Institutions say that the school's main role would be to provide information which the student will use later as adult. But school provide useful information only for some which would receive social privileged functions. The most important thing that contemporary education system makes is the selection and assignment of the bad or good jobs of future masters or slaves.

As long as school is done systematically by the (semitotalitarian) state's interest the education will borrow all its defects. The idea of school who takes the untrained and imperfect man and makes him happy, civilized and perfect is a mess comparable to many other contemporary state garbage. The hypocrisy of the system is fully reflected in the educational system.

Two main things the school aims. The first is the early identification of potential leaders in order to attract them to the slave system side and to avoid types like Spartacus and Jesus who destroyed the Roman Empire culture. Thus the system creates bureaucracy that holds such people from starting major revolts. The bureaucratic jobs are easy jobs for potential leaders to make sure that they will not develop subversive activities against the established order. The system creates some selection mechanisms that will identify the truly charismatic and perseverance ones and put them in comfortable and warm positions that will not cause agitation in the minds of slaves.

The second is to discreetly prevent common people from knowing the laws which often can defend against authorities’ abuse. On paper, on the legislation level, everything seems so ethereal, the people have freedom and human rights that protects and society looks open. Applying this hypocritical legislation for everybody interest is impossible and that is not because authorities are incompetent but because the laws themselves are hypocritical and false. The school does everything within its power to prevent ordinary people come close to laws for not using them in very many situations where the true relationship between them and the authorities show an entirely different nature than the one paper embellish. The artificial use of a hipercomplex language, of unnecessary neologisms and phrases as the Hegel's hermetic philosophy is part of the way legislation exists all over the world. But this is just an obstacle that ordinary people can pass. In order to prevent ordinary people from using the law in relation to masters the school get involved in its specific long time way.

This is because even at the abstract and non applicable level the law gives some rights to modern slave and that will eventually affect the master pockets. If a slave comes to know the laws then it may become harder to be enslaved and justice mercenaries would have to extra work in order to make it denser and more inaccessible. And if the slave does not know to ask for its rights and agree to be servant then the mercenary life is one more pleasant.

Hunting the minds of future slaves and distracting it from the knowledge of laws are two specific macro procedures education in civilized world. Both go hand in hand and using either one implies the other. Negative discrimination of slave in the two civilized world social systems (communist and capitalist) means combinations in different doses of these two procedures. The main use of such a certain procedure among the other makes the differentiation between communist totalitarian systems of education from the western semitotalitarian ones. Communist totalitarian education systems require a lot of information to children so that they intellectually collapse and eventually give up their claims. The semitotalitarian Western civilized countries education systems simply create special schools for those who will occupy these warm and easy positions within the bureaucracy. The common children have no access to such schools. Next I will analyze both one after another.

Free Western education system intentionally kept low quantity and quality of information and has chosen to provide future slaves specialized knowledge instead of thick and very diverse one. The good part of western education is that the knowledge child learns from school will be used later in the everyday life. On the contrary, the information that communist education systems provide is useless, except testing the child’s memorize power for a better job. Still the really important knowledge for common people status and emancipation is inaccessible in western education systems too. Philosophical and scientific data that contradict the semi-slavery interests are either hidden or ignored. On the other hand the information necessary to accede to a higher social range are taught in special schools unaffordable the common people. In this case the tool is discriminatory education is made with paid education.

In countries like England and USA there are schools that accept only students fated to become elite. The costs of such schools can not be supported by common people. Free education student has not the slightest chance of winning the competing with such an elitist school one. And this is how discrimination is achieved under the intentions and interests of the system. Stories about equal opportunities disappear under the greed of deeply discriminatory social system. This type of differentiated schools exist in Western society since the early and basically, the idea of "equal opportunities" that corporate propaganda still sustains today is just an illusion.

The western social system quickly relaxed as Asian slaves were brought to sustain world wide economy. Western education has changed its principles, has become more human and suddenly discovered some capacities of psychotherapeutic and counseling. But, again, all this happened only because there were slaves more profitable found elsewhere or there were immigrants admitted on western territories that ask for very few rights in change for supporting the economy. If the economy has not taking well things go bad with education too.

The totalitarian communist political system uses equality propaganda to define education system. It has become popular with the idea of equality and justice but its application in reality was an imposture. Thus under the mask of social justice communism developed one of the wildest social discrimination ever seen. The most important thing that totalitarian communist school systems present is the scientific, indubitable and unquestionable aspect of social and justice system. The slaves were educated to religious love and stand right in the face of such "perfect constructs" of civilization. The stony face and the arrogance of those who occupy different positions in state institutions were hiding a kind of colonialist intransigence.

Most of the information that communist education system provided was pointless, empty words designed to select between students on the memorizing criteria and then to distribute them to bureaucratic or hard working jobs. Kids had to work harder and learn more things comparing to western because the communist education system raised the study level with diversification, multiplicity and extreme detailed data. In this way communist schools said are "superior" to those of capitalism. But under the shadow of that elitism was hidden a more cruel reality that can be found in a lesser degree in "civilized countries" schools too: every school fill the minds of school children with useless information. Unnecessary garbage served by mandatory "free education" to children is meant to deplete their personal resources and give up the intention of studying some more of highly complex state legislation that could be used later in everyday life. In this way the school empowers the monopoly of justice for those who uses it for their own use only. Society does not need too many philosophers and scholars but simply mechanics as Romanian President Traian Băsescu once said with greedy nonchalance (or common sense - which is actually, paradoxically – the same thing). So the school complies with these trends and thanks to the caste discrimination it ended by getting children tired and sick of learning and manipulated them to love handcrafting. Here the main role of school!

In fact Romanian school was not so much interested of showing superior to those of the Western but it was deeply and meanly interested to stop as acceded to many in the privileged position in state. The communist system promised that everyone will be remunerated based on one’s worth unlike capitalism injustice. Thus communism has gained many supporters from the socially excluded who expected a better life. But with lifting the level of learning from early age the communism only changed the criterion of discrimination and not changed the discrimination itself. The communist education system putted a lot of pressure on young by learning in high school what is teaching in the western college or studying in primary school what is teaching in western high school. Most of students obviously failed to pass the communist education high-difficulty tests and cope up to enter the factory instead of office. But at the end most of young people reached to hate communism and to unconditionally embrace capitalist values and thus anticommunist movements grew.

In addition to raising level of knowledge taught in school the communist education system has allowed system of discrimination developed a strange home teaching paid education. The more detailed school books that could not be covered in class only the more private paid home developed. Without parallel private lessons one could not expect to be admitted to a school of the future. Many parents, credulous to system’s lies, continued pressures on children to “exceptional results in teaching”. Basically the system and continuous diversification of the privet paid lessons were as in an arms race. As more children gave their best endeavors to adapt school the system responded with higher barriers. From here to the institutionalized corruption was no longer than a single step.

