The Moral Importance of Freedom, Honesty, and Intelligence (Column 362)

Three concepts appear in the title of this column. I wanted to touch on them and their meanings against the backdrop of the present low point in which our public discourse finds itself. You may sense that these words are written from the depths of my heart and out of deep frustration with the situation. Perhaps this column, and the site as a whole, are my modest contribution to changing it.

On Freedom, Honesty, and Intelligence as Values

Freedom of expression is today accepted as a fundamental social value. On the personal level as well, people are expected nowadays to form and express their own opinions on the issues at hand. Truth‑telling and intellectual honesty are also, by all accounts, important values, though it’s hard to claim they trump every other value. In certain contexts there is a halakhic license to lie, and morally it is commonly thought there are circumstances in which lying is justified if the harm in telling the truth warrants it. Regarding intelligence the situation is different. It appears not to be a value at all, but perhaps an asset.[1] First, because intelligence is a fixed condition not in your control; the IQ with which you were endowed is an innate datum, regrettable or delightful as it may be. Beyond that, even if a person can improve their intelligence (with respect to thinking and analytic ability this is undoubtedly possible), I don’t think many would call it a moral value—perhaps a human or personal value, if at all.[2]

And despite all this, in recent days, as public discourse in Israel and around the world has been sliding into depths we haven’t known before—silencing, lies, inflammatory rhetoric, and positionality instead of arguments—I feel a very deep sense of helplessness. In its wake, a few further thoughts have occurred to me about the importance of public discourse and the infrastructure required to conduct it reasonably. The core of that infrastructure lies in the three things I listed above: freedom, intellectual honesty (truth), and intelligence. In the absence of any one of them, there is no chance for proper, reasonable public discourse, and this has dramatic implications for the realization of foundational moral values. These days the importance of these three is becoming clearer to me, and it seems far greater than I used to think; there is much more to them than their direct ethical value. In this column I wish to explain why.

The State of Public Debate Today

A few days ago we were informed that all the major social networks in the world had decided to silence the outgoing American president, Donald Trump, may he live and be well, and erase him from the map (since then some have somewhat moderated their steps). Let me preface this by saying that, in my view, the man is a walking horror: morally and humanly degraded, cynical and repulsive, a harasser and money‑grubber, a pathological liar, a spreader of fake news and an inciter, at times antisemitic (when it suits him), an encourager of bearing and using arms, a promoter of Nazi and racist groups, and a danger to our globe and the human society living on it on several planes, in scopes and ranges I find hard even to imagine. Before you jump to respond that I’m captive to left‑wing propaganda, hold on. I write all this only as background to an argument that goes in the opposite direction, so there’s no point in discussing whether my description of Trump is accurate. In any case, if someone truly sees Trump that way, what’s wrong with taking a problematic step to earn the removal of that harm from the map? Is freedom of expression a value that outweighs all the terrible harms I enumerated? Is every person’s freedom, including that of such a degraded creature, a foundational value worth any price? Surprisingly, my answer to all that is yes.[3]

Despite everything I said about Trump—and perhaps precisely because of it—the decision to silence him is, in my eyes, a scandal, especially when it is made and executed by businessmen and owners of commercial corporations, rather than by an objective judicial tribunal (insofar as such a thing exists) that could allow him to defend himself and present his side. It’s important to remember we’re talking about a man whom almost half of U.S. citizens want as president. He represents a broad social phenomenon that will not disappear even if we shut our eyes and completely silence Trump. Will silencing him actually solve any problem? If half of American citizens are not allowed to express those opinions online, will that really improve the situation? On the contrary—it will arouse frustration and (justified) feelings of persecution that will lead to spreading those views by any possible means and to further radicalization. Moreover, who is authorized to decide there is no substance to those opinions? I, who oppose them? Zuckerberg? Don’t we have the right and duty to hear those arguments—whatever their nature and quality—and decide for ourselves? Is Zuckerberg supposed to decide what is legitimate, what will be heard and what will not, and thus manage global discourse? Steps like these, beyond the harm inherent in silencing opinions and arguments, also create antagonism and slam the door on the possibility of social dialogue—and therefore on the possibility of real change. Beyond that, they also elicit and legitimize counterreactions of even greater intensity.

