Illusion, in brief, is that psychological and emotional premonition stirred by a shocking and deeply penetrating cultural event.
Accordingly, presenting the idea in this manner is not an insinuation of something malicious that condemns the intentions of societies-;- rather, it is a critique of an inherited, long-standing condition aimed at promoting superficial achievements that cater to shallow desire, while neglecting substance—the substance that resonates with deep knowledge and steadfast attempts at self-understanding. The paradox here is that this occurs without prior planning on the part of that mentality, because the individual, as previously mentioned, generally does not engage with his deeper premonitions in a clear manner. Every person has his own illusion—one he cherishes and protects from any potential damage.
One of the most important aspects of the creator’s personality is the ability to make the recipient engage seriously with his personal inclinations. This is precisely what distinctive creators do across all fields of life.
The greatest things in this world emerge from a simple foundation—one that often goes unnoticed.
Someone once said: “History is written by the victors.” Perhaps history is written by the victors, but only after they add to it something of their own illusion, in order to draw closer to the intoxication of victory.

the triumph of moral absurdity over civilizations formal moral order:


It must be emphasized from the outset that by “partial ethics” here, I do not refer to the conventional concept of ethics. Initially, it should always be clarified that the disciplinary, socially-oriented ethics related to societal norms and traditions—aimed at demonstrating loyalty and projecting a virtuous image of oneself within society—do not yield any clear benefit on an individual level. Even if one does not intend to impose a harsh substitute in a merely formal sense, the reason is self-evident: the widespread misery resulting from strict adherence to these formal ethics, compounded by a juvenile political arrogance dominating the global stage, which has astronomical consequences in decision-making, paid for by countless innocent people. This is not an exaggeration. Any careful statistical examination of the world across its five continents would yield results that are primarily economic, deeply tragic, and catastrophic.
What I aim to highlight here is the fragility of contemporary global and philosophical posturing: the so-called claimants of moral understanding, who extol the grandeur and necessity of contemporary, compassionate ethical values—values which, in my view, are highly questionable. They are essentially built upon a superficial engagement with the principle of empathy and mercy, neglecting its deeper substance, thereby undermining the individual and leaving them uncertain of themselves. The purported moral framework is neither sincere nor robust-;- it is fearful and unstable at its core.

The concept of ethics we aspire to is the moral experience emerging from an individual’s personal psychological outcomes—those moments of creative insight and inspiration that project onto a fractured reality. If we confine the concept of ethics within this framework, we see that the moral individual embodies both good and evil. This definition does not contradict the possibility that such a person might, by chance, become a criminal according to societal rules and for reasons beyond their control. This is absurdity itself: evil and wrongdoing manifest, and the good person must defend themselves-;- the malicious may fall dead, and the good individual may end up in prison for seven years, despite being peaceful, beneficial, and kind-hearted.
Yet the good person must recognize the absurdity of the situation—not that they should not feel sorrow, but that they must comprehend the nature of the event. The paradox is that this incident will affect the entirety of their life, as the law treats them as culpable, thereby disturbing their existence due to the actions of a vile individual whose mere presence corrupts those around them.

From my perspective, the logic of moral reasoning must be reconstructed radically, based on global data and consequences at multiple levels, particularly on economic fronts and the isolation of political discourse worldwide. Contemporary ethics, in its new media-oriented sense after the technological revolution of social networks, is a naive and superficial de-script-ion of deep and strange phenomena within the human psyche. I say this because human nature is inherently complex and problematic, not absolute in the moral sense nor in the popularly promoted sense.

Why address moral absurdity here? Because the aim of positive absurdist thought—sometimes seemingly random—is neither irresponsible as often portrayed nor arbitrary, but disciplined, psychologically coherent, and genuinely moral in an exploratory and inferential sense, rather than in a socially courteous one. The goal of absurdity is to seek the truth and sensitivity of the moment, not the opposite. It questions the purposes served by conventional ethics, which are often absent in genuine human experience. At its proper moment, absurdity is the ethics we dream of—a search for the positive.

I do not refer here to randomness as undisciplined, performative behavior aimed solely at attracting attention without a genuine personal project. The purpose of absurdity is not to achieve results but to persist in the search for them. The effort itself embodies goodness and utility. Within absurdity lies a formidable order-;- otherwise, the individual’s internal system would collapse in the face of any legal, material,´-or-practical challenge.
For example, there are some anarchist youths—Egyptians—who are close to my view of absurdity, who display their formal difference at the expense of their intellectual substance.
They want to say something through their outward appearance-;- they desire recognition of their preoccupations through the strangeness others feel toward them.
Intellectually, this is understandable.
It is their right.
Yet I do not find it sufficient to constitute a coherent project.
They are so changeable and revolutionary that they end up overturning the very thought that shaped their personalities and formed their stances toward life.
For me — there is no thought that changes every day-;- thought changes only when there is an experience that changes.
Always.
In one way´-or-another, moral philosophy from a historical perspective expresses a state of striving that accompanies humanity’s aspiration toward goodness. This is beautiful.
But it is also a playing card for those seeking counterfeit masks and for the refined deception so prevalent in politics and media, particularly for those seeking false virtue.
I understand our need for a protective cover that makes us feel safe.
No matter how strong a human being is, they cannot remain completely honest at every moment of life.
And so, not to exaggerate: a person will not withstand their need for protection and security, which is provided by the collective social structures with a communal framework.
Certainly, this is not a call to lie to oneself, but to stand before the self — which naturally expresses a state of truth and clarity.
A reader may ask whether the concept of absurdity, as I present it, is as loose as the concept of morality.
I would answer: there is no fixed definition of absurdity. Rather, in my view, it is a behavior arising from deep reflection and buried psychological details, at the same time highly sensitive.

To the degree that it may appear more organized than the current vision of the magnificence of economic and social organization.
My article represents the viewpoint that the morals we currently live by — through media, political, and intellectual discourse — are often not the morals we aspire to. They require reconsideration from an absurd perspective, if the term may be used.
Here, absurdity does not represent the negative´-or-nihilistic-;- it expresses the confusion between levels of thought, guiding us toward the stronger, more useful, and more beneficial idea — the confusion that pushes toward rebellion and experimentation.
Ultimately, I will not defend the idea excessively.
Every human being can discover their self and its randomness in the optimal way, if they choose.
Living examples of moral collapse:
For instance, the United Nations Security Council considers it immoral for government forces in Syria to bomb civilians and destroy infrastructure. This, in itself, is a formal, cheap, and fragile political stance, because it is profoundly immoral that Russia — which caused and participated in the killing of thousands of civilians in Syria — is the most prominent member and the key decision-maker in the Security Council, repeatedly using the veto to save the Syrian regime from accountability.
It is also “nice” that the President of the Security Council continues to express concern over the wars in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and elsewhere…
But it is immoral to worry without having the power to act — while holding the office of President of the Security Council.
The world must understand and acknowledge that the existence of the Security Council in its current form is part of the worsening of global political thought, given its incapacity to stop wars.
Essentially, in its current form, it cannot act.
And the absurd moral aspect here is its mere existence without the power to act.
Another example: in Spain, people live peacefully amid urbanization and refinement, yet bulls there do not live in peace when thousands are killed annually in bullfighting arenas. In my view, all that is considered moral in Spain does not equal this bloody, brutal practice.
Later, the Spanish Supreme Court declares bullfighting a part of Spanish culture!
This example was also cited in my article The Strangeness of the Individual and the Concept of Inverted Civilization.
Absurdity is not nihilistic´-or-negative…
It is rather a state of perception, thought, and feeling, recognizing the necessity and strangeness of absurdity according to current circumstances.
What I want to emphasize is that absurdity is not merely an expression of something complex — in its best state, it is a real and practical simulation of the essence of rebellion and revolutionary intellectual awareness.
It represents the pinnacle of non-political and non-military morality — the type that embodies justice in which the concerned individual is judged, and if moral law is not just,
absurd morality becomes negative and futile.
One may ask: if absurdity encompasses all this positivity, why does its presence not mirror the presence of the legal-moral system that governs the world?
I would answer that absurd thinking precedes the moral system. The current moral decision is the result of an exhausted internal state of absurdity that led to that outcome. Some current moral laws will be compelled, through gradual awareness, to revert to their absurdity´-or-original nature in order to seek better results for building their moral framework, and consequently to change their rules and regulations.
The absurd system is, in reality, an evolved intellectual and behavioral system.
Absurdity — feeling and thought — will not remain captive to elitism, and this is precisely what the upcoming moral system relies upon:
a system potentially accessible to every individual.


