2.5.4.4.3. The monetary flood and withdrawal or on the illusions exploitation in the modern slavery

2.5.4.4.3. The monetary flood and withdrawal or on the illusions exploitation in the modern slavery

sociologie Baldovin   00:59

The automatist society manifesto 

2.5.4.4.3. The monetary flood and withdrawal or on the illusions exploitation in the modern slavery

This article continues the previous one 

Romanian version here:

(This article was written in 2014, but later was then absorbed into a larger paperwork)

One of the biggest illusions in contemporary society, that are satisfied for to control the masses, is the money. The money seems to have concrete reality just because they help us to make easier exchanges of products or services between us. The carpenter makes a cupboard for the plumber, and gets in return a certain amount of money that the plumber also took from someone else to whom has made a service. In this economic circuit there is not necessarily the money itself that circulates, but the product or service offered in return. That amount of money is an abstraction for the cupboard work that the plumber previously did, and the cupboard - money exchange is a fair play exchange at this level. Globally, returning a service for money is actually a behavior sustained by a very diverse spectrum of products and services exchanges that community members do to each other to mutually improve their lives. Mutual exchange of services is a compromise that nature has found longer before the human species existence.

Living in the community was possible due to this type of collaboration between group members. For example, the mammoths’ hunting was made with the community participation, where each member has a certain role in the final success. If we go back on the evolutionary scale, and analyze the lions group hunting on elephants, we see something similar: some individuals specialize on a certain task in the group: one climbs on the elephant’s back biting the neck, other bites trunk, another one bites the belly, etc. With courage and mutual trust, the lions pride can hunt much larger animals than each of the group members, individually. The human species, however, the team collaboration had first turned into prey-predator relationship type (as the classical society) or deception (as the civilized society). The money is the tool of this deception relationship.

The money (the general capital) has two shapes. The first one is the concrete capital that involves the estimation, evaluation, with a certain unit of measure, for goods as properties, manufactures or other concrete object that the community members need. The other one is the potential capital that implies the "educated" slaves’ potentiality to make the effort and work in order to be profitable to those who actually control the concrete capital. Potential capital consists in submissive people either retaliation threatened by brute force, as with classical social systems or dictatorships, or deluded with their corporate enthusiasm by advertising and entertainment social system, as I have shown here: : http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2011/01/exemples-of-manipulation-and-obedience.html

The physical money itself is nothing without a proper potential capital. It is a mistake to believe, as Marx and many economists after him did, that money consists in concrete capital, in material resources only. The true strength of capital lies in... "human resources". The concrete capital itself needs "human resources" to evaluate it and pay for it. An animal will choose to eat 100 grams of food instead of 100 grams of one million dollars equivalent paper. Unfortunately, the human resources "education" to equate a good in money is not always a sign of human versus animal species superiority but, often, it is the sign of slavery "brutalization". Sometimes this equivalence overflows the education area. Hundreds of tons of gold brought from Southern American colonies failed to save the Spanish empire from collapse. That happened because the potential capital was very low at that time. The members of Spanish society and Europe itself did not want to exchange the Spanish crown gold with vital products.

So, the money does not exist like a heap of certain and concrete objects that are ulterior distributed to citizens just like the hunting members split the prey after putting it down. The country budget or the bigger economic area budget does not have a fixed amount. Although, originally, the money was a commercial unit, today they turned into something else. The money is those illusions that keep some citizens in poverty. They are the most slaves among the slaves. If they wouldn’t be kept in poverty, they wouldn’t be "voluntarily" slaves any longer. Without poor there can be no prosperity in society today. The welfare is not sure with tons of gold or food or luxury car excess, but with hungry slave that want these things. There is no relief of having this things unless there is no guard at the gate, house maid, plumber, garbage man and others like them to serve.

These people are kept in poverty in order to be persuaded to serve by the new slave owners with the promise of fulfillment of their ideals. Without these promises they would no longer be "willingly" slaves and the system would be forced to return to classic slavery of death threatening, prison and many other tools of conviction. Therefore, the social system will need poor further on. It is well-known that the food overproduction is generally destroyed in the western rich countries. Officially, it is said that such a ridiculous behavior is due to the interest of maintaining high price for those products. But, in fact, some people should be kept hungry and frustrated because, in exchange for food and a certain dose of polished pride, they will accept employment in a certain hierarchy and, thus, they will accept the superiors’s orders.

The currency value is not fixed only by the commercial trading and the currency exchanging one to another. The free market is just one of the factors of this value determination. The other one is the state intervention on the money supply. When suicides multiply or when there is acute complaints from a particular social category, the system throw the money supply in the market to delude the naive ones and deceive them with such a false wealth or economic growth. The promisees of a better life are one of the tools through which the potential riots are kept in control. Polling institutes are the direct application of sociology science in the concrete social field; they measure the citizens’ dissatisfaction state. Voting representative politicians is only part of this gearing; for these institutions does not matter the masses option for one politician / party or another but, especially, the masses mood to be deluded to new promises. The absenteeism from voting raises concerns about the lack of enthusiasm of slaves to engage in general support of the economy.

It is well-known that when the demand is high then prices rise accordingly. This means that the same product will cost more money and so it takes more money supply. The main state bank prints then these papers that will cover this need for purchasing. This is the monetary flood phase. The ratio between supply and demand regulates not only the prices but also the quantity of money supply launch on the market by the state’s official bank. There will be monetary flood as long as there is willing to work and enthusiasm in the potential capital field; printing the money supply is made only by anticipating the overproduction that follows its usage. The toy politics with its political system revolution illusion is the engine of this general masses enthusiasm. The entertainment, psychoactive substances and consumerism industries also contributes to the resounding enthusiasm into the society potential capital growth. When printing supplies are made there is no actual coverage in concrete capital (goods) for the new amount of currency. But along the way, it is simply covered by correlating production in all sectors of activity.

Right after the operation of converting this naive people’s enthusiasm into profit and transforming it into apathy, the reverse occurs. This is the monetary withdrawal phase. The money supply absorption from the market is meant to prevent the inflation. The common people no longer want to execute orders in exchange for money, so the main bankers extract it from the market to prevent devaluation. This is the main purpose of taxes.

The money supply flood and withdrawal that the state bank does is determined by the simple people’s availability to sell their freedom, and to become potential capital. These phases represent the two critical moments for the modern slavery, namely the luring and the profit. This strategy is identical to the fishery; after fishing with baits, the fish has adapted and learned to refuse: the fisherman went further on with the deception and introduced the bait in advance. Throwing the bait in the water where the fish lives (circumspect toward the hook) a few days before throwing the rod, creates a sort of food harassment and, at one certain point, it will go for the bait at risk, unable to resist temptation on the long term. Basically, the time that fisherman looses waiting for the fish to bite happens right now: the fish will bite the bait increasingly relaxed, as there is no hook. But, at some point, there will be a rod hook. Eventually, the fish knows that it might die, being hooked by the fisherman rod. But it can not help itself anymore not to bite. The biting refusal makes a real psychological withdrawal, just as happens with psychoactive substance addiction. The money and shopping addiction is the contemporary slavery psychodynamical bait.

Buying various products from the corporations, government and the system in general actually is pumping capital into them, thus opening the monetary flood phase. These, on their turn, attract the staff, the human resources and become increasingly larger. At the monetary flood phase the jobs are diverse and comfortable. The ratio between the stress / volume of work and received payment is very favorable for the employee. The employee’s self confidence and self-esteem increases so that it can afford to change jobs and negotiate better conditions. At this moment, the worker or employee mentality is full of boom and trust. It almost reaches the hedonism.

But this is an illusion, a lure that social system throws through the corporations, just like the fisherman previously throws the bait before throwing the hook. The slave is easily lured to lead a life of ease, to "afford" buy all kind of things, vacations, holydays and other such luxuries that are gradually fixed in its mind as normal things and not as luxuries. Basically, the illusion that these dispensable goods would be actually indispensable is generated. Given the fact that these things gradually come to occupy a place in the subject’s biography, she or he becomes addicted to them.

This is the moment of luring and testing in order to select those who are willing to work in some kind of unfavorable conditions, which is the next step, the profit. Like fish in the water, the potential slaves are discreetly seduced into this first hedonistic period. They are encouraged to have a somewhat higher lifestyle because, eventually, maintaining it would be paid with a much higher work volume than originally agreed. For “high lifestyle” slave-dependent the real payment for this luxury comes only after the monetary withdrawal period is released. Here we're talking about a real scam that the social system and private employer practice in order to lead the employee inside the profit area.

The money withdrawal from the market involves massive loosing jobs, which causes economic recession. Recent history has cyclically evolved with a few years of economic booms followed by other years of recessions. These steps are identical to the ebb and flow of money. But firings do not involve the reducing production accordingly. Simply, the employee has to make the colleague fired work. The conservative minds will not give up these little delights that had had become part of their lives and will accept the new conditions of work. Here is how the monetary system works exactly just like a commercial, using consumer subtle manipulation.

This is actually the point that the system was intended to reach from the very beginning. The initial ratio between stress/work volume and payment was a fake during the monetary flood. The real ratio is exactly this final one. In this period there are paid the financial “loans” that some employees have subconsciously contracted, unaware of this turning situation when have committed. The fine and easy jobs during monetary flood were that kind of bait meant to attract the potential slaves into the general economy and, subsequently, to gradually “tighten the belt” so that the employer will get the profit at one certain time.

Some monetary flood employees become unemployed at monetary withdrawal. They wake up sometimes in the situation of being unable to continue and end up being thrown out in the street. The social protests explode. Then the state invests then in “law enforcement” to keep angry people under control. The street battles that follow for possible, the riot police use tear gas, rubber bullets, dogs, electroshock batons, mobile phone surveillance by intelligence services and others. The official media is ready to create in the public’s eyes an anarchist image, hungry for destruction, for these people. Thus, their image is compromised. The riots important figures are carefully monitored and socially marginalized. Despite stories about freedom of expression, in many “civilized” countries the sympathy for the ideas of revolt is paid with the impossibility of finding work after the “intelligence suggestion”. Instead of fighting the real crisis provocateurs, those who orchestrated the cash flood and withdrawal, the new unemployed, are fighting with their social class colleagues dressed in police riot armor, also lured with other promises. Here is a smart social management engineering!

But these protests are in fact much smaller in scale than if the modern slave had been kept longer in labor. The religious type promises that capitalism has infused into the "American Dream" new religion are slowly proving to be blatant lies. The naive blasé young man who comes out of school eager to show himself will become a boiled vegetable after 10 years of stressful work in corporations. As he gets older, he realizes that he has wasted his life, and so the revolt feelings are sprouting in him. The workers situation is like that of the war veterans who wildly go to kill natives from different parts of the world and return home with PTSD or with an activist-social mentality. The French Revolution is the prototype of this revolt.

