Category: Book

  • The New Perception of Humanity

    The New Perception of Humanity

    In 1917, something extraordinary happened in Russia.

    A centuries-old monarchy collapsed under pressure from war, poverty, and unrest. Workers and soldiers revolted, the Tsar abdicated, and a revolutionary movement seized power with a promise of “peace, land, and bread.”

    But to understand why, we have to look at what came before.

    Before the Revolution

    For centuries, Russia was ruled by the Tsars — absolute monarchs who held immense power over land, resources, and people.

    Society was deeply unequal and unfair.

    A small elite controlled vast amounts of land and wealth, while the overwhelming majority lived as peasants, many tied to the land in conditions not far removed from servitude.

    Life for most people was not about freedom or opportunity.

    It was about survival. While the elite lived in vast luxury.

    There was little political voice, little mobility, and very little hope of changing one’s circumstances.

    Pressure Builds

    By the early 20th century, pressure had been building for decades.

    Then came war, economic collapse, and growing unrest.

    And eventually, the system broke.

    Millions rose up against a world they experienced as deeply unfair.

    They wanted something different.

    A world without kings.
    A world without exploitation.
    A world that worked for everyone.

    And for a moment, it seemed possible.

    What Followed in Russia

    What followed can be seen as one of the most ambitious attempts in human history.

    The Attempt

    What followed can be seen as one of the most ambitious attempts in human history.

    An attempt to create a world without kings.

    Private ownership was removed. Land, housing, and production were brought under centralized control.

    The idea was simple and powerful:

    If no one owns everything, then no one can dominate.

    What Worked

    And in some ways, this system worked.

    • Basic needs were often, but far from always, secured. While the system aimed to guarantee essentials like housing, food, and employment, in reality this frequently depended on location, political conditions, and efficiency of local administration. Many people still experienced shortages, poor quality goods, overcrowded housing, and limited access to services, meaning that “security” was uneven and sometimes fragile rather than truly reliable.
    • Housing was guaranteed, but often with long waiting times, limited choice, and standardized living conditions
    • Extreme poverty was reduced

    Where It Breaks Down

    But the disadvantages were profound—and impossible to ignore.

    • Endless waiting times for housing and basic goods
    • Severe shortages despite available resources
    • Lack of choice in almost every aspect of life
    • Uniformity and lack of individuality
    • Bureaucratic inefficiency slowing everything down

    Instead of freedom from control, people experienced a different kind of control.

    Instead of choosing where to live, they were assigned housing.

    Instead of abundance, they often faced scarcity created by poor coordination.

    And most importantly:

    Power did not disappear.

    It concentrated.

    Not in private owners—but in the state.

    And when power concentrates, it becomes dangerous.

    This system enabled leaders to control entire populations.

    And in its worst form, this led to brutal outcomes.

    State Capitalism

    Under leaders like Stalin, this concentration of power turned into repression, fear, and mass suffering.

    • Mass purges and executions
    • A vast network of forced labor camps (the Gulag), where millions of people—often imprisoned for minor offenses or political suspicion—were sent to remote regions and forced to work under brutal conditions. Prisoners endured extreme cold, hunger, exhaustion, and unsafe labor, and many died from overwork, disease, or starvation
    • Widespread surveillance and lack of freedom
    • Policies like forced collectivization—where farmers were required to give up their land and join large, state-controlled farms—leading to severe disruption of food production and devastating famines

    What began as an attempt to eliminate domination ended up enabling domination at an even larger scale.

    Some have described this not as true communism, but as state capitalism—where the state became the ultimate owner.

    In the West

    In other parts of the world, a different path was taken.

    The Approach

    In other parts of the world, a different path was taken.

    Rather than attempting to remove ownership, it was expanded and protected.

    This became capitalism.

    A system based on private ownership, markets, and money.

    What Worked

    This system solved many of the visible problems of centralized control.

    • No waiting lists for basic goods in the same way
    • Greater choice and flexibility
    • Rapid innovation and technological progress

    Where It Breaks Down

    But its disadvantages are just as real—and in many ways just as severe.

    • Extreme inequality between rich and poor, often widening over time
    • Wealth and power concentrating in fewer and fewer hands
    • Housing treated as an asset, driving speculation and price bubbles
    • People priced out of basic needs like housing, healthcare, and education
    • Constant pressure to earn, compete, and remain “productive”
    • Debt becoming a long-term or permanent condition for many households
    • Periodic financial crises that wipe out jobs and savings (while some large institutions are rescued)
    • Profit incentives that encourage short-term gain over long-term well-being
    • Environmental destruction driven by extraction and growth imperatives
    • Precarious work and job insecurity in many sectors

    Instead of state control, the system created economic control.

    Instead of being assigned housing, people must buy it—often taking on large debts that can take decades to repay.

    And if they cannot afford it—they are excluded.

    Even when housing exists, it may be held empty as an investment, while others cannot access it.

    Access is not based on need, but on purchasing power.

    And over time, this creates a cycle:

    Those who own assets accumulate more.
    Those who do not fall behind.

    What began as a system of freedom can, for many, feel like a system of pressure and constraint.

    A New Feudalism

    In one sense, capitalism can be seen as a modern version of feudalism—where power is no longer held by Tsars or monarchs, but by banks, billionaires, and large corporations. The structure changes, but the concentration of control remains.

    And in this parallel, the old roles reappear in new forms:

    The vassals and serfs become wage earners and those trapped in cycles of endless debt—forced to labor in the system for access to basic needs.

    The Paradox of Abundance

    The dynamics described above in capitalism—ownership, money, and market-based access—lead to a striking outcome.

    Housing is perhaps the clearest example of this paradox—where abundance exists, but access is restricted.

    In capitalism, the housing shortage was “solved” through markets.

    Homes could be built, bought, and sold.

    And in many places, there is no shortage of housing.

    There are millions of homes.

    And yet:

    Millions of people struggle to afford them.

    Homes exist.
    People exist.

    But access is blocked.

    Not by lack of resources.

    But by money.

    This is the paradox:

    Abundance exists.

    But access is restricted.

    Two Systems, One Pattern

    So what we saw was the emergence of two major systems.