In the mid-1990s in Romania low university became very popular among young. Magistrates were envied for their salaries since devitalizing industry. Most high school graduates wanted admission to faculties of law and a bright future in the legal system. To stop access to that information and to the good social positions the admission examinations to such schools were extremely hard. Kids were learning history and grammar as if law schools would not produce lawyers but some kind of doctors in language and history. Competition was so great that to be admitted to such colleges ought to be some sort of specialist in grammar and history. If wouldn’t pay private lessons with who knows what celebrity in the field who would give a sort of theoretical password among her/his caste colleagues then it would be impossible to manage to pass the entrance examination.

We can imagine how dirty the system with these naive people was. Hundreds of private colleges have emerged and tens of thousands of graduates that the Romanian state could not hire them. After years and years in a row of anaesthetizing mind spent learning grammar and history, after having invested huge money in "private lessons" with influential teachers to pass the entrance examination system has invented other barriers to prevent everyone get a job and be paid by the state with good money. So there came out unemployment among law graduates. Getting into meant more "private lessons" and more money spent over and over again. Some parents have sold houses to help their sons and daughters but their teachers on the faculties became local political leaders, business owners and other influence local chefs who placed their people in various positions in the state apparatus. High level corruption was possible with mafia infiltrated into state institutions. While such a minority prospered, most law graduates found themselves unemployed as well as poor. It was the emergence of new disciplines at primary school that washed up a little bit this official megafraud. "Civic education" was not designed to teach legislation for 14 years kids but to give some jobs to these "luxury unemployment".

The way innocent minds are mutilated since early age shows up to a gruesome lust of greed. There is no compassion for future slaves even when they are fragile and innocent beings. The need for wild education is a long term business. "Education is an investment in the future" say the politicians who rub their hands waiting for the human harvest that will enhance their insatiable need for luxury. As hungry and obese in the same time they control the process of transforming human into slave.

As a former teacher I was simply dumbfounded by some pedagogy texts that are actually some kind of neoscholasticism. The difference with medieval scholasticism and these statements is that instead of Aristotle's logic used to get famous and ridiculous statements, the contemporary pedagogy is now using mathematics. But just like the medieval scholastic the official contemporary pedagogy came to some absolutely ridiculous, unnecessary and abstract statements with no interest whatsoever for the child. Anyway as regarding human rights and legislation in general, the contemporary state are in the same position which was the church in the Middle Ages: both work on illusions, lies and frauds. Church applies these in the metaphysical level and contemporary state applies them to legal, procedural level.

Tons and tons of pedagogical scrap written in cyborgish language and with inhuman approach are annually published to spread the false impression that education is made by some professionals who give their best for humanity to progress. Lacking empathy, lacking human warmth and mainly concerned the means of access to higher social positions in the bureaucracy of the education system these pedagogy have a precise goal: to cause confusion and to dial student into slave. It does not matter so much lifting an elitist minority teaching as soon as a majority demoralization that the system spiritually mutilate in order to become a tool to use for the welfare and convenience of this minority.

Oficial se spune ca principalul rol al scolii ar fi acela de a oferi informatii pe care elevul le va folosi spre binele lui cand va fi adult. Insa scoala nu ofera informatii utile decat unora care ulterior vor primi functii privilegiate. Cel mai important lucru pe care sistemul de invatamant al statului contemporan il face este selectia si repartizarea pe functii a viitorilor stapani sau sclavi.

Atata timp cat scoala se face sistematic dupa interesul statului (semitotalitar) ea imprumuta toate defectele acestuia. Ideea despre scoala care ia omul neinstruit si imperfect si il face fericit, civilizat si perfect este o mizerie comparabila cu multele alte asemenea mizerii ale statului contemporan. Ipocrizia sistemului se regaseste pe deplin in sistemul de invatamant.

Doua lucruri principale urmareste scoala. Primul este cel al identificarii timpurii ai potentialilor lideri si atragerea lor de partea sistemului sclavagist pentru a evita fenomene de tip Spartacus si Isus care au daramat cultural Imperiul Roman. Astfel ca sistemul creeaza birocratia in care acest gen de oameni sa fie plasati si astfel sa ii impiedice de a porni revolte. Birocratia presupune joburi de taiat frunze la caini pentru a fi sigur ca potentialii lideri nu vor desfasura activitati subversive la adresa ordinii stabilite. Sistemul creeaza anumite mecanisme de selectie pentru identificarea celor cu adevarat carismatici si perseverenti in a-si obtine interesul pentru a-i plasa in aceste functii comode si caldute si a nu produce agitatie in mintea sclavului.

Cel de-al doilea este impiedicarea discreta a omului de rand in a cunoaste legislatia cu care de multe ori se poate apara impotriva abuzurilor autoritatilor. Pe hartie, la nivel de legislatie totul pare asa diafan, omul are libertate, omul are drepturi si societatea este una dreapta. Aplicarea acestor prevederi ipocrite ale legislatiei insa este una imposibila pentru toti si asta nu pentru ca „oamenii legii” sunt nepriceputi ci pentru ca legile insele sunt ipocrite si false. Scoala va face tot ce ii sta in putere pentru a impiedica omul de rand sa ajunga la aceste prevederi legislative pentru a nu apela la ele in extrem de multele situatii in care adevarata relatie dintre el si autoritati arata o cu totul alta natura decat cea cosmetizata de pe hartie. Complicarea artificiala a limbajului, folosirea unor neologisme inutile si a frazelor cat mai intortocheate dupa modelul filosofiei ermetiste a lui Hegel este parte din forma in care se prezinta legislatia peste tot in lume. Dar acesta este doar un obstacol pe care omul de rand il poate trece. Pentru ca omul de rand sa nu ajunga in a folosi legislatia in relatia cu stapanii scoala intervine in modul ei specific.

Asta pentru ca legislatia chiar si la nivel abstract si neaplicabil la care se afla ii ofera sclavului oaresce drepturi care se simt ulterior in buzunarele stapanului. Daca sclavul ajunge sa cunoasca legislatia atunci el poate deveni mai greu de inrobit iar mercenarii justitiari trebuie sa munceasca in plus pentru a o face si mai stufoasa si mai inaccesibila. Iar daca sclavul nu stie sa isi ceara drepturile si accepta sa fie servitor atunci viata sa este una mai placuta.