The monetary withdrawal is meant to send many to rest and meditation instead of joining mass protesters who risk creating such a new popular mass uprising. The system has learned in thousands years of slave / labor riots how to prevent popular anger through dismissal. The public opinion polling institutes have the means to test this popular anger. From these data, the bankers start a controlled crisis, such as that of the US real estate business at the end of the 21st century first decade.

We notice that monetary flood and withdrawal are part of a clever social engineering to replace the tired and resentful slaves with naive and enthusiastic young people in the mass production. Meanwhile, the consumerism and the wide mass culture industry develops a new generation of slaves, luring young generations with its illusions. The dramatic stories of street protesters are masked by the mass-media talk shows and entertainment that viewers unconsciously think are part of, dreaming on the illusions of celebrity and social standards enlargement. Blinded by their “dream”, they will fall too into the same trap few years later, with the next economic recession. Just like a huge slaughterhouse, the social system extracts the young generations enthusiasm, turning them into a sort of lonely, depressed and bizarre zombies.

The interesting part of such socio-economic maneuvers is that this type of slavery has the form of freely consented exchanging values. But some of those who accept this are simply deceived either because they can not know the value of the product they exchange for their work, or because the value of that product is just an illusion and nothing else. As concerning money we deal with a deceiving exchange of values: the system provides sheets of paper with celebrities pictures printed on them in return for a certain service or product. Therefore the contemporary slavery can be called, without any risk of error, “the disproportionate exchange slavery”. The culture of hedonistic consumption that the system constantly hit slave’s mind with is actually an urge to disproportionate exchanging meant to bring profit for its occult forces.

Creating artificial threats to citizens or harassing small farmers, as happens in the US (see the Monsanto case), is aiming to persuade them to leave their traditional (independent) lifestyle and make them move as a (dependent) slaves in urban areas. Supporting social conflicts or other socio-economic maneuvers, in the nearby areas, is a rich source of immigrants, from whom there are these profitable workers are recruited, as I have shown here.

Turning the simple and normal human being into potential capital is the absolute essence of the contemporary halfslavery state economy. The production itself it does not matter, but the potentiality to “willingly” attract as many naive people in the new masters organized and controlled work field. The new masters’ main interest is to have slaves specialized in very diverse areas, as different as possible from the personal purchase of food and home. Then, the price for getting these from the system will be the very slavery that a slave accepts, in the absence of knowledge about independence. Such a subtle subterfuge allowed lowering the voice of Christian priests, who - what else could they do? – kept telling for centuries that the classical slavery is a sin, but they practiced it with penitence ... If this freedom of choice would be respected indeed, then there the social system would not be a slavery but a authentic freedom as the players places in a football team. But when this freedom is influenced by the manipulation or control auxiliary actions, then the freedom is vanishing.

In the next section I will describe the army and the war, as fundamental institutions of disinformation and state terror .

Gabriel Baldovin

2.5.4.4.3. Fluxul si refluxul monetar sau despre exploatarea iluziilor in sclavagismul modern

2.5.4.4.3. Fluxul si refluxul monetar sau despre exploatarea iluziilor in sclavagismul modern

sociologie Baldovin   06:08

Manifestul societăţii automatiste  

Acest articol se continua de aici

English version here

2.5.4.4.3. Fluxul si refluxul monetar sau despre exploatarea iluziilor in sclavagismul modern 

(Acest articol a fost scris in 2014, dar apoi a fost absorbit intr-un text mai amplu)

Una dintre cele mai mari iluzii in societatea contemporana, ce sint satisfacute pentru controlul maselor, sint banii. Banii par ca au realitatea concreta tocmai datorita faptului ca ei ne ajuta sa facem mai usor schimburi de produse si servicii intre noi. Tamplarul ii face instalatorului un dulap si ia la schimb o suma de bani pe care instalatorul i-a luat de la altcineva, caruia i-a facut propriul serviciu. In acest circuit economic nu neaparat banii circula, ci produsul sau serviciul oferit la schimb. In acea suma de bani e abstractizata munca instalatorului, iar schimbul dulap - bani este un schimb fair play la acest nivel. La nivel global, prestarea unui serviciu in schimbul unei sume de bani este un comportament sustinut de un spectru foarte divers de schimburi servicii si produse pe care membrii comunitatii si le fac unii altora pentru a-si imbunatati reciproc viata. Schimbul reciproc de servicii este o solutie de compromis pe care natura a gasit-o chiar inainte de aparitia speciei umane.

Traiul in comunitate s-a datorat tocmai acestui tip de colaborari intre membrii grupului. De exemplu, vanatoarea de mamuti se facea cu participarea majoritatii membrilor, la care fiecare avea un anumit rol in succesul final. Daca ne intoarcem pe scara evolutiei si analizam vanatoarea in grup pe care o practica leii asupra elefantilor, vedem ceva similar: anumiti indivizi se specializeaza in grup pe o anumita sarcina: unul se urca pe spatele elefantului muscandu-l de ceafa, altul ii musca trompa, altul ii musca burta etc. Cu curaj si incredere reciproca grupul de lei pot vana animale mult mai mari decat fiecare din membrii grupului luati individual. La specia umana insa colaborarea de tip echipa s-a transformat mai intai in relatie de tip prada-pradator ( cazul societatii clasice) sau de inselaciune (ca in cazul societatii civilizate). Banii sint instrumentul acestei relatii de inselaciune.

Banul (capitalul in general) este de doua feluri. Primul este capitalul concret care presupune estimarea, evaluarea, intr-o anumita unitate de masura, a unor bunuri ca imobile, produse fabricate, semifabricate sau orice fel de obiect concret care este dorit de un membru al comunitatii. Celalalt este capitalul potential ce presupune potentialitatea unor sclavi „educati”, spre a depune o munca, spre a fi profitabili celor care controleaza capitalul concret. Capitalul potential este format din oameni care executa ordinele unei elite sociale. In cazul dictaturilor clasice ei sint docilizati cu ajutorul fortei brute, prin amenintare cu represalii. In capitalism sint iluzionati de entuziasm corporatist, prin divertisment si publicitate, asa cum am mai aratat aici: http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2011/01/exemple-de-manipulare-si-obedienta.html

Masa monetara in sine nu inseamna nimic fara un capital potential corespunzator. Este o mare greseala sa credem, asa cum credea Marx si, dupa el, multi economisti, ca banul consta doar in capitalul concret, doar in resursele materiale. Adevarata forta a capitalului sta in… „resursele umane”. Pana si capitalul concret are nevoie de „resurse umane” care sa il evalueze si sa plateasca pentru el. Un animal va alege 100 de grame de mancare in locul a 100 de grame de hartii echivalente a unui milion de dolari. Iar „educarea” resurselor umane spre a echivala un bun in bani nu este intotdeauna un semn al superioritatii speciei fata de animal ci, de multe ori, al „indobitocirii” sclavagiste. Uneori se intampla ca aceasta echivalare sa iasa din matca educatiei. Sutele de tone de aur aduse de prin coloniile sud-americane nu au reusit sa salveze imperiul spaniol de la colaps. Asta deoarece capitalul potential era foarte scazut. Membrii societatii spaniole si Europa insasi nu mai doreau sa schimbe produse vitale pe aurul coroanei spaniole.

Iata ca banii nu sunt asa ca o gramada de obiecte certe si concrete care se impart la cetateni pur si simplu, asa cum se imparte prada intre membrii vanatorii. Bugetul unei tari sau al unei zone economice nu are un cuantum fix. Desi, la origine, banii erau o unitate comerciala, astazi ei au ajuns mai mult decat atat. Banii sunt acele iluzii care tin in saracie o parte din cetateni, cei mai sclavi dintre sclavi. Daca nu ar fi tinuti in saracie ei nu ar mai fi sclavi "de bunavoie". Fara saraci nu poate exista nici prosperitate in societatea actuala. Bunastarea nu se face nici cu tone de aur, nici cu exces de mancare, nici cu exces de masini luxoase, ci cu sclavi flamanzi care le doresc. Degeaba le ai pe astea daca nu ai paznic la poarta, menajera in casa, instalator, gunoier si altii de genul lor. Saracii sunt dispusi sa faca aceste munci umilitoare in schimbul iluziei de a putea accede la „nivelul” stapanilor lor.

Acesti oameni sunt tinuti in saracie pentru a fi convinsi sa serveasca pe noii stapani cu ajutorul promisiunii implinirii unor iluzii. Fara aceste promisiuni ei nu ar mai fi sclavi „de buna voie” pe mai departe si sistemul ar fi nevoit sa se intoarca la sclavagismul clasic al amenintarii cu moartea, temnita sau altele. De aceea sistemul va avea nevoie de saraci in continuare. Se stie ca in Occident supraproductia alimentara in general se distruge. Oficial, se spune ca o astfel de masura ridicola s-ar datora interesului de a mentine pretul ridicat. Dar de fapt unii trebuie tinuti flamanzi si frustrati pentru ca, in schimbul alimentelor si a unei oarecare doze de orgoliu lustruit, ei ulterior accepta incadrarea intr-o ierarhie si, astfel, comenzile superiorilor.

Valoarea monedei nu este data doar de schimburile comerciale si transformarilor monedei dintr-una in alta. Piata libera e doar unul dintre factorii stabilizarii monedei. Celalalt este pur si simplu interventia statului asupra masei monetare. Atunci cand sinuciderile se inmultesc sau cand exista nemultumiri acute ale unei anumite categorii sociale, sistemul arunca pe piata masa monetara pentru a lua ochii naivilor si a-i iluziona cu o astfel de falsa bogatie sau de crestere economica. Promisiunea unei vieti mai bune este unul din instrumentele prin care potentialele revolte sint tinute in frau. Institutele de sondare a starii de nemultumire a cetatenilor sunt aplicatia directa a stiintei sociologiei in campul social concret. Votul de politicieni „reprezentativi” este doar o parte din acest angrenaj; la vot nu conteaza atat optiunea maselor pentru un canditat/partid sau altul cat, mai ales, dispozitia maselor pentru a se iluziona fata de promisiunile acestora. Absenteismul de la vot provoaca ingrijorare cu privire la lipsa de entuziasm a sclavilor pentru a se angrena in sustinerea generala a economiei.

Se stie ca in momentul in care cererea este mare atunci preturile cresc. Asta inseamna ca pentru acelasi produs se vor plati mai multi bani si ca e nevoie de mai multa masa monetara. Banca de stat tipareste atunci aceste hartii care vor acoperi aceasta nevoie de achizitionare. Acesta este etapa fluxului monetar. Raportul dintre cerere si oferta nu regleaza doar preturile ci si cantitatea de masa monetara lansata pe piata de banca oficiala a statului. Exista flux monetar atunci cand exista vointa de munca, entuziasm in campul capitalului potential iar tiparirea de masa monetara se face doar anticipand supraproductia ce urmeaza exploatarii acestuia. Politica de jucarie cu iluzia ei de revolutie a sistemului politic este motorul acestui entuziasm general al maselor. Industria divertismentului, a drogurilor si consumului contribuie si ele la mulgerea de entuziasm cu ecou in cresterea capitalului potential in societate. In momentul tiparirii banilor nu exista acoperire in bunuri pentru noua cantitate de moneda. Insa pe parcurs asa ceva se acopera simplu prin corelarea productiei din toate sectoarele de activitate.