The Truth of Revolutionary Feeling and the Illusion of Political Gravity:


I think often about the latent value of the writing profession, about its position within the long sequence of human progress, about the extent of its presence in historical memory, and about the marginalization of its substance by the right‑-;-wing side that governs life in its conservative political form, aligned with unrestrained popular desire. This is what gives rise to my doubt.
In truth, I want to go further than merely appearing as a leftist who is hostile to and rejecting of the mentality represented by pragmatic falsification in its degrading face. Politics is the consolidation of collective emotions and convictions grounded in shared interests-;- success within it is therefore guaranteed in substance. If a few populist words are whispered into the ear of an audience eager for a captivating spectacle, the objective will be achieved.
Yet that approach to reaching people’s minds will remain cheap and vulgar to personalities uninterested in such orientations, under the pretext that they do not represent them. Those personalities will prefer to remain in a state of astonished anticipation rather than plunge into a populist fray whose outcome is already known, even if the price is submission to a mass‑-;-populist leader who may cause those gifted individuals to suffer under his domination of the political scene.
This is a real social dilemma and a profound misunderstanding that arises when contradictory human natures converge at one point. The revolutionary condition, in its refusal of the prevailing traditional political form, prefers to be a victim rather than a partner in demagogic mentality. Here, perhaps, it is fitting to recall the saying attributed to the philosopher Bertrand Russell, to the effect that fanatics and men of power change the world because they are confident in themselves, unlike the wise, who lack self‑-;-confidence and deep faith in their ideas and are thus dominated by doubt. This is a wonderful and realistic observation, but it is not a final judgment—rather, an inspiring perspective. Those who are artistically and intellectually incandescent, for example, often suffer hesitation in many situations of life-;- their absence from positions of decision‑-;-making stems partly from their excessive fear of history’s formal moral judgment upon them—literary‑-;-political, archival history. They do not wish to lose their symbolic moral privilege, which for them is the purest event of their lives, in exchange for an ephemeral worldly authority. At this point, they must accept that some will view them as expressing an elitist, provocative cultural type if they lack the courage to stand their decisions against the quantitative supremacy of the opposing side. Here, we are not speaking of a grueling factional conflict, but rather attempting to adopt a long-term rebellious method against the factors that frustrate one’s efforts and the integrity of one’s horizon.
Artistically, the authority draws its appeal from its romantic wellspring, while political power derives its attraction from its smooth dominion — its indifferent provocation toward the vital rebelliousness of human nature, the deep inertia of life’s motion, a very strange and mythical state. Politics, specifically, aims to make the masses love their attachment to its convictions and daily dynamics, as seen in the writings, annotations, and speeches of one politician´-or-another. The politician’s task, as previously discussed, is merely to instill those convictions in the audience — a game both parties understand,
But it must be a subtle game.
The ruling condition has always been a middle ground in terms of societal value: the ruling class is neither exceptionally talented nor entirely ordinary-;- rather, it is suited — suited to the daily life intertwined with the machinery of the day and the cycle of life. Artists, across their branches, will support this political -dir-ection unconsciously unless their work is confrontational and deeply rooted.
The true artist, with a rebellious flavor, must refuse the role of the victim in society. Here, being a victim means insisting on writing anything in pursuit of admiration and immortality while the political ruler continues to despise his kind by practicing marginalization and diminishing respect for the talented. This occurs — especially in oppressive regimes, and less evidently in the Western world.
Viewing it from its negative aspect, creativity in all its forms appears as a servant to the existing political order, though wrapped in a delicate and unnoticed cultural package. By nature, this package is closely tied to the political weaving of the world around it. The genuinely talented individual, with a fertile imagination and restless intellect, will despise both the politician and the victimized creative, never feeling comfortable with them, and will always sense importance when compared to the artificial lust for life he observes — a desire that seeks fear, not the reason for it.
I do not favor the political world in such a form — which, naturally, we cannot discard — nor do I believe in its perspectives, because I simply do not feel secure´-or-confident through such ventures. The statesman cannot tell me that my feelings and life evaluations are my own problem, because he intervenes in those feelings through his influence.
Political culture, in its economic and vital form, is indeed a gradually exhausting culture of the inner reality of the human self. The loud voice of politics through media and platforms is a cover for the silent storms within the ordinary individual, yet it is a bureaucratic, faded, and shortsighted cover, a prelude to the suppression of human desire along with the feeling of rebellion. Politics consecrates, in a real sense, a -dir-ect and delightful economic state in the way humans interact among themselves.
It does so subtly. The political reality paves the way for routine, family visits, and stable living. I can understand the pleasure of engaging in it, but the problem of contemporary political thought lies in its insistent desire to manifest a state of assumed and projected truth to people. What appears is merely the echo of that state, in the form of rhetoric and false resonant phrases.
Sometimes, the shiny partisan wants to be sincere, but the desire of people for falsity — which targets the illusion of safety — gradually defeats the honest and worthy qualities within the politician, transforming him into a mouthpiece, a voice, a machine that deceives itself before deceiving others.
Politics is also noise and immersion in movement — movement distributed around what people desire. The principle of politics is not to oppose these desires-;- if opposed, the political environment reconciles with their inner feelings, and then a revolution emerges. It is here, precisely, that its value lies, beginning to transform into something pure and clean, starting the process of overthrowing false, uninspiring history — the exact dynamics those previous policies expressed.
Thus, the dominant politics that changed societies did so not out of sincerity. The main feature of the human world remains that of hidden wars and frightening lustful corporations for most of the earth’s population.
Here, it must be said that no matter how inspired and creative one is, one cannot resist the desire to dominate, a power capable of changing things. Life moves this way: when a person knows that their decisions are awaited by thousands of crowds, this truth fills them with a special distinction and an eternal sense of having the strongest, most attractive idea — an illusion and presence of power.
The certitude of possessing the idea that fascinates others is marvelous. Human decisions throughout history show that justification precedes action, but this justification is strongest when backed by deeds, especially post-action, granting the individual legitimacy to act far and decisively, cruelly, and without feeling.

