I was raised on an island in the middle of the Atlantic, 500 miles from any other land. I don’t think I had an easy childhood, but you can believe it was much easier and smoother than many others. My parents always taught me that I could be whatever I wanted to be if I put my mind to it. I did have my problems, growing up, but at the same time I felt special, and I had great expectations about my future.

Nothing happened as I thought it would, for better and for worse.  As I grew up, I found I couldn’t be all I wanted to be, and I had limitations as anybody else. But I still was able to do a lot of things most people only dream of doing. I worked in movies, I wrote books, I met celebrities, I did some radio, was on TV, won awards, and other things that seem at the same time a lot easier and much more difficult than they are.

Today, every morning, I go to a coffee shop and have my breakfast as I write a few words just as I am doing now. As I look around, I see a lot of people who find themselves clever and smart, they have big theories about things, ideas on how to solve big challenges, tactical expertise in how to score goals, and technical knowledge on everything from climate change to war strategy, geopolitics, and the labyrinths of diplomacy. And we should all have opinions on all this. That’s the way of democracy. It inspires us, or should inspire us, to push ourselves, learn, get informed, and formulate opinions on everyone and everything. But we should also take this power with a grain of salt. We should recognize that there’s a lot we don’t know, that problems are complex, that power dynamics are hard to negotiate, and every tactical determination meets its matching obstacle. Things are never simple, and it is an illusion and a mistake to think they are. I understand the basic principles behind a car’s engine, but it would take me many centuries or even millennia to develop every single solution that makes it work. Doubts are scary but important. Maturity and Mental Health depend on learning this. On learning that we don’t know everything – that isolated individuals cannot know everything. We depend on each other.

Now, here are three things I’ve watched recently that I’d like to talk about.

First of all, the unhinged propaganda of Russian state television. I’ve been watching a few clips and been stunned by the amount of paranoia and absurdity in Russian commentator’s arguments. They still believe the British are ruling the world! I’m not making this up! Go check it out! They think the Americans and the British are behind every single bad thing going on, from Israel and Gaza to the Ukraine, etc. Before the Democratic Convention in Chicago started, I heard a Russian commentator say that in his opinion three things united the Democrats (I’m not making this up): 1) they are the most Pro-British party; 2) they long for financial dominance (they created the Federal Reserve), and 3) they are expansionist and want to rule the world.

It’s clear the Russians themselves still have dreams of grandeur. They’ve been taught they are an empire and also the cure for the disease of democracy and the Liberal Agenda of freedom, justice for all, and equality. Even as Russia becomes smaller and smaller, less and less relevant in the world, they still want to wield power. More, they fear if they don’t dominate their neighbors, bully their peers, and steal from their citizens, their culture and their country will collapse. Some prefer nuclear war to this.

I’ve also been watching Donald Trump rhetoric becoming stranger and crazier. In the early 1900s, Freud devised some techniques to decipher neurotic language and the ways of the unconscious. When one rambles on and on like Trump, it’s inevitable to tell the truth, one way or the other. Trump uses a lot of projection but also elaborates on his own fantasies and paranoia.

For instance, when he speaks about sharks and batteries, how he prefers to be electrocuted by the power in his sinking boat instead of being eaten by a shark, the image speaks volumes. His life is sinking, but he prefers to die electrocuted by his own power, he prefers to fight to the end, than to be eaten by the shark, i.e. the jaws of law, prosecutors, prison, or his opponents. He also fantasizes about being Hannibal Lecter (the ‘late great’), a ruthless cannibalistic sadistic predator who, at the end of Silence of the Lambs, manages to get away to a foreign country and get revenge. Eventually, in Trump’s mind, the late great Hannibal Lecter dies a victor after eating his enemies like a shark.

Freud said or wrote something to the effect that ‘Mental Health is the ability to deal with ambiguity’. In other words, Mental Health is the ability to face doubts and change within a framework of good sense, reasonableness, and balance. Somehow, both the Russian commentators and Donald Trump seem devoid of this ability. Their certainties are the certainties of scared crazy men.

In contrast, I watched in almost disbelief the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Contrary to what critics and Russian commentators might say, it was an amazing and inspiring event. It was an exhortation of Mental Health. It represented an aspiration of going back to normal. What’s good about normal, you’d say? Well, normalcy implies balance, reasoning, ponderation. Normal is a standard to understand each other and accept the doubts. And realizing the change that is possible instead of pining for the extremes that may sound interesting for this or that reason when we look at them superficially but will in fact bring exasperating damaging consequences. Many of these extremes, as experts will tell you, have been tried here and there and become examples of what not to do. Items like suspending the constitution, demonizing entire peoples, mass deportations, enormous tariff wars, tie state to religion, censor books, etc. All these absurdities have been tried before, they are not new. And they are dangerous.