Odata cu epuizarea acestui entuziasm al naivilor in profit si transformarea lui in apatie, apare reversul. Aceasta etapa este cea a refluxui monetar. Retragerea masei monetare este menita sa impiedice inflatia. Omul simplu nu mai doreste sa execute ordine in schimbul banilor asa ca mai bine ei sunt retrasi de pe piata decat sa se devalorizeze. Acesta este principalul scop al impozitelor.

Fluxul si refluxul de masa monetara operat de banca de stat se stabileste in functie de gradul de disponibilitate a omului simplu de a-si vinde libertatea, adica de a fi disponibil pe post de capital potential. Aceste etape corespund cu doua momente esentiale specifice sclavagismului modern, respectiv cea de momire si cea de profit. Strategia este identica cu cea din pescuit; odata cu pescuitul cu momeli, pestele s-a adaptat si a invatat sa le refuze: pescarul a mers insa mai departe cu pacaleala si a introdus momeala anticipata. Aruncarea de momeala in apa in care traieste pestele (circumspect fata de carlig) cu cateva zile inainte de aruncarea unditei ii creeaza acestuia un soi de hartuire alimentara. Si, la un moment dat, va musca din momeala la risc, incapabil sa reziste tentatiei momelii pe termen lung. Practic, timpul pierdut de pescar se petrece aici: pestele va musca din ce in ce mai relaxat momeala, asigurandu-se ca nu are carlig. In acelasi fel, la un moment dat, el va musca si acul unditei. El stie ca s-ar putea sa moara, fiind agatat de undita pescarului. Insa nu se mai poate abtine in a nu musca. Refuzul muscarii momelii ii creeaza un adevarat sevraj, la fel cum se intampla cu dependentii de substanta psihoactiva. Dependenta de bani si de cumparaturi constituie momeala psihodinamica a sclavagismului contemporan.

Cumparand diferite produse ale corporatiilor, practic guvernul si sistemul in general pompeaza capital in ele, deschizand etapa fluxului monetar. Acestea, la randul lor, atrag personal, resurse umane si devin din ce in ce mai mari. La fluxul monetar joburile sunt foarte multe si comode. Raportul dintre stres/volumul de munca si retributia primita este foarte favorabila angajatului. Increderea in sine si stima de sine a angajatului creste in asa fel incat isi poate permite sa isi schimbe joburile si sa negocieze conditii mai bune pentru el. Mentalitatea muncitorului sau angajatului este una de avantului si incredere. Ea se apropie destul de mult de hedonism.

Dar asta e o iluzie, o momeala pe care sistemul i-o arunca prin intermediul corporatiilor, la fel cum pescarul arunca momeala inainte de a arunca carligul. Sclavul e usor ademenit sa duca o viata de huzur, sa isi „permita” diverse lucruri, vacante, calatorii si alte astfel de luxuri care treptat se intiparesc in psihicul sau ca lucruri normale si nu ca luxuri. Practic, lui i se creeaza astfel iluzia ca aceste bunuri dispensabile ar fi indispensabile. Dat fiind faptul ca acestea ajung treptat sa ocupe un loc in biografia subiectului, el devine dependent de ele.

Acesta este momentul momirii si testarii in scopul selectarii celor care sunt dispusi sa lucreze in conditii ceva mai defavorabile, adica a urmatoarei perioade, cea de profit. Asemenea pestilor din balta, si potentialii sclavi sunt discreti atrasi in aceasta prima perioada de momire. Ei sunt incurajati sa aiba un stil de viata ceva mai ridicat pentru ca, in cele din urma, mentinerea sa sa fie platita cu un volum de munca mult mai mare decat se convenise initial. Pentru sclavul dependent de un stil de viata „inalt” vine momentul adevaratei plati, abia dupa ce refluxul monetar se instaleaza. Vorbim aici de o adevarata escrocherie pe care sistemul social si angajatorul privat o practica pentru a-si duce angajatul in zona de profit.

Retragerea masei monetare presupune concedieri masive, ceea ce implica recesiunea economica. Istoria recenta a evoluat ciclic cu cativa ani de avant economic urmati de altii de recesiune. Aceste etape sint identice cu fluxul si refluxul monetar. Concedierile nu presupun insa si reducerea productiei. Pur si simplu atunci angajatul se vede pus in situatia de a face si munca colegului concediat. Constitutiile psihice conservatoare nu vor putea renunta la aceste mici delicii care fac parte din viata lor insele si vor accepta noile conditii de criza. Iata ca sistemul monetar functioneaza exact ca o reclama, cu manipularea subtila a consumatorului.

Acesta e de fapt punctul la care sistemul a dorit sa se ajunga de la bun inceput. Raportul initial dintre stres/volumul de munca si salariu a fost unul fals in perioada de flux monetar. Adevaratul raport este exact acesta. Aici se platesc „imprumuturile” financiare pe care unii angajati le-au contractat la nivel inconstient, fara sa stie de asta inca din momentul in care s-au angajat. Joburile lejere din timpul fluxului monetar era exact aceasta momeala pentru a atrage eventualii sclavi in campul muncii si, ulterior, de a „strange surubul” treptat pentru a obtine la un moment dat profitul.

O parte dintre angajatii de la flux ajung someri la reflux. Ei se trezesc uneori in situatia de a fi incapabili de a continua si sfarsesc prin a fi aruncati in strada. Atunci apar si protestele sociale. Statul investeste apoi in „fortele de ordine” care sa ii mentina sub control pe cei nemultumiti. In luptele de strada urmate unei posibile revolte, fortele de ordine folosesc gaze lacrimogene, gloante de cauciuc, caini, bastoane cu electrosocuri, supravegherea telefoanelor prin serviciile secrete si altele. Mass-media e pregatita sa le faca imagine de anarhisti pusi pe distrugere acestor oameni. Astfel, imaginea lor in ochii opiniei publice este compromisa. Capii revoltelor sunt atent monitorizati si marginalizati social. In ciuda povestilor despre libertatea de expresie, in multe tari „civilizate” simpatia pentru ideile de revolta se plateste cu imposibilitatea de a mai gasi de lucru „la sugestia” anumitor „servicii secrete”. In loc sa se lupte cu adevaratii provocatori ai crizei, cei care au orchestrat fluxul si refluxul monetar, proaspetii someri, se lupta cu colegii lor de clasa sociala imbracati in armura de politie, momiti si ei cu alte promisiuni. Iata o miscare inteligenta de management social!

Dar aceste proteste sunt de fapt mult mai mici ca si amploare decat in cazul in care sclavul modern a fi tinut mai mult timp in campul muncii. Promisiunile cu forta religioasa pe care capitalismul le-a infuzat in noua religie a „Visului American” se dovedesc incet-incet a fi niste minciuni gogonate. Tanarul naiv care iese de pe bancile scolii blazat si dornic de afirmare va deveni o leguma fiarta dupa 10 ani de munca stresanta in corporatii. Pe masura ce inainteaza in varsta el isi da seama ca si-a irosit viata si astfel incoltesc in el sentimentele de revolta. Situatia muncitorilor e asemenea veteranilor de razboi care pleaca tantosi la ucis bastinasi de prin diferite locuri din lume si se intorc cu PTSD sau cu mentalitate activist-sociala. Revolutia Franceza este prototipul acestei revolte.

Refluxul monetar e menit sa ii trimita pe multi spre odihna si meditatie in loc sa ingroase randurile protestatarilor ce pot crea o noua astfel de revolta populara de masa. Sistemul a invatat in cateva mii de ani de revolte a sclavilor/muncitorilor cum sa previna furia populara prin concediere. Institutele de sondare a opiniei publice au mijloacele pentru testarea furiei populare. De la aceste date bancherii pornesc cate o criza controlata, precum cea a afacerilor imobiliare din SUA de la sfarsitul primului deceniu al secolului 21.

Observam ca fluxul si refluxul monetar sunt parte dintr-o inginerie sociala dibace de a inlocui sclavii rutinati si cuprinsi de resentiment cu tineri naivi si entuziasti in campul muncii. Intre timp industria consumerista si cultura de masa in general pun bazele unei noi generatii de sclavi, momind tinerele generatii cu noi iluzii. Povestile dramatice ale protestatarilor din strada sint acoperite de emisiunile de divertisment in care spectatorii se cred inconstient protagonisti, visand la iluzii de celebritate si marire sociala. Orbiti de „visul” lor, si ei vor cadea in aceeasi capcana cativa ani mai tarziu, odata cu urmatoarea recesiune. Asemenea unui imens abator, sistemul social extrage entuziasmul tinerelor generatii, transformandu-le intr-un soi de zombi insingurati, deprimati si bizari.

Partea interesanta a unei astfel de manevre socio-economice este aceea ca acest tip de sclavagism are forma de valoare de schimb liber consimtita. Insa o parte a celor care accepta acest schimb sunt pur si simplu pacaliti fie pentru ca nu au cum sa cunoasca valoarea lucrului schimbat cu propriul lucru, fie pentru ca valoarea lucrului de schimb este doar o iluzie. In cazul banilor avem de a face cu un fals schimb: sistemul ofera hartii cu poze de celebritati pe ele in schimbul unor anumite servicii specifice fiecaruia. De aceea sclavagismul contemporan se poate numi fara nici un risc de greseala „sclavagism al schimbului disproportionat”. Indemnul la consum hedonistic cu care sistemul ii bombardeaza constant, este de fapt un indemn la un astfel de consum disproportionat menit sa aduca profit fortelor sale oculte.

Crearea artificiala de amenintari asupra cetatenilor sau hartuirea microfermierilor, asa cum se intampla in SUA (a se vedea cazul Monsanto), se face cu scopul de a-i convinge sa-si paraseasca stilul de viata traditional (independent) si de a-i face sa se mute ca sclavi (dependenti) in spatiile urbane. Sustinerea conflictelor sociale sau a altor manevre socio-economice in spatiile limitrofe este o bogata sursa de emigranti, din randurile carora se recruteaza acesti muncitori profitabili, dupa cum am aratat aici: http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2010/03/razboiul-cea-mai-profitabila-afacere.html .

A transforma omul simplu si normal in capital potential este esenta absoluta a economiei statului semisclavagist contemporan. Nu conteaza productia in sine ci potentialitatea de a atrage „de buna voie” cat mai multi naivi in campul muncii organizate si controlate de noii stapani. Interesul principal al stapanilor este acela de a-i specializa pe sclavi in diferite domenii, cat mai diferite de procurarea personala a alimentelor si locuintei. Apoi, pretul pentru a le primi din partea sistemului va fi insusi sclavagismul pe care sclavul il accepta, in lipsa cunostintelor despre independenta. Un astfel de subterfugiu subtil a permis inchiderea gurii preotilor crestini care – ce sa faca si ei? – au tot spus de-a lungul secolelor ca sclavia clasica e un pacat, dar au practicat-o cu pocainta... Daca aceasta libertate de alegere ar fi respectata pana la capat, atunci nu ar mai fi vorba de un sclavagism ci de o autentica libertate de genul posturilor de jucatori intr-o echipa de fotbal. Insa atunci cand aceasta libertate este influentata prin actiuni auxiliare de manipulare sau control, atunci nu mai este vorba de libertate.

În următoarea secţiune voi descrie armata şi războiul , instituţii fundamentale ale dezinformării şi terorii statale.

The psychopathology of ultranationalistm

The psychopathology of ultranationalistm

sociologie Baldovin   01:56

Varianta in limba romana aici http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2013/12/psihopatologia-mentalitatii.html:

The concept of nationalism actually reffers to three quite different things in terms of mental resorts involved in this feeling:

1 . the basic nationalism;
2 . the moderate nationalism ;
3 . the ultranationalim ;

These three forms of nationalism can be interpreted inside the language , depending on the attitude of those who subscribe to it. Interestingly, although they are specific to human race, their base is found in the animal world also, of course, somewhat in a kind of rudimentary form.

Te basic nationalism is the simple need for sociability, the need for belonging to a social group. There is not much to analyze here, simply some animals have found that community life is easier than solitary in certain circumstances. Likewise, the the human being noticed that if the individuals split up life issues and each one specializes in a particular activity, the community is more effective and things are better done. This type of nationalism involves the cordial relations a individual have with all community members. The moderate nationalism is different; it appears when the community has separate groups within, when there exists a certain tendency to reject other community members, or other nearby communities, and being more affective to it’s own community . It can be related to certain animal species that are threatened by a predator, by an unfavorable geographic reality, or by insufficient necessary for survival resources. In this case, the natural selection has a visible role for promoting for survival the most competitive individuals and for marginalization those less endowed . At this stage, the conflicts between groups inside of communities occur only in certain specific cases of mating or sharing resources, and the tense atmosphere does not perpetuate after they ended.

On the contrary, the ultranationalism has a constant hostility to these external groups that the individual does not belong, and visible aggressive behavior or attitudes towards them . Such a psychopathological conformation is basically modeled by the phenomenon of marching and marauding armies against other communities that constantly happened in the last millennia, plus other factors that I will analyze below. There is a precedent in the animal world, namely the predators species rival families that decimate each other when they have the chance, not only when are competing for resources or for mating. For example, a wolf that belongs a rival family can be killed by other family members if caught alone, without the protection of his family. But such behavior can not be yet called ultranationalist but rather normal wild. If the other two forms of nationalism have a visible correspondence in the animal world, on the contrary the ultranationalism is specifically human being. It cannot be reduced to such a savage war relationship because, in human’s case, it exists in peacetime also. In order to understand its inner mechanisms there must first be analyzed the social context of the other two forms.

Starting from its own family, the human being tends to decreasingly love people in a centrifugal direction from the core of its own person, to the family and then to other people outside of it, positioned on the next levels . On this centrifugal spiral line there are gradually found the self, the 1 degree relatives, the 2 degree relatives, the friends , the neighbors, acquaintances, coregionals and fellow-citizens. The society is a kind of extended family just as the normal family is a small society with closing and separations and with tensions and alliances between its members. Any social group works as the swarm of bees, when bees swarms hive off the older members form a new family, practically forgetting that the newest bees were part of their family not long ago; if the two bee families do not separate each other then there is likely to arise conflicts between them. In the same way, every family and every community, as it grows, it tends to separate in more compact but less antagonistic to the other small groups. The psychology has observed for long time now that the exclusion or marginalization of a member helps to strengthen the links between other members. Such a repositioning of connections between the groups members is a healthy natural movement for species in order to occupy more efficient the habitable territories; the conflict between species members, families and communities forces certain individuals to move on and colonize other territories. In this way , the species takes a kind of protective measure in case of possible natural disasters, populating the most diverse habitable territories increases the chances of survival of the species if such potential disasters.

As just being out from the wilderness, the human being behaves very much like the rest of the species, in this regard. 5000 , 10 000 or 15 000 years of civilization means very little compared to the humanity million years of evolution. Therefore, with overpopulation, tensions begin to appear inside the human community, as desire for separation and rejection. They are much stronger in the case of predators, as is the human being. In this case, the specie self-regulates itself in relationship with the prey that dependent on. This type of self-regulating process is made by strong assault against some of its own specie members. If predator specie would multiply too much, thus potentially bringing the prey to extinction, then the predator threaten its own specie with extinction. So instead exterminate its prey, the predator naturally accepts tighten the belt of its own specie. The enmity with rival species of predators is a stage of this self-regulating trend.

As ultimate predator, it is almost a miracle that the human population has reached over 7 billion individuals. The tiger, the snow leopard and so many other predators’ species worryingly stay around 1000. Anyway, our prosperity as a species comes not from a prey extermination unnatural caprice, but from the technology that we have developed in these few thousand years of civilization evolution. Instead of exterminating hunting, the human being innovatively turned to create farm animals, and started to breed and feed them. Not only that the man did not exterminate the prey species, but it has diversified them by artificial mating and somehow creating new ones. Genetics has allowed in the last century even creating completely new animal species.

Nevertheless, our number might still be too big. The perpetuating "nature colonization", its destruction to implement new human settlements or for its resources exploitation may cause such an imbalance which means even greater threat to already endangered species. The warrior mentality, predisposed to aggressive gestures against other social groups, is based on this opinion. Just like the predators self-regulating number through fierce struggles, in the same way those who subscribe to this mentality are directly or indirectly involved into reduction the number of individuals within their own species. But, on the other hand, there are opinions or psychical attitudes that the earth has enough resources to keep even more people than now*. However, when the humanity collective mindset comes the theme of reducing the number of individuals, each member proposes a criterion on which to meet it too. The nationalism, the xenophobia and all other forms of getting close to a particular group and rejection to other social groups is a cultural extension of this wild biological imperative to reduce the number inside its own species. The stronger the threats become the nationalism turn into ultranationalism, as aggressiveness, in response to these threats, becomes proportionally stronger.

[ ( The following paragraph is more technical . Covering it can help the comprehension following text, but one can skip it if consider too difficult) The Oedipus Complex is not only the Z erotic predisposition to X and the hostile predisposition to Y, as classical psychoanalysis says. The sexual instinct is secondary in this equation. In fact, the Oedipus Complex is a transgenerational synthesis of the warrior society mental heritance. Before being erotic, the Z closeness to X is a comradeship one, while the hostility toward Y originates in confrontation with the enemy. If a child inherits from parents strong sexual impulses then its Oedipus complex will be directly proportional strong to the intensity of those impulses, as been described by classical psychology. But if these impulses are weak then the Oedipus Complex is undersexualized also inversely proportional to the sexual instinct energy intensity that was inherited, thus manifesting less (inner) neurotic and more (outer) paranoid. In fact, the Oedipus Complex itself is the implication of childhood hostility and aggressiveness. And the aggressiveness is the secondary stage of the Traumatic Complex, after the primary stage which is the regressive-depressive phase**. Any psychical energy intensity increasing is due to the presence of resources to satisfy impulses, coupled by an actual threat or a traumatic experience that prevents this meeting. This Complex is a universal one since any human mind is governed by negotiation between the desire for pleasure and the fear of punishment. But it is more pronounced in the lower social classes, since they are more threatened with punishment than the upper ones. ] 

The ultranationalism problem is the social lower classes problem themselves, as they are dominated by cultural aggression due to the frustration education. The aggressiveness involves the refusal to accept a lower place in a social expanded hierarchy. The lower place that the social lower classes accept it is due to a simple need for social survival but not a total acquiescence. In their inside forum, the lower classes hate their social position and hope for a higher position, sometimes a mystical one. The key of religion itself originates here. That is why the social lower classes are unable to organize themselves and to accept a modest place in the decision making hierarchy. Thus the members of these social classes are unable to genuine fraternize and empathy each other. "Proletarians of all countries, unite! " is a true ideal, a push to streamline an outdated social status. If the communist political theories wanted a such empathy through what they called "the class struggle", on the contrary, the ultranationalism extends the social class to the whole nation. For the ultranationalism "The enemies of the people" are not bourgeois (at least not bourgeois only) but other nations (that the bourgeoisies belong to). Sometimes, between the two theories there is common ground. There are ultranationalists today who believe that the new bourgeoisie, the new owners, the rich have different national genealogy from the one that economically activate, thus they often paranoid ideation regarding this theme.

Emotionally speaking, the ultra-nationalists are very lonely people. Their empathic capacity is very small, proportionally inverse to the commitment that they love their country. That is because the notion of "nation", "people" and "country" are very ambiguous and implies the projection of an ideal into them, without being actually verified. In reality the ultranationalist is a paranoid, suspicious, loud and opinionated person, ready to start arguments with anyone who does not accept its views. The paranoid personality disorder is the most common among ultranationalists. The few friends they have are poor minded people who need a reference in the world that do not understand. Nevertheless, they often leave the ultranationalist and its theories, therefore, the word “traitor " is very frequently used. The ultranationalist goes to historical commemorations trying to establish emotional relationships with other ultranationalist planning to start a "national revolution”, eventually. The tears and the hopes for an ideal (national) world coming out from such meetings can be relatated to acute oedipal discrepancies of this psychopathological structure; such a titanic - melodramatic meeting resembles with the mother-child meeting after she has been gone a while. It is very interesting that, at the slightest disagreement or difference of opinion, the yesterday’s ultranationalist "brothers" can radically be perceived as ... traitors. The ultranationalists’ paradox is that, although they enormously love their (abstract) country and their (abstract) nation, they have often hostile or cold relations with their (real) people. Most of their acquaintances are appreciated either as cowards or as traitors. Being tired of so many “traitors”, the ultranationalists sometimes think about emigration to another "more civilized" country whose citizens are "real men" and "honest" ...

Ultranationalist can also be the hooligan from European football stadiums. When the national team is playing the ultranationalist puts the hand on its chest and very involved sing the national anthem. This person ecstatically embraces other hooligan that does not know when the national team scores. This thing is completely forgotten when the supported club team is facing a rival same country league team that previously had sung for. Although days ago, the hooligan was showing great deal of love for the other hooligan, later the table could turn into profound hate for those who support the rival team. Such a discrepancy has a traumatical resonance and, consequential, an oedipal one too. This case shows a social-family spiral distortion; instead of focusing the specific natural affection to its family core, the ultranationalist expels it to outer area into the national unknown. This person puts out there its chances of finding such a blank person in order to (positively) project an ideal in order to share its love with. Likewise, the hostility is also randomly thrown out of social-family spiral into the unknown of another nation area. Its own nation is perceived as a good parent while the different nations are perceived as a bad parent. In the case of at the ultranationalists, the psychopathological paranoid constitution dominance, the conflict between love and hate, pour out of classic oedipal familial riverbed, crossing over the border to the nation.

There will be a basic nationalism and a moderate nationalism as long as the slavery (either classical or corporate) will exist in this world. And as long as the technology will not have replaced all the human labor, there will be slavery. Of course, as long as there is slavery, the human society would be caught with one foot in the wildness. This will also involve the need to promote our own offspring in front of others, meant to be slaves. Nevertheless, the ultranationalism is outdated. There is no need for aggression against other nations and other groups in today’s civilized world. If endanger other species, the human species may decrease its number of individuals by controlling birth. It is more convenient and less traumatic than the war solution proposed by the ultranationalists. A very different spectrum of contraception methods that humanity developed can provide such a solution. Therefore, as a moral solution, the ultranationalism must be rejected.

* Personally, I subscribe to the second view. There are many deserts, steppes and other arid lands that human being could turn into oasis, with technology. Such a human specie development does not involve collateral damage to other species but their promotion. 

** The careful reader might notice a discrepancy with my theories from “The Dynamics of abyssal psychology”, now placing the Oedipus Complex near to the human archaic- primitive level of development, which is first Complexes group, the Traumatic-Eden one. In from “The Dynamics of abyssal psychology” I placed the Oedipus Complex as a part of the Narcissus Complex, as a particular form. But there is no inconsistency here. Simply the first group of Complexes metamorphoses in the second one (Polis - Cain) and also in the third one (Tabu- Narcissus) . In fact, all the subsequent Complexes are cultural-historical metamorphosis of the Traumatic Eden Complexes group.

Gabriel Baldovin

Psihopatologia mentalitatii ultranationaliste

Psihopatologia mentalitatii ultranationaliste

sociologie Baldovin   05:50

english version here: http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2014/01/the-psychopathology-of-ultranationalistm.html

Atunci cand vorbim de nationalism vorbim de fapt de trei lucruri total distincte in materie de resorturi psihice implicate in acest sentiment:

1. nationalismul gregar;
2. nationalismul moderat;
3. ultranationalimul;

Aceste 3 forme de nationalism pot fi interpretate in limba, in functie de atitudinea celor care subscriu la el. Interesant este ca, desi sunt specific umane, baza lor se regaseste inclusiv in lumea animala, fireste, intr-o forma ceva mai rudimentara.

Nationalismul gregar este simpla sociabilitate, nevoia de apartenenta la un grup social. Nu e mare lucru de analizat aici, pur si simplu unele animale au observat ca viata in comunitate e mai usoara decat cea solitara. In acelasi fel, omul a observat ca daca isi imparte sarcinile si fiecare se specializeaza pe o anumita activitate, comunitatea este mai eficienta, lucrurile sunt facute mai bine. Caracteristic pentru acest tip de nationalism sunt relatiile cordiale cu toti membrii comunitatii. Nationalismul moderat presupune la om deja o nevoie de separare pe grupuri in interiorul comunitatii, o anumita tendinta de respingere a altor membri sau a altor comunitati si de apropiere afectiva superioara fata de propria comunitate. El poate fi corelat cu speciile de animale amenintate de un pradator sau de o realitate geografica nefavorabila, fie de insuficienta resurselor necesare supravietuirii. In acest caz intra vizibil in rol selectia naturala care promoveaza cele mai abile exemplare pentru supravietuire, cu marginalizarea celor mai putin dotate. In acest stadiu conflictele intre grupurile unei comunitati apar doar in cazurile concrete de imperechere sau impartire a resurselor, fara ca atmosfera tensionata sa se perpetueze si dupa ce acestea s-au incheiat.

Dimpotriva, ultranationalismul inseamna o constanta ostilitate fata de aceste grupuri externe celui din care individul face parte si comportamente sau atitudini clar agresive la adresa lor. O astfel de conformatie psihopatologica este modelata principial de fenomenul armatelor marsaluitoare si jefuitoare de comunitati din ultimele milenii la care se adauga alti factori pe care ii voi analiza mai jos. Exista si precedent in lumea animala, respectiv la familiile rivale ale speciilor de pradatori care se decimeaza intre ele si in afara momentelor cand concureaza pentru resurse sau pentru imperechere. De exemplu, un lup dintr-o familie rivala poate fi ucis de membrii altei familii daca este prins singur, fara protectia familiei sale. Dar astfel de comportament nu poate fi numit ultranationalist ci mai curand salbatic normal. Daca celelalte forme de nationalism au corespondent vizibil in lumea animala, ultranationalismul este specific uman. El nu se reduce la o astfel de relatie salbatica de razboi pentru ca, la om, el se manifesta si in timp de pace. Pentru a-i intelege mecanismele trebuie analizat mai intai contextul social al celorlalte doua forme.

Pornind de la propria familie, omul tinde sa iubeasca descrescator oamenii intr-un sens centrifug, de la nucleul propriei persoane, catre membrii familiei si apoi catre ceilalti oameni din exteriorul ei, aflati pe nivelurile urmatoare. Pe aceasta linie centrifuga spiralata se gasesc progresiv propriul eu, rudele de gradul 1, rude de gradul 2, rude de gradul 3, prieteni, vecini, cunoscuti, concitadini si conationali. Societatea este un fel de familie extinsa la fel cum familia este o societate restransa, cu apropieri si departari, cu tensiuni si aliante intre membri. Orice grup social functioneaza dupa modelul roiului albinelor; cand stupul roieste albinele mai in varsta formeaza o noua familie, uitand practic ca stupul mai nou erau parte din propria familie; daca cele doua familii de albine nu se separa atunci risca sa apara conflicte intre ele. In acelasi fel, orice familie si orice comunitate tinde sa se separe in grupulete mai compacte dar mai antagonice cu celelalte pe masura ce se dezvolta. Psihologia a observat de mult ca excluderea sau marginalizarea unui membru ajuta la intarirea legaturilor dintre ceilalti membri. O astfel de repozitionare a legaturilor dintre membrii unui grup este o miscare naturala sanatoasa a speciilor de ocupare cat mai eficienta a teritoriilor locuibile; conflictul dintre membrii, familiile si comunitatile unei specii face ca o parte aflata in el sa se mute mai departe si sa colonizeze alte teritorii. In felul acesta, specia isi ia un fel de masura de protectie in cazul unor posibile cataclisme; popularea cat mai distribuita a teritoriilor locuibile face ca sansele de supravietuire a speciei in cazul unor astfel de posibile dezastre sa fie mai mari.

Ca fiinta abia iesita din salbaticie, omul se comporta foarte asemanator ca restul speciilor in aceasta privinta. 5 000, 10 000 sau 15 000 de ani de civilizatie inseamna foarte putin fata de evolutia multimilionara a umanitatii. Prin urmare, odata cu suprapopularea, in interiorul comunitatii umane incep sa apara tensiuni, dorinte de separare si respingere. Acestea sunt mult mai puternice in cazul pradatorilor, asa cum este si omul. In acest caz, specia se autoregleaza conform cu speciile pradate de care depinde. Acest tip de autoreglare se face prin agresiune puternica impotriva unora dintre membrii sai. Daca specia pradatorului s-ar inmulti prea mult, riscand astfel sa aduca in pragul disparitiei prada, atunci practic si-ar ameninta pe sine cu disparitia. Asa ca, in loc sa isi extermine prada, pradatorul accepta in mod natural sa isi stranga cureaua propriei specii. Dusmania fata de speciile rivale de pradatori este o etapa a acestei tendinte autoreglative.

Ca pradator maxim, este aproape un miracol ca omul a putut ajunge la un numar de peste 7 miliarde de indivizi. Tigrul, leopardul de zapada si atatea alte specii de pradatori se invart ingrijorator in jurul cifrei de 1000. Insa prosperitatea noastra ca specie vine nu atat dintr-un huzur nenatural de exterminare a prazii, ci de la tehnologia pe care am dezvoltat-o in aceste cateva mii de ani de evolutie a civilizatiei. In locul unei vanatori exterminatore, omul a ales in mod inovativ sa creeze ferme de animale, sa le inmulteasca si sa se hraneasca cu ele. Nu doar ca omul nu a exterminat speciile pradate de animale, dar le-a si diversificat, imperechindu-le artificial si creand astfel specii oarecum noi. Genetica a permis in ultimul secol chiar crearea astfel de noi animale.

S-ar putea ca numarul nostru sa fie totusi cam mare. „Colonizarea” perpetua a naturii, distrugerea ei pentru implementarea unor noi asezaminte umane sau pentru exploatarea resurselor sale poate produce un dezechilibru care inseamna amenintarea si mai mare a unor specii aflate deja in pericol. Mentalitatile razboinice, predispozante la a porni agresiune impotriva altor grupuri sociale, au la baza aceasta opinie. Asemenea pradatorilor care isi autoregleaza numarul prin lupte feroce, si cei care subscriu la aceasta mentalitate realizeaza direct sau indirect o reducere a numarului de indivizi din interiorul speciei. Dar, pe de alta parte, exista si opinia sau atitudinea psihica dupa care pamantul are destule resurse pentru a mentine chiar si mai multi oameni decat acum*. In orice caz, atunci cand in mentalitatea colectiva a umanitatii intervine tema reducerii numarului de indivizi, fiecare membru isi propune un criteriu de selectie pe care sa il indeplineasca si el. Nationalismul, xenofobia si orice forma de apropiere de un anumit grup si respingere a altor grupuri sociale este o prelungire culturala a acestui imperativ salbatic biologic de reducere a numarului propriei specii. Pe fondul unor amenintari mai puternice, nationalismul poate deveni ultranationalism, atunci cand agresivitatea, ca raspuns la aceste amenintari, devine si ea direct proportional mai puternica.