Obosirea mintilor viitorilor sclavi si abaterea atentiei de la cunoasterea legislatiei sunt doua proceduri macrosociale specifice invatamantului lumii civilizate. Ambele merg mana in mana si folosirea uneia o implica si pe cealalta. Discriminarea negativa la care e supus sclavul in cele doua sisteme sociale din lume presupune combinatii ale acestora in diferite doze. Gradul de folosire uneia dintre aceste proceduri in defavoarea celuilalt ofera diferentierea sistemului totalitarist comunist de invatamant fata de cel semitotalitarist occidental. Sistemul totalitarist comunist incarca materia predata copiilor astfel incat ei sa colapseze intelectual si astfel ii face sa renunte in a mai invata pentru joburi mai bune. Sistemul semitotalitarist din tarile civilizate occidentale pur si simplu creeaza scoli speciale pentru cei ce vor ocupa aceste functii caldute. In continuare le voi analiza pe rand pe ambele.

Sistemul gratuit de invatamant occidental a pastrat intentionat la un nivel scazut stacheta cantitatii si calitatilor informatiilor preferand ca in locul unor cunostinte stufoase si foarte diverse sa ofere viitorilor sclavi cunostinte specializate. Partea buna e ca ceea ce copilul va fi invatat in scoala va aplica concret in viata de zi cu zi. Dimpotriva informatiile care scoala comunista le ofera sunt facute mai mult pe post de test de anduranta si clasificare decat pe post de a fi aplicate candva. Dar cunostintele cu adevarat importante pentru statutul omului de rand, pentru emanciparea lui sunt inaccesibile. Datele filosofice si stiintifice care contrazic interesele semisclavagiste sunt fie camuflate fie ignorate. Pe de alta parte informatiile necesare pentru accederea la un loc social caldut se predau in scoli speciale care costa atat cat omul de rand sa nu invete in ele. In acest caz instrumentul educatiei discriminatorii se face cu educatia platita.

In tari ca Anglia sau SUA exista scoli elevate la care sunt admisi doar cei predestinati sa devina elite. Costurile unei asemenea scoli nu pot fi sustinute de veniturile omului de rand. Pus intr-o confruntare directa elevul absolvent de invatamant gratuit nu are nici cea mai mica sansa de a-l intrece pe cel pregatit de o astfel de scoala elitista. Si iata cum discriminarea se realizeaza dupa intentiile si interesele sistemului. Povestile despre egalitatea de sanse dispar sub lacomia sistemului social profund discriminatoriu. Tipul acesta de scoli diferentiate a existat in societatea occidentala inca de timpuriu si, practic, ideea de „egalitate de sanse” pe care propaganda corporatista inca mai bate moneda si astazi este din start compromisa.

Sistemul social occidental s-a relaxat rapid odata cu cooptarea sclavilor asiatici in special in angrenajul economiei mondiale. Educatia occidentala si-a schimbat principiile, a devenit mai umana, si-a descoperit subit valentele psihoterapeutice si de consiliere. Dar, repet, toate astea doar pentru ca s-au gasit sclavi mult mai profitabili altundeva sau au fost acceptati pe teritoriile in cauza emigranti care cer foarte putine drepturi pentru a sustine economia. Acolo unde economia nu a dus-o asa de bine lucrurile au mers rau si cu educatia.

Sistemul totalitarist comunist foloseste propaganda egalitatii pentru a-i defini sistemul de invatamant. El s-a impus pe plan politic cu ideea egalitatii si dreptatii, numai ca aplicarea ei in realitate s-a dovedit o impostura. Astfel ca sub aceasta masca a dreptatii sociale se manifesta una dintre cele mai salbatice discriminari sociale. Cel mai important lucru pe care il ofera scoala sistemelor totalitarist-comuniste este aspectul stiintific, sigur, indubitabil al sistemului social si al justitiei. Sclavul este educat sa iubeasca religios si sa stea drepti in fata unor astfel de „constructii perfecte” ale civilizatiei. Fata de piatra si aroganta celor care ocupa diferitele functii in institutiile statului au in ele intransigenta colonialista.

Cele mai multe din informatii sunt vorbe in vant, tocilarie goala menita sa faca o selectie pe criteriul memoriei intre elevi pe care apoi sa ii distribuie in posturi. Ingreunarea materiei, prin ridicarea nivelului de studiu care a implicat diversificarea, multiplicarea si amanuntirea extrema a datelor oferite spre studiu a fost o caracteristica a scolilor comuniste care isi reclamau astfel „superioritatea” fata de capitalism. Sub umbra acestui elitism se ascundea insa o realitate mult mai cruda care poate fi gasita intr-un grad mai mic si la scolile „tarilor civilizate”: scoala umple mintile copiilor cu informatii nefolositoare. Maculatura inutila servita de „invatamantul gratuit” dar obligatoriu copiilor este menita sa le epuizeze resursele personale in asa fel incat sa cedeze intentiei de a mai studia stufoasa legislatie a statului si de a se putea apara in viata de zi cu zi. In felul acesta se intareste monopolul celor care o folosesc doar pentru uzul propriu. Societatea nu are nevoie de prea multi filosofi si invatati ci pur si simplu de tinichigii auto spunea cu nonsalanta ce frizeaza nesimtirea (sau bunul simt – care e de fapt, paradoxal, acelasi lucru) presedintele Traian Basescu. Asadar scoala se conformeaza acestor tendinte si prin discriminarea de casta va face in asa fel incat copiii sa urasca complicata si stufoasa invatatura la scoala si sa iubeasca mesteritul. Iata principalul rol al scolii!

Dar de fapt asta nu inseamna neaparat o superioritate a scolii romanesti fata de cele occidentale cat faptul de a stopa accederea celor multi in pozitii privilegiate in stat. Sistemul comunist a promis ca fiecare va fi retribuit dupa merit spre deosebire de capitalism pe care il acuza de nedreptate. In felul acesta el a castigat destui adepti din zona marginalilor social care s-au asteptat la o viata mai buna. Insa odata ce ridicat stacheta si a ridicat nivelul de complexitate a studiului practic el doar a schimbat criteriul de discriminare nu si discriminarea in sine. Invatand in liceu ceea ce in Occident se studiaza in facultate sau invatand in clasele primare ceea ce in Occident se studiaza in liceu pe elevul sistemului comunist s-a pus mai multe presiuni. Cei mai multi fireste, au clacat si s-au resemnat inca de la acea varsta ca vor intra in fabrica si nu la birou. Dar in final s-a ajuns ca majoritatea tinerilor sa urasca comunismul si sa imbratiseze neconditionat valorile capitaliste si astfel miscarile anticomuniste sa ia amploare.