At the other end of the spectrum, the American Democratic Party is fighting for things that may seem pipe dreams, impossibilities, dangerous radical wishes. However, many of these items are seen by most European citizens as everyday normal stuff. I’m talking about universal healthcare, cheap or free education, no school shootings, healthy affordable food, paid vacation and family leave, worker protection, functioning public transportation, etc. We have that in Europe, it’s not radical stuff to us.

Now, we could discuss if that makes European public finances worse off than American, or if Americans really prefer having more weapons than all their rivals combined, or if the European guard-rails allow for less painful economic crises but slower recoveries, etc. I would welcome those discussions. These are normal discussions. Instead, some political entities, from the Russian propaganda info-sphere to the American Republican bubble, prefer to dwell in crowd sizes, crime waves that don’t exist, crazy conspiracy theories, censure of kid’s books, newspapers and TV, and exaggerated threats that lead to catastrophic wars. This, my friends, is not normal to me.

Here we are in 2024. As many have said, it will be historical by many reasons, if not for the fact that it’s the year in Human History that more people will have ever voted in democratic elections. The Will of the People, as it were, has never been more important. It is also a pivotal moment, when we see the rising of extremist forces, to the left but mostly to the right, asserting their power and questioning democracy itself. Many philosophers, from Aristotle to Marx, from Nietzsche to Foucault, focused on the dynamics of power and power relations. But not getting into their discussions, let me make a point here.

Let me start by saying, paraphrasing Bion, that “Mind is an experience phenomenon”, meaning, grosso modo, that it is the way we experience reality. Imagine this simple scenario. A man and a woman, involved in a recent romantic relationship, go to dinner at a fine restaurant. In the end, the waiter brings the bill. Who will pay the bill? Whatever happens, it has a deep symbolic meaning in the relationship. Should the man pay the bill? Should the woman pay the bill? Should they go Dutch? Some years ago, who paid the bill seemed to assert dominance. It was a patriarchal move. Even if the woman paid the bill, it was a move to assert dominance over the man, but usually, it was the man who paid the bill showing his dominance. Today, the roles are mostly reversed. We can imagine a woman expecting a man to pay the bill – and so it’s a move of submission to do it, a move of service. We can also imagine a man expecting it. Or we can imagine a situation when they naturally, or even not so naturally, decide to go Dutch. Whatever happens, it designs a power dynamic in the relationship. But still, a fundamental problem needs to be solved – the bill must be paid. I suggest that the fact that even a slight power game is happening over it is a weakness in the system, shows a vulnerable point in the relationship. In an impossibly perfect relationship, the bill would be paid without any inference whatsoever over the power relations of the couple.

Now, we’re in an increasingly narcissistic society. We give an incredible amount of importance to our individual needs and wants. We want it good, and we want it now. We are plagued by an almost unbearable feeling of unsatisfaction, and we eagerly search to fill that void as if it could destroy us at any moment. I agree with Han that we live in a process of pornographic anxiety, always needing to consume and achieve and feel orgasm after orgasm. We constantly produce ourselves and we believe freedom is the assertion of our will. We need to show how happy and successful we are. We need to be happy and successful. Our whole lives are an assertion of our self. A positive movement of great importance. If we are not important, if we do not perform and impact the world, we seem to lose all meaning and our overall fulfillment.

On the other hand, Byung-Chul Han would tell us, this positioning means we do not have a place for the Other. We need to negate ourselves, to self-evacuate, to give way to the Other, or all we will have is a depressing narcissistic hole, where nothing is satisfied – as much as we look for completeness it will never be there, we’ll only find our imperfect selves, devoid of anything else.

What seems to me is that if we all abnegate our Self wholeheartedly and completely dedicate ourselves to the gift of the Other, we will be trapped in a situation where the Other herself will not be there – she’ll be abnegating herself to find us and not finding anything but abnegation. Love and Eros, it seems to me, is present in the dialectics. In the dialogue of positive and negative forces. In containing ourselves and asserting ourselves in harmonic successive moves. The coitus is only complete in the conjunction of both positive and negative poles, beyond the power struggle. Love happens only in the win-win or lose-lose positions, not in the win-lose, lose-win ones.