Over time, the idea of leading society through reputable human-rights institutions with solid foundations will appear more legitimate and deserving than the seizure of power by political parties within societies. It will become acceptable for leadership to be exercised by movements of a civil intellectual character—movements that do not rely on narrow nationalism in their conception of social development, but rather on a deep respect for the influence of intellectual heritage and the status of creative activity within society.
Relatively new parties and movements concerned with environmental projects in Europe—such as the Green parties in France, Germany, Canada, and Australia—constitute an acceptable example of what we are addressing here. There are also what may be described as semi-political parties and movements that attempt to fuse the political ideas embodied in traditional parties into a qualitative, continental, and inclusive project. In this intellectual cacophony, the idea that individuals with narrow partisan visions ascend to positions of governance appears utterly absurd.
It would be more appropriate for politics to be a partner to the economy. Meanwhile, the state of global political balances overseen by the Security Council will continue to fail persistently in establishing genuine affinity among peoples. Its fragile, superficial, and banal calls for world peace will remain an object of mockery and disregard for those seeking individual well-being everywhere.
Active civil institutions must strive toward the global scope of their projects and toward leading society. Consequently, their rejection of this goal under the pretext of adopting anarchist slogans appears unconvincing when the alternative is a narrow-minded, populist political figure steeped in economic greed.
Why should I accept the reality that wealth is a pathway to power, as is the case in a country like the United States, for example?
Why do wealth and dominance among the rulers of the Arab Gulf allow them to arrest a poet, a human-rights activist,´-or-any individual in society through hereditary family institutions? In truth, we accept this when we insist on privileging influence over the voice of the people, and when we allow effective organizations—those capable in both form and substance of attempting to create social justice—to remain fearful of contaminating their ethics by entering the political arena, with all its tangled relations and dubious orientations.
These institutions must abandon this anxiety, as it is misplaced and serves no one. When a civil institution is able to gather millions of voices in defense of a just cause—and this naturally occurs—it will not then be difficult to defeat a handful of chauvinistic nationalist agitators.
In such a case, we are not cheap authoritarians-;- we are serious people who want everyone, everywhere, to live. We want to walk, eat, and laugh in parks with our families and companions—we simply want to live.
If civil institutions truly believe in this, consciously and methodically, they must uproot from their thinking the notion of remaining distant from power for the benefit of ravenous financial tribalism.
On the other hand, if I pause to consider the role of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, I find that he performs no clearly effective -function- commensurate with his title´-or-with the phrases he utters proclaiming his desire for peace. He is an example of a static diplomatic employee, incapable of movement´-or-influence, while simultaneously feeling that his position—along with his gentle, consolatory statements aimed at calming international tensions—possesses a special importance.
Here lies the real catastrophe: the absence of the Secretary-General’s position in its current form would have no negative impact on the lives of peoples. Rather, the existence of that position in its diplomatic costume, devoid of any effective role, is what harms life and states alike—because it provides cover for an entrenched condition of injustice.
When opposition to injustice is paralyzed and stripped of will by laws it itself has authored, the effectiveness of injustice crystallizes and becomes ever more destructive.
At that point, a great power such as Russia can participate in the violation of numerous states merely by objecting to a law within the Security Council through its magical veto power. The visible and indisputable outcome is that Russia appears, for example, as an aggressor state—not necessarily because it is a great power, but simply because it is a member of the Security Council.
The cheap and fragile political world will forever lack the courage required to acknowledge this bitter reality. And the very essence of the work of respectable civil institutions obliges them not to allow that cheap world to persist unchecked.

**Liberated Intelligent Ethics
Kinetic Economic Ethics**


Since the biological and vital ecological system began implanting its genetics in preparation for creating a formidable and unparalleled reproductive system of beings, the desire for sublime action in human behavior has continuously sought to define itself and its pioneering role in the survival equation, governed equally by instinctive and cognitive needs, and with the inevitability of change.
There is no doubt that the idea of ethics among humans, historically speaking, is committed to loyalty and devotion to laws that enable everyone to continue living according to a harmonious rhythm, performing tasks faithfully and honorably. Hence, understanding ethics is linked to the supreme purpose of action.
For instance, the ant system´-or-what I call Ant Ethics is a metaphor for the committed and structured ecological domain. Introducing the idea of the ant system here aims to show the difference between-limit-ed socio-economic ethics, inherently based on the servitude of the kingdom concept represented by the king´-or-queen at the apex of the ant system, and the continuation of the geographical space of that servitude through the dedication and compliance of the workers in service of the ecological society. Consequently, ant societies have established themselves as among the most enduring societies in the history of living beings.
They resemble, in one way´-or-another, the monarchical system in human societies, since the royal family as a crown remains unchanged while the individuals representing it and overseeing its protection change. The same applies to ant societies, which are highly organized, loyal, and diligent. Worker ants change generation after generation while the queen survives, and the colony ends with the death of the queen, prompting the building of a new colony by the survivors under the same conditions. Consequently, the loyalty of each individual who worked in that colony is essentially linked to the strict automatic movement devoted to serving one defined and singular goal: the survival of the queen and the continuation of the colony. This implies, according to the monarchical system in general, that no addition symbolizing rebellious development outside the norm is necessary.
So long as it holds no intrinsic value and does not present any addition according to prevailing rationality for the kingdom’s future, the conservative example remains the most suitable probability for the continuity of the throne. The example of ant ethics here is a metaphor for movement dictated by the space and traditions of the kingdom. There is no act of free creative initiative in its -function-al sense that could imagine a new situation for the system to leap from one horizon to another.
Regarding human societies, monarchical´-or-princely systems are living models of kinetic´-or-economic ethics, even when they operate at their best economically,´-or-perhaps in terms of individual income. Yet this noticeable achievement remains-limit-ed without altering the notion that many countries are not monarchies yet remain highly flawed. Here, we focus on a specific point, away from the obvious economic aspect, to delve deeper into the intellectual repercussions of the forthcoming examples.
What can one understand from life if he remains convinced throughout his life that he belongs to a royal´-or-princely family and must feel privileged and superior for that reason? How absurd that is! The meaning of ethics in such systems is also derived from rigor and unquestioning obedience,´-or-from an existential mistake, because all beings strive for survival by any means possible, and in its continuation aspect, it becomes rigid, passionless, and dull, as it is ideal for absolute survival and loyalty to tradition and heritage. Perhaps in developing a state of abundance in living conditions, humans do not experience the same fully, entirely surrounded by the protective “womb” atmosphere that shields from falling into the abyss. Yet, at the same time, this system-limit-s the feeling of conscious position, the pursuit of a freer and larger destiny, and a future with specific attributes that unleash each individual’s potential to grasp greater enjoyment and make life more effective and meaningful.
This does not necessarily mean those attributes must be grand´-or-exceptional-;- they could be simple and peaceful, through which the exhausting, absurd question “Why do we exist? What is our purpose? When we are nothing in this vast universe?” is avoided. These questions make us feel insecure and drive us to cling to …these forces whose purposes we do not fully understand. Yet they can make us feel that they are capable of organizing our life so that we achieve security and protection. And here, precisely, lies the trap into which we fall. A simple human, reconciled with his simplicity, is a strong human when he does not allow others to belittle that simplicity — or, using the popular term, derwish — which represents the simplicity that differs from a cunning person, who is small-minded and targeted by the rest of society.