Pe langa birocratia ridicarii nivelului de cunostinte predate in scoala sistemul comunist de discriminare a permis si departajarea educatiei platite. Sistemul de meditatii particulare platite a luat amploare iar materia stufoasa nu putea fi acoperita doar de orele de curs. Fara lectiile particulare paralele nimeni nu putea spera sa fie admis la o scoala de viitor. Creduli fata de gogosile sistemului multi parinti au continuat presiunile asupra copiilor pentru ”rezultate exceptionale la invatatura”. Practic sistemul meditatiilor si diversificarea continua a materiei se aflau intr-o cursa a inarmarilor. Pe masura ce copiii isi dadeau mai mult silinta spre a se adapta cunostintelor sistemul le raspundea cu obstacole si mai mari. De aici pana la coruptia institutionalizata nu mai e decat un singur pas.

Pe la jumatatea anilor 1990 in Romania aparuse febra absolventilor de facultati de drept. Odata cu devitalizarea industriei si punerea ei pe butuci juristii ajunsesera invidiati pentru salariile lor. Majoritatea absolventilor de liceu isi doreau admiterea la facultatile de drept si un viitor luminos in sistemul juridic. Pentru a stopa accesul prea multora la aceste informatii si, evident la salariile motivate ale juristilor admiterea se facea cu examene extrem de dure la istorie si gramatica de parca nu juristi ar fi iesit de acolo ci niste doctori in lingvistica si istorie. Concurenta era atat de mare incat pentru a reusi sa fi admis la astfel de facultati ar fi trebuit sa fi un fel de specialist si in gramatica si in istorie. Daca nu ai fi facut meditatii cu cine stie ce somitati in domeniu care sa iti dea un fel de parole teoretice cu care alti colegi de casta sa te promoveze ar fi fost imposibil sa reusesti sa treci examenul de admitere.

Ne putem imagina cat de pervers a fost sistemul cu acesti creduli. Au aparut sutele de facultati particulare si zecile de mii de absolventi pe care statul roman nu putea sa ii angajeze. Dupa ce ani si ani la rand i-au petrecut invatand gramatica si istorie pana si-au anesteziat mintea, dupa ce au investit sume colosale in „meditatii” cu profesori influenti pentru a trece examenul de admitere sistemul a mai inventat o piedica pentru a nu le permite miilor de absolventi sa profeseze. In acest caz a aparut fenomenul somajului intre juristi. Ca sa ajungi sa fi cooptat in sistem trebuia sa o iei de la capat cu „meditatiile” si ploconeala. Unii parinti si-au vandut casele ca sa isi realizeze copiii iar unii profesori pe la facultatile de drept au ajuns lideri politici locali, patroni de diferite afaceri si baroni locali cu oameni „pregatiti” de ei si pusi in diferite functii in aparatul statului. Coruptia la nivel inalt s-a facut cu astfel de mafioti plasati strategic in posturi cheie din stat. In timp ce o astfel de minoritate prospera cei mai multi absolventi s-au trezit la fel de someri dar si mai saraci. Numai aparitia unei noi discipline la clasele primare, „educatia civica” menita nu atat sa invete niste copii de pana in 14 ani legislatia cat sa le dea de lucru acestor „someri de lux” a putut sa mai estompeze un pic din megaescrocheria oficiala realizata atunci.

Modul in care mintile inocente sunt mutilate inca din cea mai frageda varsta frizeaza o voluptate infioratoare a lacomiei. Nu exista nici un fel de mila fata de viitori sclavi nici macar atunci cand sunt niste fiinte plapande si inocente. Mania educatiei e o afacere pe termen lung. „Educatia e o investitie in viitor” spun politicienii care isi freaca mainile asteptand recolta umana care le va spori nevoia lor nesatioasa de lux. Ca niste burghezi flamanzi si obezi in acelasi timp ei controleaza acest proces de transformare a omului in sclav.

Ca fost profesor am ramas pur si simplu uluit de anumite texte de pedagogie care sunt efectiv niste neoscolasticisme. Diferenta fata de scolastica medievala este ca in loc de logica lui Aristotel folosita pentru a obtine celebrele si ridicolele enunturi, pedagogia contemporana foloseste mai nou matematica. Insa la fel ca si scolastica medievala si pedagogia contemporana oficiala a ajuns la niste enunturi absolut penibile, abstracte si inutile sub raportul interesului copilului. In fond, in ceea ce priveste enunturile drepturilor omului si a legislatiei in general, statul contemporan se afla in aceeasi pozitie in care se afla si biserica in Evul Mediu: ambele functioneaza pe iluzii, pe minciuni si escrocherii. Prima le aplica la nivel metafizic, al doilea le aplica la nivel juridic, procedural.

Tone si tone de maculatura pedagogica scrisa cu limbaj de lemn si cu abordare inumana se publica anual doar pentru a da impresia ca educatia este facuta de niste profesionisti care isi dau toata silinta pentru ca umanitatea sa progreseze. Lipsiti de empatie, lipsiti de caldura umana si preocupati in principal de mijloacele de accedere la functiile inalte ale birocratiei sistemului de invatamant astfel de pedagogi au un tel precis: sa produca confuzie si sa-l formeze ca sclav pe elev. Nu conteaza atat de mult ridicarea unei minoritati elitiste prin invataturile sale cat mai curand demoralizarea unei majoritati pe care sistemul o mutileaza in scopul de a deveni instrument de folosire pentru bunastarea si comoditatea acestei minoritati.

Following the tendencies of ancient slaves that weaken the roman empire from the inside the late classical slaves of 17,18,19 and even 20 centuries raised up violently and won some battles against the masters. Since then the older theory of “divine right” who said that the slaves and the masters are made by god were not only rejected but really eradicated from the knowledge of common people. The fact of aristocratic stealing from the poor and weaken with the violence threaten that was made in the classical edge was more and more perceived as a bad thing. The fear of a new violent revolt of slaves this theory was hided under the well-known classical slavery abolition. But that does not mean that the slavery in its essence really disappeared but it has only changed a little bit, just like the ancient temples transformed into Christian churches.

The difference between overcalled civilized society and the classical one is the power of contemporary slave to simply quit a job when the productivity pressings becomes unbearable and the so-called jobs made for old aristocrats successors that play working and being productive. But the actual jobs that really create something for community are the hard ones of slaves. These jobs are absolute necessary for the system, are indispensable. Those made for cover up and to save the old aristocracy are dispensable, secondary because the community can survive (happily) without them. They are jobs only by the name but not by the facts. They are special, well paid and very commode as the aristocratic way of life is. This macrosocial strategy consolidates the illusion of equality of chances for everyone and the legislative state that the system creates for preventing raisings up. But beyond these empty words remains the fact that the old aristocracy survives through these so-called jobs that are very well paid and very easy to do. I will describe with more details in one of my next entries these kinds of jobs. For keeping these jobs for some people only there is legislation used with its natural discriminatory application. For early selection of those who (still) have to do some works and for long time convincing them to do it there are used state education.

