The Mother of the State

Feminism will triumph not when a woman rules instead of a man - because the structure will turn her into a man - but when the structure changes from masculine to feminine - and from control to nurturing. The easiest narrative to identify with is that of an individual, which is why religions that told the story of the individual in a concentrated manner (Christianity and Islam) had an advantage over religions that are feminine systems, like Judaism, without a central individual (but rather a people). But today, we need to build a narrative of systems, not individuals, in order to succeed in navigating a world of giant systems

Why do we need a head at all?  (Source)

What difference does it make who replaces the head of state? Will it change anything? The problem is that such a function exists at all, a prime minister or company head. The function of the supreme manager is a mistake, stemming from hierarchy, when today it's possible to implement more decentralized control systems, with weights (giving each factor in the system or forum a weighted voting ability). But the system where everything concentrates in one person in terms of significance, namely the combination of power and responsibility, is an import of something from the jungle, from the group of apes with the alpha male. It's not that women will one day be managers, but that one day the role of the manager, top-down management, will no longer be relevant.

Another reason for continuing with the manager (like a changing king) is because it's a simplistic narrative that's easy to understand and represent - the individual. That Chief of Staff did this and that Prime Minister did that - when in reality it was the system that did it, and this is personalization, like in commercialized news, where a tragedy is presented as the story of one person, a hero. And then any engagement (including oppositional and critical) with the ruler, the media's hero, validates and creates the problem. The Bible, unlike Homer, doesn't focus on a hero but on a people. Moses is not a hero, and therefore the Bible replaces the heroes of its stories so easily. It doesn't fall in love with its hero like some Odysseus or Achilles. The very word hero, the concept, comes from that archaic Greek period.

It wasn't democracy that was the great revolution, it only replaced a king with a changing king, but whoever will completely remove the role of the king - that's the revolution that democracy is just an introduction to. Who is the leader of the Jewish people? Of Judaism? Who is the manager of literature? Who is the manager of the human race? Or of technology? Of the internet? Or of the economy? Not the chairman of a state bank, or a finance minister, they are just servers but not managers. All this shows that there are systems that work excellently without management.

Did the Pope contribute to Christianity? Or is he its weakness? A large part of it succeeded, Protestantism, precisely because there is no manager, and this is the most successful part. Islam was a more successful religion than Christianity in terms of spread, until the discovery of America, which was not related to religion. After all, there might not have been a continent there, the geology could have been different. And then it's clear that places like South Africa would have been much more important. And Australia.

And it's not correct to compare the success of North and South America, because of the difference in the amount of land in the temperate latitudes. The Indian cultures, like the cultures of the ancient world, thrived in latitudes closer to the equator. Just as the human species before agriculture, as hunter-gatherers, thrived more at the equator, and therefore Africa was the important area, and then the agricultural revolution gave an advantage to other latitudes. And then after Rome, suddenly there was a gradual advantage to even more distant latitudes, with the transition period being the Middle Ages - the transition from the Mediterranean to Europe (and indeed in the Middle Ages there was a southward retreat in the most successful latitudes).

And meanwhile, the most successful countries in the information age are those even further north. And Russia, which is a completely backward country, succeeded mainly because it is spread over a significant part of these latitudes. Because what really reduces productivity and creates conflicts is the heat. And the cold no longer kills, unlike in the past. It is precisely the social alienation that the cold creates, the conformity and formality, that are stronger than the social warmth that heat creates. The Russians drink to warm up and that's their mistake, which makes their temperament too warm for their latitudes, and creates violence. The cold also causes people to shut themselves in their homes more and since seclusion in buildings is more productive, this helps. And on the other hand, the very decrease in productivity in summer due to heat is also significant. In other words, what's important in a manager is the regulation of cold and heat in the system, of global parameters, like the governor of the Bank of Israel. And not like a prime minister. Not something functional, masculine. But to be a womb. Not the father of the state.

Another disadvantage, in terms of information theory, is that a market is a sophisticated, networked information transfer, but political and organizational structures remained hierarchical. In the end, the people have a choice of only a few bits, and in the US one bit, so the amount of information it can transfer to the system is negligible, compared to the enormous amount of information it returns to it. Therefore, communication and media are created as a kind of information transmitter to the government, and therefore the deterioration of both is mutual. But we don't hear about the deterioration of communication at all (in the media?) because there is no one to oppose it, report on it and lament it (where?).

Also, the enormous barriers that stand before someone who wants to be at the very top, the leader, in a commercial company or in a state, are enormous, and therefore only types who have an unreasonable motive, for example deep narcissism or paranoia, etc., reach there. And so it is in culture - even to be a great writer requires an unreasonable motive, and therefore women who are more balanced reach it less. Therefore, if there is a lowering of the barriers, the reasonable and most talented types of society will arrive, and not a collection of mutations (the drive is more important than genius).

Once, to be an artist you had to know how to manage. Then Van Gogh brought manic-depressive people into art. Which young artist committed suicide before Van Gogh? Since then, masses of artists have committed suicide. Even if there was a young suicide before him, he would not be remembered, because there were no mechanisms (cultural, communicative) for his success after his death. Kafka brought the neurotic-obsessive into literature, because before him such a person would simply not be remembered. In short, as long as the barriers are not logical in the prices they demand from the person, almost no reasonable and balanced person will pass them. Therefore, we need to allow people with less motivation to succeed. The barriers do not select the good but the determined, and sometimes the cruel (also towards themselves and their immediate surroundings).

Why shouldn't a commercial company operate like a democratic company, where the workers choose the manager, while a state doesn't operate like a commercial company, where the managers and the board choose the next manager? And who is the board of directors? The representatives of the shareholders, not of the workers, meaning a weighting of the people to whom the state belongs, in terms of money. The state should have shares, and people should be able to buy them. For example, citizens, or the wealthy. This can be limited so that the state doesn't have a controlling owner or a small number of them. Because the serious problem is the lack of transition to weighted elections. Which causes a weighting of zero or one. Who votes and who doesn't.

The first step is to give older people more voting power than younger ones. And then also to the more educated than the poor, to the rich more than the poor, to the veterans more than new immigrants and to them more than diaspora Jews, and so on. Therefore, the Israeli anomaly of the state of the Jewish people can be, because of the exile, a precedent-setting solution at the global level from the oppressive and depressive and flat democracy (one head one vote), to a weighted and deep democracy (perhaps democracy in several layers of elected officials, where each layer chooses the next, like deep learning). The Jewish state can be the avant-garde of democracy - because of the weighted and abnormal Jewish demo.