In an interesting series (though not a masterpiece) I just watched, “The Good Fight,” a law firm of Black attorneys in Chicago is depicted. Of course almost all of them (apart from one) and their surrounding milieu are Democrats who hate Trump and feel deep loathing for him and for everything around him. This state of affairs and these feelings drive them to despair and deep frustration, leading some to take far‑reaching steps, for the end justifies the means. They engage in election fraud (because Trump does it too), plant false information and baseless smears against him and his supporters (because Trump does that too), conceal facts, personally persecute people among his supporters, make non‑merit‑based appointments to various positions (judicial and otherwise), use violence (up to causing murder), and more. All this is done by normative people who understand full well how problematic such conduct is. These are people who would never have dreamed of behaving that way—jurists and people committed to the democratic tradition, to liberal values and freedom of opinion—yet that is precisely what leads them to justify those steps. They see no other way to bring him down and save democracy. And ostensibly, from their perspective, they are right, for the harm (as they assess it) is immense; hence, they believe, such steps are justified.

I’m describing the Democratic side, but of course the Republican side is not sitting idly by. Regarding some of them (the racist elements, the gun lobby, the KKK, etc.), some would say this is only to be expected. Thus on both sides the situation escalates and reaches what we are experiencing today (which I’ll describe further below). Likewise, the maligned conservatives point out that the champions of liberalism are running wild in the streets with violence no less than the assault on the Capitol, with full encouragement from the “moderate” elites; therefore the criticism of them is perceived as tendentious and condescending. Both sides distort data and silence people and positions in a crude and violent manner, and none of this tarnishes (at least in their own eyes—and perhaps in the eyes of a significant slice of the innocent public) their chivalrous and enlightened image. In this game there are almost no righteous people—and certainly not only on one side.

And I haven’t even begun to address the situation in Israel, which looks very similar (replace Trump with Bibi). Silencing and “etrog‑ing” (protective whitewashing), distortion and slanted presentation of facts (I just saw an article—one of many—by Kalman Liebskind on the matter), harassment of people from the other side, lies and fake news, delegitimization, childish hysteria (everything is either the absolute ruin of democracy from the right or betrayal from the left). All these are steps and statements made openly—some even with full awareness of the manipulation—but ostensibly they are justified: there is no other way to get rid of the corrupt person or party and the damage and ruin they bring (as perceived). I’m trying to show how a situation has arisen in which completely normative people on both sides find themselves compelled to descend into such conduct.

The Justification

I personally believe in the sincerity of all sides. I am impressed that people and groups truly feel that red lines have been crossed by other people or groups, and therefore allow themselves to act against them in dishonest and immoral ways. To the best of my judgment, in most cases this is not manipulation—but precisely for that reason these phenomena are so dangerous.

A few days ago I read that, as part of the impeachment process against Trump (one week before the end of his term), Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) delivered a speech in Congress and quoted Ehud Manor’s song, “I Have No Other Country.” She expressed there a feeling prevalent among many American citizens—a feeling we often hear in Israel as well—that their country has been stolen from them. The country has changed its face and is degenerating into unbearable depths we cannot and must not accept. Therefore, in their view, this is something not entitled to the protections of freedom of opinion and democracy, and it also justifies steps that in any other context would be considered by all of us as base. Out of the sense of helplessness, unfairness, and the terrible threats looming from the opposing side (each can fill in their own sons of light and sons of darkness, angels and demons), there is “no choice” but to take steps of silencing—such as impeaching a president a week before the end of his term, or even afterward—silencing him, presenting falsified and distorted facts, and more. This is also the justification of left‑wing figures in Israel who take similar steps against Bibi and Likud—but of course so it is as well on the right. Again, I’m persuaded this is authentic, on both sides.

If, for a moment, we try to step into the other’s shoes (which are usually very similar to our own), these justifications seem on their face entirely reasonable: lying is not such a grave offense, and even freedom of expression is not above every harm and threat we face. There are emergency situations (so long as they’re from my side, of course) that justify infringing these values. Democrats in the U.S. think it is imperative to stop this dangerous, terrible man (Trump), the like of which has never been—and if there is no other way, then there is no choice. Is truth and obedience to the law an absolute value? Doesn’t removing a Nazi monster (that is how most Democrats, and no small number of Republicans, see him and his milieu) justify a little lying and distortion of the truth, or taking undemocratic steps? I began this column by saying that truth is indeed an important value, but it is not supreme.

