Baldovin Concept censured on Facebook

(ro- for English scroll down) Baldovin Concept a fost pentru o perioada in imposibilitate de a fi publicat pe Facebook. Probabil ca unii dusmani ai sigurantei femeilor au fost deranjati de articolele scrse aici in ultimul an, si l-au raportat masiv ca spam, desi continutul sau nu contine reclame si nu vinde nimic. La rugamintile mele, dvs. cititorii ati contraraportat ca spatiu sigur care nu incalca standarderele comunitatii, pentru care va multumesc.

Eng- Baldovin Concept was for some time banned to be published on Facebook. Probably some women's security enemies were disturbed by the last year's articles I wrote here and received multiple negative spam reports to Facebook, although its content doesn’t contain advertising or any kind of commerce. But due to my asking for help, you the readers counter-reported this space as safe, not going against the Facebook Community Standards, so I thank you for that.

22 februarie 2009

Primitivismul in civilizatia contemporana

22-02-2009


english version here:


Parazitarea primitivismului din interiorul spatiului geografic al societatii civilizate


Civilizatia primitiva este o civilizatie a cuceririi naturii cu resursele ei insa incapabila de stapanire. Abia civilizatia clasica este o cultura a cuceririi omului, a inrobirii lui. Civilizatia„dezvoltata” asa cum exista de cateva secole in lumea occidentala este o civilizatie a imperativului categoric, a recunoasterii omului ca valoare suprema si a actiunii conform acestui principiu.

Paradoxul societatii (post)industriale de astazi ramane acela ca imperativul categoric formulat fara echivoc de catre Kant nu poate fi aplicat in mod universal. Statutul inestimabil al omului nu poate fi aplicat nici macar omului occidental nemaifiind vorba de cel oriental care este mult sub acest statut de evaluare.

Societatea contemporana „dezvoltata” la fel ca si cea clasica si medievala are nevoie de o civilizatie primitiva pe care sa o poata parazita. Fie ca aceasta societate primitiva e o enclava (incorporata) in civilizatia moderna, fie ca e chiar o comunitate exterioara, ea are nevoie de servitori naivi care sunt reprezentanti ai civilizatiei primitive. Dupa cum regina orbetelui de Africa face cu muncitoarele sale secretand substante pentru a nu li se dezvolta organele genitale la fel face si civilizatia „morala” cu supusii sai impiedicandu-i sa se ridice din starea de primitivism. Cred ca pentru un om inteligent si neafectat de interese personale in aceasta directie e clar ca societatea dezvoltata nu poate supravietui fara colonialism, fara exploatarea si uneori chiar suprimarea vietii primitive si salbatice. Modul de lucru e urmatorul: „Ia dati-ne noua voi paganilor aurul si bunurile voastre caci noi suntem copiii lui Dumnezeu; daca refuzati atunci vom veni cu armatele peste voi”. Colonialismul, cel atat de deplans astazi de ipocrita cultura contemporana este de fapt motorul civilizatiei. Aparatul de propaganda si manipulare este elementul de noutate al colonialismului capitalist fata de cel clasic. Numai dupa ce acestea esueaza se poate trece la represalii armate sub diferite pretexte. In cazul comunitatilor externe se foloseste razboiul direct clasic pentru a obtine robia acestora. Pentru primitivismul incorporat astfel de represalii sunt realizate cu ajutorul Ju$titiei. In trecut pentru realizarea acestui plan se folosea paganismul ca scuza, mai nou se foloseste „axa raului” si „terorismul” in general. Acestea sunt instrumente perfecte pentru societatea colonialista pentru a pastra restul lumii in intuneric.

O civilizatie absolut morala in sensul formulat de Kant este posibila doar in momentul in care viata omului este protejata de factorii externi. Civilizatia morala incepe din momentul in care toata lumea are un adapost normal si suficienta hrana incat sa nu moara de foame. Daca aceste conditii minime nu sunt indeplinite atunci civilizatia este doar una rudimentara, clasica, cel mult industriala, dar nu morala si dreapta asa cum ea pretinde. Omul nu poate fi valoare suprema atata timp cat poate sa moara de foame sau frig. Acestea sunt realitati specifice culturii primitive/clasice. Intr-o astfel de societate numai anumiti oameni au valoare inestimabila. Restul sunt sclavii. Rolul lor e sa serveasca. Armatele clasice sau armatele vopsite politienesc asa cum apar in statul mai mult sau mai putin politienesc modern au acest rol de a pazi sclavii sa isi faca bine treaba.

Diferenta dintre sclavi si stapanii sau supraveghetorii de sclavi este aceea ca primii sunt amanuntit controlati, stresati si trasi la raspundere pentru activitatea lor in timp ce ceilalti lucreaza in spatele usilor inchise ca niste zei autoproclamati. Cu cat mai usoara si mai parazitara e activitatea celorlalti cu atat mai stresanta si mai grea a activitatea sclavilor care trebuie sa le acopere si lor lipsa de eficienta si de implicare constructiva in viata comunitatii. Printre cele mai stresante munci sunt acelea de supraveghere ale diferitelor masini si instalatii. Printre cele mai grele sub aspectul efortului fizic se afla cele din agricultura sau constructii. Stresul sau hiperstenia specifice acestor ocupatii se vor transforma mai devreme sau mai tarziu de-a lungul generatiilor in depresie, tendinte paranoide sau alte tulburari psihice. Acestea la randul lor se transforma in tulburari somatoforme sau chiar in boli ale organismului. Practic starea de boala in care se afla o buna parte a omenirii datorita starii de sclavie este acel atentat la adresa vietii lor si la adresa imperativului categoric cu evaluarea vietii umane la nivel suprem. Iata ca intarirea unei parti a umanitatii se face cu pretul slabirii alteia. Situatia pare un cerc vicios; pentru a pune imperativul categoric in actiune si a acorda valoare inestimabila unei parti din comunitate trebuie sacrificata o alta parte cea a sclavilor. Viata sclavului nu mai e scop in sine ci scop pentru stapan. Sclavul raspunde prompt nevoilor si dispozitiei sale, adica e un fel de obiect/fiinta utilitara al carui scop este servirea celorlalti.



Parazitarea primitivismului din afara spatiului geografic al societatii civilizate



S-ar putea aici aduce contraargumentul vietii simple si usoare pe care omul occidental o are astazi. E un lucru evident faptul ca viata lui este mult mai usoara fata de cea a predecesorilor sai, ca exista multe sarbatori si petreceri, ca joburile stresante au ajuns destul de rare etc. Exista unele tari vest-europene unde cersetorii sunt luati de pe strada si dusi in adaposturi unde primesc un pat normal si mancare. Dar totusi un astfel de efort comunitar atarna greu in spatele celorlalti membri. Stresul vietii de zi cu zi este multiplicat de sustinerea celor care nu pot sau nu vor sa munceasca si sa contribuie la bugetul comunitar. Pentru ca o anumita parte din cetatenii societatii contemporane sa atinga un acest statut este nevoie ca restul lumii sa le usureze viata cu munca lor. Din pacate sclavii se aleg acum din afara unor astfel de state si asta e pretul “libertatii moderne”.

