I’ve never felt particularly drawn to politics. When I was younger it was a boring topic, and as I grew up it became a difficult topic. I went to a very political high school and had a big family with strong political views that clashed constantly, so the topic has been always orbiting around me, but I’ve always closed myself from it as much as possible.

On the other hand, I love history. Even when I was a lazy teenager I was interested in it. I don’t remotely consider myself a history connoisseur, but I try to read and learn more about it every time I can.

Lately, I’ve been trying to understand this dissociation of interests. I’ve been having some serious political debates over email with my most political friends, not only for the debate itself, but also to learn what’s the difference between them and me, and I think now I understand.

In today’s information-overloaded world, something has to stop being news to become trustworthy. It has to become history to become fact. Every time something new is said in politics (and every other topic under the sun), there’s an explosion of opinions and related data in the media trying to persuade us to think in one way or another. The problem is, most of us get stuck in middle-ground ignorance, where we know some things and ignore others, which makes our ideas worthless and dangerous. I believe there are two ways to prevent this:

1. Make the conscious decision to ignore the topic completely.
2. Learn as much as possible about the topic. Most people attempt this, but this approach should include both sides of a story, and that’s where people fail. Especially in politics, where people take strong stances. They don’t want to feel doubts so they stay away from the opposite view completely.

I realize now that when it comes to politics, I’ve chosen the first option. Politics is such a complex and broad topic, that choosing the second option would require a massive investment of time and energy that I would have to withdraw from other areas of interest. I’m someone that needs to feel very secure about his knowledge before defending it, and I’ve never gotten close to that feeling when it comes to politics, despite all my attempts. However, when it comes to almost any other subject, I’m more updated and able to hold my ground than most of my friends. For me, it’s a trade-off worth taking.

This doesn’t mean I choose permanent ignorance regarding politics, and this is where History solves my problem. History weeds out the imprecisions, the meaningless details, the statistics, the opinions, and leaves you with the facts. Once a topic is no longer interesting in politics, it becomes interesting in history. History leaves you with the important things, just a little bit later. And really, what’s the rush? Unless you are a journalist or a politician, where your responsibilities are strictly related to the “right now” of politics, the loss is very small. Unless you enjoy reading politics on a personal and passionate level, history is a much more efficient way to be informed. The lessons are the same, you’re just leaving a lot of time-wasting controversy out of the way.

Bottom Line: Learning about current politics is too time-consuming and the odds of not knowing all that matters are very high, even if you try. History is a more efficient way to learn about society’s rights and wrongs, and to have a strong and informed opinion about current present events.

What would I’ve done back then?

This will probably be one of the biggest mysteries for me in the course of my life, since I highly doubt I’ll ever live under a dictatorship. The western world has become too flat, too decentralized, too connected and over-informed for a dictatorship to be the choice of any government, and the eastern world is catching up. Fortunately, only a mad man would believe in the year 2010 that a dictatorship is an effective way to rule, whatever his objectives are. The fact that dictatorships don’t work is too obvious by now.

One obviously appreciates being born after it was over. However, this sense of gratification is not enough to prevent one from wondering how one would have reacted in such a situation. Would I have been chased because of my thoughts? Would I have been too afraid to speak up? Or worse, would the system had such a prohibitive effect on my mind that I wouldn’t even want to speak up or question the establishment?

My guess: I would have been persecuted too. Not because I would have played a subversive role (I’m not a fan of politics and choosing sides). No, I believe I would have been punished because the prohibition to ask questions would have been unbearable for me. I hold objectivity, truth and integrity over any other personal value, and a dictatorship doesn’t allow that. I’m too curious and outspoken.

What would my generation do now?

Would the current western generation of young people fight against the system to the point of risking their lives, torture and even the safety of their loved ones? Are we capable of getting involved in a cause that puts everything on the line?

I don’t know. This generation is the most outspoken and self-entitled generation the world has seen so far, and there is certainly no lack of young activists. But it’s not a hidden cause, it’s not a rebellion, it’s never pain and death what’s at stake.

Again, I don’t know.

Permanent damage

I’ve always thought that the worst thing the last dictatorship did to my parents’ generation was to install the fear of asking. There’s too much status-quo worshiping in them, no risk taking, no questioning, no shining.

I blame the dictatorship. It has poisoned the minds of Argentinians and it only keeps spreading, from generation to generation, by being afraid to be different and challenge the system. It’s not just fear of failure, it’s fear of physical consequences, fear of being noticed.

The thing that saved me and all the other out-of-the-box thinkers in Argentina I know from that poison?

The internet.