I have previously mentioned here a conversation with a good friend—a wonderful person, secular and an activist leftist—after the Second Lebanon War. I was boiling with anger at Olmert, who sent people to die negligently, without purpose, plan, or justification (this was before the exposure of suspicions and investigations into his criminal aspects), and I said it would be proper to take joint action from right and left against this evil, harmful man. He replied that he was unwilling to join such activity, because the alternative is Bibi. If the price of stopping Bibi is supporting Olmert and his deeds, he had no problem with that (cf. “etrog,” here and, conversely, also here). I reminded him that when Ariel Sharon was appointed Defense Minister (I think this conversation was after the First Lebanon War and Sabra and Shatila), he warned me that the right wing was very happy that such a dangerous man had ascended to power because he doesn’t keep accounts and will act for the cause without being fazed by laws and rules. But, he argued, the right will itself pay a heavy price, because those same traits and modus operandi can turn against it with equal brutality and callousness. He prophesied without knowing he was prophesying. In our conversation after the Second Lebanon War I reminded him of that earlier conversation, and told him that now he was doing the same thing, and he would pay the price. I prophesied knowing what I was prophesying. As an exercise, try to guess whether, following that decisive argument, the fellow joined me in a fight to the finish against Olmert (and in retrospect that was the beginning of the end for him), or not…

The Cost: Short Term vs. Long Term

Nevertheless—and actually because of the deep inner conviction on both sides—the long‑term consequences are devastating. Trust in facts and news reports has been lost on all sides; everything is perceived as agenda and positionality, and one cannot present arguments and conduct a discussion. You cannot know whether the other is lying, and in fact you assume by default (and in many cases it is indeed true) that that is what he is doing. In such a situation discourse simply does not exist. By the way, here on the site as well, when I write certain things I already know in advance what un‑substantive responses will appear—everything is positionality (I assume there are those who think the same about my responses).

This is what I want to say to all who justify silencing and slanted treatment of opposing opinions (even when, in their view, those opinions cross red lines) on the claim that this is the way to stop and neutralize them. This approach may help in the short term, but in the long term it works against all of us. In this sense, the value of truth and intellectual honesty is supreme—not because lying is so terrible. Murder and harm to people are more terrible. But our ability to prevent the worst harms of any kind depends on the ability to persuade, and the way to do that is to conduct discourse and bring facts and arguments. Those who silence harmful views cause the collapse of the infrastructure needed to conduct discourse, thereby shooting themselves in the foot. See how the public now relates to journalistic reports and to decisions of the judicial system. Trust has been completely lost—and to a large extent with justification. Everyone acts tendentiously, and everyone is certain they are justified (the end justifies the means), but the result is that we all approach everything we hear from the starting point that it’s tendentious manipulation and lies—and the greatest trouble is that this is not entirely unjustified. In many cases it’s really so.

Beyond all the direct harms, such conduct entrenches itself long‑term. Once we take such “justified” steps against our opponents, they will find justification to do the same to us, and vice versa. This creates a situation in which these attitudes are indeed justified, for the other side (like me) really is lying and manipulating and truly not listening—so what’s the point of listening and/or trying to persuade him? And so on, in a vicious circle. Thus we reach a state in which we have no way to conduct a discussion and reach decisions because the rules of the game are broken. What remains is only a mode of forceful and manipulative conduct in which the end justifies all means. But in the end, when we’ve broken the rules and used every kind of means, we still won’t achieve our goal. So why employ all these means if they don’t work? Why manipulate and distort information if the other side is not really persuaded by it? In the end it turns out that these manipulations are aimed at our own people, to fortify their belief in the righteousness of our path, since the others don’t relate to our lies anyway. In the end we shoot ourselves in the foot and we all lose—even on our own terms.

Part of the problem is also the exaggerations and hysteria (which are part of the manipulation). For example, the ridiculous and hysterical portrayal from the left as if every foolish act here is the ruin of democracy. These are manipulations sometimes carried out under the same justification, but I am truly persuaded that they themselves end up believing it. If you repeat such nonsense constantly, it eventually sinks in. Thus the left entrenches itself in its stance, and the right will not yield even when steps it takes are in fact the ruin of democracy. Likewise with the labels of “traitor” that the right slaps on any group or person with a leftist stance. These exaggerations remind me of the “endless‑cord” gag by the Gashash in “Kraker vs. Kraker.” There’s a cry‑wolf effect, and discourse loses its meaning.