Even in a Domination-Submission relationship, the power-sharing is paramount. The submissive has the ultimate power of the Safe Word, being able to stop the situation at any moment. And thus, the power of the agreement – the power relinquished is voluntarily relinquished. The moment this agreement, this trust, is violated, the situation becomes one of torture and violence. It’s only when power is balanced, or void, that love makes sense.

That also seems to be the political dilemma we find ourselves in. Should we assert our needs and wants, strive for power, strive to satisfy our needs; or should we abnegate to the collective, fulfill our duties to the others, and complete our obligations to the system? Should we abnegate our power to a powerful man, a dear leader, a dictator; or to a Soviet-style State?

I would argue that we should not focus on the power struggle whatsoever. It’s inevitable, of course, but it shows a weakness in the system. It means we are not an impossibly perfect democracy.

In reality, democracy lives on dialectics. It lives on dialogue. It’s negotiating and improving step by step. Maturity is the ability to deal with frustration and manage uncertainty. Immaturity is the propensity to have it good and have it now. And this is where the center has an advantage in democracy. The center is boring, and imperfect, and heavy. But whereas the extremes are struggling for power, the center is focused on solving problems. Don’t get me wrong, both the extremes and the center are prone to corruption, mendacity, and promiscuity. But the extremes only win if they get power, and the center only wins if it solves problems. And the bill must be paid.

We live in a society dangerously playing with narcissistic feuds and individual needs. We were convinced we could only be happy if we were free from any chain, any imposition, any need of the Other. Be it the Big Other – society at large – or the small other – another person. Some would say that our freedom needs to stop where the freedom of the Other starts – and thus the Other is a limit, not an asset, not a source of wealth and value, not a partner in love, not a helping hand, but a liability, a supplier, a rival, and a problem. This is blind and petty. And sends us into a spiral of deeply crushing, depressing, and overwhelming dissatisfaction. We need to see the Other in a different way. In a balanced, both positive and negative, way. Otherwise, the power struggle might paralyze us and leave us morally bankrupt and war-torn. And in the end… the bill still must be paid.

My 11-year-old stepdaughter turned to me yesterday and asked me: ‘Did you know that there is only one country between North Korea and Norway?’ I had to think for a couple of seconds before answering: ‘Shit, you’re right. It’s Russia.’ She went on: ‘It helps when you have a surface larger than Pluto’s.’ ‘You’re kidding.’ I said. ‘Nope.’ She said.

It’s not only my stepdaughter that impresses me, these days. I learned that a sixth high-ranking officer in the Russian military was killed in Ukraine yesterday, and I also heard an old man fleeing from the battered city of Mariupol saying that he remembered when the Germans had invaded back in the day, and they hadn’t been as ruthless as the Russians were today.

It seems Putin has a Ukrainian Problem to solve, just as Hitler had a Jewish Problem. They both helped inflate their egos and excuse incomprehensible atrocities. Both ‘problems’ are pure lies.

Putin’s justifications for the invasion of Ukraine are completely bogus. First, Russia has already more than 1000-miles of borders with NATO. That hasn’t seemed to have hurt Russia in any way so far. Besides, Russia has borders with 14 countries – only 5 of which belong to NATO. It has also thousands of miles of border with the EU. Why would the integration of Ukraine be a red line?

Second, NATO never promised not to accept Ukraine’s application. Actually, NATO’s Founding Treaty, in its article 10, makes it an open organization for any country to apply. Records show that no promise whatsoever was made to Russia that Ukraine would never be a part of NATO – this false claim was denied repeatedly over the years.

Third, Russia did agree in 1994’s Budapest Agreement not to invade Ukraine, promising to respect its borders and sovereignty. In return, Ukraine gave Russia its nuclear weapons. If Ukraine would have kept them, Putin would certainly not be invading right now.

Fourth, NATO is a defensive alliance and has not intervened to change other countries’ borders, attacked Russia in any way, nor even intervened with military force in other countries except with the backing of the UN, of which Russia is a part.

There is one reason why Putin is waging war on Ukraine right now: Putin has been attacking the West and he’s been losing. Incited by the likes of Aleksander Dugin and their mad theories about national-traditionalism and the condemnation of liberalism, modernity, and progress, Putin has been supporting far-right and neo-Nazi groups in Europe and in the US. He helped Nigel Farage procure the Brexit debacle and befriended rebel governments inside the EU. He also infiltrated the American National Rifle Association to manipulate the Republican party and elect his asset to the White House – as shown in many Federal indictments, Intelligence Agencies reports, the US Congress proceedings, and the Mueller Report.

