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.

A loss of reality can only occur where bubbles create protected spaces within a social structure that are disconnected from large parts of social reality.

In the 21st century, this is particularly true of the people’s representatives, who have as much in common with their own people as the French nobility did shortly before the Great Revolution – nothing.

On the one hand you face your potential voters during elections, on the other hand you ignore them as soon as the election is over. After that, patronage politics will be pursued with the rich and powerful. The people themselves only have an alibi function here.

How can such a situation arise within a democratic system, when this system is supposed to prevent exactly the situation described above?

Several factors should be mentioned here:

• Political influence is tied to the party dictate
• Politicians do not require any proof of performance / quality or even examinations
• Politicians are insufficiently trained for their actual job – influencing systems
• Political structures attract a certain type of person – the deceiver
• Understanding reality presupposes living in this reality. Power bubbles distort the sense of reality
• Day-to-day business ties up so many personal resources that those affected can’t see the wood for the trees
• Complicated-artificial legal/social systems require too much time and energy
• Practicality and effectiveness are not checked and not corrected and improved retrospectively