The decision this week to cancel the status of the women's lobby at the same time as the coup d'état brought to attention the difference between those who take a rational position and populists who are based mainly on shouting and subjugation
A few days ago, there was an interview on the YNET website in which Attila Shumpelvi and Alexandra Lukash interviewed attorney Einat Fischer Lalou, CEO of the Women's Lobby, and journalist Yael Tzin, regarding the proposal to dissolve the Authority for the Status of Women. Regarding the proposal to dissolve the Authority for the Status of Women. Einat represented the side that thinks this bill is dangerous for the status of women in Israel, while Yael thinks that it is a bill that is good for the status of women. How do you know who is right? A rational discussion should be held, of course, in which you listen to the arguments of both sides and examine which arguments are better. It may be that some of the arguments will simply be incorrect or not based on facts and then it is clear that these arguments should be abandoned, or, it may be that some of the arguments of both sides will be well-founded arguments and then there is a more complex process of checking what values these arguments are based on and whether we agree with These values? Are these the values we want to be at the base of our society?
For example, if the argument is that women are entitled to freedom and equal opportunities like men so that they too can fulfill themselves, it is clear that the values at the base of this argument are the modern values on which Western liberal culture is based. On the other hand, if the claim is that women should stay at home and raise the children because they are the mainstay of the home, it is clear that the values at the base of this claim are values that come from the traditional religious stream. As long as there is a rational and factual discussion, it is possible to move forward, it is possible to make a conscious, free and informed choice. I think this kind of discussion should be our goal as a society, regardless of which side I support in the discussion. Because without such discussion rules, there is really no freedom of choice and no progress. In such a case, only the violent option remains, each monitor will try to impose his opinion on the other. This violent coercion does not have to be only with the help of physical or verbal violence. Fascist regimes/dark dictators have long since realized that their will can be imposed by more subtle tools of brainwashing and Hinduization of the mind. There are many tools to try to influence us without our knowledge and make us feel as if we freely chose exactly what they wanted us to choose in the first place. Advertisements use this kind of emotional brainwashing all the time. In general, it seems that among the more effective tools is to use strong emotions such as fear, anger and a sense of deprivation. Almost every dictatorship in history has found some scapegoat to incite the masses against him on the grounds that he is dangerous, unpatriotic and a traitor. The most cynical is the use of claims as if that scapegoat is the one who controls the masses and therefore must be taken care of (we all know the anti-Semitic stories about the elders of Zion who rule the world for example).
Therefore, as a reformed society we should try to strive for rational discussion and minimize as much as possible such tools of brainwashing and Hinduization of consciousness, so that we can all choose freely and consciously and from real facts and not from lies and distortions. This is a basic condition that must be applied on both sides!
So what was in this interview? Did he meet these requirements? Was it a rational and matter-of-fact discussion, without tools of brainwashing and Hinduization of consciousness or not?
to downplay brainwashing and Hinduization of consciousness
So no, this discussion was not like that. He is a beautiful example, unfortunately, of the Hindu method of consciousness and brainwashing that flourishes nowadays in the world in so-called populist regimes. This nickname, being a populist, just means that instead of trying to strive for a rational, fact-based discussion, the populist will intentionally do the opposite. He will deliberately omit and distort facts and use every tool of Hindu consciousness and brainwashing to win the discussion at any cost. A populist does not care about truth and facts and does not care about values. All he cares about is gaining power, money and respect. Do you know from somewhere?
Why is the name specifically populist? Because in order to win at any cost, the simplest way is to abandon the facts and the rational discussion method and instead use slogans that precisely activate feelings of fear, anger and a sense of deprivation. Because these are such strong feelings, we are pretty much guaranteed that these slogans will work and become popular. Thus, in the method of Hindu consciousness and exemplary brainwashing, the populist should continue to pump over and over again (as any good advertisement does) the same popular slogans and reactivate the same strong emotions in us every time so that we happen to choose exactly what he wanted us to choose and also so that we don't Beware of deceptions and distortions.