    Both trying to solve the challenges of humanity.

    Both attempting, in their own way, to create a world that works.

    And both, to some extent, succeeding.

    One brought security and basic access.
    The other brought innovation and expansion.

    But ultimately, both failed to create a world that truly works for everyone.

    One became too controlled.
    The other became too unequal.

    Different paths.
    Different strengths.

    But a similar result:

    Access remained controlled — either by the state or by money itself.

    Ownership and Money

    The deeper pattern becomes clearer when we look at the structure itself.

    Both systems rely on one core mechanism:

     A monetary system.

    Ownership determines who controls resources.

    Money determines who gets access.

    Change one without the other, and the system adapts.

    Remove private ownership → the state owns everything and controls access.

    Keep private ownership + money → markets control access.

    In both cases:

    Access is filtered.

    A Different Question

    So perhaps the real question is no longer:

    Which political system is right?

    But:

    Have we understood the limitation of both?

    And more importantly:

    Can we move beyond them?

    Beyond Ownership and Money

    What if the next step is not choosing between systems—but stepping outside their shared structure?

    For over a century, we have tried two different answers to the same problem—one through centralized control, the other through markets and money. We have debated which works better, which is fairer, which is more efficient—and those debates often hardened into opposing blocs, at times fueling conflict and even war.

    But in doing so, we rarely questioned the underlying structure they share:

    That resources are controlled through ownership.
    That access is filtered through money or authority.

    We changed who holds power—but not how power operates.

    So the question may not be which system to choose, but whether we are ready to rethink the structure itself.

    Not private ownership.
    Not state ownership.

    And not money as a gatekeeper.

    A system where resources are not owned—but used.

    Not controlled—but coordinated.

    From:

    “This is mine”

    To:

    “How do we make this work for all?”

    A New Perception

    Why has this not happened before?

    Because something essential was missing.

    Not resources.
    Not intelligence.

    But perception.

    The world was still seen through division:

    Us vs them.
    Competitors vs enemies.

    And from that perception, systems of control naturally emerged.

    A Peaceful Transition?

    Today, for the first time in history, we are in a different position.

    We have:

    • Global communication
    • Advanced logistics
    • Data and coordination systems
    • Artificial intelligence

    But more importantly:

    We have memory.

    We have seen both systems.

    We have lived their strengths.
    We have experienced their failures.

    So the question becomes:

    Are we ready to take the next step?

    Not through revolution.

    But through realization.

    A World That Works for All

    Can we create a system from scratch?

    One that takes the best:

    • Security and access
    • Innovation and flexibility

    And leaves behind:

    • Control
    • Inequality
    • Artificial scarcity

    Can we organize the world not around ownership and money—but around intelligent coordination of resources for all beings?

    Perhaps the answer does not lie in the past.

    But in how we now choose to see each other.

    A Different Lens

    What would it actually feel like to wake up in a world where nothing is owned, but stewarded, and everything is organized to work for everyone?

    In Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity, you follow Benjamin Michaels — a former billionaire — as he experiences exactly that.

    Through his eyes, you don’t just read about a different world.

    You live it.

    👉 Discover the story here: 

    Discover Waking Up

    If this perspective resonates, please share this article: 

  • The Popularity Contest

    The Popularity Contest

    Why popularity is deciding our future — and what that reveals

    More than 2,400 years ago, Socrates warned that democracy could destroy itself — not through force, but through persuasion.

    To understand why this worried him, we have to remember how democracy first worked.

    In ancient Athens, democracy was direct. Citizens gathered, listened, spoke, and voted on laws, war, and public affairs. It was radical, participatory, and deeply human.

    But it had a weakness.

    In an open assembly, decisions were not made by those who understood an issue best, but by those who argued most convincingly. Rhetoric mattered. Charisma mattered. Emotion could outweigh reason.

    Socrates saw something most people preferred not to see:

    A system based purely on persuasion will tend to reward confidence over competence — and certainty over understanding.

    His concern was not that people would choose badly once.

    It was that the system itself would slowly select for the wrong qualities.

    History proved the concern was not abstract.

    Socrates was executed by a democratic vote.

    ⸻

    Plato’s warning: when democracy hollows out

    After witnessing this, Plato sharpened the critique.

    He described how democracy can decay when freedom loses its grounding in knowledge. When every opinion is treated as equal regardless of consequence, when expertise is rejected, when emotion replaces understanding — democracy begins to eat itself.

    Disorder follows. Fear grows.

    And eventually, a strong voice promises order.

    This was not an argument for kings.

    It was a warning about freedom detached from reality.

    ⸻

    The same weakness — now amplified

    Fast-forward to today.

    Democracy has expanded enormously in scale, but its basic vulnerability has not changed.

    What has changed is the power of persuasion.

    Modern democracies operate through mass media, social platforms, and attention-driven systems that reward speed, outrage, and simplicity.

    Persuasion is no longer local and human-scale.

    It is:

    • amplified

    • repeated

    • optimized

    • monetized

    What Socrates observed in a public square now operates globally, continuously, and at scale.

    The result is a familiar pattern:

    Democracy survives as a procedure.

    But its substance thins.

    Voting remains.

    Deliberation weakens.

    Complexity loses to slogans.

    ⸻

    The symptom that proves the problem

    This is where the weakness becomes visible.

    Donald Trump is not the disease.

    He is the symptom that proves the problem.

    He did not overthrow democracy.

    He succeeded within it.

    By using:

    • emotional mobilisation

    • spectacle

    • identity

    • rhetorical dominance over careful reasoning

    The point is not Trump himself.

    The point is what his rise reveals:

    If a system consistently rewards persuasion over judgment, then the issue is not the individuals it produces.

    The issue is the system itself.

    ⸻

    Democracy by popularity

    Today, we still use the word democracy.

    But in practice, much of it has become something else:

    👉 A popularity contest.

    Voting is called democracy.

    Elections are called democracy.

    Even when:

    • choices are pre-filtered

    • narratives are engineered

    • fear is deliberately triggered

    • attention is algorithmically steered

    …the ritual alone is enough to claim legitimacy.

    This is not simply mob rule.

    It is managed perception.

    The original flaw has not disappeared.

