2.5.4.4.5. The terrorism as pillar of state

2.5.4.4.5. The terrorism as pillar of state

sociologie Baldovin   09:40

The automatist society manifesto 

2.5.4.4.5. The terrorism as pillar of state

 

 

Aici variana in limba romana

The ordinary contemporary people had become conscious about their own power and ability to react to systematic traditional threats form authorities. Marginalized communities have also learned to use weapons and to respond to abuses, thanks to simple emancipation that has widely spread into contemporary civilized mentality. Feeling discriminated and wronged, ordinary people suddenly took their fate in their hands and become unmanageable. In 20th century took places many attacks made by ordinary people against officials and privileged ones. That was one issue among others that led more freedom and more respect. Authorities began to fear more and more by the ordinary people’s capacity to respond with violence to everyday life frustrations. For this reason, they have developed those deceiving theories about Pacific war, about the so-called good official violence and about the bad violence of those who do not systematically use it.

The bad image of terrorism is spread all over the all media channels. I am not trying to say that terrorists are actually "good guys", as they claim, but I simply cannot believe that the authorities themselves are the "axis of good", like they want to be perceived, in a kind of traditional battle between evil with good. A formula like "axis of evil" used by G. Bush is designed to operate in these parameters as long as receptors have a classical dualistic mentality or even primitive one. If there is demonstrated that enemy is bad then such a mentality will perceive the enemy’s opponent as good. Each of these two sides justifies their own angelic face showing the devilish face of the other one.

2.5.4.4.5. Terorismul ca pilon al functionarii statului

2.5.4.4.5. Terorismul ca pilon al functionarii statului

sociologie Baldovin   09:30

Manifestul societăţii automatiste  

2.5.4.4.5. Terorismul ca pilon al functionarii statului 

Acest articol se continua de aici
English version here

 
(Acest articol a fost scris in 2010, dar apoi a fost absorbit intr-un text mai amplu)
 

 

In era contemporana omul de rand a cam devenit constient de propria forta si capacitate de a riposta la amenintarile traditionale sistematice ale autoritatilor. Faptul ca comunitatile marginalizate au invatat si ele sa foloseasca armele si sa reactioneze la abuzuri se datoreaza emanciparii care s-a raspandit in mentalitatea omului simplu odata cu tehnologizarea. Simtindu-se discriminat si nedreptatit omul de rand si-a luat soarta in maini si a devenit de nestapanit. Secolul 20 a abundat de atentate facute de omul simplu la adresa oficialilor sau privilegiatilor sociali. Asta a fost o cauza, printre altele, ceea ce a determinat ca omul contemporan sa primeasca mai multe libertati si mai mult respect. Autoritatile au inceput sa se teama din ce in ce mai mult de capacitatea sa de a raspunde prin violenta frustrarilor de zi ci zi. Din acest motiv, din ele s-au dezvoltat inselatoarele teorii despre razboiul pacificant, despre violenta oficiala pretins buna si despre violenta rea a celor care nu o fac sistematic.

Dubios este modul in care se face imaginea care se face terorismului pe toate canalele mass-media. Nu vreau să spun ca teroristii ar fi de fapt „baietii buni”, asa cum sustin ei însisi, dar în nici un caz nu cred ca autoritatile insele ar fi „axa binelui” asa cum vor sa para in aceasta traditionala lupta a "raului" cu "binele". O sintagma de genul „axa raului” folosita de G. Bush este menita sa functioneze in acesti parametri atata timp cat receptorii au o mentalitate dualist clasica si chiar primitiva despre lume. Daca se demonstreaza ca inamicul e rau atunci o astfel de mentalitate percepe oponentul inamicului ca bun. Fiecare dintre tabere isi justifica propria calitate angelica incercand sa o diabolizeze pe cealalta.

