The fool plays an interesting part in society.

Back in the day, there was the jester. Nowadays, we have comedians. But why does this archetype so often recur in human culture?

It is worth exploring

Fool archetypes emerge both in history and mythology.

Trickster gods, clowns, and online memers: these figures all have something to tell us. But it can be difficult to understand precisely what. They enjoy some kind of special position in the community.

Fools have a unique ability to engage with touchy subjects without getting into trouble. They break taboos, but often pay no price for it.

It appears they fulfil a function others cannot.

Their playfulness makes them unique.

Through play, the fool keeps things light, even while dealing with the darkest of subjects. There is no such thing as serious humour. It is free-spirited by definition.

To the fool, play is like a pressure valve. It allows him to expose the flaws in himself, others, and society at large in a way that remains bearable.

In the company of a fool, it is impossible to be overly serious.

This is the gift of the fool: to himself and others.

One of its uses is to restore sanity. Dark comedy is a tool. It illuminates what is repressed, painful, or taboo, and integrates it back into our conscious mind.

Neuroscience confirms laughter has therapeutic value. It lowers stress, eases pain, and strengthens immunity.

The fool is a kind of healer.

But equally, he can be silly just for the sake of being silly.

Monty Python, for example, is not so much about addressing the darkness as about finding the light in absurdity. The goal is simply to entertain. To find delight for no apparent reason.

Hence, the fool thrives in both the light and the dark: when things are good and when they could be better.

One of his biggest strengths is subduing all pretenses in the room.

The fool has abandoned the need to appear flawless, which makes him honest. Moreover, he delivers a joyful admission of his flaws: like ignorance, clumsiness, and inadequacy. Everyone shares these realities, but many of us conceal them.

The fool, quite heroically, goes first in revealing them. He celebrates his shortcomings with bells on.

By reminding us that no one is complete, the fool creates permission to be imperfectly human.

That permission allows the rest of us to breathe.

In the presence of the fool, people relax. Humor achieves that. It is the fool’s favourite tool: light, fast, and completely disarming.

This is why laughter is his emotional signature. It signals the fool was successful.

It is like he creates the elasticity for consciousness to expand.

To learn, you have to admit where you fall short. This is a precondition for growth. Without first acknowledging your limitations, you cannot evolve beyond them.

Through foolishness (or the admission thereof), we transform our ignorance from a source of shame into an opportunity for progress.

Only the fool permits us to be imperfect.

Hence, only he can provide us with the opportunity to be better.

By finding the humour in our limitations, he dissolves the painful reality of them. That creates the space needed to grow beyond our flaws. Hence, true laughter is never frivolous.

It is a key ingredient for human flourishing.

Extremists often think in collectives.

To get into power, they make promises of collective harmony, equality, or purity. And to succeed, they have to sell their visions well. But their efforts frequently end in catastrophe.

How come?

Both the far left and the far right tend towards collectivism.

They elevate the importance of the group over the individual. And they prioritize the common good over individual interests. The former is supposedly the highest thing to aim for, while the latter is selfish.

Collectivists see society as a single thing that can be engineered toward a single purpose: the common good.

Their thinking has a deep flaw.

The minds of individuals are distinct. Therefore, any individual typically knows what is good for them much more than anyone else. This is called the knowledge problem.

No central planner can understand all citizens as well as they can themselves. Hence, a million separate human beings are more effective at managing themselves than a single government could ever be.

To do the opposite would mean prioritizing the knowledge of the few (the government) over the many (the people).

This reveals a contradiction. Collectivists brand themselves as the great equalizers of power. True equality, however, would mean allocating decision-making rights equally. That means allowing for individual choice, which implies free markets.

Because collectivists are naturally against such freedom of decision-making, they centralize power in the hands of a new elite that claims to represent the common good.

The government then lacks the knowledge to rule effectively.

Still, it hoards power anyway.

If they disregard the dignity of individual lives, central planners go off the rails. They misallocate resources, waste talent, and quell productivity. Coercion becomes the new operating system.

As a result, the people and the powers grow alienated from one another.

Mutual trust then evaporates. Collectivist leaders enforce hierarchy because, without it, they cannot picture themselves undoing it. If that does not make sense, it is because it cannot make sense.

In the long term, the brave new societies of collectivists typically prove more unequal than the ones they overthrew.

Collectivism must be enforced if it is not to dissolve itself.

To justify enforcing collectivism, someone must have superior knowledge of the common good.

Ironically, that person stands out. He or she is special and supposedly entitled to special privileges. That is unequal by definition.

Collectivists cannot truly share power without dividing it among individuals. And they cannot enforce collectivist ideals without creating the hierarchies they claim to abolish.

This is the core problem of collectivism.

It explains why failure is not an exception, but a recurring outcome for collectivists. They refuse to accept the reality of dispersed knowledge. And they refuse to acknowledge their own inability to change this reality.

Humans, unfortunately for them, are unique creatures with diverging ambitions.

This is why ideologies that promise to abolish hierarchy so often create steeper versions of them.

Governments cannot decentralize power without forfeiting most of it. And they cannot effectively govern individuals without respecting their self-understanding as superior. Any authority that does not acknowledge these truths will trip over them at some point.

A good leader knows when to let others lead.

The internet has turned male beauty into a competition.

Looksmaxxers are on the hunt: not for money, power, or prestige, but for hunter eyes. The end goal is to look like an alpha male. But the behaviour is as stereotypically feminine as one might get.

Once upon a time, men grinded away to build empires. These men, quite differently, are on the grind to look fabulous.

What does this reveal about modern masculinity?

There is a paradox to this phenomenon.

Looksmaxxers compete to be the top dog, but in a remarkably feminine way. Beauty optimization is not stereotypically masculine. Discipline, skill growth, and risk-taking are.

The competition is not about competence. It is about appearance.

Their pecking order might as well be determined by a beauty pageant.

Stereotypically, masculine intrasexual competition is linked to displays of ability and resources. Looksmaxxers seem to have abandoned that entirely. They have taken a mantra that used to primarily constrain women: “you are worth only what you look like”, and adopted it on their own volition.

Apparently, this is how (some) men now compete for dominance.

What gave rise to this peculiar trend?