Mirajul unei vieti occidentale a aprins si inca continua sa aprinda imaginatia si ravna restului lumii si emigratia este consecinta acestui fenomen. Insa un astfel de stil de viata este usurat tocmai datorita acestui tip de invidie. Adica inclusiv in lumea civilizata emigrantii fac cele mai ingrate joburi. Apoi o buna parte din munca grea a occidentalului s-a transferat astazi in tarile extrem orientale asa cum e India sau China. Vechilor sclavi occidentali li s-a deschis drumul catre lenevie sau creativitate fiind trimisi acasa din fabricile care s-au mutat in aceste tari contra unui ajutor de somaj care echivaleaza cu salariu de lux in alte parti ale lumii. Acesti oameni accepta sa lucreze in conditii de secol 17-18, cu foarte putine drepturi si de aceea ei sunt mana cereasca pentru diferitele corporatii.

Am spus-o in lucrarea mea „Starpirea vampirilor” si reiau ideea. In momentul in care o companie occidentala patrunde intr-o comunitate clasica sau primitiva se intampla un lucru devastator pentru comunitate. O parte din cetateni, cei angajati de companie sunt artificial modernizati, artificial ridicati din stilul de viata primitiv sau clasic si adusi in mijlocul problemelor vietii contemporane pentru care cei mai multi nu au afinitati adaptative. La prima vedere o astfel de companie pare a fi raiul de pe pamant aducand prosperitatea si eradicand saracia acelei comunitati. Insa lucrurile stau altfel la o privire mai atenta. Chiar daca traiau la limita subzistentei totusi acei oameni primitivi nu erau saraci. Saracia si problemele ei este specifica societatii dezvoltate si nu celei primitive. Starea de minima subzistenta este starea naturala a omului primitiv cu mecanismele sale interne de autoreglare si integrare in mediul salbatic. Sentimentul si realitatea saraciei vin abia cu minciunile „societatii dezvoltate”. Primitivul accepta fericit ca un copil neexperimentat o astfel de terifianta transmutare din starea de primitiv in cea de modern la fel cum un copil accepta invoiala de a sari de la fereastra peste 5 minute in schimbul unei bomboane. Ca si copilul si primitivul va plati scump pentru o astfel de naivitate. Dezradacinarea este una dintre teribilele consecinte a acestei alegeri. Sa urmam firul logic al unei astfel de realitati. Sa ne imaginam ca in urma unei astfel de intruziuni corporatiste bastinasii vor contacta diferite boli. Evident ca angajatii vor fi trimisi in strainatate pentru tratament sau se va aduce un doctor in zona. Insa ce vor face cei care nu sunt angajati? Iata un prim moment al scindarii comunitatii primitive in urma intruziunii corporatiste. Insa cel mai clar semn al acestei scindari sociale este dat de tensiunile care se acumuleaza intre angajatii companiei care se adapteaza treptat la stilul de viata occidental si cei neangajati care devin din oameni normali ai societatii primitive niste saraci ai societatii moderne artificial implementate in aceste zone. Acestia ajung sa ii invidieze si sa ii urasca pe adaptati si isi pun toata energia in a le lua locul. Pentru asta accepta salarii mai mici si astfel drepturile naturale ale muncitorului occidentalizat se risipesc pentru toti. Cei angajati simt aceasta „amenintare” la adresa lor de catre cei ce distrug piata salariilor. Invidia somerilor fata de cei angajati si dispretul angajatilor fata de someri sunt ingredientele unei societati scindate. Iata terenul propice pentru tulburarile sociale! Iata ce inseamna neocolonialismul corporatist! Iata ce simplu se pot transforma niste oameni primitivi dar liberi din societatea primitiva in niste oameni primitivi dar sclavi in societatea dezvoltata.

Se poate spune astfel ca greutatea civilizatiei occidentale a inceput sa atarne pe omul oriental de rand invidios si pofticios la bunastarea occidentala. Iata ca problema nu s-a rezolvat! Gunoiul se arunca ceva mai departe de lumea occidentala. Insa lumea se globalizeaza, ea se transforma incet dar sigur intr-un sat planetar asa ca nu va dura mult pana cand acest gunoi va incepe sa miroasa si in cealalta parte a lumii. Civilizatia occidentala trebuie sa se gandeasca de pe acum ce e de facut pentru ca viitorii teroristi se vor alege din India si China.



Instrumentele avansate ale statului „dezvoltat” modern de paraztitare a culturii primitive



Tarile occidentale nu mai au stat politienesc foarte vizibil insa, nici o problema, o tara ca si China catre care s-a mutat sclavia pot rezolva problema pentru ca acolo statul politienesc functioneaza. Bunastarea occidentala de astazi se face in buna masura cu ajutorul statelor politienesti care pazesc sclavii din afara Occidentului. La fel s-a rezolvat si problema torturii interzisa pe teritoriul SUA dar permisa in diverse avioane care se plimba prin lume de placere... Oricum ar fi, armata si statul politienesc sau semipolitienesc sunt carpelile provizorii care pot tine provizoriu societatea actuala „dezvoltata” in stare de functionare. Omul occidental n-a scapat nici el de acestea ci doar sunt ceva mai blande cu el. Ju$titia este cel mai clar exemplu al acestei prezente autoritariste chiar daca de cele multe ori in tarile "dezvoltate" ea este folositoare omului de rand in ceea ce priveste protectia in fata abuzurilor altora. Insa ca orice sistem mafiot Ju$titia nu mai protejeaza omul de rand in fata abuzurilor sistemului care ii fura (sistematic) din venituri. Asta arata de fapt adevaratele resorturi ale ei. De fapt Ju$titia nu doreste sa il apere pe omul de rand de cel ce i-a adus o paguba ci vrea ca si acela sa fie "reabilitat", sa produca si el ceva si sa plateasca si el taxe neofeudalilor. In felul acesta bugetul pentru banchetele lor va fi mai mare.

Omul de rand este abil manipulat sa plateasca serviciile politicienilor si a altor urmasi ai vechilor feudali fara chiar sa inteleaga acest lucru. El este obligat sa le cumpere (de)serviciile si nu are nici o alternativa sa nu o faca. Ju$titia si restul de resurse ale statului politienesc este pur si simplu nemiloasa cu cei care incearca sa se sustraga. Ju$titia nu te apara decat ocazional de furturile altora ca tine insa are grija sa fi aspru pedepsit daca nu accepti zambind ca "oficialii" sa te fure pe tine. Toate aceastea se fac cu o abilitate si o manipulare desavarsita. Sistemul iti subtilizeaza munca si produsele exact cand iti iei un job. Putini din cei ce nu isi platesc taxele la stat sunt aruncati direct in inchisoare. Numai ca nu poti sa iti gasesti un job legal fara ca taxa de protectie catre sistem (mafiot) sa nu fie inclusa. De fapt taxa nu o plateste angajatul direct ci angajatorul sau prin oferta de lucru contra salariu. Abia atunci cand angajatorul refuza sa plateasca la randul lui mai sus pe scara sistemului aceasta taxa se poate vorbi de o aruncare a acestuia in inchisoare. Dar cine e atat de fraier sa accepte ca el sa mearga la inchisoare in loc sa trimita povara parazitilor social in carca angajatului si astfel sa isi recupereze pierderile! In felul acesta munca angajatului este mult mai grea decat ar trebui sa fie deoarece pe langa schimbul corect cu angajatorul mai intra si mana nesatula a politicianului pe care el trebuie sa o suporte cu munca sa. Din pacate astfel de taxe de protectie nu se mai intorc niciodata catre comunitate ci sunt irosite dincolo de portalurile… pardon… usile inchise dupa care se scund politicienii. Sistemul mafiot iti ia din salariu taxele de protectie fara ca macar sa stii. Contractul de munca angajat-angajator care e din start corupt de aceasta situatie a sistemului parazitar. Faptul ca angajatul presteaza o munca mai grea pentru retributia pe care o primeste inseamna o excludere automata a acestuia in trecutul civilizatiei, un refuz al sistemului de a-i aproba contemporaneitatea.