Examples of spiritual mutilation made by education system

Examples of spiritual mutilation made by education system

sociologie Baldovin   05:45

Aici tradus in limba romana

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

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

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

Exemple de mutilare spirituala făcuta de sistem cu ajutorul educatiei

Exemple de mutilare spirituala făcuta de sistem cu ajutorul educatiei

sociologie Baldovin   05:37

English version here:

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

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

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

Education: another basic tool (among legislation) of social discrimination

Education: another basic tool (among legislation) of social discrimination

sociologie Baldovin   12:12

in romaneste aici

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

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

Educatia: un alt instrument fundamental al discriminarii sociale alaturi de legislatie

Educatia: un alt instrument fundamental al discriminarii sociale alaturi de legislatie

sociologie Baldovin   11:46

english version here

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

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

The evolution of concepts of destiny and chaos in the shade of slave social statute

The evolution of concepts of destiny and chaos in the shade of slave social statute

sociologie Baldovin   08:49

In romaneste aici:

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

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

Evolutia conceptelor „destin” si „intamplare” in functie de evolutia statutului social al sclavului

Evolutia conceptelor „destin” si „intamplare” in functie de evolutia statutului social al sclavului

sociologie Baldovin   13:03

english version here:

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

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

Venice Biennial and the wide contemporary art under the magnifying glass of UAE pavilion

Venice Biennial and the wide contemporary art under the magnifying glass of UAE pavilion

sociologie Baldovin   15:42

-->

31-10-2009

In romaneste aici:

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

In other countries there is a strong competition between artists in order to expose at Venice Biennial. In UAE, not only that there is no such competition, but there is no Venice Biennial specific cultural tradition. But that would not be a problem – a faking strategy might work here. If the tourism industry is involved, then the artists could simply be invented just like happened in 1950’s in Romania when the “bourgeois” were replaced by automatically created and insufficient trained physicians/academicians/officers etc. Anyway, after what is written on this space, I am pretty sure that these kind of artificial jobs are made for the old aristocracy even in the “right” civilized western society.

Bienala de la Veneţia şi arta în general sub lupa pavilionului EAU

Bienala de la Veneţia şi arta în general sub lupa pavilionului EAU

sociologie Baldovin   15:24

31 10 2009

English version here

Acest articol este continuarea celui „Emiratele Arabe Unite la bienala de la Venetia“ scris pe „Baldovin arte”, in care deplangeam prezenta unui pavilion ciudat, nefiresc la Bienala de la Venetia din acest an. Pavilionul EAU pare ca nu gusta pe de-a-ntregul arta contemporana dar totusi se folosesc de ea pentru o ciudata campanie publicitara. Rezultatul a fost o atitudine de genul „hai sa facem o jumatate de pas in casa voastra sa va spunem ce mult ne place noua in afara casei voastre!”. Stiu ca arta contemporana s-a jucat deseori cu acest tip de atitudine, vanzand fecale sau realizand gesturi absurde. Dar, parca astfel de manifestari consemnate vin cumva dintr-un suflet deprimat si dezinteresat si nu dintr-unul cuprins de o lacomie comerciala maladiva. Tocmai de asta acesti artisti sunt priviti altfel, cu mai multa ingaduinta. Dimpotriva, probabil ca autoritatile EAU au auzit ca un pavilion la Bienala de la Venetia costa ceva mai mult decat un panou in centrul orasului sau o reclama in audienta maxima. Si iata cum intra EAU in tendintele artei contemporane! Suntem in 2009, suntem intr-un an de criza, si iata ca se poate trece un pic cu vederea lipsa unui cadru cultural tipic, se poate un pic cosmetiza (performativ) acest tip de campanie publicitara, si astfel se mai poate rotunji bugetul bienalei. Banul face orice.

In alte tari e mare concurenta intre artisti pentru a expune la Bienala de la Venetia. Iata ca, in cazul EAU, nu numai ca nu exista o astfel de concurenta dar nu exista nici macar o traditie culturala specifica bienalei . Nu-i nimic - se poate actiona dupa planul Gheorghe Gheorghiu din Romania. Inventam niste artisti sa dea bine la industria turismului la fel cum s-a facut in anii 50 in Romania cand, odata cu inlocuirea burghezilor din posturile cheie, s-au creat pe banda rulanta doctori, academicieni, ofiteri etc. Oricum, dupa cele scrise aici, eu sunt sigur ca, inclusiv in societatile “drepte” din lumea civilizata, multe astfel de posturi sunt la fel de artificial create ca si cele de tip Gheorghiu, pentru a da o forma mai umana vechii aristocratii.

In ceea ce ma priveste, incep sa percep arta din ce in ce mai mult ca pe o supraevaluare si chiar o evaluare artificiala a unor oameni recunoscuti drept artisti, in situatia in care „orice om e un artist“. Evident, trebuie facuta eterna precizare cum ca unii sunt artisti mai slabi si altii, mai putini la numar, mai buni. Dintre cei buni se aleg cativa, si mai putini, carora li se atribuie statutul de artisti geniali. Ei sunt selectati de principi, regi, burghezi, corporatii si curatori pentru a le reprezenta imaginea. Viceversa e la fel de valabila : fara alti principi, alti regi, alti burghezi etc., ce vor sa compromita imaginea primilor, nu ar exista nici artistii cu celebritate postuma ca Rembrandt, Jackson Pollock sau Van Gogh. Intre artistii mai buni de genul celor de mai sus si „orice om”, care e artist (mai slab), exista la nivel cultural o diferenta radicala ci nu una de grad, asa cum lasa sa se vada terminologia. Aici intervine sistemul, aici intervine cultura. Ea preia o astfel de diferenta si o supraevalueaza nelimitat, transformand-o in diferenta dintre bun si rau, lumina si intuneric, geniu si cersetor.

The laws 2. An example among so many others of discriminating application of laws in society

The laws 2. An example among so many others of discriminating application of laws in society

sociologie Baldovin   07:09

22 august 2009

in romaeste aici

Continued from the previous entry

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

Legile 2. Un caz printre atatea altele de aplicare discriminatorie a legilor

Legile 2. Un caz printre atatea altele de aplicare discriminatorie a legilor

sociologie Baldovin   07:01

english version here

Continuare la articolul precedent

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

The laws; a brief introduction into Ju$tice machinery

The laws; a brief introduction into Ju$tice machinery

sociologie Baldovin   12:01

28-06-2009

In romaneste aici:

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

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

Legile. O sumara incursiune generala asupra functionarii Ju$titiei

Legile. O sumara incursiune generala asupra functionarii Ju$titiei

sociologie Baldovin   11:50

english version here:

Inainte de a oferi descrierea unui exemplu concret de functionare a Ju$titiei voi face o sumara analiza a sistemului juridic in relatie directa cu cetateanul. Pentru mine legislatia este copia fidela sau chiar identica a relatiei dintre Constient si Inconstient la nivel de psihic global. Ca produs al psihicului si ajutat de o inteligenta perfida in fond statul nu poate sa fie altceva decat aceasta relatie. Imi vine in minte cazul enuntat de Freud cu un subiect caruia i s-a cerut in starea de hipnoza sa desfaca umbrela la cateva minute dupa ce se va trezi. Chiar asa s-a intamplat. La intrebarile asistentei cu privire la sensul gestului sau subiectul a raspuns senin : „asa mi-a venit”. In acelasi mod functioneaza si statul doar ca reteaua de circulatie a comenzilor este mult mai complexa si vizeaza nu doar cateva minute ale hipnozei ci o viata intreaga. Acel „asa mi-a venit” e de fapt iluzia de libertate pe care sistemul o ofera in mod perfid oricarei profesii. Ca mostenitor al statului sclavagist clasic statul neosclavagist contemporan si-a raspandit interesele pe cale inconstienta in cele mai ascunse parti ale societatii.