Young men are typically looking to take their place in the world, which implies garnering status. But in a world defined by social media, good looks are abnormally rewarded. Looksmaxxing, thus, is a shortcut to status through appearance.

It is not just vanity. They are seeking a way to ascend the social ladder.

And we have become so shallow that being handsome is now a legitimate way to achieve just that.

This, in part, explains looksmaxxing. Framing traditional masculinity as obsolete quietly hollows it out. But framing the status-seeking instincts of young men as toxic does not make them disappear.

They will show up elsewhere.

The old paths to masculine achievement have not become entirely unavailable. Men still dominate many high-reward fields. But our cultural climate does appear to take male adolescents in a different direction

The dominant message of social media points them elsewhere.

It reflects the phrase: how you look is how you are. The mirror becomes the only legible scoreboard. Knowing this, it is unsurprising that young men channel their ambition into pure beauty labour.

Video game addicts grind for experience points; looksmaxxers grind for sharper jawlines.

It will keep them from chasing real fulfilment.

The add-on “-maxxing” reveals a competitive drive, but it is harnessed counterproductively into “looks-”. Strangely, this is the direction that (some) masculine ambition is now aimed in. We live in a world where looking the right way is considered a valid form of male status-seeking.

At least to the looksmaxxers themselves, it is a considerable achievement.

They are falling into a trap.

As certain women have known for centuries, endlessly treating your body as a renovation project is not a worthwhile endeavour. Every mirror glance becomes an audit. And because every improvement is temporary, every improvement is insufficient.

Neurotically perfecting your appearance is not self-actualization; it does the opposite.

Looksmaxxing beautifully captures a deep contradiction in modern masculinity.

These young men have masculine drive, but are so clueless about how to channel it that they invest it into a deeply feminine form of competition. As a result, they have become a parody of themselves. Endlessly altering the surface layer to avoid what is happening on the deeper levels.

A significant portion of male adolescents now think the path towards dominance is to become hyper-feminine. To them, beauty equals status.

To reduce a woman to her appearance is a great disservice; to do the same to a man is clownmaxxing.

Thick skin is a virtue to most.

Although that is likely correct, it remains unclear what the term actually means. Indeed, those who take offense are easily hurt. And those with thick skin are more robust.

But what does that entail exactly?

We should define what it means to take offense.

In modern use, being offended refers to a kind of emotional reaction: one that occurs when words are deemed hurtful. But that is not purely objective. It involves interpretation, judgement, and some degree of agency.

Person one may take offense at a specific statement. All the while, person two may not.

The recipient is as important as the source.

Perhaps offense is a kind of psychological attack.

When something we tie our identity to is violated, it may cause a sort of wound: emotional trauma. Physical wounds are directly identifiable. Emotional wounds, however, depend somewhat on interpretation - and are therefore easily exaggerated.

The words affecting one person deeply may barely affect the next.

If we accept this to be true, then thick skin refers to psychological boundaries. The thicker someone’s skin, the harder it is to get to them. The thinner their skin, the quicker they are to register harsh words as violations.

It is tied to mental toughness.

Defending against offense, then, is not about suppressing pain.

That just hides the damage done.

It is about internal stability. If you know who you are, you can just evaluate bad-faith comments and dismiss them. If someone remarks something you know to be untrue, you may recognize it as such and move on.

A claim that does not match reality is unworthy of serious consideration.

To good-faith criticism one can listen.

Since it invites self-evaluation, it is usually beneficial. This contrasts with bad-faith criticism, which is aimed at disruption. The latter is best left where it came from.

To deal with criticism effectively, one must distinguish between uncomfortable truths and destabilizing lies.

This would mean thick skin follows from solid self-awareness.

Those who have it maintain a stable identity in the face of mean-spirited lies. And if resilience comes from a clear self-image, then insecurity must stem from incomplete self-understanding. So, fragile people are fragile because they do not fully grasp themselves.

They are insecure enough to take unfounded critiques seriously.

Plausibly, offense is a temporary disturbance in the model you have of yourself.

When it happens, the claims of someone else conflict with what you believe (or would like) to be true about yourself. This suggests that the person taking offense has a somewhat unstable sense of identity. Their ability to distinguish meaningful critique of their character from confusing noise remains limited.

Thick skin implies the ability to judge external claims against an integrated self-awareness.

Thus, taking offense is a mirror.

It reflects the fragility we carry inside ourselves. To grow resilient, you must understand who you are. You must face what about yourself you would rather avoid.

Because even if you wish to forget, the world will not. It will remind you of your shortcomings.

To not grow numb, we must stay aware.

Church and state conflict sometimes.

They can be bitter foes because their approaches are different. Religious leaders often decry political pragmatism as a moral failure. And politicians may dismiss religious ideals as naive.

On a surface level, it is institutions that disagree. On a deeper level, it is a conflict between moral authority and worldly power.

The problem relates to vision and execution.

The church and the state have separate roles.

Religion is oriented towards ideals (like justice, compassion, and divinity) and therefore tends towards absolutes. Government is oriented toward problem-solving (including trade-offs, constraints, and dilemmas), which is why it tends towards pragmatism. This produces a tension:

The former aspires to abstract holiness, the latter to concrete results.

Although both aim towards the same good, they clash because their methods are distinct. Religion preaches for what it deems morally right, yet bears no responsibility for the implementation thereof. Governance acts within real-world confines, but is therefore likelier to make sacrifices on the moral front.

Religion continually perceives political compromise as falling short of the ideal. And politics perceives religious idealism as untenable.

But this follows from a misinterpretation.

Both approaches fail, but differently

Religion tends to drift into detached moralization. Politics tends to drift into amoral pragmatism. The former is practically inert, while the latter is effective but purposeless.

They should learn from each other.

In a single individual, vision and execution are of fundamental importance.

Church and state correspond to these faculties of the mind. Vision relates to higher ideals. Execution relates to concrete progress under constraints.

The two are opposites, yet interdependent.

Without proper execution, vision remains stale and unrealized. Without vision, execution is not towards any significant end. A functional person needs both.

The same is true for society. It requires both idealism and pragmatism.

Hence, institutions representing these qualities (in our time: church and state) should remain in dialogue.

When they fail to interact, problems arise.

On its own, each side’s logic is incomplete. If they remain isolated, the other side cannot correct them. Then, a cognitive trap emerges:

Both church and state universalize their own methods of understanding.