When you present slanted “facts” and silence the arguments of those who espouse a different stance—when you exaggerate every one of your own arguments and belittle every argument of the other—there is no discourse. In the end you convince yourself of the nonsense you yourself invent, and thus the process feeds on itself. The more extreme the attitude toward a person or group, the more biased the facts presented against them and the more arguments in their favor are silenced; then an even stronger justification is created to take illegitimate steps against them to oust them, and so on in a spiral. And again: this happens on both sides of the map. There are no pure righteous and evil villains here.

Balance or Monadology

In the U.S., for quite some time the media is ostensibly more balanced, since there are outlets on both political sides. In Israel the situation was different, though lately it has been shifting that way, as outlets arise that present a slanted picture in the opposite direction of the customary left‑leaning one.

But note that this is not actually balance; it is a deepening of polarization. This is monadology—that is, living in bubbles—where each person lives in their own bubble, nourished by the biased facts and arguments presented in that bubble, fed by the bubble’s media, hearing the views of the bubble’s people and, if at all, receiving a tendentious presentation of opposing views. In the end, of course, he “forms his opinions” accordingly. This in turn further justifies his clinging to the bubble and his lack of attentiveness and tolerance toward what goes on in other bubbles (which he is commanded to silence, for everything there is manipulation), and so on.

Consider, for example, our political situation. Bibi’s supporters are sure he is a righteous man of the highest order and that everything said against him is slander. When facts are raised, they are perceived as distortions and tendentious propaganda (some perhaps are). His rivals, for their part, are sure he is thoroughly wicked. Every good thing is interpreted by them as propaganda (and some of it really is). Just yesterday I heard a news headline about “a first union among the center‑left movements” ahead of the upcoming elections: Bogie is about to unite with Huldai. When Bogie is a “center‑left movement,” you realize how propaganda has completely washed over the discourse. Note that these aren’t Likud propagandists, who are nothing but a broken record repeating slogans and smears in an embarrassingly inept way (in my opinion the Likud response team deserves the Intergalactic Garbage Award; they are the worst at this—see below on Ehud Barak’s predictions). This was a headline on Channel 12 or 13 news, hardly a Likud mouthpiece. It simply seeped in, and no one noticed that the term “center‑left” had replaced everyone in the “Anyone But Bibi” camp. Bennett is not yet a center‑left movement, but that too will come (when he explicitly refuses to join Bibi). It is a veritable dance of distorted manipulations, and I pinch myself now and then to make sure I’m still awake, alive, and breathing. Honestly, in most cases I’m not entirely convinced.

This is the source of the helplessness I described. The feeling is that you can have good arguments and be armed with unambiguous facts, and still none of it will help you (and, after all, who knows whether your facts aren’t fake news). It’s no wonder that everything a person says is perceived as positionality rather than as substantive argument, because people really do allow themselves to use these methods. So is it any wonder that their words receive precisely such treatment?! People who, in internal discourse, justify such fake stunts then wonder why others don’t listen to them or are not impressed by the arguments and facts they present. The media and official institutions also operate quite a bit out of agenda, and so no one finds it appropriate to relate to arguments and facts, because there are no arguments and no facts. Everything, including what is presented as arguments and facts, is perceived (sometimes justifiably, sometimes not) as a war of positions, spins, and PR tricks. Journalists “etrog” figures and conceal facts according to their agenda, and trust in institutions, facts, arguments, and discourse has been completely lost for all of us. One cannot talk. It is truly discouraging. People can hold positions and arguments that are foolish, and it would be very easy to show them the folly—but you know there is no chance of succeeding. When you present an argument you’ll be told you’re right‑wing/left‑wing/a traitor/a captive of the media/a captive of Bibi, and so on. You will not receive substantive engagement, not even counterarguments—and certainly not agreement.

On Manners and Etiquette

In such a state you can at best expect polite engagement—which of course helps me not at all. What do I need politeness for? What good does it do me? I want listening—and then, for all I care, a good fight (verbal). Have you noticed that even when people want to soften and improve discourse, their comments revolve only around politeness and attitude toward the other? Whether they are extreme or not, attentive or not, polite or not. No one is interested in whether they raise substantive arguments, whether they listen and are willing to be persuaded. As far as we’re concerned, let them do what they want—so long as it’s polite. There are NGOs and periodic campaigns for meetings, listening, and exchanging “opinions,” when in fact it is nothing but politeness.