Nu ai de ales decat sa refuzi sa muncesti. Cel care o face insa este exilat la marginea societatii si exclus din civilizatie. In felul acesta sistemul iti interzice un lucru elementar si anume schimbul de produse cu colegii tai de comunitate. Nu poti sa participi la bunastarea omenirii de pe urma mintilor stralucite ale civilizatiei care au creat tehnologia si au usurat viata moderna. Sistemul mafiot modern s-a facut stapan peste toate astea, el da aprobare pentru ca X sa faca parte din umanitate si din minunile sale daca plateste taxa la fel cum regii/principii acceptau sau refuzau casatoriile supusilor in trecut. Ju$titia are grija ca toate astea sa functioneze perfect.

Vechea conceptie asupra justitiei ca reparatie facuta unui abuz este o minciuna gogonata. Hamurabi, regele oriental care a ramas in istorie ca primul utilizat ori a unui cod de legi, le-a facut pentru a explica supusilor mai exact ce vrea de la ei. Cam asta e si in societatea moderna justitia. Diferenta consta in faptul ca in ea se investesc mult mai multe resurse pentru a parea in ochii celor pe care ii napastuieste ca ar fi motorul dupa care societatea functioneaza, ca e menita pentru protejarea celor slabi fata de abuzurile celor puternici. Dar in realitate ea doar a perfectionat aceasta veche si primitiva indeletnicire a celor puternici de a-i papa pe cei slabi. Asanumitii (de catre cultura oficiala) sofisti au vazut faptul ca legile sunt ca niste fire din plasa de paianjen unde mustele se prind in ele iar animalele mai mari le rup.

Dar sa fie bine inteles; eu nu am o problema cu a recunoaste justitia ca motor al functionarii sociale. Doar ca o consider o barbarie la fel ca si legea junglei. Hotul si infractorul modern pe care justitia chipurile il amendeaza pentru gesturile si actiunile sale ”necivilizate” este la fel de ”indreptatit” pentru ceea ce face la fel cum este si justitia si sistemul pe care il apara sa isi ia partea leului. Diferenta consta in faptul ca infractorul de drept comun foloseste arme albe sau arme de foc de calibru mic, iar justitia vine cu elicoptere, carabine si chiar tancuri. Justitia e mult mai bine dotata cu arme, asta e clar.

Lucrul cel mai interesant este acela ca furtul originar al sistemului in frunte cu politicienii facut sclavilor pare cu totul legitim daca acestia sunt primitivi. Dupa cum legitima pare uciderea animalelor de abator in scopul supravietuirii speciei umane la fel este „serviciul” de guvernare pe care politicienii si restul de paraziti neofeudali li-l ofera pentru a fi „ridicati” la rang de oameni civilizati. Cultura manierelor elegante stie sa anatemizeze foarte eficient brutalitatea primitiva! „Esti prost si orb iar eu iti arat drumul contra sclaviei tale”; asta e „simbioza” sociala a statului „dezvoltat” modern! Mi se pare mie cumva sau crestinii colonialisti faceau acelasi lucru cu paganii acum cateva sute de ani?




Urmarile culturale si psihopatologice ale scindarii sociale din societatea „dezvoltata” moderna



Evident ca sistemul apoi lucreaza in defavoarea ta, pentru a te mentine in starea de robie la fel ca si unii cersetori isi mutileaza copiii pentru a avea mai mare succes la cersit. Daca acesti asanumiti parinti sunt totusi cazuri izolate sistemul face acest lucru cu schilozii sai spiritual in mod regulat. Educatia deschisa, egalitatea de sanse si alte astfel de minciuni gogonate ale sistemului sunt doar strategii de imagine menite sa le mai ridice moralul victimelor societatii si astfel sa le faca mai profitabile.

Din acest motiv cred ca societatea contemporana e mult prea impanzita cu primitivism ca sa fie numita civilizata, morala sau dreapta. Ne-am umplut cu masini, aproape ca nu le mai suportam in jurul nostru si totusi suntem la secole distanta la o viata cu adevarat civilizata si umana in sensul parerii bune despre sine pe care cultura i-a facut-o.

Dintre toate speciile de pe pamant cea umana este de departe cea mai bolnava si cea mai deprimata. Lucrurile urate ale civilizatiei primitive si salbatice se rezolva de la sine deoarece in primul rand sunt create de natura si tot natura le autoregleaza. Primitivismul supravietuitor in societatea capitalista e de mii si mi de ori mai socant decat cel original al naturii. Am vazut cum hienele pot manca de viu prada in savana. A fi mancat de viu pare una dintre cele mai crude morti posibile. Si totusi pana si in acest caz secretiile umorale anesteziaza durerea prazii. Timpul unui astfel de cosmar e de 10-20 minute pana la o zi sau maxim doua. Insa cea mai mare parte a vietii animalului este una armonioasa. Din pacate depresia pe care majoritatea oamenilor societatii „dezvoltate” o resimt este o durere continua care se prelungeste teribil pe zeci si zeci de ani. Abia daca drogurile si un intreg aparat social de distractie mai pot temporar si provizoriu tempera aceasta epidemie depresiva a civilizatiei.

Cam asta e problema societatii actuale bazata pe elementele si actiunile primitive. In timp ce unii lupta pentru viata lor altii traiesc total rupti de realitate. Elitismul lor cartezian este doar un cinic mijloc de sustragere din aceasta realitate. Pentru ei pana si sentimentele de vinovatie sunt spalate de sistem. Urmasi ai vechii aristocratii si a vechilor colonialisti, ei sunt rasfatatii societatii moderne. Spiritul lor corporatist in care se ascunde vechea mentalitate de jefuitori a scapat parca spiritului naturii. Ei au devenit niste cyborgi care se pare ca nu mai pot fi readusi in familia umanitatii, naturii si vietii sub nici o forma. Mizeria pe care au produs-o naturii umane in ultimele secole se resimte astazi ca un cancer in constiinta lumii. Daca aceste creaturi ar fi spuma umanitati nimeni nu ar avea ceva de obiectat fata de statutul lor de vampiri sociali. Dar acesti oameni au uitat sa mai fie oameni, traiesc pentru imagine, traiesc pentru a-si ascunde urmele, traiesc pentru statistica si nu stiu sa traiasca altfel decat prin minciuna, manipulare si, in final furt cu ajutorul instrumentelor sofisticate ale statului.