In my view, there is no meaning at all to the existence of something called a king´-or-a monarchical system. However, if we are to speak of a monarchical system with executive powers — like Morocco, Jordan, Thailand,´-or-Saudi Arabia —´-or-a princely executive system like in many Gulf countries, the lines here cannot encompass the ugliness and misery of the idea, because the concept of servitude in these countries takes on dimensions.

The office of the king in many countries has become merely formal´-or-honorary, like in Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Japan (empire). Yet even its mere continuation as consciousness represents a national´-or-historical symbol for a generation, which I consider harmful. Why harmful? Because entire generations will later confront the realization that it will not be clear to them whether those generations should care about it. Symbolic walls, however weak, teach generations to behave with freedom while internally, without realizing it, they care.

They will not care culturally, but internally they will care, psychologically — for example, since a while ago, I watched a video of a British girl crying emotionally over Harry the Super just because he contributed by hand to cleaning a shop´-or-something similar, whereas the prince himself, son of the late Princess Diana, announced this year that he and his wife renounced their royal titles and declared financial independence.
It is well known that the ruling monarchical family in Britain receives financial revenues from the British government,
naturally derived from taxes. Personally, I feel—for example—that the age of Queen Elizabeth exceeds five hundred years, as if she came straight out of the heart of the Middle Ages.
And if today a member of parliament in Sweden were to demand transforming Sweden into a republic, no one would accept that, because it would be considered an assault on Swedish heritage.
It is wonderful for a monarch to hold an honorary position with no authority and to live like the rest of the people…
But why should the position exist in the first place?
Well then, as long as this is the case, from another angle I may face a legitimate question from someone: why do I speak about something that no one pays attention to— including those who live under monarchical systems in their various forms?
And more generally, why do I insist on abolishing the monarchical position as long as it has no practical importance in Western Europe and Scandinavia?
In other words, what does the existence of such a position seek to affirm?
My answer is simple: because it should not exist.
What exactly does it remind us of?
That royal families possess divine sanctity and must not be changed so that they may continue to remind peoples that they are inferior to royal families whose roots are derived from divine patronage?
Or so that everyone knows that the monarch is among the wealthiest in the state, and that the ordinary citizen must accept this as natural—because it is “normal” for a monarch to be richer than an ordinary person?
Or so that the convinced and loyal citizen smiles and salutes the monarch when he sees him walking humbly in the street like the rest of humanity, treating this as a supernatural act?
I understand that loyalty to heritage and customs constitutes a kind of safe space for the collective mentality—what I call the desire of inverse continuity.
For if loyalty to the past remains radiant, it helps sustain loyalty to the future. As long as the past carried the genes of kingship, glory, and supremacy, those genes will be transferred to support the future’s desire to survive and expand.
This is precisely the logic of all empires and states throughout history—provided that they take from the past what is strongest and best within it, not what is weaker, more reckless, more violent, and less creative. This is entirely understandable.
We understand that it is impossible to erase the past from the memory of peoples, but it is far more beautiful and creative to approach it with seriousness and depth, and thus to respect the mind that insists—again and again—on trying to change something in the way we deal with life.

When we, as humans, insist on preserving the aura of the idealized symbol as something superior and transcendent, we will then continue to accept as self-evident the persistence of gaps in economic and living conditions between people—because according to that idea, such disparity is “natural.”
Here a separation must be made between social ethics, which represent a feeling that reflects the cycle of life and its quality—thus expressing the human sense of injustice—and liberated ethics, which represent the individual’s sense of justice that he creates for himself, a justice from which those false ethics deprive him.

The justice of the individual may not lead to an ideal´-or-calm ending-;- it may be far from the person’s expectations´-or-not as he desires it to be. Yet it will most likely be closer to the truth of the person himself and to his awareness of the essence of his self and his destiny.
In many cases, life is not fair. What brings it closer to fairness is the individual’s pursuit of his own justice through the attempt to nourish his personal project.
If there is one truly just thing in life, it is the human attempt to resemble himself—to be his own self.

From this angle alone, the idea of ethics can be approached in a serious and equal manner, for ethics—as a system of ideas that works to employ emotions and make them more deeply influential on our way of life—cannot be separated from the strategic role of the political, economic, and social history of peoples.
At this point, it becomes difficult to attempt adding anything new to what has already been addressed on this subject by dozens of philosophers and thinkers over tens, even hundreds, of years.
However, what I wish to focus on is the following: the more an individual succeeds in nourishing their sense of expression by making their personal project as mature as possible, the more the idea of ethics gains its value through the legitimacy of that project itself. In other words, behavior becomes positive and interactive, and the handling of situations becomes balanced.

Conversely, the more circumstances, the nature of life,´-or-the individual themselves render the personal project difficult´-or-impossible to realize, the more the ethical value environment deteriorates alongside the deterioration of its individual outcome, -dir-ectly reflecting back onto the person themselves in the form of pessimism and frustration. Life as a whole then becomes devoid of excitement and empty of motivation for the individual.
Here, ethical value collaps Here, ethical value collapses as human value diminishes, along with its right to achievement, without the individual necessarily displaying strange´-or-rude behaviors.

For example, a young man who wishes to study fine arts at university, while his circumstances force him—naturally against his will—to work in a mobile phone shop, a job that does not align with his desire. In this case, his sense of self-importance will remain weak, even if he later manages to earn enough money to open his own shop. His position will remain marginal, because it distances him from his original desire—fine arts. He will continue to imagine himself as a visual artist, as someone who did not achieve what he truly wanted in life, and he will sigh whenever he sees an art exhibition poster ahead of him.
Thus, moral value declines with the decline of its essential core, which is the human being’s desire and living motivation.

Conversely, the opposite is also true: a person who wishes to own a mobile phone shop but is forced to open a grocery store because surrounding circumstances do not allow the realization of their first desire—while their personal capabilities are not the obstacle.
This idea does not apply, for example, to someone who wants to become a cocaine dealer´-or-an arms trafficker, because such ambitions fundamentally contradict the maturity of individual awareness and its creative, innovative essence.

From another angle, we constantly hear and read about a film actor earning tens of millions of dollars for acting in a single movie,´-or-a football player receiving at least 15 million dollars annually as a salary from their club,´-or-transferring to another club for, say, 150 million euros.´-or-a basketball player in the American league earning tens of millions annually. These individuals receive such astronomical figures because they possess a certain talent
Here, ethical value collapses as human value diminishes, along with its right to achievement, without the individual necessarily displaying strange´-or-rude behaviors.