In the imaginary small town of Jante there is an informal, oppressive law that forbids anyone from standing out from the crowd:

The Law of Jante

1. Thou shalt not believe thou art something.
2. Thou shalt not believe thou art as good as we.
3. Thou shalt not believe thou art more wise than we.
4. Thou shalt not fancy thyself better than we.
5. Thou shalt not believe thou knowest more than we.
6. Thou shalt not believe thou art greater than we.
7. Thou shalt not believe thou amountest to anything.
8. Thou shalt not laugh at us.
9. Thou shalt not believe that anyone is concerned with thee.
10. Thou shalt not believe thou canst teach us anything.

We are now living in Jante.

Better has died.

There are many reasons behind this, such as the need for empowered individuals that can consume stuff and an exaggerated fascination with democracy, to name a few. However, I want to focus on the fear of violence.

The horror of wars and recent dictatorships have made us afraid of the consequences that fighting for an idea may have. We worry that trying to impose objectivity will inevitably lead to some sort of authoritarianism and physical retaliation. Past (and still fresh) violence has left a bad reputation in people’s ability to handle disagreements. We prefer to say “to each its own” because we believe that a new Hitler can be just around the corner.

Terrorists prove everyday that this possibility is very real. Their blind and retarded belief in a “better scenario” lets them justify any atrocity to humanity. And this is why we need to learn from the past, not ignore it. We need to embrace the intensity of a war and apply it exclusively in an intellectual setting. It’s the year 2010, we have to be able to separate our ideas from our bodies.

Everyone should live with their needs covered in a peaceful society that respects every individual, I’m all for equality in every aspect of life. We can’t let any kind of moral debate overrun human rights.

But when it comes to debating, let’s beat the shit out of each other. We can’t keep putting our emotional fragility before intellectual objectivity either. Let’s stop respecting each others’ feelings so much.

Like Philip Pullman says, no one has the right not to be offended (h/t to Tyler for sharing):

In a world where feelings are a priority, quality of life, ideas and morals drop.

In a world where feelings are a priority, conflict and improvement become taboo.

In a world where feelings are a priority, mediocrity rules.

Here’s to a world that values rationality, logic, quality and growth before fear, feelings and ignorance.

Here’s to the end of Jante.

How will some of us be the world changers that we dream of being, if we are going to silently accept everything everyone does?

It’s one thing to let everyone enjoy their time here the way they want to, but it’s a whole different story to let everyone dictate the rules the way they want to. The fact that you enjoy surfing or hiking does not affect the world. The fact that you are a democrat or republican does.

How long would you shut up and let others tell you what you should do? After all, Hitler was trying to do his own thing convinced that it was the best path for the world.

Look, if you think something’s wrong, you try to fix it. Why should other people’s actions and opinions be any different?

Yes, conflict will arise. The moment we start avoiding it, we become average. No significant event throughout history would have occurred if it weren’t for conflict. Caesar, Alexander, Gandhi, Obama. They didn’t let others call the shots. They did it themselves. To have any sort of impact during your time here, you have to be confident enough to “destroy” other people’s visions of what should be done.

Every time the world has had a problem, we have had conflict. Not with the problem, but between ourselves. It has always been a matter of one vision trumping the rest. Conflict is what brings a solution.

The problem is that nowadays we all want to “get along.” That sounds beautiful, but it’s impossible. Democracy is expanding throughout the world, so it’s only logical to have MORE conflict now that individuals have been empowered, not less. This democratic way of solving conflict has caused a very harmful effect: ignorance now has a voice.

Ignorance now can decide.

This is why marketing is so important, and also why our world is not the best possible version of itself (and never will be). Because for your solution to prevail you have to communicate it better than anyone else, not have the best one.

In the end, I need to trust my vision, and you should trust yours. We need to clash, someone should triumph and the other one should keep his own thing to himself. Otherwise the most mediocre and damaging ideas will also become real. I won’t let that happen.

People, if we can’t accept this, if we are going to keep trying to avoid conflict and get along, then we have become too weak to see any real change happen.

It’s not the time to be soft, it’s time for civilized conflict.

Fight for any idea that you believe in, even if that hurts someone else’s, and let the best one win.

Just because we didn’t have a word for it, not to mention an industry, does not mean that it didn’t happen.

Why do we assume that all those rules that Seth taught us over the years have been working only in recent times?

What if Adam Smith was not the wisest at his time, but the one who marketed himself the best?

Robert L. Heilbroner on “The Worldly Philosophers” says: “There is a long line of observers before Smith who have approached his understanding of the world: Locke, Steuart, Mandeville, Petty, Cantillon, Turgot, not to mention Quesnay and Hume.” What if they had better ideas of what people should do, but didn’t have a good network, PR skills or luck? When you read Smith’s history, you realize that these things mattered enormously, besides his ideas, talent and devotion.

I like to say that marketing makes the irrational sound rational. This is (not so) bad when it comes to purchasing an expensive phone or car.

This is terrible when it comes to the historical repercussions of not choosing the real bests in history to guide civilization.

This is of course just a supposition, but it makes you wonder where we would be in a world without marketing.

I’m guessing there would have been an Obama long ago.