Cultura contemporana abunda de neincrederea in metanaratiuni si scepticismul fata de toate si tot. Un singur lucru ramane ferm pe pozitie cu titlu de adevar universal valabil: faptul ca exista sclavi si ca trebuie sa ramana sclavi pentru ca altfel omul liber nu ar mai putea fi liber. O da! Nimeni nu pune la indoiala un astfel de adevar. Dar daca cineva vine si spune ca politicianului i se face statuie pentru furtul metasocial pe care il face in timp ce infractorul marunt este bagat la racoare atunci cultura vine si isi face datoria de caine de paza a sistemului. O sa vedeti ca un astfel de lucru este imposibil de recunoscut ca adevarat deoarece gnoseologia a ajuns la concluzi ca nu are o definitie a adevarului. Asta inseamna, dupa ea, ca adevarul s-ar putea sa fie o prejudecata si sa nu existe. Asta inseamna ca adevarul poate sa nu existe deci echivalarea furtului politicienilor cu cel al infractorilor ar fi lipsita de sens. Avansata rau cultura contemporana. Noroc ca nu se preda la clasele primare. Acolo se predau adevarurile universal valabile ca acela de mai sus. E nevoie de un Dumnezeu invizibil in care omul de rand sa creada orbeste si care apoi sa fie proiectat in senior si astfel sa ii cedeze „jertfa” sa in forma de impozit. E nevoie ca primitivul contemporan sa-si proiecteze religia in tot felul de lucruri banale pentru a fi divinizate si astfel sa devina un bun consumator. Mare nevoie are societatea „dezvoltata” de lumea primitiva cu care sa se curete! Deocamdata cam asta e ceea ce pompos se numeste civilizatie.




The primitivism in contemporary society

22-02-2009

The exploitation of the primitivism placed inside the geographic space of developed society



The primitive society is one of conquest of main nature and its resources but still incapable of mastery. It is the classical civilization who manages to master and enslave the primitive one. Starting from here the modern industrial civilization of nowadays developed of “categorical imperative”, of accepting the supreme value of human being.

But the paradox of (post)industrial society remains the impossibility of applying without equivoque such an ideal to the real world. The inestimable value of human life today is impossible to be accepted as fact even in the western person case and the oriental human being is excluded from this statute from the beginning.

The “developed” modern society as classical society also needs a primitive civilization to parasite, to survive on. This primitive civilization could be incorporated into modern one as an enclave or it could be an outside community. But this kind of civilization is indispensable for “developed” modern society life. In Africa lives a very strange creature: mole rat. The colony is lead by a queen which has a special gland that secretes a substance that annihilates every sexual behavior of other females of community. That is the exact way that “developed” modern society deals with its primitive civilization that relies on. The “developed” modern society culture is meant to prevent the primitive people to develop, to escape this prison of exploitation. Everyone that has not affected its judgment by different personal interests could see that “developed” modern society cannot survive without colonialism, without exploitation or even repression of wild or primitive life. The way id does is simple: “give us your gold and your goods you heathens because we are the children of God; if you refuse that then we will come with our army and destroy you”. The painful colonialism that hypocrite contemporary culture keeps blaming is the engine of modern civilization. The difference between classical and modern colonialism relies only in the huge manipulation and propaganda system that the last one uses. The modern colonialism uses it a lot and only when it fails then turn back to classical one forcing the primitives with armies to give up something. If that primitive community is locate outside of geographic position of the modern one then starting a war against in order to enslave it is the procedure. If that primitive community is locate outside of that then that kind of repression are made with the Ju$tice. In the past the main reason for colonialism was godlessness. Nowadays “the axis of evil” and “global therorism” is used. These are the perfect tools of modern colonialism in order to keep the rest of the world in the dark.

21 ianuarie 2009

The modern political system works in the same way as mafia

In romaneste aici:

In the modern society, as the previous ones, the taxes are not basically meant to serve the community. It is true that a part of such founds goes back for solving the community’s needs. But these things actually happen only after the social privileged ones are paid and after their car drivers and their home servers are paid. These salaries are the most interest of modern political system and they are paid no matter what they do for the community interest. Only if there are other founds left after this “sharing” then some of them may go back to community for creating the illusion that the politicians are some kind of servants, some kind of administrators of community hired by people as an employee is hired by an employer. But if after this originate corruption there is no much left for deceiving sight of people with some good actions for helping the community then the situation would look very much like South America oligarchy. I am very sure that G. Bush, Bill Clinton and other are not better and more honest than Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro but it is the American people that have more experience in building capitalism than the Cuban and Iraqi people. American people are more productive and send more founds to the main budget so the politicians and their covered up can afford to be more human.

It is very clear that after creating a bureaucracy, after creating a lot of institutions meant to restrict politicians’ power one another the main budget will never go back untouched in community. All the modern taxes are the modern cosmetic shape of dark edge and ancient slavery. Modern slave needs some kind of freedom and a lot of illusion of freedom for being productive. Modern slave is a creative slave. Routine hard working of dark edge and ancient slavery are now made with technology. Of course a slave is still a slave no matter if ancient or modern and that self esteem will bring down the modern slave. But don’t worry! The system imagined a solution for this! The sleepy story of “social contract” signed between the politicians and the citizen who don’t have time for implying in politics is perfect for shaping up the modern slave. Only that I for one don’t remember signing such a contract; I must had been sleeping or had been drunk when signing such a paper because it is not good for me. Let’s just say that I didn’t sign at all such a fraud and now I just complain about it. I am not that stupid to sign a contract that says I agree for paying politicians palaces when I know I could do better than they do. I don’t think so! I wouldn’t sign for such a mess, but who cares… Anyway I still have the power of seeing to politicians lies and show them who they really are: the mafia.

18 ianuarie 2009

Sistemul politic modern este un sistem mafiot

English version here:

In societatea moderna la fel ca si in cele anterioare ei taxele si impozitele nu sunt percepute in principal pentru a fi intoarse in comunitate, in favoarea ei. E adevarat ca o parte din acestea se intorc in comunitate. Dar asta abia dupa ce sunt platite salariile privilegiatilor social, a soferilor lor, a servitorilor lor etc. Aceste salarii sunt cele mai importante si se platesc indiferent ce acesti privilegiati pot sa faca pentru comunitate. Daca mai ramane ceva din buget dupa aceasta impartire atunci se poate da si iluzia cum ca ei chiar le si merita, dand eventual iluzia ca ar face un serviciu comunitatii. Dar daca nu a mai ramas destul din buget dupa aceasta corupere originara pentru a stropi un pic ochii prostimii atunci situatia va semana a oligarhie asa cum e in America Latina. De aceea sunt ferm convins ca G. Bush, Bill Clinton sau altii nu sunt mai buni si mai morali decat Saddam Hussein sau Fidel Castro doar ca poporul american are mai mare experienta in capitalism decat cel cubanez sau irakian. Poporul american este mai productiv si aduce mai multe fonduri la buget si astfel ca politicienii si cei pe care ii acopera isi permit sa fie ceva mai umani.