For example, a young man who wishes to study fine arts at university, while his circumstances force him—naturally against his will—to work in a mobile phone shop, a job that does not align with his desire. In this case, his sense of self-importance will remain weak, even if he later manages to earn enough money to open his own shop. His position will remain marginal, because it distances him from his original desire—fine arts. He will continue to imagine himself as a visual artist, as someone who did not achieve what he truly wanted in life, and he will sigh whenever he sees an art exhibition poster ahead of him.
Thus, moral value declines with the decline of its essential core, which is the human being’s desire and living motivation.
Conversely, the opposite is also true: a person who wishes to own a mobile phone shop but is forced to open a grocery store because surrounding circumstances do not allow the realization of their first desire—while their personal capabilities are not the obstacle.
This idea does not apply, for example, to someone who wants to become a cocaine dealer´-or-an arms trafficker, because such ambitions fundamentally contradict the maturity of individual awareness and its creative, innovative essence.
From another angle, we constantly hear and read about a film actor earning tens of millions of dollars for acting in a single movie,´-or-a football player receiving at least 15 million dollars annually as a salary from their club,´-or-transferring to another club for, say, 150 million euros.´-or-a basketball player in the American league earning tens of millions annually. These individuals receive such astronomical figures because they possess a certain talent
The financial movement today is nothing more than balances in the form of numbers transferring from one place to another, and the persistent lack of responsibility in the distribution of money among people continues to cause many regions of the world — including some materially comfortable countries such as the United States, France, Italy, and Britain — to suffer from alarming disparities between social classes in terms of wages. I live in France and I see this clearly.

For me, I do not speak about these issues out of a desire to discharge a philosophical burden, nor because I lose ---sleep--- thinking about the poor, but because I am a human being trying to draw attention to the human right of the individual as a person striving toward their humanity.

Today, for example, the world lives under the impact of a global pandemic — COVID — sweeping across the planet and claiming tens of thousands of lives in every corner of the earth, amid serious fears that healthcare systems in Western Europe, where the pandemic is intensifying, may not be able to bear the burden of infected patients if the situation continues for several more months, due to shortages of hospital beds, equipment, and medical resources.

Is it not reasonable, in such a context, that the hundreds of millions of additional dollars paid and spent on football, basketball,´-or-golf players, for example, would be considered illegitimate funds that should instead be -dir-ected toward the development and support of health organizations in every country, away from the bureaucratic inefficiency of the World Health Organization?

Let us leave sports celebrities aside. For instance, the gap between the salary of a public-sector employee in a country like France — considered one of the leading countries in terms of average individual income — and that of someone occupying any high-ranking position, especially after the abolition of taxes on the wealthy, is enormous and shocking, particularly given that this occurs in a country that claims to lead the civilizational scene from its so-called “just” side, such as France.

There is a vast difference between the €2,000´-or-€2,500 earned today by ordinary´-or-middle-income employees in France and the €15,000 received, at a minimum, by someone holding even the lowest high-ranking state position. I do not mean here that those with-limit-ed means should be equal to those with greater capabilities — that is another matter — but rather that the gap should be reasonable and understandable, and that the reason for it should be clear. Creative individuals have the right to enjoy a life that does not impose upon them a sense of material inferiority, so that they may give more.

When we, as human beings, accept these vast and terrifying economic gaps between people, and this absurdity in the distribution of wealth while we continue to play and laugh, we begin to understand why we also accept the existence of kings and princes as a persistent socio-economic phenomenon to this day. Amid all this greed, misery, and stupidity, there exists a collective economic value system that provokes disgust, yet calls millions of young people to join it in order to achieve their dreams and become wealthy. They call it “higher ideals,”´-or-the free market economy,´-or-the game of enrichment — through which an allegedly ideal environment is constructed to stimulate “great achievement.”

The result of this, for example, is numerous cases of suicide among young, highly specialized Japanese employees working in major corporations, exhausted by the fragility of their commitment to work they perform efficiently, yet without passion.
Enhancing ambition in individuals in order to reach goals comes through nourishing passion and inspiration — through loving one’s work — not through throwing money into a distant place and forcing individuals to reach it before others by exploiting every form of trickery and deception, thereby proving to themselves and their managers that they are the smartest and most deserving of the grand prize.

By contrast, through creating an independent motive that understands its own interest, there will be no singular grand prize monopolized by one lucky individual simply because they are slightly more cunning than others. Instead, there will be a permanent reward that is not exclusive, allowing everyone to think about attaining it.
The current financial system, built upon obedience and subordination, always aims for a few to succeed in achieving their dreams at the expense of destroying all remaining dreams — and worse still, this mentality is inherited by future generations.

By supporting passion and emotion as a mode of action, every individual will have their own idea to pursue, and there will be millions of dreams unlike one another, all capable of being realized through strengthening the capacity for creation and creativity.
The economic machine, with its historically influential role whose complexities are difficult to comprehend, does not produce a qualitative´-or-efficient system-;- rather, it produces a media reputation that flourishes through relationships, hypocrisy, and exaggeration. Consequently, it creates a suitable environment that establishes certain committed values on which the economic system relies as a condition for its continuity.

It is thrilling to become wealthy through my own effort and constant toil, but it is wonderful and necessary to understand why I want to be wealthy. For instance, billionaires like Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft,´-or-Steve Jobs, founder of Apple, were driven forward by their passion for their work and their belief in their dreams, and by their confidence that they could deliver revolutionary achievements contributing to shaping the world technologically—not by living lavishly and extravagantly once they became rich.

It is also important to love doing good, but more importantly, to know why I want to perform good deeds. If I am obsessed with watching violent movies, I must ask myself why I desire that—is it because I am sadistic, for example?´-or-is violence part of the psychological structure of human beings? In everything we do, we need intelligent emotion to support our decisions and lifestyle. At the same time, this does not prevent us from living life fluidly and with love, without excessive strain, accompanied by a gentle smile that grants hope whenever possible.

Freedom of ethics, although relative in itself, gains a deeper, more competent, and rebellious dimension. Economic ethics do not derive their meaning from the concept of free will—which is an attractive and relative component by nature—because humans often do not act according to their will, due to the material and neurological nature of their being and the hereditary influence that determine the degree to which an individual can be free.

These ethics do not rely on the idea of a symbol as a reference capable of granting positivity. This is crucial: the essence of the matter, the difference between types of ethics, is not summarized by reaching a final conclusion about which should be continued as a methodology´-or-way of life—although this is one of my objectives in writing this work—because the dialectic of achieving sublime action will not end as long as humans exist. I also believe that social media actively brings such questions closer, through personal development videos presenting scientific perspectives that enhance our individual positive energy, nourish the creative side, and thus become a subject of reflection across all cultural levels, making our inquiries more general and profound.

We are led to believe that defining ethical action remains incomplete and empty in its content as long as it aims to isolate the individual creative purpose, instead of placing socially-oriented ethics of formal nature above it. According to the first definition, ethics are not to be understood merely as the collective state seeking safety. Free ethics contain no imposed rules´-or-system-;- on the contrary, they must be authentic, non-formal, rebellious, and creative. Therefore, the ethical decision, in its individual form, represents a general state for the person themselves, encompassing the negative and the positive, and the individual is defined through it instead of being a mere expression of a devoted program for momentary situations serving only a political-economic system claiming supremacy to serve tradition and automatic economic loyalty—as people live today in all countries of the world, especially the developed countries with strong, mature economies, a state that has not changed for many long years.

In the economic example, there is no doubt that the individual plays a committed role, but it is a promotional role governed by market rules. Therefore, it is difficult for the individual to rethink and reshape the system in a deeper and freer way due to the overwhelming media and visual cover that dominates all the desires of this era. The economic machine has crushing power and at the same time an enticing charm-;- it leaves the individual only the path aligned with the available mode of life. From this very perspective, the system draws its strength and continuity.