The reason is that persuasion today is a dirty word, a matter for the messianic age. I’ve already written several times that politeness doesn’t interest me at all. What matters is substance. Present well‑reasoned arguments—and you may do so with cynicism and while taking jabs at me and my mother who bore me. Alongside your arguments you are welcome to curse the day I came into the world (when darkness covered the earth and thick clouds the peoples) and treat me as scum. That, in my eyes, is far preferable to polite engagement that is non‑substantive and inattentive. Our problem is not politeness but substance—and these are not synonyms. Here on the site, more than once I’ve been criticized for a cynical, caustic style, but I don’t think you’ll find unreasoned invective from me. I present arguments—and write them in a cynical, mocking tone. One could debate the utility and effect of that, but I do not accept criticism of its legitimacy. On the contrary, the discourse about politeness replaces the more important discourse about substance.

In this context note, for example, the right of reply given to any person or body against whom claims are raised in the media. This is an ethical rule of media outlets (at least the major ones bound by journalistic ethics). Ostensibly this is the apex of balance and politeness. You criticized the Likud? Give them the right to respond. But if you pay attention you’ll discover the response is always something like: “So‑and‑so is a traitor collaborating with the left under the guise of fake patriotism whose sole goal is to bring down Bibi and spread fake news. He has no right to criticize our revered leader.” I have never heard from the broken record of the Likud response team a single substantive argument presenting a position. So why, for heaven’s sake, give them the right of reply at all? They aren’t responding; they’re playing recordings. There was a great segment by Guy Zohar (see at the end of the episode linked here) in which Ehud Barak (full disclosure: one of my least liked people) systematically predicts in advance what the Likud’s response will be to any statement he makes, and time after time quotes it almost verbatim before it is even issued. When you later hear the actual statements, the resemblance is riveting—even if not at all surprising. It’s a must‑hear.

The Importance of Public Debate

Public debate is the cornerstone of running a society. The only way to improve the situation and fix failures is, first and foremost, to try to persuade people that they are acting or thinking improperly—and to give them the opportunity to persuade me. Without public debate, people just do whatever comes to mind, and you have no way to fix anything. Both left‑wing and right‑wing people want to express their opinions, present arguments, and try to persuade. Anyone who wants to advance any position must understand that the foundation for this is proper public debate. This is true for secular and religious, Arabs and Jews, liberals and conservatives, and more. But in the current situation none of these can truly do so. What can be done are spins, manipulations, stunts, empty slogans, and fake news.

It’s no wonder that in such a state only positionality remains. A person forms a stance by the gut, and his a priori stance remains with him forever; arguments and facts, however good, will not move him. He simply will not listen to them and/or will not believe them. He will interpret everything according to positionality; therefore nothing can move him—i.e., change that position. Sometimes there are good arguments that could change or refine my stance, but I cannot hear them—and even if I hear, I will not listen (for these are manipulations by leftists/Nazis/racists/democracy‑wreckers/traitors, etc.). The ultimate abomination is silencing positions and opinions—even the most extreme. In Column 6 I already wrote that banning Holocaust denial is, in my view, a scandal, because I want to hear every argument and decide for myself. I am not willing for anyone to make decisions for me and censor what I hear. That includes Zuckerberg and his friends silencing whomever they deem fit (see: Trump). The same applies to the freedom to preach missionary messages and any position you wish to promote. Without this we arrive at the ruin of our society—even if it is done to save it and its values.

The Conditions for Proper Public Discourse

If people cannot express their opinions, no discussion can be held. If people lie and distort facts and conceal the truth, again it’s impossible to hold a discussion. That is freedom. Without intellectual honesty, you can present arguments as good as can be—and it won’t help you. Everything is determined by positionality, and the quality of arguments is irrelevant. You cannot persuade anyone. That is honesty and truth. In addition, if people lack intelligence and cannot understand complex arguments—especially those that contradict their current stance (beyond the intellectual honesty to listen and respond substantively)—there is again no chance for discourse. That is the third side of our triangle: intelligence.

All of these give way before the terrible harms expected from the opposing stance, and ostensibly there is logic to that. None of these is an absolute value. Nevertheless, I want to argue here that their value far exceeds their ethical worth. They have instrumental value that is far more important. They are the bases for advancing any value whatsoever, for any social repair, and for discourse itself between us. As I’ve explained, even if we achieve something through fake news and other subversive acts, it will be a short‑term achievement. Trust in facts, in news reports, and of course in arguments, has been lost due to this conduct—and this price, in my view, is far worse than the most horrific ruler you can imagine (each can supply the appropriate name).