    It has been industrialized.

    ⸻

    The real problem

    This critique is often misunderstood as elitist.

    It is not.

    The problem is not people.

    The problem is asking opinion to carry responsibility that requires understanding.

    Modern societies are extraordinarily complex.

    Climate systems, ecosystems, infrastructure, health, and planetary limits do not respond to opinion. They operate according to reality.

    When decisions are based on popularity instead of knowledge:

    • short-term sentiment overrides long-term consequences

    • narratives replace evidence

    • truth becomes political

    Even failure can still be called democratic — because the procedure was followed.

    ⸻

    Democracy is not finished

    This does not mean democracy has failed.

    It means democracy is unfinished.

    As complexity increases, decision-making cannot rely on persuasion alone.

    At the same time, removing people entirely leads to technocracy and alienation.

    So the question becomes:

    👉 How do we keep human participation

    without letting popularity override reality?

    ⸻

    A simple inversion

    The future described in Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity is built on a simple but radical shift:

    Knowledge sets the boundaries.

    Humans operate freely within them.

    Knowledge answers:

    • What is physically possible?

    • What is ecologically safe?

    • What causes harm — now or later?

    • What affects others without consent?

    These are not matters of opinion.

    They are matters of reality.

    Within those boundaries, human freedom flourishes.

    People still choose, create, express, and explore.

    What disappears is not freedom.

    What disappears is the illusion that popularity equals wisdom.

    ⸻

    Beyond slogans

    The real question is no longer how to defend democracy as a word.

    The real question is this:

    Why should popularity decide our future when knowledge is available?

    We trusted popularity when we lacked tools.

    We now have tools — and still cling to it.

    That is not wisdom.

    That is inertia.

    ⸻

    If you want to explore what a world beyond popularity-based decision-making could look like in lived, human terms, that world is explored in the novel:

    Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity

    If this article resonates, please share it. I thank you.

  • The Impossible Choice

    The Impossible Choice

    We hear it everywhere.

    “Make better choices.”

    “Vote with your wallet.”

    Vote for this president!

    No, for this president!

    “It’s up to you.”

    Choose organic or conventional.

    Choose vegan or omnivore.

    Choose electric or gasoline.

    On the surface, it sounds empowering. Almost liberating. A billion choices.

    But is it really?

    The Illusion of Choice

    Because when we look closer, something doesn’t quite add up.

    Most of our “choices” are made within a system we did not choose.

    We don’t choose:

    • how food is produced
    • how cities are designed
    • how energy systems are structured
    • how access to basic needs is controlled
    • the political system
    • the monetary system

    We simply choose between the options that are made available to us.

    And those options are shaped by a system that mostly prioritizes profit, financial growth, and competition over human well-being and planetary health.

    So when we are told to “vote with our wallet,” what we are really being told is:

    “Try to fix a systemic problem through your personal consumption”.

    The Limits of Individual Responsibility

    Individual choices matter. Of course they do.

    They signal values. They shape culture. They can spark change.

    But they cannot carry the weight of a system that is fundamentally flawed.

    The Impossible Choice

    Because in many cases:

    • the most sustainable option is the most expensive
    • the most convenient option is the least healthy
    • the most profitable option is the most destructive

    So the individual is placed in an impossible position:

    Do what is best for you in the short term… or what is best for the world in the long term.

    That is not real freedom. That is an impossible choice by design.

    So obviously, when our choices are limited by our wallets, the result will almost always be that we choose what we can afford. And since most people can’t afford the most sustainable and highest-quality products, much of what gets produced ends up being lower-quality—often less sustainable, and in many cases harmful to both people and the planet.

    A Systemic Problem

    The real issue is not that people are making bad choices.

    The real issue is that the system often makes the wrong choices easy… and the right choices impossible.

    And no amount of personal optimization can fully overcome that.

    So the question shifts.

    Not:

    Are we making the right choices?

    But:

    Why is the system producing the wrong outcomes in the first place?

    Can We Choose a Better System?

    This leads to a deeper and more important question:

    Can we, collectively, choose a system that works better for everyone?

    At first, that might sound unrealistic.

    But think about it.

    Everything around us is already the result of more or less collective choices:

    • laws
    • rules
    • infrastructure
    • currencies
    • ownership structures
    • markets

    None of these are natural laws. They are agreements.

    So if we can collectively – although unconsciously – agree on a system that produces stress, inequality, scarcity, pollution, war and insecurity…

    Why couldn’t we agree on one that produces health, stability, peace, abundance and well-being?

    Not Collectivism but Alignment

    For those who are wary of collectivism, this is not about forcing people into a shared system against their will.

    It is about discovering a way of organizing society where:

    What is good for the individual… is also good for everyone.

    We already see this alignment in everyday life:

    • hygiene protects both you and others
    • traffic rules keep everyone safe
    • public infrastructure benefits all who use it

    These are not experienced as loss of freedom.

    They are experienced as common sense.

    The Freedom to Not Trade

    Today, we are not just choosing—we are forced to participate.

    We must trade:

    • our time
    • our skills
    • our energy
    • our property

    In order to access:

    • food
    • housing
    • mobility
    • healthcare

    Opting out of this system is not really possible.

    Because opting out means losing access to survival and life itself.

    In that sense, participation is not a choice.

    It is a condition.

    Now imagine a different foundation.

    A system where access to basic needs is not dependent on money or trade.

    Where resources are organized and distributed based on need and availability.

    In such a system, something interesting happens:

    Trade is no longer required for survival.

    And when something is no longer required… it becomes optional.

    You could still trade if you really wanted to.

    Create your own system. Trade goods or services.

    But then the question naturally arises:

    Why would you need to or want to?

    When Choice Becomes Real

    In today’s system:

    • Freedom means choosing how you participate in trade

    In a resource-based system:

    • Freedom means choosing whether you participate in trade at all

    That is a profound shift.

    Because for the first time, choice becomes real.

    Not a constrained selection between predefined options…

    But the ability to step outside the necessity altogether.

    A System That Works for All

    This is not about perfection.

    It is about alignment.

    A system works when it removes the conflict between:

    • individual well-being
    • and collective well-being

    When people don’t have to choose between themselves and the world.