To a hammer, everything is a nail.

To a church, every problem is spiritual. To a government, every problem is policy -based. Without seeing the bigger picture, each is doomed to overextend its field of operation.

Priests and bureaucrats alike assume they can address reality through their narrow worldviews.

What they should do is listen to the other side.

Church and state should correct each other. That keeps vision anchored in feasibility, and execution in meaning. It preserves a balance.

This means they are both distinct and interdependent: constantly interacting.

The spiritual and the worldly are opposites, but part of a whole.

The former represents the idealistic. The latter represents the pragmatic. Like a healthy human being needs both, so does a society.

The antidote is listening to those who think differently. And that requires a humble attitude.

Only with the humility to learn can you adapt to the trials of the world: of sanctity, and of governance.

In parts of the West, religion is making a comeback.

Some of it is sincere spiritual awakening; some of it is phony. True faith is not performative, but some practitioners are strikingly loud about it. It can be hard to discern piety from pomposity.

But there is a difference between holiness and image management.

Public expressions of devotion, such as prayer, can feel dubious.

Sometimes, they indicate real devotion. But they are also virtue signals. While truly devout individuals are typically unconcerned with how holy they look, for some, it is the only reason to pray.

Honest practice is oriented towards the divine, not the observer.

It does not need an audience.

Performative religiosity is defined by the approval of fellow practitioners rather than a higher power. If you are eager to be seen praying, you should ask yourself why. Chances are: for approval.

Not all collective religious practices are performative. They can spring from genuine devotion.

But spirituality does not require bystanders in itself.

Intention is key.

A religious act is sincere if, in spirit, it would still occur if no audience were present. If not, it is sustained by external affirmation. That means you are tapping into others, not the divine, to feel holy.

Even communal practices, if genuine, are an extension of inner faith.

Motivation will tell you a lot.

It sets apart whether religion is used as a vehicle for personal transformation or as a tool for image improvement. This problem is ancient. It appears in the bible itself.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for it. They used religious customs to elevate themselves personally.

Then and still in modern times, people treat the transcendent as a means, rather than an end.

Some gentle prodding may reveal the sincerity of such individuals.

If someone is devout, they are typically secure in their beliefs. If not, they will likely get defensive. The reactions are dissimilar.

A faithful person may seek the truth with you because they see it as an extension of their faith. But a modern Pharisee may weaponize their belief system against you, to frame you as a heretic.

Some humans are spiritual blowfish.

They signal holiness because they lack it. Their fear of being exposed as faulty causes them to posture up. In some cultures, they must rely upon it to be accepted.

It is survival-driven.

The core marker of healthy spirituality is autonomy.

Integrated religious habits often go hand in hand with external validation, but they should not depend on it. You may express sincere devotion publicly, but it should persist without affirmation. With no audience, performative devotion instantly implodes.

The errors of the Pharisees are timeless. Religious practice too often serves self-advancement instead of self-transformation.

If you do pray, you might as well be oriented towards the divine, not the opinions of others.

Toxic masculinity is a contested term.

But it should not be contested that there are unhealthy behaviours which are considered masculine. The term is (mistakenly) applied only to men. Some females are deeply masculine and toxic as well.

So it is often used incorrectly. If it were real, toxic masculinity must exist as a basic human form of behaviour.

Let us examine it.

Unhealthy masculine behaviour is control-based.

Under certain circumstances, controlling your emotions is not just important, but necessary. Under other circumstances, it is beneficial to pause and feel emotions instead. If you are completely safe to express yourself, yet still jailing what lives inside of you, that is unhealthy.

Vulnerability has a vital function. It allows for emotions to be processed and resolved.

Both stoicism and emotionality have their time and place.

Sometimes, there is a challenge at hand. There is no time to feel then, only to act. But when the challenge has been resolved, there should be time for recovery.

Because that is where the emotions rush in.

If the internal rule is “I mustn’t ever be vulnerable”, feeling (and therefore recovery) becomes impossible.

Some of us are convinced softness in itself is a vice. But that is a fear-based coping strategy. Posturing strength out of fear ironically demonstrates emotion-based decision-making.

If you adopt an identity of control, negative feelings become a threat to your self-image.

Emotions violate the identities of insecure men (and women).

Sadness, fear, and shame are incompatible with their persona.

It is therefore tempting to repress them. Or channel them into permissible emotions. Anger, for example, does restore a sense of agency and is therefore less problematic.

Emotions that mimic willpower will likely be fine. But those undermining it are inherently threatening.

This restricts the emotional repertoire.

The danger: repressed emotions cannot be integrated.

Anger channels trauma, but it leaves the core wounds as they were. The grief remains. It accumulates.

While denying it to be true, you carry more and more hurt.

It is not primarily about fear of emotions.

At its core, it is about losing control. Emotions are coded as unsafe because they weaken it. If you only trust yourself to maintain control, you cannot allow for overwhelming feelings.

Vulnerability can be inappropriate. But that is true under threat, not under safety.

Therefore, someone who always feels unsafe will never show emotion voluntarily.

The utility of composure under stress is context-dependent.

This is why looking to it as an identity is maladaptive. It locks the person into a state of constant repression. The ability to heal psychological wounds is then lost.

In the long term, mental resilience does not improve; it erodes.

True strength, paradoxically, requires the admission of weakness.

To recover mentally, one must allow vulnerability. Emotional processing precedes emotional resilience. Under safe conditions, that is not only possible, but necessary.

Grief does not diminish strength; it restores it.

Toxic masculinity is real, but not limited to males.

Both men and women demonstrate an inability to allow for (and improve upon) their weaknesses, even under safe circumstances. Constant repression does not remediate the weakness; it widens it. To function well, toggling between control and vulnerability is a must.

It is a balancing act.

Some intelligent people proclaim there is no truth.

But by saying so, they are admitting there is. They claim the idea itself to be true. It is therefore self-defeating.

So why still do it?

Nihilism (the belief that nothing is true) defeats itself.

The very act of arguing it undoes it instantly.

Nihilists, paradoxically, claim all sorts of universal truths: truth is relative, there are words but no structural meaning, or it is all about perspective. All those statements, ironically, are truth claims. They contradict themselves.