Evident ca, preocupati sa isi limiteze unul altuia puterea si sa plateasca astfel o birocratie stufoasa bugetul niciodata nu se va intoarce in comunitate decat ca o mica parte din ce a fost initial. Taxele si impozitele la ora actuala reprezinta varianta cosmetizata a sclaviei Evului Mediu si antichitatii. Sclavul modern nu mai poate fi tinut cu lanturi ci are nevoie de libertate. Sclavul modern este, mai nou, un sclav creativ… Muncile de rutina pe care le facea sclavul medieval si antic se fac mai nou cu tehnologia, cu masinile asa ca in societatea moderna e nevoie de un sclav care sa se si creada liber. Desigur starea asta de sclav modern nu e chiar placuta desi parca e ceva mai buna decat cea de sclav medieval si antic. Dar, nici o problema! Nu va impacientati! Sistemul a venit cu o rezolvare si pentru asta! Povestea cu ”contractul social”, despre cum a mers el cetateanul si a semnat pentru ca politicienii sa il reprezinte e numai buna pentru reparatia unui astfel de sentiment umilitor pentru sclavul modern. Dar eu personal nu imi aduc aminte sa fi semnat un astfel de contract; trebuie ca dormeam ori am fost beat cand l-am semnat ca tare e nefavorabil omului de rand. Hai mai bine sa spunem ca nu l-am semnat deloc si tocmai de asta fac galagie si arat ca sunt furat sistematic de cei carora trebuie sa le ”onorez” contractul pe care nu l-am semnat. Adevarul e ca eu vad cu totul altfel un astfel de contract. Nu as semna deloc un contract care sa spuna ca sunt de acord ca tu sa pleci cu banii mei in palatele tale unde sa bati apa in piua. Nu nu! Nu semnez asa ceva desi pentru societatea moderna parerea mea de om simplu nu prea conteaza. Totusi am sa o spun aici pentru a arata cat de mafiot poti fi tu politicianule!

O politica adevarata nu inseamna sa vii cu armatele pentru a jupui pe cei deja saraci pentru a-i parazita, pentru a se crea averi pe spinarea lor si apoi sa le dai iluzia ca sunt liberi. O politica adevarata este sa convingi omul de rand sa contribuie cu puterea lor politica si financiara sa construiasca cutare pod, cutare fabrica sau cutare proiect. O politica adevarata inseamna si posibilitatea de a spune NU la fel cum faci si cu produsele de la supermarket. Daca cutare produs nu ma ajuta nu cumpar! Improvizez. Numai cand sistemul ar functiona astfel se poate spune ca politica este facuta in folosul intregii comunitatii. Nimeni nu face asta astazi decat partial si nesemnificativ si asta dintr-un motiv foarte simplu; e mult mai usor sa te prefaci ca muncesti in spatele usilor inchise intr-un spirit conservator si ironic/cinic fata de fraierul de pe strada care trage ca cainele sa supravietuiasca decat sa vina si sa te bata la cap si sa te intrebe care e activitatea ta. Privilegiatii societatii proveniti din vechii jefuitori de comunitati lipsite de aparare fac asta cu mare succes de cateva mii de ani. Au cladit imperii practicand asta. S-au perfectionat in arta parazitarii.

Se spune ca nimeni nu poate scapa de impozite si taxe. Evident o pacaleala menita sa il faca pe sclav sa creada ca nu exista ceva mai bun decat a-i oferi bacsisul obligatoriu politicianului in schimbul unui spectacol de circ costisitor. Politicianul nu plateste nici un fel de taxe chiar daca oficial asa pare. Politicianul societatii moderne nu produce nimic concret. Tot ce face el este sa creeze iluzii in ochii electoratului care apoi se transforma in promisiuni neonorate. El plateste taxele din taxele pe care sistemul le canalizeaza catre buzunarele lui asa cum a fost intotdeauna. Adica „dati-mi voi toti cate un dolar si apoi eu va dau la voi toti un dolar”. Smecheria politicianului e ca iti ia un dolar si iti da inapoi mult mai putin, de cele mai multe ori minciuni. Sistemul reuseste sa faca asta cu o precizie absolut fabuloasa. El paraziteaza pe cei ce produc cu adevarat ceva. Adevarata grija a politicianului e sa puna in aplicare sistemul, adica sa fie carismatici, sa dea incredere si sa nu produca intrebari omului de rand cu privire la soarta fondurilor si sa il faca pe sclav optimist.

Politicianul societatii moderne nici macar nu reprezinta cetateanul, vointa politica a acestuia in interiorul sistemului chiar asa manipulata cum e de sistemul de invatamant si media. Adevaratele masuri sociale nu se iau de cei alesi direct prin vot. Iar daca unele masuri se iau in favoare cetateanului totusi cu diferite proceduri si alte smecherii sistemul va amortiza in scurt timp o astfel de situatie in asa fel incat „solutia” sa devina ineficienta pentru fondul problemei. E clar ca asta e doar asa de praf in ochi aruncati sclavilor. Adevaratele masuri politice se iau la nivele nici macar banuite de omul de rand. Votul si campania electorala sunt niste formalitati. Ce bine da un Obama, primul presedinte de culoare in ochii sclavilor americani! Cum sa mai fie adevarat ca unii ii asupresc pe altii din moment ce cel mai puternic om al lumii a ajuns un negru? Aproape ca nu mai crezi ca a existat sclavie. Ori, daca crezi asta atunci in mod cert astazi nu mai e! Pai uite ca sclavii s-au eliberat! Astazi ajung presedinti de stat, joaca in filme, sunt vedete! Nu mai exista domn‘e nici un sclav! Poporul american, popor destul de destept totusi si-a pierdut in mod dramatic increderea in sistem si politicieni o astfel de masura e in e menita sa ii mai motiveze pentru alti patru ani. Oricum, in situatia in care planul cu Obama ar fi dat gres atunci masonii ascunsi ai sistemului aveau pregatita o alta premiera istorica pentru a reface cate ceva din increderea cu pricina: prima femeie presedinte din istoria SUA. Uau! Parca iti vine sa iei si tu parte la istorie, nu?

Iata ca de fapt politicianul e doar un risipitor. El produce doar iluzia ca omul de rand poate schimba ceva. Ce-i drept asta contribuie la moralul sclavului si il poate face mai productiv. Numai ca punctul de vedere al sclavului este facut sa dea dreptate stapanului in orice situatie. Asa ca realitatea pare un pic a cerc vicios. Pentru omul care nu vrea sa fie sclav si nici n-are nevoie de idealuri si optimism politicianul nu produce nimic. Faptul ca politicianul ma face pe mine care imi vand foarte scump sau deloc libertatea pentru a deveni optimist nu inseamna nimic. Nu am nevoie sa devin optimist pentru ca nu am in mine germenele pesimismului asa cum il are sclavul propriuzis prin starea sa.

Din pacate nu numai ca politicianul nu produce nimic constructiv pentru comunitate dar prezenta sa in sistem este in masura sa produca artificial conflicte asa cum arata foarte bine Adam Curtis in documentarul „Puterea cosmarurilor”, cel mai bun documentar pe tema politica pe care l-am vazut vreodata. O astfel de actiune este specifica mafiei insesi care mai intai iti aranjeaza o intamplare nefericita dupa care te apara in schimbul taxei de protectie. Dupa caderea blocului comunist si a dusmanului traditional al Occidentului „axa raului” a devenit alta si in mod cert se vor gasi in continuare alte cosmaruri pentru omul de rand in asa fel incat politicianul si armata sa sa il apere si sa para un fel de Dumnezeu pe pamant.





9 ianuarie 2009

“Terrorized into Being Consumers”- a hypocrite documentary


For those who have not seen it yet, the documentary can be seen here

Seen again after ten years, this documentary looks now very interesting to me first of all from an artistic point of view. The electro-experimental background music, the sequences and image items repetition under its rhythm, the joining of contradictory and exclusive elements are remarkable. Such sequences are very appropriate to a contemporary art exhibition or festival.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, for other visions), as is often the case in art, the discourse deeply lacks the political or scientific coherence. There are some bright ideas in it, which inspired me in the following articles of these years. I could say there is no other documentary that inspired me more over the years, in the sense that it made me look for coherence in this amalgam of contradictions. Because, when it comes to argumentation and development, the author/authors seem to turn against own ideas and inexplicably support the opposite view. I saw it for the first time at a party given by some dunderhead girls that played ecologist superstar selfesteem. That's why when I first saw it seemed to me perfect for a kind of spoiled adults that found themselves not enough grown up, looking for spoiling on.

Its authors somehow feel that consumerist society has something wrong. But they have no qualities either to describe the real problems or to propose something alternative to what we have now. They simply resume social solutions that have already failed or were already abandoned. It is almost senseless to point up the solutions that this documentary proposes for improving society. I don’t know if the author(s) realize that inside of it there are three contradictory and exclusivist one another solutions for that. First one is that offered by Fidel Castro &co, with “equality in sharing the goods”, like happened in 60-s Romanian “nationalization” and, later, “rationalization”. The second one is the destruction of technology and getting back to primitive way of life. The third one is the reloaded French Revolution, the violence. I would further on analyze each of them. But first, I will show what seemed to me politically good in this documentary.

4 ianuarie 2009

"Terorizati in a fi consumatori": un documentar duplicitar

English version here:

Pentru cine nu l-a văzut, documentarul poate fi văzut aici

Revazut dupa zece ani, acest documentar mi se pare foarte interesant in primul rand din punct de vedere artistic. Muzica electro-experimentala de fundal, repetitia secventelor si reperelor imaginii in ritmul sau, alaturarea de elemente contradictorii si exclusiviste sunt remarcabile. Astfel de secvente ar putea sta foarte bine intr-o expozitie sau festival de arta contemporana.

Din pacate, (sau din fericire, pentru alte viziuni) asa cum se intampla de multe ori in arta, discursului sau ii lipseste profund coerenta politica sau stiintifica. Exista cateva idei stralucitoare in el, care pe mine m-au inspirat in articolele urmatoare din acesti ani. As putea spune ca nu e nici un alt documentar care nu m-a inspirat mai mult, in sensul ca m-a facut sa caut coerenta in acest amalgam de contradictii prezentate aici. Din pacate, atunci cand vine vorba de argumentarea si dezvoltarea lor, autorii parca isi dau cu stangul in dreptul si sustin in mod inexplicabil punctul de vedere opus. Eu l-am vazut prima data la o petrecere data de niste tute cu aere de vedete ecologiste. De aceea el mi s-a parut perfect pentru anumiti copii de bani gata, pentru rasfatatii care s-au trezit maturi si nu mai are nimeni cine sa-i mai rasfete.

Autorii sai simt cumva faptul ca societatea consumista are ceva in neregula Insa ei nu au calitatile nici pentru a-i descrie adevaratele probleme si nici pentru a propune ceva alternativ la ce exista. Pur si simplu ei reiau solutii sociale deja esuate sau abandonate. Aproape ca nu mai trebuie sa aducem in primplan solutiile pe care documentarul le ofera. Nu stiu daca isi da seama, dar mentalitatea de tuta a promovat in interiorul acestui documentar 3 solutii diferite si exclusiviste una cu alta. Prima e cea oferita de Fidel Castro &co., cu rationalizarea resurselor in asa fel incat "sa ajunga la toti", dupa cum s-a intamplat in Romania. A doua este distrugerea tehnologiei si intoarcerea la viata primitiva. A treia este revolutia Franceza reloaded. Am sa le analizez in continuare pe fiecare. Dar, mai intai, am sa arat ce mi s-a parut bun din punct de vedere politic in acest documentar.

24 decembrie 2008

The mirroring of classical philosophy into the freedom issue

In romaneste aici:


For hundreds of years philosophy have seen the freedom as a metaphysical matter but not as political one. But in the 19 and 20 century freedom started to be perceived in political terms and since then the philosophy have lost another part: the sociology.

The reality of slavery was very clear before that rupture and it is unbelievable how philosophy ignored the political frame of freedom. This problem is still today one of the most critical because it leads to terrible ethical convulsions. But instead of confronting it and conceive its terrestrial nature the philosophy throw it into the sky. It is said that Tales of Millet fell down into a hole once even he considered himself as a big astronaut but his contemporary fellows were joking about it and asked "how such a man pretend know what is upper his head since he has no clue about what is under his feet?". Watching their way of thinking one would get the impression that the philosophers are some kind of autist persons that developed some abilities according to their personalities.

17 decembrie 2008

Oglindirea filosofiei clasice in tema libertatii

English version here:

In toata istoria de 2-3 mii de ani a filosofiei libertatea a fost tratata ca problema metafizica si nu ca una politica. Abia in secolul 19 si 20 libertatea a inceput sa fie gandita exclusiv politic si atunci din filosofie s-a desprins ceea ce stim astazi ca e sociologia.

Lucrul pare cu adevarat uimitor daca ne gandim ca problema discriminarii si exploatarii sclavilor este o tema cu adevarat sensibila si dureroasa. As putea spune ca o astfel de tema este cea mai sensibila dintre toate deoarece produce teribile spasme etice. Si cu toate astea filosofia arunca problema libertatii in cer in loc sa o vada clar sub nas. Parca Tales din Milet care se considera ditamai astronomul ajunsese sa fie mistocarit de contemporani pentru ca la un moment dat a cazut intr-o groapa fiind intrebat: cum poti tu sa stii ce e pe cer daca nu stii ce ai sub picioare?". La prima vedere ai tendinta sa crezi ca filosofii sunt ei niste autisti asa care si-au dezvoltat abilitati spre abstractizari specifice personalitatii lor.

1 decembrie 2008

Zeitgeist Addendum or what should be done for contemporary society emancipation

In romaneste aici:



I have seen the Zeitgeist Addendum documentary and probably my last two entries showed that because they are connected with the issue. Actually I first intended to make one single entry but the text would look unusually long. I finally decided to split it into 3 parts because every one of them could be read without reading the others. But, of course, for a better understanding of each one of them would help reading the others.
I find Addendum much better then ‘the original’, Zeitgeist the movie’. I mirrored some of my intimate ideas into this last one. The most intimate one is that of criminality as a consequence not of the evilness of the person that commits crime but as a result of the pressure that social system has over it. So the justice is principally based on despotic actions (its imperial Roman origin sustain this) democratically painted of contemporary society political leaders. This is the reason for Ju$titia? stencil. ‘I want you’ (‘Armata e gunoi’ in Romanian) was also present at the end of this documentary.

30 noiembrie 2008

The secrets of manipulation – new weapons of slavery

in romaneste aici

The center of social exploitation was the surplus value for Marx. But there must be something else because the surplus value is the principle of economy. Nobody starts a business just for having mind occupied but for profit. The surplus value is not the problem of (wild)corporatism but the manipulation. The common people is brainwashed by school, mews media and all the tools needed in order to feel inferior and to want more. This inferiority feeling is a modern correspondent to classical death threaten that the slave was used to. The ancient slave was ‘someone that should be killed but for some reason was now alive’. When the master comes with its army to steal a part of peasant’s work as tribute then it is turned into slave ‘that should be killed’. It is obvious that either the peasant or the slave could lose its live next second if refuse pay this tribute or unproductive.
Fortunately today nobody comes any more with the gun to steal your products as tribute. The masters has evolved and humanized… Today the slaves give up their goods by their will if they want a job. Now the masters come first with the mercenary bureaucrats and with the papers and start questing you. Do you have papers for your land? Do you have papers for your property? For the common people the stony face of officer looks like the old master coming for tribute. The heart crossed by a dagger is the reward for refusal. A dagger might not be used by this officer but the discrete presence of an armed policeman (just for the case…) intensifies the living of such of a genealogic anxiety. In the real world that means the growing rich of corporations and the deeper mental disorders for worker and its offspring. The social system makes a sad conversion between mental health of slaves and the richness of their masters.

26 noiembrie 2008

The origin of production and prevention institutions

in romaneste aici


„Homo homini lupus”- the human being is a wolf to its kind is the best descrition of human society. The difference between animal and human was made by the power of weapons. Humanity experienced a paradise hunting animals but soon discovered that pray became rare and started hunting itself. Nowadays are primiteves societies that are able to divinize 'civilized weapons' and if they see a modern man around the first thing that ask is for help to destroy the rival communities. This stage is the second level of human history evolution. After hunting and exterminated its own kind also the primitive human being realized that has no more food and decide to become moral, not to kill other ones and steal their goods anymore but just convince them for giving up their food. That is the scenario for rising up the slavery, classical culture and tyranny...

Every single part of classical culture is meant to convince its slaves that if someone comes with the weapon and take its goods by threatening that is a normal thing even if the opposite fact of slave stealing from wealthy ones is very hard punished. This social reality is as absurd and unaccepted by the classical justice itself as are the cultural classical constructs and the classic mentality in general. The ambivalence discovered by psychoanalysis in the human mind and best cynical expressed in a cultural ontology field as Hegel's philosophy are the result of such infamy of slavery. Hegel's philosophy understood by God only is typical for classical culture; the more esoteric and obscure a cultural construct is the better for social mutilation of turning people into slave and the more efficiency for classical system.

16 noiembrie 2008

Zeitgeist Addendum sau masurile ce trebuie luate pentru emanciparea societatii contemporane

english version here:



De curand am vazut Zeitgeist Addendum si probabil ca asta s-a vazut din ultimele mele doua postari care au legatura cu subiectul. Am zis sa le fac articole separate pentru a nu lungi prea mult acest text si a obosi cititorul. El poate fi citit de sine statator dar o mai buna intelegere a lui ar trebui citite si alea.
Addendum este mult mai bun decat „originalul” Zeitgeist the Movie. Mi-am regasit multe din idei in acest documentar, si unele dintre cele mai intime. Cea mai intima ideea este cea a criminalitatii pe care o consider consecinta a sistemului. Prin urmare justitia nu poate fi intemeiata decat pe despotism (ceea ce pana la urma ii este si originea) si anume despotismul conducatorilor societatii contemporane. Asta e si motivul pentru care am facut stencilul ‚Ju$titia?’. „Armata e Gunoi” s-a oglindit si ea la sfarsitul documentarului.

Addendum începe bine cu o analiza ceva mai amănunţită a sistemului financiar. Analiza mi se pare una dintre cele mai lucide din ambele parţi. Autorii traduc limbajul hegelian bancar si demonstrează ca banii sunt iluzii. Nu degeaba spune proverbul ca „banii sunt ochiul dracului”. Banii sunt iluzii pe care omul de rând începe sa nu le mai creadă. Sunt absolut sigur ca din cauza asta exista si criza mondiala. Banii sunt noile arme. Cum în trecut sclavul era obligat sa muncească cu ameninţarea directa a armelor astăzi el este iluzionat cu bani si paradisul ce poate fi cumpărat de bani. Tu crezi că eşti bogat şi îţi permiţi multe dar stai toata ziua la joburile pe care le ai ca să faci rost de bani. De fapt nu eşti bogat deloc. Viata ta ţi se scurge printre degete. Oricine citeşte acest blog sa ia aminte sa nu muncească mai mult decât o face din plăcere. Sistemul abia aşteaptă sa te tina în fabrici cu iluzii. Dar probabil că avertismentul meu e cam superfluu pentru cititorii acestui blog care nu sunt orbi...

13 noiembrie 2008

Secretele manipulării – noile arme ale sclaviei

english version here

Petru Marx nucleul principal al exploatarii sociale este plusvaloarea. Petru Marx nucleul principal al exploatării sociale este plusvaloarea. Plusvaloarea însă este principiul economiei în general. Nimeni nu face o afacere doar pentru a se află în treabă. Afacerile se fac pentru profit. Nu asta este problema corporatismului (sălbatic), ci manipularea. Omul de rând este presat cu şcoală, cu mass-media şi cu toate instrumentele posibile de manipulare să se simtă inferior şi să vrea mai mult. Acest sentiment de inferioritate este echivalent în plan moral cu ameninţarea cu moartea prin care sclavul antic era definit: „un individ care trebuia ucis dar nu s-a găsit timpul necesar pentru asta”. Atunci când seniorul vine cu armata să fure o parte din recolta ţăranului pe post de bir, practic îl transformă pe acesta în acelaşi sclav care trebuia să fie ucis. E clar că şi sclavul şi ţăranul îşi pierd viaţa în secunda a doua după ce nu mai sunt productivi şi refuză să muncească, sau să îşi cedeze seniorului bunurile.

Astăzi, într-adevăr nu se mai vine cu arma să ţi se fure bunurile. Seniorii au evoluat şi s-au umanizat. Astăzi le dă servitorul de bună voie dacă vrea să aibă unde să muncească. Acum noii stăpâni nu mai vin cu armele direct pentru convingerea supuşilor să execute ordinele, ci mai întâi vin mercenarii cu hârtii şi documente, cu care pun întrebări. Ai acte pe pământul asta? Ai acte pe proprietatea asta? În acel moment sclavul contemporan vede în obrazul lipsit de expresie a executorilor pe vechiul senior care folosea ridicatul birului în locul acestor instrumente moderne de supunere. Cine nu dădea birul, primea un pumnal în inimă. Astăzi nu se ajunge aici, însă prezenţa discretă a unui poliţist înarmat poate intensifica retrăirea angoasei birului secolelor trecute. În plan concret, asta se traduce prin îmbogăţirea şi mai mare a corporaţiilor, şi acumularea de tulburări psihice pentru muncitor şi urmaşii acestuia. Putem vedea aici o tristă conversiune între sănătatea psihică a sclavilor şi bogăţia stăpânilor.

9 noiembrie 2008

Originea institutiilor productiei si preventiei

english version here

„Homo homini lupus”- omul este lup pentru semenul sau asta este cea mai buna descriere a societatii omenesti. Omul s-a desprins de animal cu forta armelor, a trait un paradis vanandu-le insa curand vanatul s-a terminat si apoi a inceput sa se vaneze pe el insusi. Astazi exista triburi primitive care atunci cand vad eficienta armelor „civilizate” iti cer pe loc sa le ajuti sa distruga triburile rivale. Asta e a doua etapa de dezvoltare a omenirii. Dupa ce omul si-a vanat si semenii si i-a exterminat a observat ca nu prea mai are ce manca si ca trebuie sa se intoarca de unde plecase asa ca s-a hotarat sa nu-si mai ucida semenii ci doar sa ii convinga sa ii faca lui papica. Si asa au aparut sclavii , cultura clasica si despotismul...