But Putin has been losing his fight. No doubt Donald Trump indulged him as much as he could – he tried to get Russia back to the G7 and end sanctions, he defended Putin’s views over the CIA’s, he got out of Syria and negotiated with the Taliban the surrender of Afghanistan. But Putin’s American Operation stumbled on an obstacle that only surprised a few: the Will of the People. Trump was defeated in the polls and Putin’s wet dream was over.

On the other hand, Brexit did not destabilize the European Union, and the Liberal Agenda remains strong in the West and the world. It seems people still value Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association, Democracy, the Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Years ago, I listened to an inspired speech of Vice-President Joe Biden debunking Russia’s idea of ‘sphere of influence’ – this idea that a country does not rule solely over its borders but also over other countries that it can ‘influence’ either by an alliance, fear or economic dependence. It is also the idea that Putin and others argue as central to their Foreign Policy. Biden put it very simply: this idea is not only obsolete but also contrary to another important idea – the one of the self-determination of peoples. If a country with a democratically elected government, like Ukraine, wishes to embrace freedom and join organizations such as the EU or NATO, it should be able to do so without being intimidated by others.

And so, Putin’s problem is a problem of the Will of the People. Not only the Will of the European People, not only the Will of the American People but the Will of the Georgian People and the Moldovan People, which he tried to stifle but which chose to apply to the European Union anyway. And the Finnish and Swedish and Irish Peoples who are considering joining NATO. And of course, of the Ukrainian People, who chose to expel Putin’s puppet from government and inscribe their aspiration to join NATO in their Constitution as well.

But most of all, Putin’s problem is one of the Will of the Russian People, who seem more and more disenchanted with him. It seems only Vladimir Putin himself and a handful of cronies he’s been bribing for years actually believe in his lies.

I warned years ago that the political plight of our lives was one of the Liberal Agenda of progress against the National-Traditionalist Agenda of destruction and regression. Dugin wrote: «If we reject the laws of modernity such as progress, development, equality, justice, freedom, nationalism, and all of this legacy of the three centuries of philosophy and political history, then there is a choice.» This confrontation is culminating in the Ukrainian War.

Ukrainians happened to be harder to chew than Putin thought, but Ukraine is also our problem. It’s also our responsibility. Ukrainians have been dying for our values and our security as well. To the untrained eye, Democracies seem weak and slow, and vulnerable. Let’s prove we’re not.

Recently, I’ve been reading a little bit about QAnon and the impact it is having in people, elections and communities all around the world. It’s a little bit scary that a conspiracy theory that is so wild can resonate with so many people in so many places. QAnon, if you don’t know, is a massive cult-like community that believes the US and the world are dominated by a cabal of pedophiles run by American Democrats and liberals, supported by ‘deep state’ corrupt officials, and from which only the cryptic ‘Q’ and Donald Trump himself can save our children from. This conspiracy theory is completely bonkers and has been disavowed by most reasonable and/or responsible people (except the President of the United States). I’ve noticed that many other strange, crazy and absurd conspiracy theories have proliferated out of late. It used to be just those outliers defending that the Lunar Landing had never happened. Now we have people that defend the Earth is flat (more pathetic and less successful than the 15th Century Inquisition that argued the same), or others that say Covid-19 is an artificial pandemic (which again, waves-off the facts), or that Climate Change is a hoax.

On another level entirely but still on the same spectrum, we have a lot of people who are offended by the smallest political incorrect slight – judging everything as racist, sexist, unscientific or abusive, immediately taking action on any offence, many times missing much of the facts or the concrete situational context, and making it very difficult to go on and run our lives without feeling we are actually being abusive or negligent towards our fellow Human Beings. Snowflaking, for lack of a better word, is basic intolerance. Curiously enough, I think both these phenomena are two faces of the same coin.

Anxiety is a quite common dysfunction affecting millions of people around the world. The WHO estimates that almost 5% of the world’s population has severe anxiety disorders. Anxiety is a feeling of inadequacy or fear as we face the challenges in our future. It is actually a normal response and stems from the same mechanisms animals use to go into fight-flight mode as they face a threat. The thing is, we Humans have a complex symbolic system and we can generate all kinds of links and ideas that connect basic threats to what may seem innocent ideas. Birds or horses or tight places or bridges may spring anxiety or panic attacks, just because in some deep place in our minds they mean something else entirely.

