The Nothing vs. The Nada Elections: Two Exilic Candidates Prove That Jewish Passivity Has Finally Triumphed Over Zionist Activism

An alternative to democratic elections based on a deep learning algorithm would produce a much higher quality choice than the existing one, and is capable of saving democracy from itself. Towards an election system based on a new and deep architecture

What are the chances Trump would have been elected in a deep democracy? (Source)

The elections for the Jewish community committee in the Holy Land (pretending to be called the Israeli government) are between two classic Jewish approaches to antisemitism: the loud passive approach, which compensates for its inaction with gevalt screams, and the quiet passive approach, which tries not to irritate the poritz [Translator's note: Polish landowner] and prefers not to confront the gentiles even verbally. Two intelligent and experienced candidates are competing, characterized (unlike all prime ministers before them, except Golda and Shamir) by passive, initiative-less, and reactive decision-making, out of extreme caution and hesitation, not aiming to make revolutions but rather to maintain the existing order.

On one hand, following the rhetorical legacy of Begin and Jabotinsky, we have a candidate who speaks loftily, in a confrontational, contrarian, and victimized manner, articulating the defiant Jewish narrative against the world, but does nothing. On the other hand, in accordance with the Labor movement's legacy, which tries to "get along" quietly with the gentiles and continue Jewish existence through tacit agreements and staying under the radar, stands an opposing candidate who stands out for his lack of prominence and decisiveness, and has surrounded himself with 3 restrainers to ensure (if anyone had doubts) that he will do nothing.

After the failure of all initiatives by the last five Zionist prime ministers (Rabin, Peres, Barak, Sharon, Olmert), the Jewish community in Israel has lost faith in its ability to shape its destiny at the state level, and has turned to the classic Jewish instinct of trying to get by another day in a perpetually threatened situation. The main fear of Gantz, unlike Netanyahu who has already proven himself as a preserver of the status quo, is that he might still harbor some Zionist desire for change. The main fear of Netanyahu is that despite his proven record in the field of non-execution, he might still be dragged into some action when his back is against the wall, if only against the court.

The collective Jewish desire can be summed up in one word: nothing. In a state of uncertainty, "sit (on the chair) and do nothing - is preferable". Low risk - low gain. Surprisingly only seemingly, the exile legacy of Golda and Shamir has triumphed over the Zionist legacy of Ben-Gurion and Begin. Jews are not looking for leaders who will make history but for leaders who will perpetuate Jewish existence outside of history. In this, by the way, the Jewish people are remarkably aligned with the Palestinian people: both aspire to eternal existence outside of real history.

It can be argued that this Jewish survival response is one of the most mature responses of peoples around the world to the global democracy crisis. There will be no Israeli Trump here to sow chaos, and all our candidates have high IQs and systemic vision. On the other hand, it is better to cautiously and measuredly experiment with new alternatives to democracy, which technology allows for the first time in history, while democracy is declining as an effective system of government. Having no desire to resemble simplistic populist or dictatorial methods, we must draw inspiration from other complex decision-making systems in nature, primarily from its masterpiece in this field - the brain. And in the absence of a good understanding of brain function at the high level, we can use the insights that science has drawn in recent decades regarding the low level of brain activity - and begin to implement them at the social, community level, and finally (after adjustments and experience) at the state level.

There is no doubt that the brain operates in a completely different way from dictatorship: there is no single neuron or group of neurons that makes decisions, or stands at the top of some hierarchical pyramid. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the brain operates in a completely different way from democracy: there is no vote of all neurons that creates a decision, and there is no weighting of them based on a simple and equal majority. The brain operates in an intermediate form between these two extreme alternatives of extreme decentralization and extreme concentration, and between egalitarian and anti-egalitarian voting: its mechanism is a weighted majority. In addition, the architecture of neuron weighting in the brain is not tree-like and vertical from top to bottom, as in modern bureaucratic dictatorship. It is also not a flat architecture spread horizontally, as in democratic weighting. It works in a third way, which actually combines both architectures: it is a deep architecture.

Deep architecture is characterized by many voting layers, where each layer weighs the vote of the previous layer. This is the architecture behind the deep learning revolution in artificial intelligence, and currently, it is the most sophisticated decision-making algorithm known to humanity. Its ability to learn in diverse circumstances significantly surpasses any other known algorithm, and since the learning ability of a state system is the most critical variable for its success in a rapidly changing environment - there is a critical need to implement the insights arising from it in the political structure (and perhaps also in the structure of markets, commercial firms and other important giant systems). Inspired by deep architecture, a multi-giant-layer representative government can be proposed:

Once every four years, each citizen (out of ten million) chooses another citizen whose judgment they trust in a blockchain-based electronic system (for privacy and fraud prevention). This could be their father, their professor, someone respected at work, or their rabbi. Subsequently, the hundred thousand elected citizens (meaning each elected citizen needs about a hundred supporters) choose a thousand elected representatives from among them to parliament every two years. Once a year, the thousand elected citizens in parliament choose ten elected from among them for the roles of the ten different government ministers, including the prime minister. Will this system work better than the current democratic method?

It's hard to know. The more intimate familiarity with the candidates, and the higher personal level of voters at each stage, will eliminate some of the horrors of direct election, primaries, and cheap populism in mass media. But as any algorithm developer knows, one must experiment with several different configurations of the system to reach an optimal result (an important criterion is balance between stability and dynamism. A system that replaces a prime minister every year is not good. Neither is one that hasn't replaced him for ten years). Maybe more layers are needed? Probably (we simplified the description here). Maybe several recommendations from each voter are needed? Likely. Maybe the ideal time periods are different? Certainly. All this can only be determined through a process of trial and error and optimization.

But if this process doesn't start, for example in local authorities, or in other organizations where elections are held (such as labor unions, parties, etc.), or even in well-funded academic research and multi-participant simulations, we won't have enough time to refine the method when democracy reaches a real collapse, and it's certainly on its way there. Then we might find ourselves with even less optimal systems of government. The fixation of the democratic system - and its transformation from a practical means to an ideology, indoctrination and orthodoxy - is the greatest threat to the West.

Finally, the most important and profound law regarding the activity of neurons in the brain, Hebb's rule (named after Donald Hebb), is in itself the only significant and well-established idea that brain research has given us. In a reasonable intellectual system, it should have been a cornerstone of thinking in various fields, and inspired by it, one can imagine truly effective complex systems (social and others). This rule states that a neuron that predicts the activity of another neuron - the other neuron will listen to it more next time - and conversely, a neuron that mimics the activity of a second neuron - the attention of the second neuron to it will weaken next time (because the second is the one predicting the first).

One can only imagine the implications of applying this rule to the democratic system: voters who chose successful candidates (i.e., who later reached high in the layer process) before others chose them will receive a higher weighting in the next elections, according to the innovation of the choice and its success (for example, the first to identify from the population a candidate who later won the premiership would be worth many votes of others). And those who join late after everyone else - will be weighted less. Thus, those who are the first to identify talented and successful people, important directions, promising ideas, growing threats - they will continue to have greater influence than those who are swept along with the current and consensus. Such a system would defeat any current decision-making system, and all that's needed is to learn lessons from the most successful learning machine known to science - the brain.