The system usually says that studding and making efforts of becoming better and better in school would bring good things in adulthood and will live happily ever after. Just like a lottery some of the best will occupy important and well paid functions inside the system but most of them will be prepared for the 8 hours of work in the factory. On the other hand, for those who have remarkable intellectual abilities the system creates the bureaucracy, meaning a part of those dispensable jobs more or less unusable.

But for the most of kids are deceived in order to accept their servants place in the society. Just like the classical slave would not be slave without some death threaten in the some manner the modern slave would not be slave if school would not do something about. The school could not correctly and equally evaluate the kids’ performances even if it wants to because it has to underestimate those of old classical slaves’ successors in order to convince about their disability and their faults. Just like the judges case everyone of professors is more or less subtle threaten with loosing the job in the situation when slaves refuse to work. The social crisis is the system incapacity of collecting the slaves work. The professor has this unconscious impulse of student discrimination beyond the empty words, curriculums, directives and hypocrite statements of modern pedagogy. Even at a certain moment the teacher believes in its children love work something inside of still hold it back and professionally force it to behave despotic towards some of them. There is a macabre joke that says that the difference between a professor and a pedophile is that the pedophile loves the child for real…

That is the way school increases the disadvantages of reduced intellectual possibilities that some people has been born with in order to use the contemporary slave as a simple tool, as an object meant to serve the privileged ones greed. Everywhere in the world the institution that deals with children formation is called “The Ministry of Education” but it should simply and truthfully be called “The Ministry of Early Discrimination”. There are some countries, especially the former communist ones that still have the reflexes of former totalitarian system that teaches inutile and old information. If the main purpose of school would be that of learning then such a system must be fool. But these systems are not fools at all, they know very well what are doing: they pay actually for the humble heads and for the docility of future slaves that teacher ask for in the first moment as enter the class room. Beyond the information that everyone can find on the internet or in the libraries the main purpose of school is not learning but the negative discrimination, convincing the slaves to accept their fate from the very young.

The legislation is basically made for the already shaped adult slave and manipulates him/her to keep on being slave. On the other hand it is the state education that subtle and systematic mutilate the children minds to prepare them to become future slaves. This requires a strategy very carefully built and very well sustained on the long term. The job conditions negotiation between employee and employer starts long time before they actually meet and school helps the one that feeds it. In the old classical society if a young person would make a “mistake” in relation with a senior then the whole family including her/his parents would support punishment for the guilt of not providing “proper education”. So this is the way masters used common education from the very beginning of state as a negotiation factor with slaves. It has been long before modern society and it is a naivety to believe that it is gone today. The wild education of classical state is an active part of contemporary education in a very subtle way of course but with the same principles.

Nowadays the western slaves are trapped into genealogical depression and only the entertainment can rise up their spirit. That makes them difficult to deal for employers. The experience of French revolution that decapitated the aristocracy, the experience of communism that decapitated the bourgeoisie, the experience of isolated attenuates against the social privileged ones or the furious strikes of 60-s putted the masters in difficult positions. The temporary solution was dismissing and giving them a consistent social help as unemployed. The solution was found in replacing these native workers with emigrants or in progressively moving the factories to Eastern Europe or extreme Orient. The totalitarian regimes from these areas still provide wild education to their children and authentic slaves for maintaining or even developing world economy. The oriental slaves are fresh blood, they are pure and they did not passed through the dramatic experiences of building up western civilization like the western one did. What we have left is to hope that technology will catch them up and replace them before they will reinvent the French revolution.

In the next entry I will comparatively describe the east-European and extreme-oriental education systems with some examples.

Urmand exemplul revoltei sclavilor antici care a subrezit din interior imperiul roman sclavii mai recenti chiar au reusit victorii decisive si foarte violente asupra stapanilor. De vreo cateva sute de ani in civilizatia occidentala mai vechea teorie a dreptului divin dupa care unii sunt meniti sa fie stapani si altii sa fie sclavi nu numai ca nu mai este acceptata dar a ajuns chiar sa nu mai fie rostita fiind pur si simplu aproape eradicata. In societatea contemporana faptul ca unii iau de la altii doar cu ajutorul amenintarii armelor nu mai pare un lucru corect asa cum parea in secolele trecute. De frica unei noi revolte violente o astfel de teorie a fost pur si simplu ascunsa sub celebra deja abolire a sclaviei. Asta nu inseamna evident ca sclavia a disparut in esenta ei asa cum voi arata intr-unul dintre articolele urmatoare ci doar ca s-a transformat putin, cam la fel cum templele antice s-au transformat in biserici crestine.

Diferenta dintre societatea clasica si cea „civilizata” contemporana este aceea ca sclavul isi poate da demisia din jobul sau atunci cand presiunile de productivitate devin insuportabile si ca vechii aristocrati se prefac ca mai fac si ei cate ceva in societate pentru a nu da impresia ca unii isi distrug sanatatea muncind iar altii huzuresc. Insa locuri de munca propriuzise sunt doar cele ale sclavilor pentru ca doar ele produc efectiv ceva si prin ele se munceste. Acestea sunt joburi indispensabile. Cele facute pentru a camufla clasa vechii aristocratii sunt dispensabile, secundare, sistemul poate functiona (chiar fericit) ca intreg si fara ele. Ele sunt „locuri de munca” doar cu numele. Ele sunt speciale, bine platite si putin stresante specifice stilului de viata al vechii aristocratii. Existenta acestor presupuse „locuri de munca” este facuta doar pentru a da cumva impresia ca societatea e dreapta si ca il rasplateste pe fiecare dupa propria valoare. Intr-unul dintre articolele viitoare am sa descriu in detaliu aceste „joburi. Pentru ca aceste joburi sa ramana doar ale unora se foloseste legislatia cu functia ei discriminatorie asa cum am aratat aici. Pentru selectarea inca de timpuriu a celor care (inca) trebuie sa presteze aceste joburi se foloseste educatia de stat.

Sistemul spune ca cel care invata si este ascultator in scoala va avea numai de castigat in viitor, efectiv il va prinde pe D-zeu de picior. Asemenea unei loterii cativa dintre cei mai buni vor ocupa functii importante si bine platite in sistem insa cei mai multi vor fi pregatiti pentru cele 8 ore pe care le vor petrece docili in fabrica mai tarziu. Dimpotriva, pentru acestia care sunt inzestrati cu capacitati intelectuale si reusesc sa treaca peste barierele puse, sistemul creeaza birocratia, adica o parte din acele joburi dispensabile mai mult sau mai putin inutile.