    When thriving is not a privilege, but a natural outcome of how society is organized.

    The Real Power of Choice

    So perhaps the real power of choice is not found in what we buy.

    But in what we are willing to imagine.

    And eventually… what we are willing to build together.

    Because the systems we live in are not fixed.

    They are chosen collectively, whether consciously or not.

    And if they are chosen…

    They can be changed.

    Discover the story

    👉 Discover the story of Benjamin Michaels who wakes up 100 years in the future and experience a world where humanity has made a conscious choice and created a world that works for all. If this sounds interesting, then the novel Waking Up – A journey towards a new dawn for humanity is for you.

    If this perspective resonates, please share this article.

  • The Original Sin

    The Original Sin

    We’ve been told a story for thousands of years.

    That the original sin of humanity was separation from God.

    A moment where we stepped out of unity…
    and into division.

    Whether you take that story literally or symbolically doesn’t really matter.

    Because if you look around at the world today,
    you can still see that separation playing out everywhere.

    Not as myth.

    But as structure.

    Property

    At some point in our history, we began to divide what was never meant to be divided.

    We drew lines across the Earth and called them borders.
    We put fences around land and called it property.
    We assigned numbers to resources and called it price.

    And just like that, the world changed.

    Not physically.
    But conceptually.

    The Fall

    What was once shared became owned.
    What was once accessible became restricted.
    What was once part of life became something you had to earn.

    You could say that this was the real “fall.”

    Not from heaven.

    But from connection.

    Because once the Earth was divided,
    we had to defend it.

    Once resources were priced,
    we had to compete for them.

    Once survival depended on money,
    we had to prioritize ourselves over others.

    Not because we were bad.

    But because the system required it.

    And so the separation deepened.

    Not just between humans and nature.
    But between humans and humans.

    And even within ourselves.

    We built a world where:

    • There are more empty homes than homeless people.
    • Food is wasted while many go hungry.
    • Access to life’s essentials depends not on need, but on purchasing power.

    Not because we lacked resources.

    But because we organized them around ownership instead of access.

    If there is such a thing as an “original sin” in the modern world,
    it may not be something we did in a garden long ago.

    It may be something we are still participating in today.

    Every time we do nothing to change a system where:

    Life is conditional.
    Access is restricted.
    And the Earth is treated as something to be owned rather than shared.

    The Story

    But here’s the thing about a story:

    If it was created,
    it can be rewritten.

    What if the redemption of that “original sin”
    is not punishment… but reconnection?

    Not returning to a long lost past,
    but moving forward into something more aligned.

    A world where:

    • The Earth is understood as our shared home
    • Resources are managed, not traded
    • Access is based on need and possibility, not money
    • And humanity begins to function less like competitors…
      and more like a family

    Maybe the real shift isn’t technological.

    Maybe it’s conceptual.

    From ownership…
    to stewardship.

    From separation…
    to connection.

    And if that’s true,
    then the question isn’t whether we were ever separated from God.

    The question is:

    Are we ready to stop separating from each other and reconnecting with all of Life?

    The Question

    What would the world look like if we actually moved beyond ownership, money, and trade—and into a system built on access, stewardship, and shared responsibility?

    That’s exactly the journey Benjamin Michaels is thrown into in Waking Up — A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity. As a former billionaire the shock is huge when he discovers there is no money or trading anymore…

    👉 Discover the story here

  • The Dead Horse of Humanity

    The Dead Horse of Humanity

    We keep arguing.

    Left or right.
    Red or blue.
    Taxes up or taxes down.

    Endless debates. Endless opinions. Endless outrage.

    And yet… nothing fundamental changes.

    Because we are not arguing about direction or foundation.

    We are arguing about how to ride a dead horse. Or elephant.

    At some point, honesty becomes unavoidable:

    The system isn’t just “struggling”.
    It isn’t temporarily failing.

    It is exhausted.

    It has taken us as far as it can go.

    And still, we keep flogging it.

    More policies.
    More reforms.
    More elections.
    More promises.

    As if one more election…
    one more leader…
    one more adjustment…

    will somehow bring it back to life.

    But a dead horse doesn’t run.

    No matter how intelligent or persuasive the rider is.
    No matter how passionate the crowd is.
    No matter how loud the debate becomes.

    And what has the debate become?

    Cartoons. Memes. Cheap shots.

    An endless stream of ridicule.

    Dragging the other side down.
    Calling them idiots.
    Scoring points.

    For a moment, it feels satisfying.

    But step back and look at it.

    This is what our “serious” political discourse has become.

    Not problem-solving.
    Not understanding.
    Not even real disagreement.

    Just noise.

    And while we’re busy laughing at each other…

    The building is on fire.

    Climate pressure. Resource strain. Inequality. Instability. Pollution. Habitat loss.

    These are not political opinions.

    They are real-world conditions.

    This is not ideological.

    It never was.

    It is practical.

    We need clean air. We need water. We need food. We need a stable environment to live in.

    Reality does not care whether you are left or right. Blue or red, or black or white.

    And yet we keep treating these practical problems
    as if they are ideological battles.

    As if reality itself is something you can vote on.

    You can’t.

    The planet doesn’t negotiate.
    Physics doesn’t compromise.
    Reality doesn’t care about opinions.

    So what are we doing?

    We are trying to solve systemic problems with the same level of thinking that created them. It won’t work.

    We debate. We vote. We argue.

    But all within the same framework. The same assumptions. The same level of insanity. Because that is what flogging a dead horse it. Insanity.

    And so the horse remains dead.

    Can we please stop bickering for a moment?

    Stop arguing about who is right.
    Stop mocking each other.
    Stop dragging the other side down.

    Because the building is on fire.

    And it doesn’t matter who started the fire
    if we don’t put it out.

    It doesn’t matter who is right if we all burn up with it.

    At some point, humanity has to do something very simple,
    but very difficult:

    Look at reality directly.

    Without sides.
    Without filters.
    Without the need to win.

    And then ask:

    What actually works?

    Because if we don’t stop bickering
    and start dealing with reality…

    we will keep arguing. We will keep choosing sides. We will keep flogging the dead horse.

    And we will keep going nowhere, but up in smoke with the fire…

    A Different Way Forward

    Imagine this: Waking Up in a world that has already stepped off the dead horse.

    A world where humanity stopped arguing about access… and started organizing resources based on what people actually need. Resulting in a thriving world that works for all. With no dead horses or elephants to flog. In Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity, Benjamin Michaels wakes up into this world where the question is no longer “who pays?”

    But:

    What works?

    If you want to experience that world through Ben’s eyes:

    👉 Discover the story here.

    And imagine what happens the moment we stop arguing…
    and start solving.

  • A World Without Poverty

    A World Without Poverty

    Is that even possible?

    Governments around the world are constantly looking for ways to alleviate poverty. New programs, new subsidies, new reforms — always well-intentioned, often expensive, and almost always temporary. And yet poverty remains.

    This is not because governments don’t care. It is because poverty is not a policy failure. It is a system outcome.

    And this is where almost every report, no matter how well researched or well intentioned, quietly stops short. They list the effects of poverty — inequality, conflict, lack of education, poor healthcare, climate stress — but they never name the root cause that binds them all together: 

    The Monetary System itself.

    The monetary system is never questioned. It is treated as a given, a neutral background condition — like gravity. But it is neither neutral nor natural. It is a human-made system with built-in rules, and those rules produce predictable outcomes.

    Scarcity Is Not a Flaw — It Is the Core Feature

    In a monetary system, value depends on scarcity. For anything to have a price, there must not be too much of it. This principle applies to everything — food, housing, healthcare, energy, land, and even money itself.

    If something exists in abundance, it becomes difficult or impossible to charge for it. Air is free. Salt water is free. Sand in the Sahara is free. And wherever possible, the system looks for ways to re-package abundance into scarcity — selling bottled water, privatizing land, patenting seeds, even charging for oxygen in polluted cities.

    This is why perfectly good food is destroyed instead of given away. This is why empty homes coexist with homelessness. This is why lifesaving medicine is withheld behind price barriers.

    Abundance Threatens Price

    From the perspective of the monetary system, this behavior is rational. From a human perspective, it is insane.

    Poverty Is a Structural Requirement

    Once scarcity is required for value, poverty becomes unavoidable. For someone to be rich, others must have less. For prices to remain stable, access must be restricted. For markets to function, not everyone can have what they need.

    This is why poverty reappears no matter how many aid programs are introduced. Social policies may soften the edges, but they never remove the underlying mechanism. They treat symptoms while leaving the disease intact.

    Reports list inequality as a cause of poverty — but inequality is not an accident. It is a feature, just like poverty itself. It is the visible outcome of a system that must continuously sort people into winners and losers.

    The Unsolvable Creation

    Governments are trapped inside this logic. They can redistribute money, subsidize prices, or offer temporary relief — but they cannot eliminate poverty without questioning the system that requires scarcity to function.

    As long as access to life’s essentials is mediated through money, some people will always lack access. As long as survival depends on earning, some people will always fall behind. And as long as value is tied to scarcity, abundance will be treated as a threat rather than a gift.

    This is not a moral failure. It is a design failure.

    Imagining a World Without Poverty

    A world without poverty does not require better charity, smarter aid, or more efficient markets. It requires a different foundation — one where access to basic needs is decoupled from monetary exchange.

    Food, housing, healthcare, education, and energy are not scarce in physical terms. We already produce more than enough for everyone. The problem is not production. It is distribution through a scarcity-based system.

    The Common Inheritance

    When resources are treated as the common inheritance of humanity rather than commodities to be hoarded, bought and sold, poverty ceases to make sense as a concept. You cannot be poor in a system where access is guaranteed.

    This is not utopian. It is logical.

    The real question is not why poverty persists.

    The real question is why we continue to defend a system that requires it.

    A Final Thought

    If this resonates, it’s because you already sense that poverty is not a failure of people — but of the system we’ve built around them.

    This article explores the why.

    The novel Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity explores the what if. What if we had a completely different world where poverty was eliminated?

    It follows Benjamin Michaels, a former billionaire, who wakes up in a future where poverty no longer exists — not because people became perfect, but because the system changed.

    If you’d like to experience that world through story rather than theory, you can find the book here.

    And if this article resonates with you, please share it. I thank you.

    These ideas only matter if they travel.

  • The Real Meaning of “No Kings”

    The Real Meaning of “No Kings”

    The streets are filled with people.

    The No Kings protest is not just another protest. It is the largest movement of its kind in history—millions of people gathering across an entire nation at the same time.

    For comparison, even the largest demonstrations in recent history—from the Women’s March to the Vietnam War protests—mobilized millions, but rarely with this level of simultaneous, nationwide coordination across so many locations. And while those movements were primarily national, this one has also sparked demonstrations beyond the U.S., pointing toward a broader, international resonance.

    And now, millions are raising their voices with a simple, powerful message:

    No Kings!

    It’s a message that resonates instantly. No one should stand above others. No one should hold unchecked power. No one should rule like a monarch.

    And yet… there is a deeper question quietly waiting beneath the surface:

    Why do kings exist in the first place?

    The Pattern We Keep Repeating

    History has shown us something again and again.

    We remove a king.
    We celebrate freedom.
    We keep the same system.

    And slowly… power concentrates again.

    Different names. Different faces. Same structure.

    Kings return—not always with crowns, but with influence, wealth, and control.

    So perhaps the real question is not:

    “How do we remove kings?”

    But:

    “What creates them?”

    The Hidden Mechanism

    If we look closely, two elements appear again and again throughout history:

    1. Ownership
    2. Money

    These two are so deeply embedded in our system and minds that we rarely question them. They feel natural. Necessary. Even protective.

    But what do they actually do?

    Ownership allows individuals or entities to claim exclusive control over land and resources.

    Money becomes the permission system that determines who gets access to those resources.

    Together, they create a structure where:

    • some control access
    • the rest depend on that control

    And from that imbalance… power emerges.

    From Owners to Kings

    A king is simply someone who has ultimate control. Through ownership.

    In the past, that control was explicit: land, people, resources—all under one ruler.

    Today, the structure is more fragmented, but the principle remains:

    • ownership concentrates control
    • money amplifies it
    • power accumulates

    And eventually, we get modern forms of kings:

    • economic elites
    • corporate dominance
    • concentrated influence over entire systems

    No crown required.

    Why “No Kings” Is Not Enough

    Saying “No Kings” is a powerful first step.

    But if the underlying system remains unchanged, the pattern will repeat.

    Because as long as:

    • ownership allows control over essential resources
    • money controls access to them

    then power will always find a way to concentrate.

    And new kings will emerge.

    Why More Rules Won’t Solve It

    A common response to the problem of concentrated power is to add more rules:

    • more regulation
    • more oversight
    • more checks and balances

    And while these can slow down the concentration of power, they don’t remove its source.

    Because as long as ownership and money remain in place:

    • control can still accumulate
    • influence can still grow
    • power can still concentrate

    Rules can manage the symptoms.

    But they cannot eliminate the underlying mechanism.

    And there is something even deeper:

    Rules are only rules.

    They sit on top of an already heavy system—and an already conditioned mindset.

    A mindset where:

    • ownership feels natural
    • competition feels necessary
    • trading feels like the only way to organize life

    So even when new rules are introduced, they operate within the same framework of thinking.

    And over time, the system adapts. Loopholes appear. Influence finds new paths. And the same patterns return—just in more complex forms.

    To truly change this, rules are not enough.

    We need a shift that is both structural and psychological.

    Not just a modified system—but a fundamentally different one.

    A system so simple and so aligned with reality that it changes how we think.

    Where stewardship replaces ownership.

    Where sharing becomes the default.

    Where stewardship and organizing life around access and cooperation feels just as natural as ownership and trading does today.

    The Simple Shift

    What if we go one step further?

    What if we remove the very mechanisms that create kings?

    Not by force. Not by ideology.

    But by agreement.

    Two simple shifts:

    • replacing ownership with stewardship
    • replacing money with optimized sharing

    What Happens Then?

    Without ownership:

    • no one can claim exclusive control over land or resources

    Without money:

    • no one needs permission to access what already exists

    And without those two elements:

    • trading disappears
    • accumulation becomes meaningless
    • power cannot concentrate

    What remains is something far simpler:

    • access
    • coordination
    • stewardship

    We begin asking different questions:

    • What do we have?
    • What do we need?
    • How do we organize this efficiently and sustainably?

    Instead of:

    How do we maximize profit?

    From Scarcity to Abundance

    In today’s system, scarcity is often manufactured through ownership and access control through money.

    Remove those constraints, and something else becomes possible:

    A world where systems are designed to create:

    maximum abundance for all.

    Not as an ideal.

    But as a practical outcome of cooperation, optimization, and shared access.

    Completing the Sentence

    “No Kings” is not wrong.

    It is incomplete.

    It removes the symptom.

    But the cause remains.

    To truly live in a world without kings, we must ask:

    What kind of system makes kings impossible?

    And the answer may be simpler than we think.

    A World Without Kings

    Imagine a world where:

    • no one owns the Earth
    • no one needs money to live
    • no one can control access to what others need

    A world where humanity has moved from ownership to stewardship.

    From competition for survival to cooperation for thriving.

    That world may sound distant.

    But every shift begins with a simple realization.

    The Real Question

    If we truly believe in a world without kings…

    Are we ready to let go of the systems that create them?

    Discover the World After “No Kings”

    It might sound impossible—a world without kings, without ownership, without money. A world where humanity has chosen to share the planet and optimize it for everyone.

    As the movement already shows signs of international resonance, it may in fact be the beginning of something much bigger. Maybe the next slogan will not be “no kings”, but what create kings in the first place?

    No Ownership!

    What if this is not just about removing kings—but about creating a world where kings can never arise again?

    A world truly without kings… not only politically, but structurally. A world where the systems that enable kings—ownership and money—are no longer in place.

    Benjamin Michaels is a former billionaire who wakes up 100 years in the future to shockingly find exactly that world. Explore the story here:

    👉 Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity

    And Please share this article if it resonates. I thank you.

  • Is Naivety Strength?

    Is Naivety Strength?

    The title might sound like a paradox—but only because we’ve been taught to misunderstand both words.

    We are told, over and over again, that wanting peace is naive.

    That believing in a world without war is childish.

    That trusting each other is dangerous.

    But let’s slow this down—and look at the logic.

    The Battlefield Test

    Imagine two opposing armies on a battlefield.

    Both sides are armed to the teeth.

    Both sides are afraid.

    Adrenaline is high. Hearts are racing. Fingers are close to the trigger.

    Now ask a simple question:

    Who are the bravest?

    The ones hiding behind weapons, shields, and lines of defense?

    Or the ones who lay down their weapons… step forward… and approach the so-called enemy with open arms?

    It sounds absurd.

    It sounds dangerous.

    It sounds… naive.

    And yes—those who walk forward might be killed. Or captured. 

    That is the risk.

    But look closer.

    The soldier behind the weapon is protected by distance, by orders, by training, by the safety of the group.

    The one who steps forward has none of that.

    No shield.

    No weapon.

    No guarantee.

    Only courage.

    So what do we call that?

    Stupidity?

    Or the highest form of bravery?

    The “Stupid Intelligence” of Naivety

    We dismiss this kind of action as naive because it breaks the rules of the system we are used to.

    The system says:

    Protect yourself and your property.
    Attack if threatened.
    Win or be destroyed.

    Within that system, laying down your weapon looks irrational.

    But what if the system and the thought behind it is really what is irrational?

     Because war produces more war.

    Fear produces more fear.

    Violence produces more violence.

    If we keep the rules, we keep the outcome.

    So the so-called naivety is not a lack of intelligence.

    It is a different kind of intelligence.

    An intelligence that sees beyond the immediate reaction.

    An intelligence that understands:

    This cycle does not end by continuing it.

    We Are Not Enemies

    At the most basic level, the people on both sides of that battlefield are not enemies.

    They are humans.

    Often with the same fears.

    The same hopes.

    The same desire to survive and protect those they love.

    The label “enemy” is something added on top—by systems, by narratives, by fear.

    But underneath that label… there is no fundamental difference.

    And if that is true, then the idea of killing each other becomes not just tragic—

    but absurd.

    And yes—some will immediately say: “Tell that to the crazy Iranians—or whoever—who only want to kill us.”

    But what is really absurd?

    Believing that others will inevitably kill you—and therefore preparing to kill them first?

    Or mustering the courage to believe that beneath the fear, the conditioning, and the narratives… we are all still humans capable of meeting each other as friends?

    It Has Been Done Before

    This is not just theory.

    History has already shown us what this kind of “naive intelligence” can do.

    • Mahatma Gandhi led India to independence through non-violent resistance.

    A small, unarmed man… facing one of the largest empires in history.

    No army.

    No weapons.

    Only persistence, courage, and refusal to play the game of violence.

    And the empire left.

    Not because it was defeated militarily.

    But because the logic of violence was broken.

    Redefining Bravery

    We are taught that bravery is charging into battle.

    “Die for your country.”

    And yes—that takes courage.

    But it is a courage defined within a violent system and mindset.

    A system that rewards sacrifice in war rather than wisdom in peace.

    What if true bravery is something else entirely?

    What if true bravery is:

    Choosing not to hate.

    Choosing not to strike.

    Choosing to trust—even when fear screams not to.

    That is a different kind of courage.

    A deeper one.

    The Only Path That Ends the Cycle

    War begets war.

    That is not philosophy.

    It is pattern.

    Every conflict plants the seeds of the next.

    So if we are serious about peace—not temporary pauses between wars, but lasting peace—

    then there is only one direction that actually leads there:

    Non-violence.

    Naive, risky, uncomfortable, courageous non-violence.

    Because it is the only approach that does not recreate the problem it is trying to solve.

    The Real Question

    So the question is not:

    “Is this naive?”

    The question is:

    Are we brave enough to try the only thing that can actually work?

    Imagine This

    It might sound impossible—a world without war. A world where people have embraced what we call “naivety” and, through it, created lasting peace on Earth.

    A world where conflict between nations and peoples has ceased because they have found a way to share this planet—brotherly. And in that sharing, something unexpected happens:

    Respect.

    They respect each other.

    Because they finally see it clearly:

    We are all in this boat. On this planet. Together.

    So why fight?

    Why not make the best of it?

    Benjamin Michaels is a man who spent 100 years in cryonic preservation in an attempt to beat cancer.

    When he wakes up, he finds himself in this new world.

    And through his eyes, you get to experience what life could be like… if humanity chose a different path. Experience the journey here:

    Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity:

    If this article resonates with you, please share it. I Thank you.

  • How to End All Wars

    How to End All Wars

    It’s a bold and a bit cheeky statement. 

    It sounds impossible.

    Naive, even.

    But let’s ask the question anyway:

    Why are most wars actually fought?

    Not the official reasons.
    Not the speeches.
    Not the flags.

    Underneath all of that…

    Wars are fought over land, resources, and control.

    And very often, they are fueled by something even more fragile: The human ego. Hubris.

    Not just strategy. Not just “necessity”.

    But pride, fear, and the need to dominate or not appear weak. 

    What we call geopolitics is, at times, simply human psychology scaled up to the level of nations.

    The Real Battlefield

    Nations don’t go to war because ordinary people suddenly decide they hate each other.

    They go to war because:

    • Land is claimed as owned
    • Resources are treated as limited and competed for
    • Power is concentrated in the hands of a few

    And those few decision-makers are human.

    With pride.
    With fear.
    With something to prove.

    Call it strategy if you want.

    But often, it is simply hubris with consequences.

    The Illusion of Scarcity

    There was a time when scarcity was real.

    Centuries ago, survival depended on access to land, water, and basic resources that were genuinely limited in many places. Communities had to defend what they had, because losing it could mean not surviving at all.

    In that world, conflict—however tragic—made a certain kind of sense.

    But we are no longer living in that world.

    Today, we live on a planet that is overwhelmingly abundant. In spite of us being many more, we actually have more than enough, although many go without. Because of the system.

    We already produce more than enough food to feed everyone.
    We already have the knowledge to house everyone.
    We already have the technology to solve most of our major challenges.

    And yet, we behave as if there is not enough.

    We are still playing by the same rules…

    But the conditions have changed.

    What was once a response to real scarcity has become a system built on perceived scarcity.

    Why?

    Because access is not based on what exists.

    It is based on ownership and control.

    And once something is owned, it must be defended.

    And when it is threatened…

    Conflict becomes inevitable.

    What If Nothing Is Owned?

    This is where the question becomes interesting.

    If land is no longer something you can own…
    If resources are no longer something you need to hoard…
    If survival is no longer tied to control…

    Then what exactly is left to go to war about?

    Not much.

    Disagreements would still exist.

    But disagreement is not war.

    War requires something more:

    The belief that you must take, defend, and dominate to survive.

    Remove that belief—and the structures that reinforce it—and war begins to lose its foundation.

    From Ownership to Stewardship

    A resource-based economy is, at its core, a shift from ownership to stewardship.

    It means we stop asking:

    “Who owns this?”

    And start asking:

    “How do we take care of this—and make it work for everyone?”

    Ownership is a rule we invented.

    Stewardship is a relationship.

    Ownership says:
    This is mine. I control it. I can exclude others.

    Stewardship says:
    This is part of our shared world. I take care of it, and others benefit from it too.

    What Happens to Nations?

    If ownership of land ends, something profound follows.

    The idea of nations—as political and economic borders—begins to dissolve.

    Not cultures.
    Not languages.
    Not identities.

    Those remain. They flourish.

    What disappears are the lines that divide access.

    • No one is “foreign” to the Earth
    • Movement is not restricted by passports or permission
    • Travel becomes a natural part of being human

    And resources?

    They are no longer trapped behind borders.

    They flow to where they are needed most.

    Because the question is no longer:

    “What belongs to us?”

    But:

    “What is needed where—and how do we provide it?”

    What It Looks Like in Practice

    This is not about control.
    And it is not about restriction.

    It is about organizing what we already have so that it works for everyone.