There’s a particular response to anxiety which the French call ‘fuite en avant’ or, in Portuguese, ‘fuga para a frente’. It means that you make a rushed decision not because it’s the best decision you can make but because it helps you escape from anxiety. For instance, a bride who is marrying someone she doesn’t love just because it allows her to exit her parent’s house. Or when we preventively break-up an engagement just because we suspect our partner is about to end it. In many cases it’s really like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. It will relieve us for a moment, but lead us to a worse-off situation. And anxiety problems seem to be increasing all over the world. It seems our resistance to its effects is diminishing all around. In many cases, we prefer to jump into conclusions or flee-forward, ‘fuir en avant’, instead of waiting until we have the right information to make the best decision.

That translates, in many cases, into a sudden need to never doubt or never to be without an opinion. Just saying ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I’m not sure’ is interpreted as an offence or a sign of ignorance. It can actually be a sign of intelligence and maturity. Especially in a world where we are constantly bombarded with information, and even more uncorrelated data, I would argue it is prudent and clever to wait until we have enough information and enough time to process it before we jump into a conclusion. We should also be wary of unsubstantiated or vague information. What we sometimes mistake as ‘following our principles’ is actually in many cases a sign of rigidity of mind and fleeing-forward into a ‘safe’ social position of being ‘for’ or ‘against’. Doing this we not only narrow our options, but we also foreclose our sense of tolerance and compassion. We need to be open to others – others’ feelings and positions – if we want to be tolerant. Karl Popper’s principle of ‘intolerance towards the intolerant’ can sometimes be self-defeating if we become overall intolerant to all – not allowing for mistakes, misinterpretations or even humour.  Please don’t be mistaken: I’m not saying that people who suffer of anxiety are intolerant; but I do believe all intolerance comes from fear and anxiety.

Thousands of years ago, Buddah went into the world and discovered a few things. He formulated the ‘Four Noble Truths’ after finding out that suffering was everywhere and that our primary goal should be overcoming this suffering in the world. Whatever religion you follow, it should be interesting to think about these concepts. Compassion, as Tibetan monks would argue, is our understanding that everything we do originates from one of two reasons: to reach for happiness or avoid pain – in other words, to overcome suffering. I would argue that Freud’s Eros and Tanatos follow the same reasoning. If we understand that everything people do is an attempt to achieve happiness or avoid pain we might feel more tolerant and compassionate, however mistaken we might think those people are. What we should not do is rush into judgement, force our opinions or jump into conclusions. Because we can be the ones who are mistaken. And we should also be compassionate and tolerant to ourselves – allow ourselves to doubt, to not have an opinion, to delay our decisions as much as we feel necessary.

If you follow this blog or read any of my previous posts, you probably have this idea that I have a very cohesive set of principles and assurances. I think I do. I still have a lot of doubts about a lot of things and there are many things I don’t have an opinion on – of course, I probably won’t be writing about those soon. But I believe people should be free, that we should be able to worship freely and express ourselves and love one another and be honest with our feelings as much as we can. When we embark in wild conspiracy theories we are looking for assurances – whatever they may be. We are ‘fleeing-forward’, leaving the facts and reality behind. But in this crazy world there aren’t many ‘safe havens’. Things are changing fast and faster still. And we should have better ways to deal with this discomfort we feel.

In a way, conspiracy theories are the opposite of snowflaking: people embark in conspiracy theories to avoid admitting the confusion and discomfort they experience when other people assure them their feelings and beliefs are wrong. A conspiracy will legitimize the fears behind this anxiety and dissolve the previous confusion by creating an overwhelming feeling of certainty. If we fail to address these fears and this confusion we are doomed to fail in our path to righteousness.

On the other hand, continuously criticizing and correcting other people is another way to flee-forward, to make sure that we are guaranteeing what is right, what is proper and what is just, but ignoring the inevitability of all the grey areas, the mists, the imprecisions, indecisions and flaws that make us Human. Even the humour that turns the spotlight on these flaws will feel intolerable to those who absolutely need to be right.

We should be tolerant of our doubts. We should be compassionate to others. We should reserve our judgments a little bit more. Maybe then we can see what unites us instead of being fixed on what divides us. And that, in the long run, seems to be a better path and lead to a better place.

At least that’s what I think. Hope it makes sense. See you around the next campfire, my friends.