Here are several examples of this from the interview. In a rational discussion, because revealing the truth is more important than victory, each side should be allowed to present their arguments and only then respond to them in a matter-of-fact manner. Indeed, Einat Fischer of the Women's Lobby does this and lets the other side, Liel Tzin, finish her words, even though she does not agree with her. But then when it's Einat's turn to present her arguments, very quickly, Yael starts bursting into her words and doesn't let her finish. Lucky that the interviewers Attila and Alex did a good job and quieted Yael so that Anat could finish her arguments. What is interesting is that at no point did Yael try to answer or address the interviewers' questions. Instead, she repeatedly attacked the other side of the argument. This is another well-known populist tactic. We all know the phrase "the best defense is an attack". When the truth is not interesting and you want to win at any cost and when there are no good arguments, what remains is to attack the other side and utter slogans whose entire purpose is to arouse the same intense feelings of fear, anger and deprivation, and unfortunately this is exactly what Yael Tzin did. The climax came towards the end of the interview (minute 3:26 explanation of the law, then minute 5:45) when Anat and the interviewers try to bring Yael back to the topic and ask, 'Why does the new law that the government is proposing, which talks about the advancement of women, delete for some reason the clauses that say there will be an organization In Israel that will fight discrimination and violence against women and promote equality'?
Of course, Yael had no answer to this question. Instead, she chose to attack the other side again and use unrelated slogans whose entire purpose is only to activate the feelings of anger and hatred for the other side. This is populism at its best. Because the truth and the facts are not important but only the victory, when the facts do not add up they are simply ignored and move on to exercise feelings of anger on the other side in order to unify ranks and still win in public opinion, even though the argument is factually not good and should be dropped from the table. This is populist, bully and violent behavior. No wonder the protest uses the word 'shame!' So much..
If you remember, we started with the question of how to know who is right and we saw that we must use a rational discussion. We also saw that there are rather easy cases in which the arguments are simply incorrect and then it is clear that they should be ignored. That's exactly the case here, but do you think that's what will happen? Will anyone change their mind following Yael's failure to make convincing arguments? Will Yael herself make the rational choice and think that she might be wrong? probably not. In order for such norms to happen, we need education and norms that are truly recognized as an important value and require effort and not choosing the easy populist way. In the current populist culture we are light years away from such norms. At a certain point in the interview (minute 1:54) Yael replies to the interviewer, 'Pay attention, it's all about how we engineer consciousness, also here in the media, how we convey it to our viewers.' I get the feeling that for her there is nothing beyond the Hinduism of consciousness. There is no truth, there are no right and wrong claims and there is no need for justifications. All that remains is to Hinduize the mind of the listener so that he thinks like you.
Populism is not a new tactic. Humanity has always had such populist leaders who used these devious methods to gain power and status at the expense of truth and morality. The thing that surprises me a little is that after such a long history of kings and dictatorships and after several hundred years (especially since the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment) humanity keeps talking about how important knowledge, truth, rationality and free conscious choice are, yet again humanity seems to be falling into the same populist pit simple. I thought we had already evolved beyond that. I think this period shows how bad our education for all these ideas and Enlightenment values is.
That's it, I have nothing more to add. I'm usually an optimist, but I really don't know how it is possible that people don't notice these mechanisms that take away their free choice and threaten to take humanity to much darker times, like it was in the past. I also don't know why people still choose to use these devious methods even though they only guarantee violence in many forms. Man always has a choice, we can choose violence and brainwashing to win at any cost. But, we are supposed to be more developed than that and choose truly and well. Not to look only at ourselves but at the whole society and choose a meaningful and valuable way of life that is based on truth and rationale and not just choose the easy way that is based on survival instincts of narrowly looking only at yourself, and looking for fake power and honor. I hope this period will pass soon and we will come out of it stronger and more developed.
More of the topic in Hayadan: