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.

Acest articol este continuarea continuarea „Emiratele Arabe Unite la bienala de la Venetia“ scris pe blogul arte in care deplangeam prezenta unui pavilion ciudat, nefiresc la Bienala de la Venetia din acest an. Pavilionul EAU pare ca nu gusta pe de-a-ntregul arta contemporana dar care se folosesc de ea pentru o ciudata campanie publicitara. Rezultatul a fost o atitudine de genul „hai sa facem o jumatate de pas in casa voastra sa va spunem ce mult ne place noua afara!”. Stiu ca arta contemporana s-a jucat deseori cu acest tip de atitudine vanzand fecale sau realizand gesturi absurde. Dar parca astfel de manifestari consemnate vin cumva dintr-un suflet deprimat si dezinteresat si nu dintr-unul cuprins de o lacomie maladiva. Tocmai de asta acesti artisti sunt priviti altfel, cu mai multa ingaduinta. Dimpotriva, probabil ca autoritatile EAU au auzit ca un pavilion la Bienala de la Venetia costa ceva mai mult decat un panou in centrul orasului sau o reclama in audienta maxima. Si iata cum intra EAU in tendintele artei contemporane! Suntem in 2009, suntem intr-un an de criza, si iata ca se poate trece un pic cu vederea lipsa unui cadru cultural tipic, se poate cosmetiza (performativ) campania si astfel se mai poate rotunji bugetul bienalei. Banul face orice.
In alte tari e mare concurenta intre artisti pentru a expune la Bienala de la Venetia. Iata ca in cazul EAU nu numai ca nu exista o astfel de concurenta dar nu exista nici macar o traditie culturala specifica bienalei . Nu-i nimic - se poate actiona dupa planul Gheorghe Gheorghiu din Romania. Inventam niste artisti sa dea bine la industria turismului la fel cum s-a facut in anii 50 in Romania cand odata cu inlocuirea burghezilor din posturile cheie s-au creat pe banda rulanta doctori, academicieni, ofiteri etc. Oricum, dupa cele scrise pe acest blog eu sunt sigur ca inclusiv in societatile “drepte” din lumea civilizata multe astfel de posturi sunt la fel de artificial create ca si cele de tip Gheorghiu, pentru a da o forma mai umana vechii aristocratii.
In ceea ce ma priveste incep sa percep arta din ce in ce mai mult ca pe o supraevaluare si chiar o evaluare artificiala a unor oameni recunoscuti drept artisti in situatia in care „orice om e un artist“. Evident trebuie facuta eterna precizare cum ca unii sunt artisti mai slabi si altii, mai putini la numar, mai buni. Dintre cei buni se aleg cativa si mai putini carora li se atribuie statutul de artisti geniali. Ei sunt selectati de principi, regi, burghezi, corporatii si curatori pentru a le reprezenta imaginea. Viceversa e la fel de valabila : fara alti principi, alti regi, alti burghezi etc. ce vor sa compromita imaginea primilor nu ar exista nici artistii cu celebritate postuma ca Rembrandt, Jackson Pollock sau Van Gogh. Intre artistii mai buni de genul celor de mai sus si „orice om” care e artist (mai slab) exista la nivel cultural o diferenta radicala ci nu una de grad asa cum lasa sa se vada terminologia. Aici intervine sistemul, aici intervine cultura care preia o astfel de diferenta si o supraevalueaza nelimitat transformand-o in diferenta dintre bun si rau, lumina si intuneric, geniu si cersetor.
Oricum, pe langa acesti deschizatori de drumuri se cuibaresc atatia alti profitori care le adopta tehnica si pe care sistemul ii recompenseaza gras in numele maestrilor lor ramasi de multe ori nerecompensati si nerecunoscuti. Sunt sigur ca cei mai buni artisti (in sensul ca reprezinta mentalitatea viitorului) ajung la Bienala de la Venetia mai rar. Iar atunci cand ajung o fac in momentul in care ei insisi sunt devitalizati. Pentru ca de fapt Bienala de la Venetia este o afacere intre politicieni, promovatori de curatori, curatori si artistii care se baga pe sub pielea lor. Mentalitatile aristocratoide repozitionate mai nou in turnul de fildes al artei contemporane stiu sa se miroasa si sa se promoveze. Bienala de la Venetia e probabil cel mai titrat eveniment de arta contemporana cu record de vizitatori insa in astfel de relatii sociale se creeaza invariabil acel tip de birocratie care ucide spiritul artei. Asa ca in ciuda promovarii, reclamelor, strategiilor de marketing Bienala de la Venetia asa cum se prezinta astazi va exista o doza de neautentic, de fals asa cum exista in general in institutia artei. Arta (lipsei de arta) contemporana insasi a ajuns partial la aceste concluzii.
Probabil ca pentru autoritatile EAU nu exista vreo diferenta intre arta contemporana si publicitatea cu care sunt, se vede destul de bine familiarizati la fel cum nu exista nici pentru omul de rand needucat. Insa paradoxal s-ar putea sa aiba o mare dreptate cu toata naivitatea atitudinii lor iar diferenta in cauza se poate dovedi de fapt un mare snobism (cultural)
Spuneam eu aici ca bienala de la Venetia nu este un fel de Eurovizion care face o prezentare politico-turistica a unui spatiu politic ce poate deveni destinatie turistica insa de fapt cam asta e. In orice pavilion va exista o doza de EAU. Stiu, am auzit argumentele pro, ca de fapt cu banii de la arabi s-au rotunjit premiile artistilor etc. , etc. Dar daca ne gandim asa atunci s-ar pune mai departe intrebarea de ce nu si-ar face el artistul o companie de succes si de ce nu ar face el astfel rost de bani? Dar, mergand si mai departe cu speculatia, poate ca de fapt artistul asta si face. Pana la urma arta insasi este o metacompanie internationala de publicitate care face imagine unei anumite clase de privilegiati.

The most perfidious thing in all law codes that history recorded is the fact that they are painted like a free economical exchange. Everything seems to be fair change: one person gives to state some obligation, some duty and the state gives back some human rights. But in reality this so called deal covers a big thievery, a general social swindle. The most of such called liberties of contemporary society are too abstract and more or less inapplicable for the interest of common people. As pointed in previous entry the laws and the human rights are putted there just for propaganda reasons, to make a good impression about the kindness of society but they are not serving all the citizens but only some of them. Let’s just think about the spectacular but still banal “freedom of speech” that is supposed to be a very basic right of western modern civilization. But if we think further on the fact that the depressive disorders rise till 80 % of citizens then they should protest all the time because of this state of mind. Such a scenario with 80% of people complaining about their lives would simply collapse the social system because slaves would protest instead of being productive. The social system must interfere and manipulate the speech in order to prevent that and so the promised freedom won’t be as free as it shows itself. Take a look of how so well-known freedom of speech becomes actually a deception than an authentic liberty. Every law is just a piece of paper that could be always interpreted, manipulated and discriminatory used by those who control it. The liberties given by a certain law can be easily nullified by another law, stipulations or governmental measure so it would become favorable to the privileged ones. The opposite is as true as this: every abuse condemned by basic laws made by authorities against common people could be legalized by such later laws or stipulations. The periodical (so called) democratic election is just a poll with the main reason of measuring the slaves’ reaction concerning such work condition regarding their potential dissatisfaction and revolt against system. If this hostility is bigger than authorities expected then “the opposition parties” would have the task of absorbing it, to relax such social pressures on slaves and to calm down their potential hostility and to offer them illusions that they are not slaves. The fact that the president of USA is now a black man was possible because the system wanted to offer new illusions and new rights when their trust in it is falling down and down after Bush presidency. The system offered through Obama another but still different illusion in exchange for their docility and calming down their hostility. Right now the system works for building up another new illusion of the first woman president of USA: Hilary Clinton. But this is another story that I will cover in on of next entries. Let’s get back to the laws.