The feeling that what I’m doing is justified because the other is no less evil—and therefore I mustn’t be a sucker and deal with him honestly—is the mother of all evils. Even if it is true per se, what I’m doing brings about absolute devastation far greater than the harm my opponent might cause.

A Non‑Political Example: The Vaccines Debate

A striking example of the phenomenon I’m describing can be seen in the words of the director of Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon, who apparently lied shamelessly in a journalistic interview, with the goal of exaggerating the virtues of the vaccines. He presented false facts about the benefits of vaccination in order to get people to vaccinate. Ostensibly this is a laudable act. Doesn’t the moral price of a lie outweigh the harms it seeks to prevent? This is precisely the kind of reasoning I described above—where there is justification to lie to maximize benefit. The advantage of this example is that it’s not political; we’ve already grown accustomed to distortions in the political sphere.

Now the lie has been exposed—so consider its long‑term price. Suppose it persuaded a few more people to vaccinate. But what will people now say about any data presented to them? Might this harm not exact a heavy public‑health price on us—and, beyond that, a significant media price that causes the loss of public discourse? That doctor arrogates to himself authority by virtue of his professional knowledge (which he indeed has), and presents us with “his” truth while concealing facts that could undermine it. What about free discourse on vaccines? Shouldn’t all arguments of every kind be presented to us so that we can form our own stance? True, we are medical laypeople, yet I alone make decisions regarding myself. The expert can advise—but not decide, and certainly not lie. This is one example, among many, of the destructive harm of fake news—even when done with good intentions.

Yes—if people don’t get vaccinated it greatly endangers all of us. On the other hand, it is very important that counterarguments be heard. Perhaps there really is substance to opposition to vaccines? And even if many people make an incorrect, harmful decision, I far prefer that over lies that may lead to short‑term results but wreak devastating damage on our entire social fabric in the long term. That doctor, with wonderful intentions and medical knowledge (certainly greater than mine and most of his listeners’), took for himself an ostensibly justified medical authority—and thus made a significant contribution to the destruction of our politics and to a grievous blow to the social fabric as a whole. Our Sages taught that “a lie does not stand”—but it’s even more harmful than that. Not only does the lie fall in the end; it also brings about the general ruin of society. Truth and honesty may be more important than any other values, for they are the basis for discussion of values and for advancing values at all.

In light of this, I am very doubtful about the licenses to lie granted by the Sages. In my view, in most cases it is forbidden to use them, because their harm outweighs their benefit. Take, for example, the license of the Magen Avraham (sec. 156, with a source in the Talmud itself) to state things in the name of a great person so that people will accept them from me.[4] I have explained more than once the reasonable ethical foundation for this license, but here I wish to present the other side of the coin. If we know such a license exists, can we now believe anyone who says something in the name of a great person at all? There is a famous story about Rabbi Shalom Schwadron, who told his audience that the Chazon Ish had told him it is permitted to state things in the name of a great person so that people will accept them—and then immediately added: “And this itself I will not tell you whether the Chazon Ish actually said.” You can see how destructive lying is—even when justified.[5]

So What Should We Do?

We have reached the edge of the abyss. For this reason I contend that the three conditions for discourse—truth (and intellectual honesty), freedom, and intelligence—cannot be judged as ordinary values. Their inherent ethical importance is not so dramatic, but their instrumental importance is enormous. From this perspective they are more important than human life, health, and any other harm you can think of that could be caused by any given political figure or group. So what can and should be done?

First, give up the justifications I presented above. They cast a spell over us, but their long‑term price is terrible. Second, more generally, we must improve in these three elements: the freedom to express an opinion—ours or others’; the honesty with which we examine and present arguments—others’ or our own; and the intelligence we use to conduct these discussions. We are now called upon to be “suckers” and speak truth, to listen and allow everyone to present facts and arguments pro and con—and even, heaven forfend, to be persuaded. We are called upon not to distort arguments and facts, and to accept the truth from whoever says it. We are also called upon to improve our analytic and argumentative abilities, so as to attain reasonable capabilities for conducting intelligent, substantive discussion (which, in my estimation, most of the population currently lacks). My site tries to do this. It’s possible—and likely—that I too fall into these traps, but at least I try not to. My main goal, more than persuading anyone of anything, is to try to create substantive discourse in which it is permitted to present any argument and any stance, heretical and harmful as they may be—and what is required is not politeness but substance: freedom, honesty, and intelligence.

