At the beginning of the 22nd century, people like to talk about freedom of opinion in a democracy. From the most diverse groups, interest groups and client lists. But it is precisely these people who are also practicing cancel culture, the attempt to silence dissenters.

There have been differences of opinion since time immemorial, which can degenerate into battles of opinion for various reasons. However, these differences of opinion do not disappear if one of these parties is to be silenced by media power, mainstream opinion and manipulation of the other side. The result is simply a hardened front that, in the worst-case scenario, can tear through society as a whole.

In the past, taboos were used to keep the dialog between opposing parties open without having to touch on sensitive topics that could lead to discord or even harassment. In modern societies, it should actually be possible to have a taboo-free discussion on all topics from divergent opinion groups.

But if you don’t give others room to think differently, if everything is always without alternative, then you have reached the end of any discussion.

Regardless of the topic, a discussion in a neutral, objective style should always be possible, as there can never be agreement on all topics in societies.

In the 21st century, many people are no longer directly affected by the daily struggle for survival. In this class, life is organized according to artificially created social rules that have grown regionally over thousands of years.

These rules are not questioned and are lived intuitively to a greater or lesser extent by each individual. They indirectly ensure that survival is secured. Money, relationships, power, to mention just the core elements. Of course, these rules are more multi-layered, more complex, more opaque.

Nevertheless, these rules can be recognized and questioned. From everyone. However, since these rules directly affect the quality and indirectly the duration of survival, they are part of the humanitarian problem: life and survival are almost never questioned. Even death is ignored for as long as possible.

On the one hand, this behavior is understandable, as it is deeply ingrained in humans as a survival instinct. On the other hand, the degrees of freedom of the mind make it possible to reflect on one’s own construction and to question one’s own behavior.

Of course, it is much easier to accept the status quo and ignore the potential of hidden opportunities, which is why very few people see the status quo as a problem. The status quo of someone trapped in an artificial social construct and the corset of basic instincts imposed by nature, who wanders aimlessly and without a plan in a world that despises and destroys humanity and only the fewest benefit from this man-made construct.

It takes a good deal of self-deception not to rebel against this perfidious system of rules and not to try to create a new one in which all people can live self-determined, fair and peaceful lives in harmony with nature and in perfect symbiosis with the rest of life.