Cei multi insa sunt doar indusi in eroare pentru a-si accepta rolul de servitori in societate. Dupa cum sclavul clasic nu ar fi fost sclav daca cineva nu ar fi venit cu armele sa il ameninte in aceeasi masura nici sclavul contemporan nu ar deveni sclav daca scoala nu si-ar face treaba in acest sens. Prin urmare scoala nu poate nici daca ar vrea sa faca o evaluare corecta a calitatilor fiecaruia pentru ca ea trebuie sa le subevalueze pe cele urmasilor vechilor sclavi pentru a-i convinge in continuare sa ramana sclavi. La fel ca si in cazul judecatorilor fiecare dintre profesori este amenintat mai mult sau mai putin subtil cu pierderea locului de munca in situatia in care sclavii nu ar mai munci. Criza sociala inseamna incapacitatea de colectare a muncii sclavului. Profesorul are in mod inconstient acest impuls al discriminarii elevilor indiferent de vorbele goale, programele, directivele si afirmatiile ipocrite ale pedagogiei moderne. Chiar daca la un moment dat crede in munca lui de iubire de copii ceva totusi il trage inapoi si il obliga profesional sa se comporte despotic fata de unii dintre ei. O gluma macabra spune ca diferenta dintre profesor si pedofil e aceea ca pedofilul iubeste cu adevarat copiii…

Iata ca dezavantajele native ale unui intelect redus sunt accentuate si mai mult de sistem care face din sclavul contemporan un simplu instrument, un obiect menit pentru a sluji huzurul privilegiatilor. Peste tot in lume institutia care ocupa cu educatia se numeste Minister al Educatiei insa fata de actiunea sa concreta ministerul in cauza ar trebui pur si simplu numi Ministerul Discriminarii Timpurii. Sunt unele tari, in special cele foste comuniste care mostenesc insa reflexele fostului sistem totalitar unde informatiile predate la scoala sunt total perimate si inutile. Daca principalul rol al scolii ar fi acela de invatare atunci inseamna ca sistemul ar trebui sa fie nebun sa investeasca in astfel de informatii. Dar el nu e deloc nebun chiar stie foarte bine ce face: el plateste de fapt capul plecat si docilitatea viitorilor sclavi pe care profesorul o reclama prima data cand intra in clasa. Dincolo de informatiile pe care oricine si le poate lua si de pe internet si de la biblioteca principalul rol al scolii este acela al discriminarii negative, a convingerii sclavului sa isi accepte sclavia inca din frageda varsta.

Iata cum spre deosebire de legislatie care se adreseaza sclavului adult deja format si il manipuleaza sa ramana sclav educatia se adreseaza copiilor mutilandu-i psihic subtil si sistematic spre a fi formati ca viitori sclavi. Ea presupune o strategie atent construita si bine sustinuta pe termen lung. Negocierea salariului si conditiile muncii pe care muncitorul o face cu angajatorul va fi inceput mult mai devreme, inca de pe bancile scolii. In societatea clasica daca un tanar „gresea” ceva fata de un senior atunci erau pedepsiti si parintii acestuia pentru vina de a nu-i fi dat o „educatie corespunzatoare”. Iata cum educatia ca factor de negociere a stapanilor cu sclavii s-a format cu mult inainte de societatea civilizata si e o naivitatea sa crezi ca nu ar mai fi in vigoare si astazi. Educatia salbatica a statului clasic se regaseste in educatia contemporana, intr-o forma mai cosmetizata desigur insa cu aceleasi principii.

Astazi sclavii occidentali sunt cuprinsi de o depresie genealogica incipienta ce este neutralizata de divertisment pentru ridicarea moralului. De aceea ei nu mai accepta asa usor presiunile angajatorilor ca in trecut. Experienta revolutiei franceze care a decapitat aristocratia, a comunismului care a decapitat burghezia, a atentatelor izolate asupra privilegiatilor si a grevelor furibunde din anii 1960 a pus stapanii in situatii delicate. S-a gasit o solutie provizorie in concedierea acestora si acordarea de ajutor de somaj consistent. In locul acestor muncitori nativi nemultumiti fie s-au adus emigranti fie fabricile s-au mutat progresiv spre Europa de est si extremul orient. Regimurile totalitare din aceasta zona a lumii inca ofera educatie salbatica si sclavi autentici pentru mentinerea si chiar cresterea economiei mondiale. Sclavii orientali sunt sange proaspat, sunt aproape puri, n-au trecut prin experientele dramatice ale construirii civilizatiei occidentale. Sa speram ca tehnologia va evolua suficient de rapid incat sa ii inlocuiasca si pe acestia inainte de a ajunge la o revolutie franceza in varianta orientala.

In urmatorul articol voi descrie comparativ sistemele de educatie specifice societatilor europene si extrem orientale cu cateva exemple.

The ancient polytheism believed that gods, citizens (free people), slaves or animals belong to absolute separate ontological layers. The concept of destiny was the center of ancient religions and philosophies social functions. The society was generally accepted as a discriminatory one. Running from destiny would be impossible even for gods. It was Sisif who tried something like this but he finally ended with a vulture that was systematically eaten his liver. Such a metaphor has the power to show what could happen to the slave if refuses the destiny of being slave. But since 2000 years ago something changed and slaves begun to kill theirselves starting with cultural figures like Jesus or Spartakus. This kind of behavior was not good for others business*. If the selfmurderers would be just 2 than everything would be fine, everything would stay in the limits of favorable statistics. But these two spread out unprofitable ideas among the slaves and soldiers also.

From this point on the ancient religions theory of destiny was replaced with the one of free will of Christianity. The Christian philosophers strongly argued against the destine theory but that does not mean that humanity escaped from the destiny. The main difference was that starting with the Christianity it was a sin to have slaves as the ancient mentality accepted it with no doubts. But the problem remained because the slaves work was still needed to build up the civilization. Anyway, though Christianity couldn’t totally give up the theory of destiny still it was a better offer for the ancient slave because of the chance given to the hazard, to the free will. It wasn’t much gain but it was more than nothing. If the ancient slave has got used (or not) with the idea that he will be no more than a slave till the end of time, on the contrary, the Christian slave has got used with the hope of liberation and salvation. At least the Christian slave was not killed anymore if refused to work and just let alone to pray in the church or monastery and in this way simply used to spread out “the teachings” like “give the Cesar what belongs to Cesar”.