I did not mean by “ethics” in all that I mentioned for it to be misunderstood. To clarify, one should not measure a person’s ethics solely by the symbolic meaning of a good deed´-or-loyalty to societal values, through the ability to discipline basic instinctual needs in service of society. There is no inherent link between instinct and ethics if our goal is merely non-harm. What I mean is fulfillment in attempting positive change through self-driven motivation and commitment, choosing the most innovative means. This necessarily requires maturity and deep understanding of our inner fluctuations and continuous exploration of our identity as individuals.

In this sense, a deceitful´-or-malicious person cannot be called ethical because they are completely detached from positivity and entirely negative, causing harm. Free ethics do not originate from suffering´-or-striving for virtue-;- rather, they stem from awareness and depth, capable of creating special and happy moments. They do not come from a narrow decision-;- they are instead an intellectual system that seeks to understand its decisions and bear responsibility consciously and independently, taking on their free form.

For example, consider friendship as a close example. You may not feel the intense emotional warmth toward a close friend that you feel toward your family, but you feel a great trust toward them, unlike anyone else. You feel loving affection toward others, and as a friend, you must bear responsibility for that trust. Here, you understand that you do not prefer the person you love over the person you trust, because trust between people is pure, unique, and extremely valuable to life-;- it may not exist between people who love each other. Those who trust each other emotionally will be ashamed to cause harm whenever possible because they respect that trust and, consequently, respect the freedom of their decision regarding that friendship.
Certainly, ant-like morals are devoted and strict, aiming for the survival and continuity of the species, but they are unjust to the consciousness that wants to think, dream, and respect talents. They are truly unjust.

Mechanical behavior is created for machines, not humans. For example, when I enter a store here in France and see young men and women working eight hours behind screens calculating prices for customers like me—eight hours—they live in a state of complete immersion with numbers. Then I think about what the mind of each of them will be like at the end of this automated, mechanical work!

Of course, they need this work to sustain themselves and enjoy the weekend. I, in turn, say that this work is suitable for machines and does not suit humans. They work with utmost honesty and commitment, but it is an unfair job-;- it does not develop the individual, but rather exhausts them psychologically.

The store example also applies to bus drivers in France, for instance. The bus driver does not talk to anyone except out of necessity-;- they work eight hours devotedly, and every day their bus stops at dozens of traffic lights while waiting for the signal to proceed. Truly, this is a special kind of torment. I imagine a day when there will be driverless buses, and that driver goes to learn painting´-or-play a musical instrument,´-or-walks beside the river,´-or-drives fast cars if they love driving.

One might say that store jobs and bus drivers’ jobs are for people without talents, who do not have a distinguished profession that earns money. But the reality is that those considered talentless are so because they do not have time to ask themselves confidently about what they truly love´-or-the work they genuinely want to do—work that is far from their imposed routines and which kills the desire inside them, the desire that is their true identity as individuals.

The truth is that it is not time that prevents them from exploring themselves, but the nature of life, which is organically linked to the economic system and the distribution of public money that determines the course of life throughout the week. This system shapes these people and defines their way of thinking.

I am not in a position to offer tangible alternatives, especially for the previous examples. In reality, I do not possess alternatives generally-;- presenting alternatives is constrained by industrial and technological progress. All I can do is observe and feel with certainty, systematically, so that we are not victims of gradually imposed schemes that force us as humans to perform things that are unjust and long-term economically.

If I wanted to provide examples from the core of tribal social structures, which are more closely tied to the formation of the individual and their consciousness, we would find ourselves facing escalating questions about the essence of our discussion. The moral significance changes according to the requirements and conditions of each historical stage.

For example, beheading those who violated laws and codes with an axe among Gallic tribes,´-or-early civilizations, was considered natural, and it is largely separate from whether the person performing´-or-ordering the decapitation could be regarded as ethically noble by their peers in many other matters.
Similarly, in Eastern´-or-Arab societies, the perception of an ethical´-or-respected person, for example, is not necessarily applied to how they view´-or-treat women. Until the mid-20th century globally, and still today in much of the Arab and Eastern world, a woman represents a major ethical issue,
…often linked to concepts of honor and shame. One may find a young man belonging to such Arab societies, with a good reputation and extremely polite behavior, committing the act of slaughtering his own sister—and even mutilating her—simply because he saw her walking in the street holding hands with a stranger.
Just months ago, a girl in Jordan was beaten by her family until her spine was broken, and she later died, merely because she had posted photos with her fiancé on Facebook.
Believe it: this is happening now, in the twenty-first century, carried out by ordinary, friendly people who display no criminal behavior in their daily lives, yet who act with extreme brutality for reasons that cannot logically be considered capable of causing any physical harm.
These examples and others lead us to the conclusion that the idea of morality, in its historical human sense, is a set of intellectual probabilities searching for suitable roles through which it can impose itself on human existential reality.
As we have discussed, morality can simply mean that I, as an individual, possess the ability to make a decision and an equal ability to respect that decision and perceive the world through it.
When the moral question intensifies further, it gradually transforms into the organization of free, psychologically internal laws that allow the attainment of a degree of pleasure and beauty.
The truth is that we will never stop our narrative attempts related to the philosophy of concepts, in order to remain close to the form our instincts long for.
People, in general, have the right to become something other than what has been imposed on them—to move from commitment to ant-like economic ethics toward free, intelligent ethics.
It may be said, based on all of the above, that the nature of life is simply this way—that it is unfair. Fine, that is true. But what is required of us in response? To say “okay, life is unfair” and stop there?
I believe it is possible to go beyond this conclusion, at least for some time, and dive deeper into the complexities of the mental and behavioral structures socially imposed upon us—structures that reflect negatively on most of us and diminish our beautiful moments, moments we have the right to hold onto. Holding onto them is a dedication to a creative and stable principle.
We are not speaking of moral decision-making from a purely theoretical standpoint, because if that were the case, such a decision would play no role, have no importance, and there would be no value in writing this text at all.
Rather, we are speaking in an attempt to establish a conviction related to building a mature personal project—ethical by nature, if we insist on using the term “ethical,” though its form is ultimately irrelevant.
In conclusion, we are not speaking about the corrosion of chivalric morals, but about their poor economic investment and the sterility of discussing them under such investment.
In one of the crowded, car-filled cities, a kind young man once offered an elderly man he saw walking to give him a ride instead of continuing on foot.
The old man replied: “Thank you for the offer, but I can’t, because I want to arrive quickly—I’m in a hurry.”
Very often, civilization deceives us into the opposite of what we truly want.
And our subject is not -dir-ected solely at the intelligent, but at those who believe their choice is the most sincere and worthy. These are the ethical ones.