The way laws and court justice works is to be seen very clearly in the documentary „The 911 Chronicles Part One Truth Rising” . At the 7-th minute its author is harassed by police officers in order to prevent the public exhibit of his opinion about the 9 11. He believes that 9 11 was an inside job, a bluff made by authorities for gaining the public support for the Iraqi war. Those police officers were simply breaking the US constitution that says very clearly that the freedom of speech is guaranteed. If they would respect the constitution letter than Luke Rudkowski would be protected and served for using this “right”. This man was not doing any crime so the police intervention would not be excused by preventing his possible dangerous facts. The cops might not be very clever but basically they know something about legislation, they know that the community does not appreciate when police officers overreact and shows power just for fun. It is easy to deduce from here that the working field lower position policeman would not afford to question and harass Rudkowski by his own will, so breaking the law and risking of being observed by press. It is very probably that some superior, some boss just order him to “solve the problem”. And probably his boss also had got some orders from someone higher in this hierarchy. It is not hard to imagine were this leads to.

Here is the one example among so many others that “the biggest democracy” discretely and masked uses the dictatorship tools. Of course, this unusual journalist could suite the cop that broke his constitutional right or even the entire police institution for this. And probably after a pretty long trial, after paying a lawyer (or lawyers) he might probably win. At the first view system looks very good and shows that works indeed for citizen benefit. But this masquerade is just a very efficient method of negotiation of slave liberties and „human rights” with nobody figuring it up.

Statistically speaking the common people would not get involved in such a long and expensive journey in fighting with institutions. It is easier for her/him to shout up. So the manipulation “democracy” reaches the same results that dictatorship is getting by using force. On the other hand, if things go wrong in such a negotiation, the system could easily get rid of such a cop after using him as a sacrifice in slaves’ negotiation and perfidy sacrifice him for making a good image in the eyes of citizens. After getting into jail he might get a favorable press campaign and a quick forgiveness and rehabilitation. But for this there is public sympathy needed. If that does not come after a press campaign there is nothing else to do. That is the way things go. This is the policeman job just like the politician: they both receive and temper the slaves’ anger. It is absolutely astonishing how the system manages to turn slaves one against the others, to fight each others and to turn the crowd anger away from those who deserve it.

A typical example for such a situation is the case of former Romanian army general Victor Stănculescu. This general became the scapegoat for the crimes that army did against the people and defending the dictatorship in December 1989. He was convicted in order to wash up the criminal character of army itself because its first goal is to prevent and destroy any kind of slaves’ revolt under the cover of protecting from foreign invasions. But at the moment I was writing this entry Stanculescu had a very favorable image in media. He was shown as an innocent doddered and ill old man “far away from being a social danger”. After several years of prison now is time for some mercy. That kind of situation has a strong reverberation inside the ambivalent soul of slave. Freud pointed that very clearly: after killing the master/king/origin father the slave starts a depressive penitence *. But, for now the public opinion seems to be indifferent to such media attempts and accept the first accept the scapegoat issue to solve the army crimes matter. But there might be other such attempts in the future.

Unfortunately the contemporary developed society could not survive without wars and as classical society makes good image of them. The wars image is very carefully build by state propaganda so that the mentality of war as universal justice (mentality of public and civil society opine) and the war as a personal revenge to somebody no matter who (mentality of soldier) would join together even they are so opposite one another. The main reason for army is the negotiation of slaves’ revolt and the social system is always prepared to strengthen its false pretext of protecting and serving the people and civilization against “primitive abuses” even by artificial creating new conflicts all over the world. It is obvious that in Stanculescu’s case the Romanian authorities try to save the dog watch honor by showing the care for the sacrifice of dying in mission of those who fights in Iraq and/or those who protects the neoaristocrats against slaves’ anger. The system is in a very delicate situation by negotiation the future of some guy like Stanculescu. Basically convicting the crime of shooting one’s own people brings down the every soldier natural born sadism by being convicted for “doing its job” which would balance the recruiting new military mercenaries in the future. Among the risk of being killed in the battlefield such a potential hero would find himself in the position of loosing the military honors too or even worse, of getting to jail for a wile. On the other hand there is the civil voice and public opinion that might change the perception of “military heroes” if the 1989 crimes would be covered muşamalizate and the murderers would get away with that. This would mean that everyone’s equality in front of law is just a piece of paper.