Obviously, the liberation promise was not so clearly spoken; it was more a deception because deep into their mind the master knew that it was a lie. Here is the origin of the demagogical promises that politicians make today, first used by ancient Jews and then continued by the roman soldiers. When it comes to profit than the laws and the morality can be easily modified so they get closer to immorality and illegality. The slavery might be considered a sin by the new religion but with money the sins could be diminished in the eyes of the others. That is why in the civilized world the classical slavery should wait until the 19 century to be eradicated and punish by law. Almost 2 millenniums had passed since the Christianity made its promise of equality between people. This revolution didn’t happen because after 2 millenniums the Christianity remembered that made a promise to the humanity but because the industrial age came out and the machines could work more and more precise. The new technological frame could finally afford the expression and the practicing of human moral feelings. The “free” hungry for work and for more workers replaced the old chained slaves. Nevertheless the juridical liberation of slave was far from its psychological liberation. The “slave morale” continued to exist in the way they survived during the centuries: by obedience. It is sat to notice, but the most important change that civilization made as concerns the slave is that the masters understood that more profit is possible with more liberty to the slave, giving up death threatening and giving the illusion of equality of chances and nondiscrimination.

With Christianity the western culture regarding slave started an absurd, exhausting and deceiving way that can be easily reduce to : „Credo quia absurdum est”. (“I believe because it is absurd”) . Fortunately the humanism had enough power and the dignity to confront those lies used by authorities during centuries. The official ideology begun to fracture and fall down starting from the Hume’s doubts, crossing through the Kant crisis and reaching radical conclusions of Nietzsche finally demonstrated by Freud. The official ideology of state continued to fix over and over such lies and kept going on its isolated, deceiving and inhuman way. The deceiving theories of right, the bureaucracy prescriptions and political statements are still the fundament of contemporary state. I already analyzed some of these on this blog, there are other still to be analyzed.

The liberty of slaves increases during the history evolution the nondestine theories increased and became more powerful. The nowadays theoreticians, including the nowadays theoreticians of religions gives a small part in world for destine. The atheism rejected the theory of destine for good. But the theory of destine is saved paradoxically by the Christianity original ambivalence. The privileged social statute philosophy teachers from universities exchanged destine for chaos and free will theories. Those who still believe in the destine are the contemporary slaves that religion teaches as used to do for centuries.


* I know that religious people would reply that Jesus did not actually kill himself and they might be right from a religious point of view. But I also know that from a practical and political point of view the refusal of military master authority is equal with suicidal action. The choice of being killed by beasts inside of arenas instead of refusal the denying one’s belief still is also a suicidal act. Because if someone gets in the lion cage knowing that there is a lion and after that is killed by it than this is not an accident anymore, but a premeditate act of suicide. The system adapted to such theories and the suicide started to be perceived as one of the greatest sins, but this is another story that I would analyze in the next entries.

Politeismul greco-roman pe care crestinismul l-a inlocuit in lumea credea fara echivoc ca zeii, oamenii liberi, sclavii si animalele s-ar afla pe registre ontologice absolut diferite, ermetice. Religiile si filosofiile antice au avut in conceptul de „destin” nucleul lor de aplicabilitate sociala. Societatea funcţiona exclusiv discriminatoriu. Nimeni nu putea scapa de destin, nici macar zeii. Sisif a fost cel care a incercat asta si s-a ales cu un vultur ce-i manca sistematic ficatul. O astfel de metafora e in masura sa arate ce i se poate intampla sclavului daca isi refuza soarta de a fi sclav. Numai ca de 2000 de ani incepand cu Isus si Spartakus sclavii de profesie au cam inceput sa se sinucida. Or acest lucru le cam stricau afacerile stapanilor. * Daca sinucigasii ar fi ramas doar cei 2 totul ar fi fost in regula, totul s-ar fi incadrat in limitele unei statistici favorabile. Insa acestia au raspandit doctrine cam nefavorabile printre sclavi si mercenarii din armata deopotriva.

Din acest moment teoria destinului religiilor antice a fost schimbata pe cea a liberului arbitru al crestinismului. Filosofii crestini insa au scris fara echivoc impotriva teoriei destinului dar asta nu inseamna ca umanitatea a putut scapa cu adevarat de destin. Diferenţa e ca incepand cu crestinismul era un pacat sa ai sclavi pe cand anticii acceptau deschis acest lucru. Insa era nevoie in continuare de munca sclavilor spre a cladi civilizaţia. Oricum, chiar daca nu a putut renunţa total la ideea destinului totusi sansa acordata intamplarii, hazardului a facut din crestinism o oferta mai buna pentru sufletul sclavului. Nu a fost cine stie ce castig pentru sclav insa a fost mai mult decat nimic. Daca pana atunci sclavul se impacase (sau nu) cu soarta de a fi sclav, mai nou el s-a impacat cu speranţa de a fi candva eliberat, mantuit. Cel puţin sclavul crestin nu a mai fost ucis daca refuza sa munceasca ci lasat in biserica si manastirea lui sa se roage si folosit la convingerea celorlalţi sclavi de anumite „invaţaturi” printre care si celebra „da-i cezarului ce-i al cezarului”.

Evident, promisiunea eliberarii nu a fost facuta in gura mare, fara echivoc ci mai voalat si mai inselator pentru ca se cam stia ca e o promisiune mincinoasa. Promisiunile demagogice ale politicienilor de astazi isi au originea in acest gen de promisiune pe care au forţat-o mai intai unii iudei iar apoi soldaţii romani. Cand e vorba de profit atunci legile si morala se pot usor modifica in asa fel incat sa devina faradelegi si imoralitate si sa le mai ramana doar numele din vechile forme. O fi fost ea sclavia considerata un pacat de catre noua religie dar se mai puteau da indulgenţe, se mai puteau rascumpara pacate, etc. In lumea civilizata sclavia clasica a fost eradicata total abia in secolul 19, la aproape 2 milenii de cand crestinismul o eradicase ideologic. Si atunci s-a intamplat astfel pentru ca era industriala a masinilor era mai profitabila. Masina putea lucra mai mult si mai exact. Noul cadru tehnologic putea in sfarsit sa scoata la iveala sentimentele morale ale umanitaţii. In loc de sclavul clasic legat in lanţuri si ameninţat avem muncitorul „liber” si doritor de mai mult. Chiar si asa, eliberarea juridica a sclavului nu a insemnat nici pe departe si eliberarea lui psihologica. „Moralele de sclav” si-au continuat inca stilul de viaţa care le-a facut sa supravieţuiasca secolelor si mileniilor: prin supunere. E trist de remarcat insa schimbarea cea mai importanta consta in principal in faptul ca stapanii au inţeles ca daca vor mai mult profit de pe urma sclavilor nu trebuie sa ii mai ameninţe ci doar sa le dea iluzia de egalitate, de nondiscriminare.