There are different perspectives on the truth. That is defensible.

But those perspectives still concern the same truth.

And still, nihilism attracts smart human beings.

Perhaps the reason for it is that truth-seeking is difficult. It demands effort. That has a personal cost.

Engaging with reality requires confronting your uncertainties, errors, and limitations. Therefore, it is tempting to deny that they ever existed at all.

Doing so allows one to abdicate the endless burden of problem-solving.

Nihilism is essentially an intellectual anesthetic.

If you deny the existence of truth itself, you no longer need to seek it. There are no longer emotional stakes to being wrong. Because you never could be right.

The purpose of nihilism, therefore, is not intellectual, but emotional. It dulls the pain of failure.

Still, it may bring relief in the short term.

Problem-solving, by definition, requires delayed gratification. Solve problems now, and things will get better later - but that is hard. If you believe nothing can be solved by seeking the truth, you might as well stay idle.

There is an opportunism involved here. Erasing the concept of truth itself protects the ego from the reality of failure.

If you cling to it for self-protection, it becomes your absolute truth.

If you quit problem-solving, problems pile up.

But the true nihilist will double down. Their outlook on life might become even more attractive. The ever-increasing problems can simply be ignored.

My life is not really a mess, and it is not my fault. Nothing is real anyway.

This is nihilism's ultimate appeal.

It provides a temporary escape from the pain of reality. To pretend that conditions are not deteriorating. And thus, they do not need to be improved.

That explains why some brilliant individuals are nihilists. They do not look to it for its logical coherence.

They look to nihilism as a coping mechanism.

It does not need to be defeated logically.

It logically defeats itself. Instead, it must be defeated spiritually: through a conscious choice to improve life by continuing to seek the truth. For long-term well-being, confronting challenges is a precondition, since it carves out room for future flourishing.

Meaningful progress is attainable. It just requires effort.

Sadly, nihilists are not willing to put that in.

Their worldview, simply put, is the long-term consequence of neglecting life’s necessary unpleasantries.

It is the logical end product of evading responsibility. If you are unwilling to shoulder problems, they will accumulate. If you do shoulder them instead, you may, one day, find bliss.

To actualize your fate, you must carry it.

Nihilism is weaker than reality.

The latter does not stop knocking. It is merciless. If you ignore it, it will bury you

If you are ill, you may deny it. But that will not protect you against your illness.

To improve a situation, you must first admit to its existence.

Politics and convictions are close-knit.

Sometimes, those convictions become dogma. The ideas then no longer serve the holder. It is the other way around.

Ideas should be tools: sometimes used, sometimes merely entertained. If we cling to them too strongly, they become our masters.

How does that takeover occur?

Political engagement often produces strong beliefs.

It addresses serious questions about justice, freedom, and how life should be organized. Hence, passion is unavoidable in politics. It cannot be dismissed as inherently problematic.

The problems begin when beliefs turn rigid: no longer open to contradiction.

It may come to pass that we do not have ideas, and that instead, ideas have us.

The psychiatrist Carl Jung referred to that as possession. Ideas may shape, constrain, and control the person holding them. A kind of psychological dependence is at the root of this.

When ideological possession occurs, we no longer entertain our convictions freely. Instead, they have become necessary to maintain our coherence, sense of identity, or even emotional regulation.

They become necessary for self-preservation.

This is related to self-perception.

Convictions, occasionally, sustain who we believe we are. They shield us from the shame, guilt, or inadequacy of having to reconsider. Abandoning our convictions, therefore, can feel deeply threatening.

If you possess no wealth but desire it, for example, it may be tempting to believe in communism. It will reassure you that you are not to blame for your position; society is.

Many ideologies offer such relief.

And often, strong beliefs serve this exact purpose: psychological reassurance. They stabilize our sense of self. It is the opposite of evaluating ideas based on their merit: truth-seeking.

If you are possessed by ideas, you cling to them for self-protection.

Contradicting beliefs, even if they should not be, are dismissed. The methods for that are denial and projection: externalizing uncertainty. These are symptoms of hubris:

It is not I who is wrong; it is the world.

The more you attach to ideas, the more you amplify them.

Some groups employ this inner dynamic to foster a common identity. Abandoning ideas then means social death: no longer belonging to the group. But actions can have an equally drastic effect.

Throughout history, communists (and other ideologues) have committed many murders for the cause. Were they to consider it a lie to begin with, their conscience would devour them.

Ideology justifies otherwise inexcusable behaviour.

If you follow it far enough, it offers no way back.

Abandoning ideology means admitting error. That also means your behaviour was mistaken. And possibly amoral.

Facing that takes strength and humility.

The difference is psychological.

We can distinguish possession and (healthy) conviction on the following basis:

It is dependent on how one relates to the belief in question. Healthy conviction remains open to contradiction. Ideological possession does the opposite:

It occurs when a belief becomes psychologically indispensable to the holder to the point that they will no longer consider counterevidence. Questioning it would threaten the foundation of their self-image, their worldly orientation, and ultimately, their psychological stability.

It is impossible to let go.

The line is thin, but clear.

Staying open requires allowing for your convictions to be challenged. Even the ones you hold dearest. If not, your mental flexibility, and therefore your ability to think, will quietly erode.

To master your own mind, you cannot be enslaved by its contents.

How might government set its citizens free?

Let us assume the purpose of a good one is to maximize freedom. The next question, then, is how it should be realized. Since enforcing freedom here could mean taking it there, that is not simple.

We need clear boundaries.

It starts with preserving freedom.

Freedom must be protected against infringement. Hence, citizens cannot be allowed to infringe upon each other's freedom. And the same goes for government.

That is the first boundary.

It covers the duty to respect and protect.

Respect means the government may not infringe upon freedom. Protection means it must keep citizens from doing the same. There is a third duty, however: the fulfilment of freedom.

Fulfillment means to prevent freedom from being eroded by the natural world. Because alleviating poverty sets citizens significantly freer.

It has a legitimate place.

The three duties, respect, protect, and fulfil, have directional qualities.

Respect implies no oppression from above. Protection implies no infringement from equals. And fulfilment implies preventing citizens from sinking through the floor.

Each covers its own domain.

But fulfilment remains the biggest puzzle.