[(Urmatorul paragraf este mai tehnic. Parcurgerea lui poate ajuta pentru intelegerea textului ce ii urmeaza, insa se poate si sari peste el in cazul in care cititorul il considera prea dificil) Complexul Oedip nu este numai predispozitia erotica a lui Z pentru X si predispozitia sa ostila pentru Y, asa cum spune psihanaliza clasica. Pulsiunea sexuala e secundara in aceasta ecuatie. De fapt complexul Oedip este sintetizarea transgenerationala a societatii razboinice. Inainte de a fi erotica, apropierea lui Z de X este una camaradereasca, in timp ce ostilitatea sa fata de Y isi are originea in confruntarea cu inamicul. Daca copilul mosteneste pulsini sexuale puternice de la parinti atunci complexul sau Oedip va fi pronuntat erotic direct proportional cu intensitatea acelor pulsiuni, avand practic forma descrisa de psihologia clasica. Dar daca aceste pulsiuni sunt slabe atunci complexul Oedip va fi si el desexualizat invers proportional cu intensitatea energetica a pulsiunii sexuale mostenite, manifestandu-se mai putin nevroticist (interiorizat) si mai mult paranoid (exteriorizat) . De fapt insusi complexul Oedip este implicatia infantila a ostilitatii, a agresivitatii. Iar agresivitatea este momentul secundar al complexului Traumatic, dupa momentul primar care este faza sa regresivo-depresiva**. Orice intensitate crescuta a energiei psihice se datoreaza prezentei resurselor de satisfacere a pulsiunilor, dublata de o amenintare concreta sau chiar o experienta traumatica ce impiedica aceasta satisfacere. El este un complex universal devreme ce psihicul oricarui om este guvernat de negocierea dintre dorinta de placere si teama de pedeapsa. Insa el este mai pronuntat la clasele inferioare, amenintate mai mult cu pedeapsa decat cele superioare. ] 

Problema ultranationalismului este problema claselor inferioare insele, dominate de agresivitate culturala, ca urmare a frustrarilor la care sunt supuse prin educatie. Agresivitatea implica refuzul de a-si accepta un loc inferior intr-o ierarhie extinsa. Locul inferior pe care clasele inferioare si-l accepta se datoreaza unei simple nevoi de supravietuire sociala ci nu unei consimtiri totale. In forul lor interior, clasele inferioare isi detesta pozitia sociala si spera la o pozitie superioara, uneori mistica. Aici sta cheia religiei insasi. Din aceasta cauza clasele inferioare sunt incapabile de a se organiza si de a accepta un loc mai modest intr-o ierarhie a luarii deciziilor. Astfel ca membrii acestor clase sunt incapabili sa fraternizeze si sa empatizeze autentic unii cu altii. „Proletari din toate tarile, uniti-va!” este un adevarat ideal, un imbold de eficientizare a unei stari sociale anacronice. Daca teoriile politice comuniste isi doreau o astfel de empatizare prin ceea ce ele numeau „lupta de clasa”, dimpotriva ultranationalismul extinde clasa la natiune. Pentru ultranationalism „dusmanii poporului” nu sunt burghezii (sau nu numai burghezii) ci alte popoare (eventual din care fac parte burghezii). Uneori, intre cele doua teorii se pot gasi puncte comune. Exista astazi ultranationalisti care cred ca noii burghezi, noii patroni au genealogie nationala diferita de cea in care ei activeaza economic, deseori construind ideatie paranoida legata de descendenta acestora.

Din punct de vedere afectiv, ultranationalistii sunt foarte insingurati. Capacitatea lor empatica este foarte mica, invers proportional cu devotamentul cu care ei isi iubesc tara. Asta pentru ca insasi notiunile de „natiune”, „popor” si „tara” sunt ele insele ambigue si comporta proiectia unui ideal in ele fara a putea fi verificate concret. In realitate ultranationalistul este un om paranoid, suspicios, galagios, incapatanat si gata sa se ia la harta cu oricine nu ii accepta opiniile. Tulburarea de personalitate de tip paranoid e cea mai des intalnita printre ei. Putinii prieteni pe care ii are sunt spirite slabe, care au nevoie de un reper in lumea din care nu pricep mai nimic. De multe ori si acestia il parasesc si, de aceea, cuvantul „tradator” e foarte frecvent folosit de ei. Ultranationalistul merge la comemorari istorice incercand sa stabileasca relatii afective cu alti ultranationalisti cu care sa porneasca o revolutie „nationala”, evental. Lacrimile si sperantele unei lumi ideale (nationale) care apar la astfel de intalniri pot fi puse in relatie cu discrepantele oedipiene acute ale acestei mentalitati; o astfel de intalnire titanico-melodramatica seamana cu intalnirea copilului cu mama care a fost plecata o perioada. Interesant este ca, la cea mai mica neintelegere sau divergenta de opinie, „fratii” ultranationalisti de ieri se pot transforma radical in… tradatori. Paradoxul ultranationalistului e ca, desi isi iubeste enorm tara (abstracta) si poporul (abstract), el e in relatii ostile sau reci cu membrii (concreti ai) acestora. Majoritatea cunoscutilor sai sunt apreciati fie ca lasi fie ca tradatori. Satul de atatia tradatori, ultranationalistul se gandeste uneori la emigrarea intr-o alta tara, mai „civilizata” si cu cetateni mai „barbati” si mai „onesti”…

Ultranationalistul poate fi ultrasul de pe stadioanele de fotbal. Cand joaca nationala isi pune mana pe piept si canta foarte implicat imnul. El se imbratiseaza extatic cu ceilalti ultrasi pe care nu-i cunoaste, atunci cand echipa nationala da gol. Lucrul acesta e uitat pe deplin atunci cand echipa de club cu care tine se confrunta cu o echipa rivala dar din aceeasi tara pentru care cantase anterior. Atunci ultrasul e gata sa ii linseze pe ultrasul echipei rivale. O astfel de discrepanta are rezonanta traumatica si, pe cale de consecinta, oedipiana. Putem vedea aici o distorsionare a spiralei familial-sociale; in locul afectivitatii naturale specifica nucleului sau familial, ultranationalistul o expulzeaza in zona exterioara a necunoscutului national. El mizeaza acolo pe hazardul agatarii unui individ care sa permita proiectia unui ideal si cu care sa isi imparta iubirea. In acelasi fel, ostilitatea este si ea aruncata la intamplare in afara spiralei familial-sociale in zona necunoscutului alt-national. Natiunea proprie este perceputa ca un parinte bun in timp ce natiunea diferita este un parinte rau. Dominat de o constitutie psihopatologica paranoida, conflictul intre dragoste si ura la ultranationalist evadeaza din albia clasica familial-oedipiana, trecand granita catre natiune.

Vom avea nationalism gregar si nationalism moderat atata timp cat vom avea si sclavagism (fie clasic fie corporatist) in aceasta lume. Iar atata timp cat tehnologia nu va fi inlocuit total munca umana, va exista si sclavagism. Desigur, atata timp cat va exista acest sclavagism, societatea umana va fi prinsa cu un picior in salbaticie. Acest lucru va implica si nevoia de a ne promova propriul copil in fata altora, meniti sa fie sclavi. Insa ultranationalismul este inactual. Nu mai e nevoie de agresivitate fata de alte natiuni si alte grupuri sociale. Daca pune in pericol alte specii, specia umana isi poate scadea numarul de indivizi prin scaderea natalitatii. Este mult mai comod si mai putin traumatic decat solutia razboiului propusa de ultranationalisti. Metodele diverse de contraceptie pot oferi o astfel de solutie. De aceea, ca solutie etica, el trebuie respins.

*Personal, subscriu la aceasta a doua opinie. Sunt foarte multe deserturi, stepe si alte zone aride pe care omul le poate transforma in oaze cu ajutorul tehnologiei. O astfel de dezvoltare a speciei umane nu implica distrugerea colaterala a altor specii ci chiar promovarea acestora. 

**Cititorul atent ar putea observa o discrepanta cu teoriile mele din Dinamica Psihologiei Abisale, plasand acum complexul Oedip aproape de zona arhaico-primitiva a omului, respectiv prima grupa de complexe, cea Traumatic-Eden. In Dinamica Psihologiei Abisale, plasam complexul Oedip in cel Narcis, teoretizandu-l ca forma particulara a sa. Insa nu este nici o inconsecventa aici. Pur si simplu prima grupa de complexe se regaseste metamorfozata si in cea de-a doua (Polis-Cain) si si in cea de-a treia (Tabu-Narcis). De fapt toate complexele ulterioare sunt metamorfozari cultural-istorice ale grupei Traumatic-Eden.

Gabriel Baldovin

The Voice of Ecological reason

The Voice of Ecological reason

sociologie Baldovin   23:46

Click aici pentru varianta in limba romana: 

Since when I was a child I keep asking myself why did we, as a species, stuck with the mind. We became the most successful one, we have ensured our survival among the others but, somehow, on the other hand thinking (with its direct consequence, knowledge) has poisoned our peace of mind and innocence that look like being lost forever. Our moments of peace and comfort seem to be temporary. We created religion and art which give us some assurance that the soul is eternal. But that seems to be rather a counteraction symptom of a metaphysical death fear that superior human consciousness, as intelligence and experience consequence, put in our way. In addition to such ancestral fear, the civilization gives us daily reasons for desolation, observing how the rules are changing during the game and how the injustices and the abuses happen everywhere. Actually our ability to think has brought a disturbing different side of the story. The depressions in the civilized world reach over 80%. That means that, somehow, 80% of people would (unconsciously) like not to exist. It is frightening. Many don not attempt actual suicide due to the death pain fear moment or to religious principles. Somehow, our intelligence seems to be rather damnation than a quality.

And yet, I trust in the nature wisdom. Nobody wanted to punish us as a species by giving thinking and consciousness. I am convinced that these are nature qualities meant to protect and promote the environment itself. Our moral anguish that surrounds us concerning the ecological disasters that we have done in the past or we might do in the future, show actually what is its purpose. The life protection in all its diversity, creating races and even new species of animals and even moving them to another galaxy in a few millions or billions of years, when the sun will have exhausted its energy, is the purpose of this strange mind capacity that we ourselves do not understand yet and do not know what to do with. The human being is not life executioner but its child. The life has put hopes and invested in human being just as parents do in offspring. The intelligence does not belong to human being only but to life as a whole. If we bring water into the empty deserts and if we bring life on other planets then the human mind has washed away all its past sins. The crimes of history that we did against other species and against our own fellows would be forgiven.
But we are not yet the mature human being that our mother nature wants from us. We are still primitive despite cultural and technological chasm that separates us from the rest of living creatures. We are still children. But, even now, from our early childhood, we must make this life saving exercise in order to practice it when will grow up. We can say that the problems that we have now, the environmental disasters that we deeply feel that must avoid, are actually some tests in which the nature put us like a parent curious to see how the child evolved.

I read the opinion (http://www.gandul.info/puterea-gandului/caini-si-oameni-11290769) whose main theme is the stray dogs killing. This article is full of contradictory to each other ideas or to their consequences. It is not my propose here to analyze them in detail, I just focus on one of them, namely the right to kill dogs would be legitimate since we have the right to kill for food, on the one hand, like we do with the pigs, the cows and the chickens and, on the other hand, the right to kill for our safety, like we do with the cockroaches or rats.
Such a view continues the ancient Protagoras statement that “man is the measure of all things”. Indeed, I agree, the human being is the supreme value. But, if mocks with the environment, the human being needs a flick to wake up no matter who it might be. That is what the human species needs today that came close to the point of suffocation the environment. Therefore, now, that the man power over other creatures got so big, the Protagoras’s maxim should be reconsidered. If follow it blindly, we can reach an absurd result. Killing all the animals and multiplying ourselves beyond the current economy sustainability, according to this, may seem a good thing because the human species would flourish for a while. Yet, in the long term, such an action would be a catastrophe because, without animals, the human being might not be able to survive any more. In the best case our life would be very difficult and our species would reduce the area. That is why we should not let ourselves seduced by a superficial understanding of our privileged relationship with other creatures under us, although we are in the top of the food chain. That is why we need to limit our moral power both in front of the other creatures and in front of our fellows.

It is true that, as a species that just came into civilization, the human being feels a certain pleasure killing and hunting. Such pleasure is a natural consequence of the nutritive instinct whose wild ruins still survive in our DNA. But, at the same time, most of us empathize with our victims and with the prey that we kill. The end hunting rituals are practiced by both modern and primitive hunters. We pity the animal killed and we are flooded by depressive feelings analyzing our act, no matter how we justify it in terms of our own survival necessities. This is the “practical reason” that I. Kant used to speak. It applies to reporting to the rest of living things, not just to other members of our own species. The practical reason is not just a maternal complex projected into the species that we breed or hunt but a independent moral force with a very precise self-regulating function. I am sure that the maternal and the traumatic complex can strengthen such a force in the psychical system court. But the practical reason exists besides these complexes as separate physical pulsion.

At this point we can say that the human species preservation in the current status, in terms of both conservation and expansion limitation, is a moral action. First, as it concerns the conservation purpose, breeding and killing animals for food but also the wild animals controlled hunting is a moral action according to rational principles in Protagoras. On the contrary, stopping growing human population, especially in Far Eastern areas, may be a moral action since the human expansion led to putting other species close to extinction. Declining birth rates in western civilized areas attest this trend, providing moral higher chances of survival for endangered species. Any attempt to destroy the environment in civilized areas for the illusory goal of increasing living standards, there where the standard of living is already very high, is an immoral action.
Moreover, there is a top of animals’ importance regarding man and life in general. There are certain more valuable animals than others. Some are endangered, others thrive in man-made farms. In this moral evaluation there two key elements are considered that decide which animal is closer and which is farther away from us. The first one is the ability to think. The other one is the affection. Animal thinking can help us in our human goal to promote life. Therefore we have a duty on our turn to protect the smartest animals among the less smart ones (regarding a roughly equal numbers of individuals). The affection that the animals show us, their fidelity in love for us associate them with the maternal love that is a true shield for life for each of us. The affection that some animals give can motivate us to believe that our millennium turmoil has goal and it worth to be continued. We feel more painful a dolphin hunting than a reindeer, moose or African antelope hunting just because the dolphin is a smart and very affectionate species. Killing a dolphin for food seems close to killing a neighbor for food; it is immoral if the environment has enough food but may become acceptable if scarcity.

The human reason avoid killing this kind of animals for food just because such a gesture look like pure cannibalism since they are so much alike us. There are some primitive tribes today that until recently practiced cannibalism as a form of hunting and only the authorities’ pressure stopped it. But surely, as Europeans and civilized people in general, we consider it as a macabre practice although, in the twentieth century, we also practiced it sporadically.

Perhaps if we would live in the Far East then the dogs killing for food would not be perceived as a barbaric act precisely because, considering the absence of food, such a practice justifies preservation of the human species. But killing dogs without such a condition becomes a total immoral action. This principle applies not only to dogs. If we kill pigs, cows and chickens just for the sadistic pleasure to kill and not for our own species survival justification, then our gesture is truly inhuman. An example for that is the bosons pointless killing in North America after it has been conquered by European colonists. They have destroyed a lot of bison herds with the intention of indirectly hitting the Native Americans who depended on these animals. Such prolonged massacre remained in history as a barbaric act. Fortunately, the white Americans colonists themselves have realized that due to their moral conscience that speaks and accuses from the depths of the human soul. That is why, later, when some Europeans had similar ideas to exterminate “inferior races” the former eugenicists colonists showed their human face and opposed this plan.

There is a totally different fact about exterminating or trying to exterminate vermin. Killing these animals is not the same with killing stray dogs as pointed in the quoted above article. First, according to the mentioned criteria, cockroaches show no affection and no ability to think to be very close to human being and thus we have to evaluate them differentially than we do with the dogs. Then, just like the flies, they can be dangerous to our health by walking through the dirty or unsanitary places. If cockroaches would not threaten our health then I would leave them alone. We decimate them because they could bring harmful substances in our food. Likewise did the rats, famous for spreading diseases like cholera or plague. These diseases have practically decimated humanity in past centuries. The fear we inherited from those periods remained as collective unconscious trauma.
But since the medicine has advanced and these diseases have been removed, it is possible that, in future, the rats become pets. That is what happened with the wolf. This animal terrorized us for thousands of years, eating our domestic animals and threatening our wellbeing. Today, when these animals are industrially reared in isolated farms, the wolf is no longer a problem. After being decimated in recent centuries, recently the wolf came to be protected and respected. The polecats used and still use today to kill the peasants chickens but recently they became some very cute playful pets. But the opposite can also happen, if raccoons, rats and bears enter our vital space bringing trouble to our life by stealing our food and threatening our hygiene, then we can become exterminators again. That would also be a temporary solution until the medicine would find solutions thus the old threats will turn in partnerships. Today, many animal species are involved in direct competition on the resources with humans. But there are also reasonable voices calling to reduce human expansion in wild spaces and there are intense debates about this issue.

Either way, the human race cannot survive without the other species and without a healthy environment. Indeed we are the measure of all things, yes we are the most important species, but if we want to abstractly show our power by torturing animals just for a morbid pleasure, by killing them without the necessity of our own species conservation purposes and by making their lives hard, as some of us do, we actually prove otherwise. We prove that we are not smart enough since we feel the need to race with them. In this way, the nature looks like should invest in another species (or, let's say, other individuals of the human species) in order to achieve the goal of helping and protecting life against future terrestrial or cosmic cataclysms.
The social system educates us in the spirit of individuality in order to decimate our political power. Isolation, desolation and uprooting are the consequences of this reality. As we estrange from others day by day, a pet or even a random animal, whatever it may be, can be our salvation. An animal can anchor us into reality, against the human nature corruption into false dreams and ideals that, on the long term, could endanger our own species and other species below us. An animal can teach us to enjoy the simple things and to take the world as it is but not desperately change it for fitting our personal insignificant ambitions raised from a mental uprooted background. If our human mind would become so corrupt so that we would not pay attention to the wisdom of nature, being lead by the immediate utility greed, then we risk extinction. Personally, I am not really afraid of such black future because I am convinced that the human spirit is still strong. But, by the power I acquired, especially in the last century, we could destroy the earth in a few minutes. Existing atomic bombs in the world at this time can destroy the human species and most species on Earth. The innocent eyes of an animal or a child can temper our criminal sublime revolutionary - technological- social actions. Therefore I say NO to killing stray dogs just like I say NO as environmental destruction.

Gabriel Baldovin

Manifestul ratiunii ecologice

Manifestul ratiunii ecologice

sociologie Baldovin   10:11

english version here 

De cand sunt copil ma tot intreb de ce oare ne-am pricopsit cu inteligenta asta, noi ca specie. Am ajuns cea mai de succes, ne-am asigurat supravietuirea insa, cum necum, inteligenta (cu consecinta ei directa, cunoasterea) a si otravit linistea si inocenta noastra pe care se pare ca le-am pierdut definitiv. Momentele noastre de pace si tihna par a fi temporare. Am creat religia si arta care ne da o oarecare asigurare ca sufletul e etern. Insa asta pare sa fie mai curand un simptom de contracarare a unei frici metafizice de moarte pe care constiinta umana superioara, produs al inteligentei si experientei, ne-a scos-o in cale. Pe langa o astfel de frica ancestrala, civilizatia ne ofera zi de zi motive de dezolare observand cum regulile jocului se schimba in timpul sau si cum nedreptatile si abuzurile semenilor se intalnesc pretutindeni. Iata ca inteligenta noastra a adus si un ingrijorator revers al medaliei. Procentul depresiilor in lumea civilizata atinge cifre de peste 80%. Asta inseamna ca, cumva, 80% din oameni si-ar dori (in inconstient) sa nu mai fie. Este inspaimantator. Multi nu recurg la sinuciderea propriuzisa de frica durerii momentului mortii sau datorita principiilor religioase. Cumva inteligenta noastra pare un blestem mai curand decat o calitate.

Si totusi, am incredere in intelepciunea naturii. Nimeni nu a vrut sa ne pedepseasca pe noi ca specie dandu-ne inteligenta si constiinta. Sunt convins ca acestea sunt calitati date de natura tocmai pentru protejarea si promovarea mediului insusi. Tocmai angoasa noastra morala care ne cuprinde odata cu dezastrele ecologice, pe care le-am facut sau le putem face, ne arata ca scopul ei este exact acesta. Protectia vietii in intreaga ei diversitate, crearea de rase si chiar specii noi de animale si chiar mutarea lor in alta galaxie peste cateva milioane sau miliarde de ani, cand soarele isi va fi epuizat energia, este scopul acestei ciudate inteligente pe care noi insine nu o intelegem inca si cu care nu stim ce sa facem. Omul nu e calaul vietii ci copilul ei. Viata si-a pus sperantele in om si a investit in el la fel cum parintii o fac. Inteligenta umana nu este doar a omului ci a intregii vieti. Daca aducem apa in deserturile pustii si viata pe alte planete atunci mintea omeneasca si-a spalat toate pacatele. Crimele istoriei pe care le-am facut impotriva altor specii si a propriilor nostri semeni ne vor fi iertate.

Nu suntem inca omul matur pe care mama noastra natura si-l doreste de la noi. Suntem inca primitivi in ciuda prapastiei culturale si tehnologice care ne separa de restul vietuitoarelor. Suntem inca copii. Dar, inca de pe acum, inca din frageda pruncie, trebuie sa facem un exercitiu de salvare a vietilor. Se poate spune ca incercarile la care suntem supusi, dezastrele ecologice pe care simtim profund ca trebuie sa le evitam, sunt niste teste pe care natura ni le pune asemenea unui parinte curios sa vada cum a evoluat copilul sau.

Mi-a ajuns prin fata ochilor si parerea lui Cristian Tudor Popescu, de aici (http://www.gandul.info/puterea-gandului/caini-si-oameni-11290769 ) a carui principala tema este eutanasierea cainilor vagabonzi la care dansul subscrie. Articolul in cauza e plin de idei sau consecinte ale acestora flagrant contradictorii unele cu altele. Nu imi propun aici sa le analizez in detaliu, ma rezum doar la opinia exprimata de dumnealui si preluata si de altii, cum ca dreptul la a ucide cainii este legitim in virtutea dreptului cu care ucidem, pe de o parte, animalele pentru hrana ca porcii, vacile sau gainile si, pe de alta parte, animalele daunatoare ca gandacii de bucatarie sau sobolanii.