Since we are on the eve of elections, I’ll add that, ironically, the most important party to establish today is a party with no agenda, whose whole purpose is to purify discourse along the three components I described: freedom, intellectual honesty (truth), and intelligence. I’m looking for copywriters to find a good name for this party. Incidentally, because almost all the other parties in the arena are also agenda‑less, the price isn’t so terrible. You won’t lose much if you vote for this party. But before you vote—please join it. No need to register, sign up, or pay dues. What’s needed is to try to create discourse with these three characteristics.

On the margins of my remarks, I’ll add two practical recommendations in the spirit of these days:

1. I highly recommend downloading the “Signal” app and starting to use it for our social communications instead of “WhatsApp” (for now, at least use it in parallel). This is not only because of the information‑security and privacy problems everyone is talking about today, but mainly because of freedom of discussion. My criticism of the networks is not lack of oversight but excess oversight. I really don’t want Zuckerberg—or anyone else—to be our global censor, taking down speakers who don’t please him under various pressures (those pressures are themselves part of the steps I described that are taken with positive motivations and bring about terrible destruction).[6] Signal is an open‑source app—that is, a project developed by a free group of volunteers—and to the extent I’ve checked it meets all safety and privacy tests and has no economic interest behind it. It’s a splendid app—the Wikipedia of social communication. In my humble opinion it is a sacred duty to promote it. One must understand there isn’t much benefit to such an app until we reach a high number of users. I gather that during these days of criticism of Zuckerberg and friends, it is the most popular app in the world. This is our opportunity to join a very important and beneficial trend.
2. In addition, I highly recommend listening assiduously (but critically) to Guy Zohar’s daily program, “From the Other Side,” which is also uploaded to YouTube. There are real gems there on all the topics I addressed here. The show is dedicated to exposing the lies and manipulations I described, and truly does so from all directions and sides; thereby it contributes an invaluable service to the holy war against these phenomena (it too, of course, is not free of mistakes, but it is evident there is intelligence, honesty, good intentions—and also freedom, i.e., allowing any reasoned opinion to be expressed). It’s practically the flagship program of the party I described here. I’ll conclude with kudos to Guy Zohar for his excellent show. May such programs multiply in Israel until knowledge increases and the need for such shows disappears.

[1] On this distinction see Column 127 and elsewhere.

[2] On distinctions between types of values, see Column 154.

[3] I’m well aware many responses will arrive regarding my description of Trump, and people will explain, with good flavor and reason, that I’m brainwashed by the liberal‑left media and that they’re disappointed in me and my lack of critical sense. Perhaps that’s true (hint: I don’t think so), but I do not intend to enter a personality analysis of him or debates about him. Here I mentioned my view of him only as background meant to sharpen why, despite all that, silencing him is grave and scandalous.

[4] See on this in Columns 21, 63, and 304. You can also search the site’s Responsa (Q&A).

[5] Incidentally, the explanation I proposed there for this license was that it is meant precisely for a society that does not accept things without arguments—even if they are said in the name of a great person. But now you can see this very point empties the license of content and need. If indeed people listened to every argument without regard to the fact that its source is a great person, this license wouldn’t be needed. And if people don’t listen to arguments, and therefore I was permitted to lie and tell them those arguments in the name of a great person, in the end they won’t listen to any argument (because they will no longer believe that a great person said it). In a healthy society there is no need to lie, and if we lie to heal a sick society, we usually make it even sicker.

[6] At least so long as we are talking about expressing opinions and positions—however bad they may be. Speech that is likely, with near certainty, to cause violence is another matter, but even there censorship must be used very sparingly and only after a decision by a body as objective as possible. For example, the stormy criticism of interviews conducted with Yigal Amir, or the interview with Aviad Moshe, the murderer from Mitzpe Ramon. KAN 11 interviewed him and, following furious reactions and criticism, the network apologized and decided to remove it from the web (see here). Incidentally, I cannot find it now. It is truly unbelievable how this sensational interview has completely vanished from the web. The political commissars from the women’s organizations and their helpers have taken over our lives. In my eyes this is a scandalous silencing. Everything is done out of sanctimony and good intentions—but people actually want to silence positions, opinions, and other people, thereby preventing me from obtaining information regardless of any expected violent consequences. It is unparalleled impudence, and the capitulation to such pressure is a scandal.