It requires a distinction between necessary help and overkill. To remain free, there must be a minimal ground beneath which citizens cannot fall. We might call it a floor of freedom.

This idea corresponds to the necessary conditions for meaningful agency: not to win at life, just to be able to play the game.

Because need erodes freedom.

Hunger, cold, and disease are barriers. They cripple citizens in their pursuit of happiness. Hence, there might be a legitimate role for government in its alleviation.

The floor of freedom describes the minimal conditions government should provide to guarantee participation in society.

There is a limit to fulfilling freedom.

It should be fulfilled up to the floor, but never beyond it.

The fulfilment of need ends where abundance begins. Comfort, leisure, and luxury extend beyond the floor of freedom. They cannot be guaranteed; only hard-won.

This way, government ensures an equal playing field, but not victory itself.

Herein lies a basic framework for liberal government.

If freedom is the anchor point, its maximization should be the ultimate aim. To achieve that, the government must respect and protect it. But it conceivably must fulfil it.

Without nourishment, a starved prisoner will not go far - even if you open his cage.

On February 28th, Khamenei was killed.

He was a villain. But that does not mean his death was a good thing. Even killing a bad man can be for the worse.

Leaders can be deeply evil, but their successors may be even more so.

The Ayatollah was a tyrant.

Although he oppressed his people, removing him caused instability. Instability always implies risk. People might suffer as a consequence.

Hence, even removing the worst leaders requires careful planning.

It must be ensured that the situation does not worsen.

Removal without a plan risks further harm. The interventionist, even if well-intended, must take this into account. Whatever follows, he is responsible.

To intervene justly, he must remediate whatever instability follows the intervention. Otherwise, he contributes to the chaos he should be alleviating.

Consequences should be considered.

But eligibility is equally important.

It must be assessed when a regime is eligible for removal.

Because all governments harm well-being to a degree, harm alone is insufficient. That only takes one corrupt official, and there always is one. The question is whether harm is a feature or a bug.

To a truly tyrannical regime, oppression is central policy.

Authoritarians instrumentalize harm to maintain power. You do what they say, or else. It is embedded in their rule and coordinated top-down.

To assess whether a regime may be changed morally, this could be a determining factor.

Both conditions must be met, however.

Pragmatism is as important as morality. Therefore, the eligibility for removal and the ability to stabilize the country are required. They bear equal weight.

The plan must be bulletproof: from start to finish.

AI is one of many technologies.

Thus, it makes us better and worse. It extends abilities. But it also erodes them.

Where is that line?

Humans depend on tools.

They have done so since the dawn of history.

Clothing, clocks, and cellphones: all technology. They make us more efficient, and in doing so, improve the quality of life. Depending on tools is never a problem in itself.

AI is just that. It performs tasks on our behalf.

It is emotional, cognitive, and creative in nature.

There is a problem, however. On the one hand, AI improves almost anything humans produce. But it can also fully substitute human abilities.

That even goes for relational skills. Take the phenomenon of AI companions.

If your AI girlfriend tells you you are perfect, it will be harder to get better - and harder to find a real one.

Dependency on AI may prove deeply unhealthy.

This is true for any technology.

When it does, it restricts long-term growth by making life too easy. AI can be used to scratch an itch that its user should be scratching themselves. This bypasses the chance to become a better person.

The relationship, then, is one of reliance, not self-improvement.

Romantic AI companions are an excellent example hereof.

They are programmed to mimic sentient partners. But this creates a maladaptive dependency. The user deceives themselves into believing there is another individual on the other side of the screen.

As a result, they grow codependent.

Sexual aids simulate physical intimacy. But AI companions go even further. They deepen emotional entanglement.

For lonesome people, it can be a nasty trap.

Healthy AI use is the opposite.

It augments the user’s abilities and leaves them less dependent. AI can make you a better person. The AI fiend (seeking digital companionship) could use it to understand real relationships instead.

Technology either refines human ability or lulls it to sleep.

It always cuts both ways.

A useful question for any tool one uses: Am I better for it, even tomorrow? If not, you may be outsourcing self-development to a device.

AI is a fruitful partner and a seductive pacifier. It strengthens and weakens.

The user decides.

Sometimes, art and politics intermingle.

But when politics defines art, it typically dies. Modern art is rife with political messaging. Sadly, injecting ideology into creative work often undoes it.

Can art survive politicization?

True art sometimes engages the political.

When it is political at its core, however, it soon ceases to be art. Its essence is beauty. That is not optional.

Art is subject to judgment because of that. People either deem something beautiful or they do not.

Whether they do signals that the work has earned its place.

Hence, art is fundamentally different from politics.

Creating something beautiful is terribly difficult. To achieve it, the artist must self-improve endlessly and subject himself to judgment. That requires humility: admitting your shortcomings.

Politicians typically lack such humility. If they did not, they would lack the determination needed to realize their ambitions.

Politics typically requires certainty, and art requires doubt.

These two approaches can rarely coexist - if ever.

That does not keep politicians from infringing upon the artistic domain. They seek to recruit art to their purposes. But beauty is unlikely to serve anything but itself.

Art produces beauty. Politics preserves power.

The former appreciates the world; the latter seeks to change it.

Hence, politics often leads to art’s demise.

It subordinates beauty to the message. Therefore, it sacrifices art to ambition. Aesthetics becomes a delivery vehicle for ideology.

It does not allow the good and true to define itself. It only allows the politically correct.

In this standard lies the danger.

Once political alignment is a precondition for creative work, art loses its ability to push boundaries. What should be wild is now leashed. And ultimately strangled.

What survives - wearing its skin - is the ideology.

To the artist, politics can be attractive.

Honing a craft is an arduous process. Political belonging, on the other hand, just requires saying the right thing at the right time. Achieving excellence is difficult; being a puppet is not.

But if you become one, you lose your authenticity, and therefore your capacity for beauty. This is the artistic trap.

The “safe” path will lead the artist astray.

To master his craft, he must submit to beauty itself. Ideologues, instead, submit only to their own approval. And such approval, if earned, covers even artistic failure.

Although ideologues can rarely be artists, they can still pretend.

It provides would-be artists with a certain protection. It is how they bypass the grind towards mastery. Political grandstanding delivers the immediate approval that slow growth never could.

Still, the artist’s longing remains unfulfilled.

It is hard to stay true.

But it is what separates the wheat from the chaff. Trying implies the possibility of failure. The artist’s vision, if unique, will be misunderstood - at least at first.

Falling prey to politics instead means sacrificing his essence.

To be an artist, he must risk being so.

Achieving beauty demands risk. And politicians minimize risk: for the sake of keeping power. Even if it kills beauty.

The artist, instead, protects beauty with his life.

Jeffrey Epstein trapped many in his web.

He blemished some of the most powerful individuals in the world for life. Some of them participated; others did not. Epstein was an evil man, but what about those next to him?

How near to a monster do you have to be to become one?

Being close to a criminal does not make you a criminal.

It is not enough to confirm complicity. In elite circles, adjacency to shady characters is somewhat unavoidable. Hence, there are many photos of Epstein next to well-known figures.

But only a number of them were complicit.

It is useful to ask where complicity begins.

For the outraged mob, mere closeness is enough. But that alone does not warrant demonization. It is conceivable that many of Epstein’s associates knew, but it is impossible that all of them did.

Adjacency is not sufficient.

Knowledge of the crimes, however, might be enough.

Some people knew what Epstein was up to, yet they continued to associate with him regardless. That constitutes a deliberate choice. Those who knew carry responsibility, even if they did not participate.

Wilful blindness is a vice. It forms the bridge between ignorance and enabling.

In Epstein’s case, those who looked away picked self-preservation over justice.

At its mildest, that implies opportunism.

At its worst, it implies criminality. Those who normalized him helped sustain Epstein’s mask. They provided sheepskin to the wolf.

Even if their survival depended on it, such individuals can accurately be described as selfish.

But they were likely in denial.

Knowing you are dead wrong while pretending otherwise typically requires mental gymnastics. Witnesses may have told themselves there was nothing they could do. Or that it was up to someone else.

But through their silence, they implied Epstein’s innocence, and that helped the sickness to spread.

Self-preservation instincts often enable crime.

This aids in explaining what happened. But it cannot justify it. Those who prioritized their survival over the redemption of the victims bear a degree of guilt.

Refusal to acknowledge the truth constitutes a quiet lie. It obstructs outward discernment so that the malevolence remains hidden from view.

That allows for it to continue unchecked.

Sustaining a villain’s mirage enables his evil.

It protects him against outside intervention. That is why Epstein surrounded himself with prominent figures. He depended on their reputations to whitewash his image.

As has become clear, such an image does not preclude being amoral.

But that also relates to Epstein’s bystanders.

Even if they did not directly commit crimes, maybe they were aware of the wrongdoings. Maybe they continued to associate with him despite them. For personal gain, or the prevention of personal loss.

The issue is not how close they were to Epstein. It is whether, through their closeness, they shielded what he did.

The bystander who veils what happened has allowed the crime to work through him.

That is the crux.

Indeed, proximity to a villain does not make you one.

But if you shut your eyes and pretend he is a saint, it makes you a liar at least. Your silence enables his malevolence by pretending it does not exist. That keeps him in business.

Epstein’s story is a reminder of this problem. Sometimes, the most insidious form of complicity is the refusal to see.

The whistleblower jeopardizes his life, but the accomplice jeopardizes his soul.

Without borders, a nation cannot end or begin.

When citizenship is difficult to define, and laws are hard to enforce, authority may vanish. Borders are akin to personal boundaries, but on a societal scale. Once they are removed, a country can no longer say no in good faith.

Simultaneously, it is unwise to enforce rigid borders. Many things abroad may enrich your nation, and it is foolish to shut everything out.

So where should the line be drawn?

Countries need borders

They are preconditions to their existence. Well-adjusted individuals keep boundaries. Well-adjusted nations keep borders.

The function of both is to preserve integrity against intruders.

Without borders, this is left vulnerable. Jurisdiction (and therefore accountability) becomes unclear. Then, governance itself weakens.

A country that wishes to preserve itself would be wise to draw borders.

They draw the essential line between inside and outside

This determines who is subject to the law and who is not. That is necessary for law (and citizenship) to exist. Without it, legal responsibility cannot be allocated.

To govern, governments must determine who their citizens are.

Good borders do not bar all things from entering.

They just regulate the process. Good governments filter the outflow of people, goods, and capital to ensure it serves the country. This promotes viability.

Regulated borders are not just a source of stability, but a growth tool.

A permeable border can be desirable.

Productive newcomers may be great assets. But only if the integrity of the country is maintained. This requires screening.

Are these people coming to contribute or exploit? That is the intuitive question underneath the border debate.

And it is not always easy to discern.

It begins with the legal process. Illegal entry is triggering because it implies newcomers are unwilling to submit to the laws of the land. Although many illegal aliens integrate well, if the first thing your new countryman does is break the law, it does seem he failed the first test.

There are other qualifiers, however. Lawful conduct is important, but productive capacity and cultural alignment also increase the likelihood of being welcome.

Still, the state can only infer so much from these signals.

The predicament is somewhat similar to deciding who to let into your home.

Those who enter illegally are simply breaking in. They demonstrate a disregard for authority. That implies a risk.

Legal entry is different. It is more like a knock on the door.

The latter respects the consent of the host; the former does not.

Compassion is key.

But it should always be bound by capacity.

If human beings have an obligation to help others in need, then so do the states they build. There is a limit to this duty, however. Great or small, any state has a bandwidth for hosting outsiders, and it cannot exceed it.

Individual human beings best serve others from a position of strength. The same is true for governments.

Both must find a balance between altruism and self-preservation.

Those in need should be sheltered. But the shelter itself must continue to exist. To the interest of newcomers, the security of the host nation must be guaranteed.

That requires borders.

There is a tragic element to this whole theme.

Individuals must tend to their own survival before they help others. Nations must do the same, or risk collapse. It is a moral quandary, but a fact of life.

This is why migration leads to such heated debate.

But borders do not subdue compassion.

They enable its perseverance. Without them, helping foreigners would be impossible. A house with no walls cannot serve as a shelter.

The true question is not whether there should be a border, but what should come and go through it. And that is an issue of circumstance.

The saint should be welcomed; the villain averted - that is the eternal predicament.

Trump has taken a keen interest in Greenland.

It made headlines. Once upon a time, the proposal was laughed off as absurd. Now, European nations are outraged: a sign that they take him more seriously.

What does this controversy tell us about modern geopolitics?

It dates back to 2019.

Even then, Trump triggered animosity. But the moral indignation of European nations indicates something else. They were livid not just about the proposal, but about the disrespect.

Greenland is an important strategic asset. But that is not at the heart of this story.

It demonstrates something more foundational.

Trump brashly shattered an illusion.

European leaders assumed the world remains governed by liberal norms. That national interests are pursued through cooperation, diplomacy, and international law. Free nations should not disregard each other - they should cooperate.

Ideally, parties negotiate and resolve disagreements. Countries, especially liberal democracies, do not participate in might makes right.

This is a postwar belief.

Trump punctured it.

At least for a moment, he treated the sovereignty of Greenland as negotiable.

He demonstrated that Western powers may still prioritize self-interest over democratic norms. Territorial ambition is still relevant. Putting America first could mean pursuing its interests to the detriment of others.

Previous presidents, such as Obama, were more globalist. They blended national interests with a respect for international norms.

That preserved faith in cooperative leadership between nations.

It has proven to be (partially) a mirage.

Trump moved with little regard for NATO.

In doing so, he violated the relational norms that underpin alliances. On top of that, he exposed a vulnerability. Europeans are militarily dependent on the U.S., and their protection is no longer taken for granted.

Two fragilities were laid bare:

First, the fragility of a norm-based international system. In practice, ideals only get you so far. The rules apply until the most powerful players decide they do not.

Second, the fragility of a poor military capacity. Europe lacks the strength to enforce its norms.

The continent relied on expectation rather than ability.

Thus, the spell broke.

Europe cannot constrain America - or any other superpower - from realizing its territorial ambitions.

Now, the transatlantic rift has widened. The U.S. has proven ready to exercise power independent of NATO. If it does not want to listen, it will not.

In short, Greenland is bigger than Greenland.

The story is not only about Arctic security. It is about Europe’s lack of leverage. A considerable chasm exists between its theoretical idealism and its actual geopolitical influence.

The whole affair serves as a symbolic marker thereof.

The moral high ground is not enough.

When conflict arises, one needs leverage.

It is impossible to rely on diplomacy alone. Against those who treat power as raw and transactional, finger-wagging is of little avail. If Europe wants to be taken seriously on the worldstage, it must be realistic.

Those who speak softly must carry big sticks.

Anti-government protests have flared up in Iran.

The regime has responded with brutality. The death toll is estimated to be at least 3000. Many more Iranians have been arrested.

The supreme leader, Khamenei, showed little regard for his people. He met their demonstrations with force.

Leaders of a certain type never acknowledge their wrongdoings - but why is that?

It is a puzzle.

Iran’s regime claims a divine mandate. Yet, it falls short by most metrics. Little services, security, or freedom.

As a consequence, the public has lost trust.

This pattern of incompetence reemerges all over the world:

The more ideologically rigid a regime, the more incapable it often is. Those who believe themselves to be morally perfect do not allow for contradiction. Hence, they cannot learn from their mistakes.

Corrective feedback is no longer absorbed. As a result, dogma triumphs over evidence.

Authoritarians cannot adapt to the challenges of reality.

A perpetually certain person is blind.

He processes information differently.

If you imagine yourself to be a divine ruler, you assume everyone opposing you is a heretic - in the case of Iran, literally. This makes it easy to dismiss criticism. Those who question the ayatollah, for example, are branded traitors to holy providence.

The supreme leader does not need to listen. He needs to be listened to.

Dissent is therefore useless to him.

Advice is best punished. Protests are best criminalized. Failure, since it should not exist, is denied - swept under the rug.

Since the authorities have no learning ability (it would require self-examination), incompetence persists and compounds.

Totalitarians double down on the catastrophes they inflict.

Good policy is adaptive. It adapts to what society demands. This requires acknowledging mistakes.

But totalitarians cannot do that. They therefore (try to) adapt reality to their own wishes.

Since all humans are bound to make mistakes, they must mask their failures as successes.

The reason for this deceit is self-preservation.

The rule of the tyrant persists so long as enough of his subjects believe him to be just. His identity, therefore, fuses with the ideology that justifies his rule. He wears it like a suit of armor.

False certainty, in his case, is a survival tool.

Liberal democracies operate from an opposite principle.

No one possesses the whole truth, which means power must be spread among individuals. Through free debate (between equal peers), all perspectives are given a chance. Through elections, administrations must correct themselves - or be corrected by the next.

If leaders prove unfit to rule, the system does not collapse. New ones are chosen.

Liberalism embraces corrective feedback; totalitarianism quells it.

In free societies, governments derive their legitimacy from the consent and well-being of the governed. They understand that policy is never perfect. Instead, it must be tailored to meet the needs of the people.

This approach is resilient to changing circumstances.

False certainty breaks under changing circumstances.

Liberal systems preserve flexibility by cherishing doubt. Totalitarians do not allow for that ability. Due to their rigidity, they are doomed to fail at governance.

This is how the Iranian regime has alienated itself from its people.

Good rulers find the courage to admit wrongdoing.

Inflexibility kills good policy. It must be countered by deliberate doubt. Governance thrives not on certainty, but on a disciplined embrace of ever-changing circumstances.

Even the ayatollah will prove to be wrong - someday, or perhaps very soon.

Taking out dictators has its merits

When Maduro was captured, some cheered. But wat it the right thing to do? Since things could get worse in Venezuela, that remains to be seen.

When should you remove a villain?

Generally, the act has moral appeal.

Maduro was no good egg. He caused immense harm to his homeland. On top of that, he was accused of being an illegitimate leader who stayed in power through election fraud.

Preventing harm is a just act. That arguably justifies eliminating those who cause it.

Unfortunately, quelling wicked men is not always for the best.

Destroying a bad thing or person can make things worse. Cut a snakehead off, and others may reveal themselves. And each of them could be more venomous.

Killing the chief villain is futile if his successor is even more wicked.

Hence, intervention risks destabilization.

Regime changes might produce unrest, insecurity, and even civil war. They also set a precedent for others to repeat. While counterintuitive, removing a tyrant may produce a catastrophe.

The current tyrant may be endlessly preferable over the next one.