Because of Romanian poverty for now people uses bribe to be recruited and sent to fight in Iraq. But the today’s kids that party in the clubs and shout from all their lungs “Peace&Love” might not be willing to sell their body to the system in the future. They might probably refuse to fight against their brothers the slaves when revolt. That is why the system struggles so hard to build up a good image of army for future plans. That is why the so-called separated powers of state as Ju$tice and Pre$$ work together so well to solve this problem as smooth as possible. For now they failed in this case but they will keep trying so to prove they were doing the best they could.

* But this feeling is not human natural as he believed. This kind of penitence is just the consequence of wild education that common people gets from the system from the day she/he is born until becomes adult.

Ce e cel mai perfid in toate sistemele de legi cate au existat e faptul ca ele se prezinta ca un schimb economic liber. Totul pare un schimb corect: eu iti dau tie statule obligatia mea iar tu imi dai mie niste drepturi. In realitate acest presupus schimb ascunde o mare escrocherie generalizata. Cele mai multe din libertati sunt abstracte si care mai de care mai neaplicabile pentru omul de rand. Asa cum s-a vazut in articolul precedent ele sunt superfluu expuse in codurile de legi sunt puse doar formal si se aplica doar pentru o anumita parte a cetatenilor. Daca toti cetatenii si-ar lua toate libertatile promise atunci sistemul s-ar colapsa instantaneu. Sa luam de exemplu banala si mult prea trambitata libertate de expresie care teoretic este o libertate de baza a civilizatiei occidentale. Daca mai luam in calcul ca tulburarile depresive in randul cetateanului de rand ating o incidenta de aproximativ 80% si daca ne imaginam o libera exprimare a nemultumirilor de orice fel a acestor sentimente depresive atunci ar trebui ca 80% din forta de munca sa protesteze nonstop. Ori un astfel de scenariu ar duce efectiv la colapsarea sistemului social deoarece sclavii ar protesta in loc sa munceasca si sa fie productivi. Sistemul trebuie sa intervina si sa manipuleze expresia in asa fel incat libertatea promisa sa nu fie chiar atat de libera. Iata cum libertatea de expresie are limitele ei care o face mai curand o caricatura de libertate decat o libertate autentica. Legea scrisa pe hartie este o hartie care oricand poate fi interpretata, manipulata si folosita discriminatoriu de cei ce o aplica. Orice prevede si ofera legea poate oricand fi anulat de o alta lege, prevedere sau masura guvernamentala daca asta e in favoarea neoarsitocratilor. Viceversa este la fel de valabila: orice abuz din partea autoritatilor condamnat de legile in vigoare poate fi legiferat de alte legi sau masuri guvernamentale. Votul electoral realizat odata la cativa ani vine apoi sa ia pulsul reactiei sclavilor la o astfel de masura riscanta. Daca nemultumirea e prea mare atunci opozitia va incerca sa o absoarba si astfel sistemul sa continue in forma sa neschimbata dar mereu „schimbatoare”. Faptul ca presedinte al SUA a ajuns un negru este un drept in plus pe care sistemul l-a oferit sclavilor in situatia in care increderea cetateanului de rand in sistem se afla in scadere progresiva in special dupa guvernarea Bush. Sistemul a oferit o alta iluzie sclavilor in schimbul docilitatii si suspendarii revoltei. Urmeaza alte iluzii aruncate pe piata si vad ca deja se contureaza imaginea primei femei presedinte in persoana lui Hilary Clinton o alta premiera menita sa creeze iluzii. Dar despre asta voi scrie in amanunt intr-unul dintre articolele urmatoare.