Odata cu crestinismul cultura occidentala a inceput un drum absurd, stufos si mincinos care poate fi sintetizat in maxima „Credo quia absurdum est” („Cred pentru ca e absurd”) . Din fericire umanismul insa a avut puterea sa revina prin niste figuri care au avut demnitatea si puterea sa infrunte minciunile gogonate ale autoritaţilor. Sistemului ideologic oficial a inceput sa crape si sa se clatine odata cu dubiile lui Hume, trecand prin criza descoperita de Kant si ajungand la concluziile radicale ale lui Nietzsche si demonstrate sistematic de Freud. Ideologia oficiala a continuat sa repare mereu si mereu aceste minciuni insa si si-a vazut orbeste de drumul ei inselator si inuman. Mincinoasele teorii ale dreptului, prevederile birocraţiei si declaraţiile politice inca fundamenteaza statul contemporan. Despre unele deja am discutat pe acest blog, urmeaza de analizat altele.

Teoriile antidestin au devenit mai pregnante pe masura ce libertatea sclavului a devenit mai mare in istorie. Teoreticienii profesionisti de astazi, inclusiv teoreticienii religiilor recunosc un rol minor al destinului in lume. Ateismul dimpotriva, l-a eradicat cu totul. Paradoxal, concepţia destinului este salvata tocmai de ambivalenţa originara a crestinismului care desi s-a luptat si se lupta cu teoria destinului totusi el este si cel care i-a fost salvatorul. In destin nu mai cred profesorii de filozofie de la universitaţi care deja au un statut privilegiat in societate si care au devenit popovaduitorii intamplarii si haosului. In destin cred mai nou sclavii contemporani pe care biserica ii educa asa cum i-a educat si acum 2000 de ani.



*Stiu ca religiosii vor spune ca de fapt Isus nu s-a sinucis si poate au dreptate din punct de vedere religios. Insa eu stiu in aceeasi maniera ca din punct de vedere practic si politic a refuza statutul de sclav si a declara ca stapanul nu are nici o putere asupra ta asa cum au facut cei doi asta ar fi insemnat pur si simplu sinucidere curata. La fel si in cazul celor pusi sa aleaga intre a fi ucisi de fiare in arena sau a se lepada de credinta. Tot un fel de sinucidere e. Adica daca cineva intra in cusca leului stiind ca acolo e un leu si e apoi ucis de leu asta nu mai e accident, intamplare nefericita ci tot o sinucidere. Ca dupa aceea sistemul s-a adaptat la aceste doctrine si sinuciderea a devenit dintr-o data cel mai mare pacat asta e o alta poveste pusa spre analiza in viitoarele articole.

31-10-2009

In romaneste aici:

This entry is continued from “Unite Arab Emirate at 2009 Venice Biennale” that I wrote on the “arte” blog in which I analyzed the presence of a strange and unusual pavilion at this year Venice Biennale. The UAE pavilion seems not to really taste the contemporary art but just uses it as an advertising platform. The result was this attitude: “let’s make a half of step into your home to show how much we love to stay outside”. I know that contemporary art sometime played this contradictory role by selling excrements to audience or playing absurd gestures or actions. But still, these manifestations seem to emerge from a depressive and uninterested soul but not from a sick greedy one. That is why these artists are perceived differentially, with more indulgence. On the other hand the UAE authorities seem that were hearing of some kind of Venice pavilion that might be just a little more expensive than a center town billboard or a prime-time commercial. That’s the way UAE get into the contemporary art tendencies! But it is 2009, it is a recession year so the lack of genuine cultural frame can be ignored for a while, it could be a (performative) makeup for the sick of Biennale’s better shaped budget.

In other countries there is a strong competition between artists in order to expose at Venice Biennale. In UAE not only that there is no such competition but there is no Venice Biennale specific cultural tradition. But that would not be a problem – the Gheorghe Gheorghiu University’s strategy that was used in 50-s might work here too. If the tourism industry is involved then the artists could simply be invented just like happened in Romania when the bourgeois were replaced by created automatically and insufficient trained physicians/academicians/officers etc. Anyway, after what is written on this blog I am pretty sure that these kind of artificial jobs are made for the old aristocracy even in the “right” civilized western society.

I see art more and more as overvaluation and even an artificial evaluation for some people that are accepted as artists when we already know that “everybody is an artist”. Of course there is got to be made the eternal mention that only some are good artists among all human beings and the rest are just bad artists. Among good artists there are even fewer that are appreciated as genius artists. They are selected by sirs/kings/bourgeois/ corporations/ curators for to built up an image. Vice versa is true also: without other sirs other kings, other bourgeois, other corporations that want to destroy the image of those above there would be no post mortem celebrities like Rembrandt, Jackson Pollock or Van Gogh. The difference between those artists and “everybody” which is an (smaller) artist is not so radical but just a degree one. It is the system, the cultural heritage that takes over this natural difference, overvaluates it and transforms it into the difference between light and darkness, good and evil, genius and beggar.
Nevertheless after those roads openers there are so many racketeers that adopt their technique and get rewarded in the name of their mentors who might have died unknown and in poverty. That makes me believe that the best artists (in a way that they represent the spirit of future) rarely go to Venice Biennale and when they go they are most of the time old and retired. The Venice Biennale as all kind of such events is a deal between politicians who make institutions for art, curator promoters politically promoted, curators who select the valuable artists and the artists that get under their skin. The new repositioned into contemporary art tower aristocratic mentalities knows instinctively to smell and promote themselves. Venice Biennale is probably the most important contemporary art event with the record number of viewers but under those social relationships there emerges that kind of bureaucracy that destroys the spirit of art. In spite of promotions and marketing strategies the Venice Biennale has something unauthentic inside just like the wide contemporary art has. The contemporary art (of lack of art) have partially reached these conclusions.

The differences between contemporary art and entertainment/advertising might not be noticed by the UAE authorities though they really seem to know what the last one is. Just like uneducated common people they simply do not have the proper knowledge to differentiate these two things. Paradoxically they might have right with this rough and naive analyze of art because this difference might be just (a cultural) snobbism.

I said indeed here that Venice Biennale is not a kind of Eurovision that promotes some countries image with pop music contest but at a further analyze seems that contemporary art as whole is such a lobby. In every Venice Biennale pavilion and in every art figure is a particular UAE pavilion dosage. I know, I heard other reasons about the UAE money that shaped the artists prizes etc, etc. But if we think this way then why won’t we go further and ask why the artist does not built a successfully company and become millionaire? But, to go even further with speculation, maybe that is what the artist actually does. Maybe the art itself is such an international advertising metacompany that built image for the privileged social classes.