– The Individual’s Strangeness and the Concept of Inverted Culture:


In general, there is something false that permeates the attempt to translate human thought into a bright, positive,´-or-even potentially hopeful reality. This falseness is produced by the feeling of doubt in the face of possible, sudden, and unexpected annihilation, occurring simultaneously with a tormented desire within the conscious individual to be exceptional—this being his primary obsession in life. This, in my belief, is the reason behind the creation of strange paradoxes and contradictions in life, paradoxes that leave us astonished and intensely alert to many disparate situations and incidents related to the emergence of action and reaction within human behavior, and consequently drive us to attempt a deep immersion into the structure of thinking and the nature of life.
– On the Strangeness of Human Behavior:

You feel shock when you hear´-or-read about a man who burned his entire family—his wife and children—or who shot his wife and children and then committed suicide, due to his continuous sense of humiliation, for example because of his inability to meet their demands,´-or-because of the accumulation of deep, buried conflicts with his wife,´-or-for any other reason.
Or you hear about a woman who killed her three children and then shot herself,´-or-carried out a collective drowning operation with her children in a pond as a result of her exhaustion from a state of extreme poverty.
Or about a gentle young woman who split her father’s head with an axe,´-or-another who dismembered her stepmother in the kitchen of the house over matters that, on the surface, relate to inheritance´-or-similar issues.
These incidents are not products of my imagination-;- they have occurred and continue to occur, and you find that merely thinking about them makes the skin crawl.
In many of these cases, where suicide´-or-mass killing becomes a shared behavior as a radical solution to all of life’s problems at once, the desire for revenge, in my estimation, is not the primary motive behind committing the crime. Rather, the actual driving force is the accumulation of deep feelings of persecution, which constitute the most visible aspect of hatred, yet are fragile at the same time when compared to other repercussions within the personality, because they are secret, psychological, and profoundly deep-rooted.
When hatred reaches the point where a person kills those closest to them, bound by intimate emotional ties, and then kills themselves, this goes beyond the superficial concept of hatred and revenge. At that point, the individual is, in effect, taking revenge on something old that has taken residence in their emotions and accumulated in their depths—something whose causes are difficult to fully understand´-or-explain, making it hard to reach any solution´-or-bargaining for release, until it explodes all at once and produces a resounding tragedy.
Likewise, the presence of a material motive for committing such incidents—if it exists at all—does not explain the occurrence of killings carried out in such horrific ways-;- otherwise, their perpetrators would have carried them out using faster and less brutal methods.
The primary cause is something that persistently betrayed and humiliated the individual for years, until the moment came when that hateful thing crowned its betrayal at the expense of the family’s stability and the comfort of its existence. Thus, the moment of mass killing becomes nothing but a surreal, incomprehensible moment of revenge against that very thing upon which reliance had been placed—painfully so—yet faith in it proved futile, and therefore it must be punished for its lack of fairness with the harshest possible punishment. When it is punished, the individual punishes and tortures themselves, and the punishment will not succeed unless they defeat it and overpower it forcefully, just as it had previously done to them.
Consequently, the defeat of that deeply embedded inhabitant within is nothing but the defeat of the old self, and killing in such a manner is the killing of every moment of faith and trust in a value called justice, from the perpetrator’s point of view.
In light of what has been stated, it would be fair to understand the viewpoint that considers the above to be pale theorizing, useless and merely formal, when compared to those grave events—especially if viewed from the perspective of those who committed such acts, particularly while they are in their prison cells.
If we examine these behaviors closely, we find that those who commit such acts are, in many cases, among the pious´-or-the peaceful, who had generally been gentle in their lives with others. But that gentleness, which was bleak, unlucky, and neglected over the years, gives their actions this bloody, frenzied character, as they seek to triumph over the humiliation that kept them silent for far too long, for extended periods, without making a move.

The one who kills in these exceptional, strange ways often would not dare, in many situations, to kill individuals with whom they had sympathized in some way, and therefore those people “deserve” their crime.

Or they kill people they actively hate—people they deserve to accompany to the other world—so they might kill their mother´-or-their children, and then the person kills themselves because their mind cannot bear the reality of what they have done. Yet they would not apply the same killing method to strangers, because these strangers are far removed from the circle of their memory. Why kill them then? What would be achieved? There is no shared personal history with those strangers.

And yet, in extreme cruelty, they sometimes do kill those they want and need, and here lies the strange, perplexing paradox: through this abnormal behavior, suddenly transforming into a tragic act unlike anything before. In that moment, the “law” governing the process of purging collapses, the defense mechanisms in the self crumble all at once.
The moral restraint inherited from infancy gives way to a single, radical, unrepeatable, deeply profound attack. There is no meaning to ancient, obscure conflicts here.

The body of the betrayed becomes a cheap, pale imitation-;- its stage is the distorted memory, and its hero is the suppressed self.
For the perpetrator, this act is a moment of complete denial. It appears collusive and complicit with the very cause that made the act succeed, and the blood flows.
For some individuals, in some instances, this moment also serves as compensation for divine neglect that prevents disasters while the person continues to suffer alongside their loved ones. Such a hell is unbearable and unacceptable, and something immense must happen in response to that feeling of injustice and defeat—something heinous that the mind cannot comprehend.
– Elsewhere in the discussion, I think about Nazi Germany
and how camp commanders and guards used to behave normally with their families: playing with their children, looking at them with tenderness and compassion—then, moments later, after those affectionate family scenes, they would go to work to send opponents of their regime, along with other targeted groups—Jews and Roma—to the gas chambers.

Here lies the great catastrophe, when a man like Adolf Eichmann, one of the senior officers overseeing Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War under what was then called the Final Solution—the eradication of the enemies of Nazism—declared that he had merely been following orders from his superiors, and that he bore no responsibility for the liquidation operations that claimed millions of lives, according to his testimony during the trial that ended with his execution by hanging.
There is always someone who runs the engine.
He did not consider there to be any moral blemish in what he did-;- he saw himself as nothing more than a machine.

In Syria, we encountered models that mirror exactly what we are talking about under the brutality of the security regime. You might find a friendly, seemingly ordinary man working in one of the security branches, living on the same street next to your house, appearing completely harmless to us, the neighborhood residents. Then you discover that he goes to work and drags detainees for three kilometers, hanging them upside down, pulling out their fingernails, for example.

For that security officer, it is inconceivable to imagine his own children in the place of those he tortures. He is the one raising his children and teaching them to love their country according to the vision …of the regime he serves. Consequently, the children will love their father, who stays up late, loyal to that system. What a bargain for survival and for continuing to live as a soldier faithful to such a system.
Indeed, revolution is the greatest cry in the face of injustice.

In a unique case of its kind, a German court in 2015 sentenced a nurse in the city of Delmenhorst to life imprisonment for killing more than 83 patients. He injected them with toxic substances that caused fatal heart attacks, then pretended to save them in front of his colleagues so that he would appear a hero in their eyes, devoted to saving the lives of others, according to what he stated before the judges during the trial.

The motive here reaches an extreme level of strangeness: when 83 human beings are killed by one person simply to obtain a few looks of admiration from others.
Indeed, human behavior has no solution.

Perhaps even stranger—especially as we are in the twenty-first century—is the reality of the existence of extremist religious movements that kidnap people, kill them, and behead them. In terms of meaning and background, these are contemporary, -dir-ect massacres no less brutal than anything else.

When 83 people are beheaded, the global media does not treat the incident as a massacre, whereas if the same 83 people were killed by an armed group, for example, the global coverage would be entirely different, spreading the news worldwide in a plague-like manner.
Peoples hear about war crimes, yet they do not care …to go into the details of every single incident, while at the same time they are gripped by excitement over events that are clear, graspable, and media-packaged.
Human memory recoils from things that touch the complexities of its instinctual makeup, yet it does not care much for events that expose the contradictions of its own moral frameworks.