Fiecare profesie este menita fie sa produca bunuri/satisfactii diferite stapanilor fie sa supravegheze productivitatea sclavilor sau sa se scada moralul in asa fel incat sa le piara ideea de revolta. „Asa mi-a venit” o resimte fiecare sclav atunci cand nu munceste, cand se plictiseste si cand nu se simte bine daca nu executa comenzile stapanilor. Un astfel de sentiment este indispensabil pentru functionarea economiei generale. El are in spate un intreg sistem de dezumanizare care se intinde pe mutilarea spirituala a unor generatii intregi. In realitate traim intr-un Matrix menit sa satisfaca nevoia unora de a calatori pe luna, de a se refugia in resedinte luxoase si, in final de a avea un rival sau un semen la picioare pe care sa il umileasca si din care sa extraga sentimentul de putere. O astfel de ultima nevoie nu are nici un scop in zilele noastre doar ca acestea sunt reflexele vechilor mari jefuitori numiti seniori, stramosi ai actualilor cyborgi care le-au transmis aceasta molima morala. Jefuirea si inrobirea comunitatilor inocente este baza civilizatiei dar in locul vechilor asedii astazi avem statul care este mult mai eficient decat jefuirea prin forta armata. Regulile, procedurile si in principal legislatia este instrumentul ce a luat in buna parte locul vechilor arme de foc insa, dupa cum cauza supravietuieste in efect acestea au ramas in continuare suport fidel neojefuitorilor de lux.

A murit Matei Calinescu

A murit Matei Calinescu

eseu Baldovin   12:12

25-06-2009

Niciodata nu am avut ca natiune (in masura in care termenul "natiune" nu e total lipsit de continut) un varf de lance in materie de estetica si filosofie. Eugen Ionescu a fost mai mult un scriitor decat un teoretician. Cioran a fost mai mult un eseist. Blaga a fost prea national si, paradoxal, prea pretentios pentru simplitatea romaneasca. Dar si ... prea putin universal. Noica e tot pe acolo. Petre Tutea e unul dintre cei mai intarziati teoreticieni. Cred ca l-au retrogadat torturile inchisorilor comuniste. Eliade e singurul cu care se poate compara atat in privinta anvergurii internationale cat si cea a complexitatii operei. Dar parca a fost un pic cam servil lui Jung in materie de filosofie.

Matei Calinescu a fost cam primul astfel de roman. El aspart gheata culturala. "Fetele modernitatii" e o lucrare respectata in toata lumea. A creat o teorie originala si universala despre evolutia culturii. Daca teoriile sale seamana un pic cu ale lui Foucault sau altii totusi nu se raporteaza la ei in asa maniera in care Eliade o face la Jung fie si involuntar.

Pentru mine postmodernismul e o chestiune dubioasa. Insusi Matei Calinescu mi-a spus fara echivoc ca nici pentru el nu mai insemna mare lucru. Dar pentru faptul ca a fost acolo la construirea lui teoretica merita tot respectul nostru.

Nu sunt un mare nationalist insa ma simt mandru ca intr-o societate romaneasca plina de escroci la costum si cravata sau de intarziati contemporani iata ca cineva a reusit sa se desprinda si sa isi construiasca un loc in istoria culturii. L-am intalnit fata in fata, am stat de vorba cu el fapt pe care n-am sa il uit niciodata. Mi s-a partut un monument de simplitate si claritate la fel ca si scrierile sale. Desi am putine puncte comune cu el in materie de preocupari artistice si teoretice totusi simplitatea din "Fetele moderintatii" m-a influentat decisiv. "Contradictiile, iluziile si virtutile postmodernismului" pe care am scris-o in anul 2003 i se datoreaza exclusiv. Nu cred ca as fi scris-o daca nu as fi citit "Fetele moderintatii" .

Gabriel Baldovin