    In such a world:

    • Food is produced and distributed because people need to eat—not because it must be sold
    • Homes exist to be lived in—not as financial assets
    • Energy flows where it is needed—not where it generates the highest profit
    • Transportation exists to move goods and people—not to extract value from them

    And most importantly:

    No one has to earn the right to live.

    The Role of Leadership

    Most people do not want war.

    They want stability.
    Safety.
    A decent life.

    Wars are rarely the will of the many.

    They are decisions made by the few.

    So maybe the real question is not:

    Why do we fight?

    But:

    Why do we allow a system that divides people and creates devastating conflict? And that allows a very few people to make decisions affecting billions?

    The Shift

    Ending war is not about becoming morally perfect.

    It is about changing the conditions that make war make sense in the first place.

    A world where:

    • Resources are properly managed, not owned and exploited
    • Access is guaranteed, not competed for
    • Survival is secured, not negotiated
    • Decisions are transparent and shared

    In such a world, war does not need to be forbidden.

    It simply becomes…

    obsolete.

    Imagine This Instead

    Imagine waking up in a world where no one can profit from conflict.

    Where land is not a prize, but a shared responsibility.

    Where leadership is not about power, but coordination.

    Where the question is no longer:

    “Who gets what?”

    But:

    “How do we make this world work for everyone?”

    Call to Action

    If this sounds unrealistic, that is okay.

    Every system we live in today was once just an “unrealistic” idea.

    The real question is:

    Can we imagine something better clearly enough to begin building it?

    That is exactly why the novel Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity was created.

    Not to argue.

    But to show what such a world could actually feel like to live in.

    Follow Benjamin Michaels as he wakes up in a future where humanity has moved beyond war, beyond ownership and money, and beyond the need to compete for survival.

    👉 Discover the journey.

    And if this perspective resonates with you…

    please share this article. I Thank you.

    Because new worlds do not begin with systems.

    They begin with a vision people can feel is possible.

  • Stewardship Is Not a Stranger

    Stewardship Is Not a Stranger

    This is a continuation of the conversation about a revolution of humanity.

    But before we go further, it’s worth pausing for a simple question:

    What is actually stewardship?

    By definition stewardship is a practice committed to ethical value that embodies the responsible planning and management of resources. It can apply to the environment and nature, economics, health, places, property, information, and cultural resources.

    The Humanitary System

    Notice the word responsible.
    It is something our monetary system is not—arguably one of the most irresponsible systems ever invented. That brings us back to the humanitary system, the system mentioned in an earlier article. The irresponsible monetary system is built on ownership, while the responsible humanitary system is built on stewardship.

    Because if we are serious about creating a new world—one not driven by money—we cannot stop at only removing money itself.

    We must also rethink ownership.

    Because without money, there is nothing to buy and sell.
    And if nothing can be bought or sold, the idea of ownership as we know it begins to lose its meaning.

    So the question becomes:
    What replaces ownership?

    This is where stewardship enters—not as an abstract ideal, but as a practical alternative.

    Instead of asking who owns something, we ask who takes care of it.
    Instead of control, we focus on responsibility.
    Instead of exclusion, we move toward access and use.

    And once you look at the world through that lens, something interesting happens.

    Because perhaps the shift we are talking about is not as distant as it seems.

    Perhaps it is already here—quietly, partially, and waiting to be recognized.

    We have already done it.

    The Places We Do Not Own

    We have already declared the Moon beyond ownership—through an agreement that no nation can claim it, no flag can make it property, and no one can own a piece of it simply by arriving first. It belongs, in principle, to all of humanity.
    We have already set aside an entire continent—Antarctica—for cooperation, where territorial claims are frozen, no military activity is allowed, and nations work together in research rather than competing for control or resources.
    We already share the air, the oceans, and even the space above our heads.

    Stewardship is not a stranger to humanity.
    We just apply it selectively.

    ⸻

    Beyond our atmosphere, humanity made a quiet but profound decision. Through the Outer Space Treaty, no nation may claim the Moon, the planets, or the Sun. The entire solar system, at least in principle, was set aside as something no one can own.

    Even within our everyday world, we find variations of the same idea. In Greenland, you can own your home, but not the land beneath it. The land itself remains held in common, allocated for use rather than possession.

    And above us, circling Earth, the International Space Station operates as a shared human endeavor. Built and maintained by multiple nations, it functions without a single owner, sustained by cooperation rather than control.

    ⸻

    The Commons We Depend On

    Some of the most essential systems in our lives are already beyond ownership.

    No one owns the air.
    No one owns the rain.
    No one owns the high seas.

    These are not abstract ideas. They are practical realities. The atmosphere sustains every breath we take. The oceans regulate our climate and connect our world. They are governed, managed, and sometimes contested—but fundamentally, they are not owned in the way land is owned.

    When something becomes too vast, too essential, or too interconnected, ownership begins to break down.

    ⸻

    A Pattern Hiding in Plain Sight

    If we step back, a pattern emerges.

    We choose stewardship over ownership when:

    • The stakes are global
    • Conflict would be catastrophic
    • Cooperation is simply more effective

    We have already applied this logic to space, to a continent, to the systems that sustain life itself.

    Not everywhere. But enough to prove that the idea is not foreign to us.

    ⸻

    The Question We Avoid

    If we can do this for the Moon…
    If we can do this for Antarctica…
    If we can do this for the air we breathe and the oceans that surround us…

    Why not here?

    Why do we accept stewardship in the places that are most obviously shared…
    But cling to ownership in the one place where we are all equally dependent?

    ⸻

    Not a New Idea

    This is not about inventing something new.

    It is about recognizing something we already practice.

    Stewardship is not a stranger to humanity.
    It is a principle we return to when the alternative no longer makes sense.

    The real question is not whether it works.

    The real question is where—and when—we are willing to apply it next.

    ⸻

    A Story From the Future

    In Waking Up – A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity, Benjamin Michaels wakes into a world where this choice has already been made.

    A world where the Earth’s resources are no longer owned, but stewarded.
    Where humanity has chosen cooperation over competition—not as an ideal, but as a practical necessity.

    It is not presented as a theory.
    It is simply life, once we decide to make it so.

    👉 Discover the journey.

    If this perspective resonates, please share this article. Thank you.