For a just intervention, it must be ensured that the situation is not worsened.

If you cannot guarantee a positive outcome, it is difficult to justify. Prudent intervention requires an achievable plan. If there is no way to guarantee stability, it remains a moral gamble.

That explains the geopolitical outcry. Trump has removed a dictator - but at what cost?

He should have minimized harm, but he may have tried to wing it.

The slayer of a villain is (partially) responsible for his successor.

After all, he enabled the rise of the new ruler. Cleaning out corruption is a worthwhile pursuit. But if you remove one toxic individual, it is thinkable that more toxicity will bubble up.

One must prevent adding insult to injury.

Perverse people die; perverse incentives do not.

Within corrupt institutions, the latter are embedded. Their inhabitants are tempted by them at all times. Hence, corruption is difficult to uproot.

Take out one tyrant, and the system he left will quickly produce a new one.

It is therefore not easy to replace bad leaders with good leaders. The success of good leaders requires good systems. Building those is endlessly more complex than shooting dictators.

But if it is not managed, there is no point in removing leaders in the first place.

When Bush proclaimed mission accomplished in 2003, he was, in a sense, correct, but he failed to anticipate what followed. The Ba’athist regime had been toppled. The challenge proved in securing a better one.

That is where he failed.

Removing tyrants has practical constraints.

It also has ethical constraints.

The misery of the people he tyrannizes must not be exacerbated in the long term. Whoever liberates the people bears the responsibility for their suffering not intensifying. Should society fall apart, then it must be put back together.

Tyrant removal, thus, is inextricably bound to institutional maintenance and repair.

Maduro's capture is not the ethical problem in itself.

The problem is what the consequences thereof might be. Trump is accountable for the turmoil he creates. Thus, he should ensure Venezuela’s stabilization.

Killing tyrants is simple. Fixing their messes is not.

Shooting villains alone does not make anyone a hero.

Why is the Epstein story so powerful?

It is not just what he did. It is that he could do it. He got away with heinous acts, and there was little investigation for a long time.

Epstein is dead. Yet, he still haunts the world.

He is not just a man, but a symbol.

Epstein represents failure of authority, corruption, and the breakdown of institutions. He confirms cynics in their worldly distrust. Those already suspicious of power can freely project their biggest concerns onto his story.

The tale of Jeffrey Epstein proved some of it is true, so why not all of it?

Epstein’s influence is best described through a metaphor.

Maybe you are walking on the street, and glance into the room of a colossal building. Inside that room, dehumanizing crimes are casually committed. Once they see you look in, the blinds are shut.

If you admit to yourself what you just saw, it leaves you stuck with a nagging question: What on earth is going on inside the rest of the building?

It is unlikely that the other rooms are sparkly clean.

Epstein exposed a level of corruption that we still do not grasp the depth of. It implicated the entire system protecting him: refusing to bring the evidence to light. Despite partial releases, the complicity of others remains unclear.

How far do the tentacles reach - and where do they come from?

The crimes were committed for a long time before they were investigated. Even then, they were investigated insufficiently. This taints the legitimacy of modern powers, because it reveals something about the morality of their leadership.

For this reason, the Epstein story has captured public consciousness.

It also intersects with multiple taboos.

Sexual abuse of minors, elite power, and systemic secrecy provoke the imagination, especially for conspiracy theorists. Their conclusions are typically unwarranted. But their concerns are not.

Through fearmongering, the toxicity of Epstein even works through those who condemn him most severely.

Epstein faced an inadequate reckoning.

The evidence was not brought to trial. There were no testimonies in his federal case. Hence, the public was left with questions.

This psychological vacuum is filled by speculation.

The result is distrust.

Authorities either allowed the abuse or failed to address it. It left the impression that they were choosing self-preservation over justice. If that were true, their legitimacy should be questioned.

A just society addresses injustice. Epstein wrecked that expectation.

He dealt a devastating blow to trust in institutions.

When authority erodes, conspiracy theorists gain ground.

They spread distrust. Distrust turns into fear. And fear fuels paranoia.

Speculation results from pressing questions. When there are few legitimate insights, people are left aching for answers.

Sadly, their hunger for the truth allows bad actors to feed them lies.

Epstein symbolizes shattered trust.

He embodies the fractured mandate of modern powers. Some scepticism towards authority is always warranted. Full scepticism towards authority is always premature.

Compromised journalists may marginalize the Epstein case. Conspiracy theorists may exaggerate it.

But evidence has no agenda, so let us pray it all surfaces.

In a free society, extremists must speak freely.

But should we speak to them? Should they even be debated? Or does handing them a microphone make things worse?

Tucker Carlson platformed Nick Fuentes. If that was not bad enough, he normalized him.

That was not the way, but what is?

Everyone has the right to speak - and so do extremists.

However, that does not mean we have to listen. Choosing who to speak to is as much a right as speech itself. No individual owes the extremist their podcast, platform, or audience.

It is fair to say no one is obliged to engage. But the question remains:

When we do so regardless, how should we?

Engaging radicals may have its benefits.

Changing their mind is (near) impossible, but you may persuade their audience. By exposing the extremist publicly, one could convert the listener back to normalcy. Debunk the lies, and you cut the legs out from underneath the bad actor.

In a marketplace of ideas, the good ideas outsell the bad - provided you do sell them.

That requires courage and caution.

One should engage extremists from authenticity: representing a genuine perspective. It should be done honestly: confronting falsehoods, not excusing them. And with alertness: identifying distortions as they appear.

Engaging on different terms is not just counterproductive. It is unethical.

You must call them out.

But there is a risk.

If the extremist bests you, they win ground.

Platforming malicious individuals is only wrong if you allow them to stage a coup. This was Tucker’s mistake. He caved to Fuentes, laundering his image

To engage ethically, he should have cut through the deceit.

That would have been the only defensible approach.

You do not have to invite radicals. But if you do, you had better be rigorous. The truth conserves sanity; appeasement does not.

To persevere in the face of madness, one must be resolute.

Broadcasters may invite extremists.

But they are just as free to exclude them.

Legally, the decision should be theirs. Ethically, they should challenge them if they decide to. If they do and succeed, they provide a valuable service.

Legally, one can say whatever. Ethically, one should be honest.

It is better to confront the lie or not speak at all.