Modul in care functioneaza legile se poate observa destul de clar in documentarul „The 911 Chronicles Part One Truth Rising” unde la minutul 7 se poate vedea aici cum autorul sau, Luke Rudkowski este discret hartuit de acei politisti pentru a-l impiedica sa isi exprime parerea despre atentatele din septembrie 2001 pe care el le considera provocate din interior, o cacialma pentru a porni apoi o campanie militara in Irak. Evident ca in legislatia SUA dreptul la libera exprimare este garantat. In mod normal politia ar fi trebuit sa il protejeze pe acest om in exercitarea unui astfel de „drept”. Acel om nu facea nimic rau cu protestul sau deci nu se poate invoca o interventie de prevenire a unor astfel de fapte periculoase pe care el le-ar fi facut. N-or fi ei foarte destepti politistii dar, macar ca defect profesional, cam stiu un pic de legislatie, stiu ca nu e bine sa iti arati inutil puterea. E simplu sa ne dam seama ca un astfel de politist cu grad inferior, cu munca de teren nu si-ar fi permis de unul singur sa il ia la intrebari pe personajul nostru incalcand practic legea si riscand sa fie sanctionat si condamnat de presa. Cineva i-a ordonat sa „rezolve problema”. Acel cineva probabil ca a primit si el ordine de la cineva si mai sus plasat si nu e chiar greu sa mergem pe firul situatiei si sa gasim originea unui astfel de ordin.

Iata cum „cea mai mare democratie” foloseste mijloacele dictaturii in mod mascat. Evident, jurnalistul nostru atipic ar fi putut da in judecata politia sau pe politistul in cauza. Si, dupa un probabil destul de lung proces, dupa serviciile unui bun si costisitor avocat (sau avocati) ar fi castigat procesul. La prima vedere pare ca sistemul functioneaza perfect pentru cetatean, ca drepturile sale „sunt sfinte”. In realitate toata aceasta mascarada este o foarte eficienta si discreta metoda de negociere a libertatilor si drepturilor sclavului (garantate de constitutie).

Din punct de vedere statistic cetateanul simplu nu se implica intr-un astfel de lung si costisitor drum. E mult mai simplu pentru el sa „isi tina gura”. Iata cum „democratia” reuseste prin manipulare ceea ce face si dictatura cu forta bruta. Pe de alta parte dupa ce l-a folosit pe post de „carne de tun” in negocierea cu sclavii sistemul se poate debarasa de un astfel de politist sacrificandu-l pentru a-si mentine o buna impresie in ochii cetatenilor. Dupa aceea o campanie de presa sau vreo gratiere subita s-ar putea sa il reabiliteze. Daca totusi nimeni nu se induioseaza de soarta lui atunci… asta e! Asa merge treaba. Asta e jobul lui la fel ca si cel al politicianului: sa primeasca la un moment dat si efectele furiei sclavului. Este absolut fascinant cu cata abilitate reuseste sistemul sa asmuta sclavii unii impotriva altora si astfel sa deturneze furia multimii departe de cei pentru care lucreaza!

Un exemplu tipic pentru o astfel de situaţie se întâmplă în România de câtva timp încoace relativ la fostul general al armatei române Victor Atanasie Stănculescu. Pe acest general a picat măgăreaţa pentru crimele armatei asupra poporului în 1989 şi a fost condamnat la închisoare pentru acele crime în numele instituţiei care are în ameninţarea cetăţenilor şi eventuala înăbuşire în sânge a revoltei lor îndeletnicirea sa de bază.

Însă la momentul când scriam acest articol Stănculescu se bucura de o imagine bună în presă. Este prezentat ca un bătrânel inocent, senil şi bolnav „care numai pericol social nu e”. După câţiva ani de puşcărie e timpul pentru milă. Asta are o puternică rezonanţă în sufletul ambivalent al sclavului. Freud a spus-o clar şi răspicat: după ce îşi ucide stăpânul/ regele/tatăl originar sclavul e cuprins de o remuşcare astenică*. Dar se pare că deocamdată opinia publică a rămas indiferentă la încercările presei şi preferă să accepte găluşca ţapului ispăşitor care să ia asupra lui crimele armatei. Dar se pare că vor mai fi încercări.