When the Security Council,´-or-the dominant powers in the world, form a military alliance to bomb a state “outside the law”—or let us say a state experiencing armed internal conflict—and this bombing results in hundreds of civilian casualties, this is not considered a war crime, because the Security Council itself supervises that bombardment.

This is happening today in countries such as Yemen and Syria, where hundreds of civilians are killed without what is called the global conscience even flinching.
The global security mindset is not genuinely concerned with stopping massacres, hunger, and disease as much as it is concerned with ensuring that all of this happens quietly and under control.

The notion of civilization in its current form does not regulate the number of victims among humans´-or-other living beings-;- rather, it renders them invisible´-or-selectively visible—despite the spread of all media outlets accompanied by supposedly good intentions of protection and international human-rights organizations.

Human behavior and its desire to temper its inclination toward systems of liquidation through more “humane” laws is not necessarily linked to the depth of the civilizational experience´-or-to any innocent objective. For example, the number of victims spared by medicine and scientific progress through the invention of antibiotics and treatments for diseases and epidemics that were deadly in the Middle Ages—such as typhoid and cholera, which used to ravage thousands in every city an epidemic visited—does not prevent the deaths of others for different reasons that did not exist in the Middle Ages, but that constitute some of the greatest crises of our era, such as the spread of climate pollution. One can imagine the number of people who die annually for reasons -dir-ectly´-or-in-dir-ectly related to pollution.
On the contrary, I speak about violence not because I am not violent, but because I am a human being immersed in violence and living at the heart of its culture and its wild momentum.
Human instinct does not reject the existence of violence at every moment-;- rather, it rejects its constant, permanent presence.
In the previous examples, the idea of reflective civilization becomes evident as a kind of performative façade for international laws, in a non-innocent way. The visible global scene exports a cultural and political premise—a widespread sense—that everything in humanity’s future will rise toward what is nobler, more peaceful, and more secure, and that the global order is doing everything in its power to improve the image of humankind, exerting itself for that purpose, while in reality that promotion is as false as the hesitation that dominates it.
Here lies the deceptive civilizational trap: schools of thought, literature, art, and the overall system of human thinking—through the media—resound with promises of comfort that will supposedly prevail through the mere passage of time and technological progress, while in truth it is incumbent upon conscious, revolutionary minds to blow up that trap by attempting to uncover the falseness of lived reality, in order to reach the truth hidden within dreams—to hope—to the realism and legitimate efficacy of aspirations.
In truth, I do not consider what has been said above to be pessimism, but rather a provocation against pessimism through the defeat of the deception that animates the illusion of civilizational optimism.
By way of suggestive example:
Local residents in the city of Valencia, Spain, burned the horns of a bull during routine public festivals associated with the famous Spanish bullfights, as is done in other festivals where bulls are released into the streets amidst crowds of spectators who provoke the bulls. In Valencia, this led to the bull’s death itself, likely out of panic and fear, in the arena amidst the anxious collective moans of the crowd.
The bull struck its head against a wide wooden beam in a country where hundreds of bulls are gored each year with spears on their backs, and in some rare instances, the event ends with the death of the bull, the matador,´-or-severe injuries. In Spain, statistics indicate that more than five thousand bulls are killed annually.
This old popular hobby was abolished by the Catalonia region in 2010, yet the Supreme Constitutional Court of Spain overturned the law under the pretext of infringing on the cultural heritage of its citizens. How strange that this cultural heritage of Spanish citizens, associated with the ritual killing of bulls, was permanently upheld in a country considered a civilized spot in Western Europe.
It is known that bullfighting has been a tradition inherited since the Middle Ages and was supervised by religious institutions at that time. I cannot extol love and peace in the midst of the accumulated misery and falsity in this world, nor the tangible prosperity and security.
The reality of progress in the course of life offers a sense of revival, yet I cannot reconcile with the belief that a day will come when humanity will achieve its aspirations, because it deceives itself, and because it deceives itself, I feel deeply that the human reality I live in is safe and existentially lived while existing in a world where ultimately, one will fall into the trap of hesitation when engaging with the results of scientific progress, which it pursues, and thus will turn against its own efforts through constant skepticism of their effectiveness when applied to reality, always questioning them to remain within its circles of security—self-security, global security, rational and balanced security!
A country like the United States, home to Harvard University—one of the world’s most prestigious universities—and NASA, a leading space agency, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—one of the most famous global institutes—in the same country, the President raises his hand like a small child to swear the constitutional oath, being prompted with the phrases he must recite, in an atmosphere extremely farcical and trivial.
How superficial this official American loyalty to religious values appears alongside the prominence of its scientific institutions. I do not intend here to express resentment toward the religious system itself, but rather to question the underlying rationale for adopting such a ritual in presidential inaugurations. Ideally, there should be no relation of religious rituals in such ceremonies in a secular country.
But the essence of the idea, in my view, is that such an electoral ritual will leave a deeper im-print- on American social consciousness than the mere presence of NASA on American soil. In a country leading militarily, economically, and culturally like America, this reflects a clear moral rigidity when they are deprived of their rights—for example, when the state cancels health insurance that supports tens of millions of Americans, Americans do not usually protest.
On the other hand, a politically and militarily contested region like the Middle East is influenced by such a mindset. A typical example of sacrifice is framed in the ethical term “martyrdom” for the necessity of wars rather than the true will of the individual. But this military and funeral praise, ill-intentioned, gives legitimacy under the assumption that it is an inevitable result.
Those who commit to a task throughout their lives do so because they love carrying it out and prioritize it, sacrificing much for their causes. They do it because they believe in their projects and see them worthy of a lifetime of service. The soldier who dies defending his homeland does not wish to die-;- he wishes to return home to live and enjoy life. The natural situation is not that he should be rewarded for dying, but ideally, there should be no wars to begin with so that there are no “martyrs.”
In the East, presidents and state leaders barter their desires with the lives of others by labeling them martyrs—a true act of degradation. Readers from regions far from Western Europe´-or-Scandinavia, if they reach these writings, will understand that this perspective stems from my presence in the Middle East, full of wars, ethnic conflicts, and poverty. It naturally affects my view of all regions of the world in a pessimistic, dark light.
It is also probable that this perspective is accompanied by economic and security realities that indicate the world has generally become safer and less brutal in the last fifty years, particularly alongside the increase of economic prosperity in several regions of the world, compared to the enormous numbers of war victims, such as the Second World War, which claimed around 50 million lives.
For me, as a conscious human being and writer, it is not required to boast of optimism. I say this: it is not necessary to ignore disasters, wars, and famines in the world on the pretext that they are not numerous´-or-geographically widespread enough for the world’s population to hear of them.
As a writer who has lived in regions of crises and wars and witnessed numerous revolutions and events, I see it as necessary to speak about issues that have influenced and contributed to shaping my consciousness, as well as my worldview.

However, this does not mean that I will be pessimistic´-or-gloomy when discussing the harsh realities of the world, including its deadly bureaucracy that crushes the human spirit and reduces it to mere numbers, as is happening today in Europe.
On the other hand, with the exception of Western Europe, the Nordic countries, Australia, and Canada, a report issued in 2012 by the FAO on food security indicated that approximately 870 million people worldwide—mostly living in developing regions—suffer from chronic food shortages. Another report from 2014 noted that slightly more than one in nine people in the world suffer from malnutrition.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1