O astfel de viziune continua antica maxima afirmata de Protagoras, respectiv „Omul este masura tuturor lucrurilor". Intr-adevar, sunt de acord, omul este suprema valoare. Insa, in situatia in care isi bate joc de mediu, omul are nevoie de un bobarnac pentru a se trezi indiferent de cine ar fi el. Si cam de asta are nevoie specia umana astazi, ajunsa practic in pragul sufocarii mediului. Prin urmare, acum, cand puterea omului asupra necuvantatoarelor a ajuns atat de mare, maxima lui Protagoras trebuie regandita. Daca o luam ad litteram, putem ajunge la o consecinta absurda. A ucide toate animalele si a ne inmulti pe noi insine peste limita sustenabilitatii economiei actuale, conform acestei ei, poate parea un lucru bun deoarece specia umana ar prospera o perioada. Si totusi, pe termen lung, o astfel de actiune s-ar dovedi o catastrofa deoarece, fara animale, omul ar risca sa nu poata supravietui. In cel mai bun caz viata i-ar fi foarte grea si specia si-ar reduce aria. Iata de ce nu trebuie sa ne lasam sedusi de o intelegere superficiala a raportului nostru ca fiinta aflata in varful lantului trofic, cu celelalte creaturi aflate sub noi. Iata de ce avem nevoie de o morala care sa ne limiteze puterea atat in fata celorlalte vietuitoare cat si in fata semenilor nostri.

Este adevarat ca, fiind o specie de animal abia intrata in civilizatie, omul simte o oarecare placere ucigand si vanand. O astfel de placere este o consecinta fireasca a instinctului nutritiv ale carui ruine salbatice inca supravietuiesc in ADN-ul nostru. In acelasi timp insa, majoritatea dintre noi empatizam cu victimele noastre si cu prada ucisa de noi. Ritualurile de la sfarsitul vanatorii sunt practicate si de vanatorii moderni dar si de cei primitivi. Ne e mila de animalul ucis si ne cuprinde un sentiment depresiv analizandu-ne fapta, indiferent de cat ne-am justifica-o prin prisma necesitatii propriei supravietuiri. Filmul „Domestic”, regizat de Adrian Sitaru are ca principala tema aceasta angoasa morala a uciderii pentru hrana. Aceasta este ratiunea practica de care vorbea Kant si care se aplica si la raportarea la restul vietuitoarelor, nu numai la semenii nostri. Aceasta ratiune practica nu este doar un simplu complex matern proiectat in speciile pe care noi le crestem pentru hrana sau le vanam ci este o forta morala independenta cu o functie autoreglativa precisa. Sunt convins ca complexul matern si cel traumatic poate intari o astfel de forta in tribunalul psihicului. Insa ratiunea practica exista pe langa aceste complexe ca pulsiune psihica separata.

In acest moment putem spune ca pastrarea speciei umane in limitele actuale atat in sens de conservare cat si in sens de stopare a expansiunii, este o actiune morala. In sensul conservarii este o actiune morala cresterea si uciderea animalelor pentru hrana dar si vanarea rationala a celor salbatice conform principiului enuntat de Protagoras. Dimpotriva, stoparea cresterii populatiei umane, in special in zonele extrem-orientale, poate fi o actiune morala in conditiile in care expansiunea umana ameninta cu disparitia alte specii. Scaderea natalitatii in zonele civilizate ale globului atesta acest trend moral de acordare de sanse mai mari de supravietuire altor specii. Orice incercare de distrugere a mediului in zonele civilizate pentru scopul iluzoriu al cresterii nivelului de trai, acolo unde nivelul de trai este oricum foarte ridicat, este o actiune imorala.

Mai mult decat atat se poate face un top al importantei animalelor pentru om si pentru viata in general. Exista animale mai valoroase decat altele. Unele sunt pe cale de disparitie altele prospera in femele construite de om. In aceasta evaluare morala omul ia in calcul doua elemente fundamentale care il fac pe animal sa fie mai aproape sau mai departe de noi. Primul este inteligenta. Celalalt este afectiunea. Inteligenta animalelor ne poate ajuta in demersul nostru uman de a promova viata. Prin urmare suntem datori la randul nostru sa protejam animalele inteligente mai mult decat pe cele mai putin inteligente (la un numar aproximativ egal de indivizi). Afectiunea pe care ele ne-o arata, fidelitatea lor in dragostea pe care ne-o ofera le asociaza cu insasi dragostea materna care ne este pavaza pentru intreaga viata pentru fiecare dintre noi. Afectiunea de care unele animale dau dovada fata de noi ne poate motiva sa credem ca truda noastra milenara are un scop si ca merita sa continuam. Daca vedem o vanatoare de delfini o vom simti mult mai dureros decat ca pe o vanatoare de reni, cerbi sau antilope africane tocmai pentru ca delfinul este o specie inteligenta dar si foarte afectiva. Uciderea lor pentru hrana pare la fel cu uciderea unui semen pentru hrana; ea este imorala in conditiile in care hrana se gaseste din abundenta insa poate deveni acceptabila in conditiile in care hrana lipseste.

Spiritul uman are o retinere in a ucide pentru hrana astfel de animale tocmai pentru ca, asemanandu-se foarte mult cu omul, un astfel de gest poate parea canibalism curat. Exista unele triburi primitive astazi in care canibalismul este o anumita forma de vanatoare si numai insistenta autoritatilor l-a stopat. Dar, cu siguranta, noi europenii si oamenii civilizati in general il consideram o practica macabra desi in secolul al XX-lea ne-a mai scapat sporadic si noua.

Probabil ca, daca traiam in Orientul indepartat, uciderea cainilor pentru hrana nu era vazuta ca un act barbar tocmai pentru ca, in lipsa hranei cu care se confrunta acei oameni, o astfel de practica justifica conservarea speciei umane. Dar uciderea cainilor fara un astfel de scop devine un act imoral in toata regula. Nu numai cu cainii se aplica acest principiu. Daca am ucide porci, vaci si gaini doar pentru placerea sadica de a ucide si nu datorita justificarii supravietuirii propriei noastre specii, atunci gestul nostru ar fi cu adevarat unul inuman. Exemplu este uciderea fara noima a bizonilor in America de Nord, imediat ce a fost cucerita de colonistii europeni. Acestia au nimicit turmele de bizoni cu intentia de a lovi astfel, indirect, in nativii americani care depindeau de aceste animale. Un astfel de masacru prelungit a ramas in istorie ca un act barbar. Din fericire americanii insisi si-au dat seama de asta tocmai datorita constiintei morale care vorbeste si acuza din strafundurile sufletului omenesc. De aceea, ulterior, cand unor europeni le-au venit idei similare de exterminare a „populatiilor inferioare”, fostii eugenisti colonisti si-au aratat fata umana si s-au opus acestui plan.

Altfel stau lucrurile in privinta animalelor daunatoare pe care noi le exterminam sau incercam acest lucru. Uciderea acestor animale nu poate fi pusa pe aceeasi treapta cu uciderea maidanezilor asa cum crede domnul Cristian Tudor Popescu in articolul citat mai sus. Mai intai, conform criteriilor amintite, gandacii de bucatarie nu arata nici afectivitate si nici inteligenta care sa ii apropie foarte mult de om si sa ii judecam astfel dupa cum facem cu cainii. Apoi, la fel ca si mustele, ei pot atenta la sanatatea noastra intrand prin locuri murdare sau chiar insalubre. Daca gandacii nu ne-ar ameninta sanatatea atunci nu am avea nimic cu ei. Ii decimam pentru ca risca sa ne aduca substante nocive in alimente. In acelasi fel au facut si sobolanii, vestiti pentru raspandirea unor boli ca holera sau ciuma. Aceste boli au decimat practic umanitatea in secolele trecute. Ura impotriva lor vine din traumatismele acelor perioade ramase intiparite in inconstientul colectiv.
Dar, odata ce medicina a facut progrese si aceste boli au fost inlaturate, nu exclud posibilitatea ca, in viitor, sobolanii sa ajunga ei insisi animale de companie. Asa s-a intamplat si cu lupul. Acest animal ne-a terorizat mii de ani, mancandu-ne animalele domestice si amenintandu-ne bunastarea. Astazi, cand animalele domestice sunt crescute industrial in ferme izolate, lupul nu mai e o problema. Dupa ce a fost decimat in ultimele secole, el a ajuns recent sa fie ocrotit si respectat. Dihorii, care dadeau si inca mai dau iama in pasarile taranilor, au ajuns mai nou niste foarte dragalase animale de companie. Dar, se poate intampla si invers; daca ratonii, sobolanii si ursii intra in spatiul nostru vital si ne ingreuneaza viata, ne fura mancarea si ne ameninta igiena, putem sa devenim iarasi exterminatori. Asta ar fi de asemenea o solutie provizorie pana cand medicina ar gasi remediu iar vechile amenintari s-ar transforma in parteneriate. Multe specii de animale intra in concurenta directa pe resurse sau hrana cu omul astazi. Exista insa si voci rezonabile care cer reducerea expansiunii umane in spatiul salbatic si dezbaterile sunt intense.

Oricum ar fi, specia umana nu poate supravietui fara celelalte specii si fara un mediu sanatos. Intr-adevar suntem masura tuturor lucrurilor, intr-adevar suntem cea mai importanta specie insa, daca vrem sa ne aratam puterea chinuind gratuit animalele sau ucigandu-le fara a fi sprijiniti de scopul conservarii propriei specii si nepromovandu-le, asa cum fac unii dintre noi, de fapt dovedim contrariul. Dovedim ca nu avem destula inteligenta de vreme ce simtim nevoia sa ne intrecem cu ele. In felul acesta poate natura ar trebui sa investeasca in alta specie (sau, hai sa zicem, alti indivizi din specia umana) pentru a ajuta viata in viitoare cataclisme terestre sau cosmice.

Sistemul social ne educa in spiritul individualitatii pentru a ne decima puterea politica. Izolarea, dezolarea si dezradacinarea sunt consecintele acestei stari de lucruri. In situatia in care zi de zi ne instrainam de semeni, un animal de companie si chiar un animal, oricare ar fi el, ne poate fi salvarea. Un animal ne poate fi ancora in realitate impotriva coruperii naturii umane in false vise si idealuri care, pe termen lung, ne pot periclita propria specie si speciile inferioare noua. Un animal ne poate invata sa ne bucuram de lucrurile simple, sa luam lumea asa cum e si sa nu dorim cu disperare sa o facem conform cu unele ambitii personale nesemnificative provenite dintr-un fond psihopatolgic dezradacinat. Daca spiritul nostru uman ajunge intr-atat de corupt incat sa uite de intelepciunea naturii, lasandu-se sedus de lacomia utilitatii imediate, atunci riscam pieirea. Personal nu mi-e frica de o astfel de perspectiva pentru ca sunt convins ca spiritul uman e inca puternic. Dar, prin puterea pe care am dobandit-o in special in ultimul secol, noi am putea distruge in cateva minute pamantul. Bombele atomice existente in acest moment in lume pot distruge specia umana si majoritatea speciilor de pe Pamant. Privirea inocenta a unui animal sau a unui copil ne poate tempera pornirile criminale sublimate in actiuni revolutinar-tehnologico-sociale. Prin urmare spun NU eutanasierii maidanezilor dupa cum spun NU distrugerii mediului.

<

Gabriel Baldovin