Din păcate societatea civilizată contemporană nu poate trăi fără războaie şi îşi face în continuare provizii de imagine în care să încapă şi mentalitatea războiului ca justiţie universală (cea a opiniei publice) şi cea a războiului ca răzbunare personală pe cineva anume nu contează cine (cea a militarului propriuzis). Sistemul foloseşte armata principial pentru a juca pe tărâmul negocierii revolte sclavului şi e în stare să întărească pretextul fals al protejării propriului popor sau chiar a civilizaţiei de către „nedreptăţile primitive” chiar inventând pur şi simplu artificial conflicte în diferite părţi ale globului. Evident că în cazul Stănculescu sistemul încearcă să-şi salveze câinele de pază să arate grija pentru angajatul său pentru ca potenţialii luptători în Irak şi/sau bodyguarzi ai neoaristocraţilor în faţa furiei sclavilor să fie dispuşi să moară în misiune. Sistemul se află într-o situaţie absolut jenantă în negocierea sorţii unuia ca Stănculescu. Mai întâi condamnarea lui pentru crima de a trage în propriul popor demoralizează sadismul inerent oricărui militar care se vede în situaţia de a fi condamnat „daca îşi face meseria” ceea ce va cântări greu la recrutarea noilor mercenari militari în viitor. Pe lângă riscul iniţial acceptat de a pieri în luptă un astfel de potenţial recrut se vede şi pus în situaţia de a-şi pierde şi onorurile, ba chiar de a fi trimis un pic la răcoare. Apoi societatea civilă şi opinia publică îşi poate schimba radical opinia faţă de „eroii militari” în situaţia în care crimele din 1989 ar fi total muşamalizate. Asta înseamnă că nu toţi sunt egali în faţa legii şi că unii pot scăpa bine mersi chiar dacă au ucis.

Deocamdată se dă şpagă în România pentru a prinde un loc în batalioanele ce luptă din Irak. Dar s-ar putea ca în viitor copiii care merg astăzi în cluburi şi care strigă în gura mare peace &love să nu mai aibă apetit pentru a-şi vinde carnea sistemului. Şi asta înseamnă că vor refuza să mai lupte şi împotriva fraţilor lor sclavii în situaţia de revoltă. Aşa că o astfel de măsură de imagine merită făcută încă de pe acum. Iată cum separatele puteri în stat Ju$titia şi Pre$$$a conlucrează fiecare pentru a rezolva această problemă cât mai discret posibil. Deocamdată au eşuat în acest caz dar vor mai fi încercări. Să se arate totuşi că s-a făcut tot posibilul.

Scoaterea lui Stănculescu drept ţap ispăşitor seamănă flagrant de bine cu situaţia poliţistului care l-a împiedicat pe Luke Rudkowski să protesteze şi pe care mai întâi şefii l-au obligat să încalce legea prin ordinele pe care i le-au dat iar apoi îl scot vinovat prin intermediul justiţiei pentru fapta lui pentru a potoli revolta acestuia. Ăsta este destinul mercenarilor: sunt nişte cârpe ceva mai elegante cu care neoarsitocraţii îşi şterg mizeriile.

* Însă nu face parte din constituţia naturală a omului un astfel de sentiment aşa cum credea el. Pur şi simplu o astfel de remuşcare este consecinţa educaţiei sălbatice, a educaţiei supunerii la care este supus sclavul din fragedă pruncie.

In romaneste aici:
Before I describe a concrete case that shows how Ju$tice works I would make a brief analyze of judicial system regarding the citizens. The legislation is the accurate or even identical copy of global psychic system Conscious- Unconscious relationship. Actually the state could not be something else since it is a product of human psychic system and developed by a perfidious cleverness. Here comes into my mind a case described by Freud of a person that was commanded into the hypnotic state to open his umbrella several minutes after he wakes up. Indeed that is exactly what happened next after his waking up. But when asked about the meaning of his gesture that person answered serenely: “I just felt like”. That is the exact way the sate works except that the network movement of commands is more complex and shapes up not in several minutes of hypnosis but during the whole life. “I just felt like” that everybody does when practice her/his profession it is the illusion of freedom that system offer in exchange for its benefits. Being a legacy of classical slavery state the contemporary neoslavery state spread out through Unconscious its interests into the most hided parts of society.

Every profession is meant to produce objects or satisfactions for masters or to supervise the slaves or bring down their spirit in order to bring down their willing to rise up. “I just felt like” is felt by every slave when does not work, when gets bored and when not feeling well if do not execute the masters command. Such a feeling is critical for the global economy function. This feeling is build up by the state institutions using the spiritual mutilations during many generations. We live in the Matrix meant to satisfy the needs of such cyborgs of traveling on the moon or of having luxury residences and, finally of having a rival or somebody at his/her knees from whom to extract the feeling of power. Such a bizarre need is pointless today but it satisfy the reflexes of community old big robbers called masters that today masters have from. Stealing and enslaving the innocent community is the base of civilization but instead of old sieges today we have the state that manages to robber more efficiently than the power of armies. The rules, the procedures and the legislation are the tools that mainly replaced the killing weapons but, as the cause survives in the effect the classical weapons now technological developed are good supports for such a “democratic institutions” that serve luxury neorobberers.

But inside every legislative there are two unwritten and untold big laws universally applied with the use of the others. The first one is that the master has the right to steal from slave. This kind of robbery was called “divine right” in the past. Today “divine right” turned into artificial, exclusive and luck of concurrence praiseworthiness that masters offer one another. The first one is that the slave is not allowed to steal from master and has no right to take back its damage of being stolen before. These basic unfair laws are the untold latent content of Ju$tice and the manifest ones that that state show to people is actually meant to cover up and mend their image.

The constitution is the base of legislation and the base of state functionality. But there is nowhere to be found in any constitution such two basic laws. On the contrary, at the first sight the constitution convince the reader that such a thing is quite impossible no matter how obvious is in real life. The state builds up a complex system of laws to mask their discriminating and inhuman face and to artificially create a more natural aspect. This cosmetic strategy involves 4 types of laws or human rights.

1. The most important laws for the master minority are the compelling and abusive laws that basically are used for what the masters did during all the civilization: that is to collect taxis that support their parasite situation in society. Any kind of law settlement and restriction of citizen’s behavior reveal this interest of parasite goal. These laws actually limit the liberty of slaves and help increase the liberty of masters. The social privileged ones overuse the need of human being to accept some restrictions in exchange for living in society. The press or the election campaigns measure this collective acceptance or dissatisfaction about these restrictions in order to prevent the slave’s revolt. The most of the people does not figure up the way that this general civilization robbery goes and everything seems very smooth and clean. I pointed here the need of developed society for half sleepy and not very smart people.
2. Other laws are artificial rights (of human being) because they show nothing new to the natural life of people. Their first purpose is to cover up the trust of people in the other laws and to give them the impression that the laws are good and very helpful. In law constitution one could find rights like “the right of life, of marriage, of drinking water, of breathing air etc.” with the subliminal induced idea that all these realities of natural life would be actually the benefits offered by state.
3. Other laws are partially applicable or completely inapplicable because there are no social conditions for applying them. They are putted into law constitutions for propaganda reasons to make people trust in the system but they will never bring to all the people their promises. They promise natural rights to people but these “rights” are the exchange coin that system uses for the labor of slaves. So called “the right of home” or something like it is just on paper. Even in the western countries there are homes that look more like lairs than like houses. If the slave stops being productive any more than this so called right disappears just like that. The banks with their credits system of mortgage works in this way.
4. Other laws are deceiving and contradictory to their own enounces. They give the false impression that helps people but actually hide the state interest of manipulation and dehumanization. For example “the right of education” is just the obligation of becoming highly efficient, of getting used to the work in factory since early age. “The right of information” works only with manipulation filter information. When it comes for intimate details of institutions activity, of future social projects and laws then that information are discreetly kept away from citizen’s attention or classified as state secrets. If the urban space are suffocated by panels and billboards that obsessively plays political news or commercials that is presented by authorities as the respecting “the right of information” of citizen. It is easy to see that this “right of information” is actually the greedy authorities’ need for manipulation. What is really important for the citizen to know, the dark sides of social system, the making of political decisions, the money functionality or the detailed study of legislation is out of this deceiving “right of information”.

In the next blog entry I will continue this general description of the way that Ju$tice works by bring up to analyze a real case .