Toata cultura clasica e facuta pentru a convinge sclavul ca daca unul vine cu arma si ii subtilizeaza astfel produsele este un lucru perfect justificabil. Pe cat de absurda este o astfel de situatie si de neacceptat de insasi sistemul clasic pe atat de absurde sunt constructele culturale clasice si sufletul clasic in general. Ambivalenta descoperita de psihanaliza in psihic si exprimata nonsalant de catre filosofia lui Hegel la nivel ontologic sunt rezultatul unor astfel de prelucrari a acestei nemernicii originare a sclaviei. Filosofia lui Hegel pe care o intelege numai Dumnezeu este tipicul culturii clasice; cu cat un construct cultural este mai ezoteric si mai obscur cu atat mai bine pentru mutilare, deci pentru eficienta.

1 noiembrie 2008

"The century of the Self”: an uncertain documentary

Psychoanalysis: a natural subversive discipline but not a oppressive one

(in romaneste aici)


I have just seen a documentary called „The century of the Self” made by Adam Curtis. I liked very much one of his previous documentaries called “The power of nightmares”, and I was very curious about this one, as the subject was direct reference to the psychoanalysis. I wanted to see if anybody else sees the metasocial potential implication of psychoanalysis crossing over its traditional eye to eye limits. Unfortunately, I had a bad surprise. The author had not given enough time for studying psychoanalysis basic concepts. Adam Curtis interpreted them totally wrong. Actually I can’t believe that these two documentaries have been made by the same author. If “nightmares” was almost irreproachable, this one is a… nightmare.



As expected, this documentary makes also a pertinent analysis about corporatist and politics dirt in the XX-st century capitalism. Here is the analysis for this good side. But, in a very strange manner, the psychoanalysis was found responsible for this social disease. Starting from the Freudian theory of human being, dominated by irrational, unconscious and criminal tendencies, Adam Curtis gets the idea that the psychoanalysis itself sees the human being as a productive robot, dominated by its software, in the same way that corporatism sees and deals with it.

However, these ideas don’t belong actually to psychoanalysis as discipline, but to Freud’s philosophy. He was also a philosopher and stated philosophical ideas that sometimes have no connection with the psychoanalysis whatsoever. But, since Curtis stepped into Freud philosophy, I wander why did not continue in seeing his late pessimism about society, when he elaborated the famous Eros-Thanatos theory? As a philosopher, Freud became almost nihilist, at this point, and that skepticism was focused also on his very dear previous child: the psychoanalysis. It is pointless to find any kind of connections between the pessimism and the corporatism. Some techniques and suppositions of Freud’s theories were indeed successfully applied by corporatism dirt purposes, but this actually proves their validity.

As a former assiduous reader of Freud, I say that he was a subversive theorist, as he came up against prejudices of his time and suffered a lot because of this. Of course, he was also overestimated by political reasons during the Second World War by the Nazi Germany’s enemies, in order to make Hitler a monster in public eyes (Freud was persecuted by Nazis) and win the war faster. Perhaps Freud was not the main difference between antiquity and modernity, as Salvador Dali stated at one point, but his texts remained alive, heavily influencing most of the humanist areas.

I agree that Freud himself couldn’t get off his own native prejudices, and some of them became pylons of nowadays corporatism. Still, they were not specific to Freud’s thinking, but to the tradition he inherited. He was just not strong enough getting rid of them. That is all for a general analysis of this documentary. Furthermore I will analyze it in a little more details.


There is no connection between corporatist manipulation and psychoanalysis.


The very strange thing about this documentary is that only a small part of its 4 h is directly dedicated to psychoanalysis. Moreover, its basic concepts are distorted and interpreted through marketing glasses, as much as its data were used by the corporatist capitalism for strategy and statistics. But this analysis stops here and shows no interest in showing its intimate details and its main purposes. Instead of showing this, the documentary is full of politics and corporatist analysis. Unfortunately, these are exactly the facts that the traditional psychoanalysis used to ignore as causes for mental disorders.

The psychoanalysis has just one single application to real life: the therapy made in cabinet. So it cannot be sustained that the psychoanalysis leads to corporatist manipulation of XX-st century, because only a very small part of humanity were directly in contact with it. It is not psychoanalysis’s fault that its theories had become a manipulation tool for obscure forces of society. However, this also happened to other sciences. The best example here is the atomic bomb, made under the atomic physics theories. The responsibility for the disaster produced by using of these weapons does not belong to the scientists but to the politicians who started the wars.


The failing of understanding the therapeutic inner dynamics


The documentary keeps presenting psychoanalysis as a way of “controlling” the instincts and pulsions (drives) that the social system perfected. But this is not the psychoanalysis interest. Unfortunately, on the other hand, the psychoanalysis is also accused by the opposite and exclusive idea, which is that of willing hedonism unlimited satisfaction, specific to consumerism. These two accusations are contradictory to one another, but no one of them is actually specific to the psychoanalysis. It is neither pure Victorianism nor pure hedonism. It is neither interested in repressing natural pulsions, more than the culture itself does, nor interested in putting into act those overpulsions that come out as a result of this original repression. It is also not interested in a new repression of those pulsions who were repressed before. Inside the psychoanalysis cure (as a wide meaning) nothing is “controlled”, but encouraged to express in a cathartic way. That doesn’t mean putting those pulsions into act, as hedonism does, but living them in a kind of mental level. These thoughts can be dangerous and often never acceptable by the client itself to be put into act in real world. The neurosis consists in the patient's mind terrible fight with them. But their simple verbalization in front of the psychoanalyst can cause some peace of mind. This is, briefly, the psychoanalysis specific cathartic phenomenon and not at all the advices or client manipulation, as this documentary presumes. With this documentary, Curtis simply criticizes the two main traditional ethical brands known since ancients, and misinterprets them as psychoanalysis. Fortunately, the psychoanalysis took a step forward from this traditional dichotomy, in the same way that the Kantian criticism stepped forward from the rationalism-solipsism one, although it was a small step.

Despite the fact that psychoanalysis looks like a Dionysian theory, in fact it is closer to Apollonian one. So, concerning its ethical implications, it is closer to stoicism than to hedonism, as supposed to be by the author. Unfortunately he is prisoner in the hedonism-repressivism mentality and all his accusations are actually struggles to get out such a trap. First, on one hand he criticizes the psychoanalysis under the hedonistic view, when accuses it for repressions, for refusing the individual freedom. But, on the other hand, he criticizes it under the Victorian positions, when interprets it as a hedonist ethic, accusing it of transforming the human being into “the slave of its own desires and passions”.

So the problem, that Adam Curtis and many others have, is not the psychoanalysis itself. Their problem is their own ethical indecision that projects into the psychoanalysis. Their problem is their own guilt about this indecision in accepting one of these two traditional ethical currents and the impossibility of getting over such dichotomy. The frustration concerning this inability, unfortunately, finds a way out into this type of attack against psychoanalytical theory and cabinet practice.


Mistaking psychoanalysis for behaviorism

The critical point of this documentary is an unfortunate coincidence; one of the Freud’s nephews was Edward Barnays, the man that founded Public Relations in United States at the beginning of XX-st century. The PR has infected the Western minds during more than an entire century till nowadays. But, it must be clarified that there was no professional relationship between the two men, Barnays preferred to work with local psychologists (due to the long distance to where his uncle lived). At one point, Barnays took care of Freud’s work in order to be published, but this was a short time administrative relation and not a psychoanalytical practical or theoretical one. Both of them had psychological talent, but they went separate ways. Freud build up the psychoanalysis and his nephew applied it to advertising and politics. Freud was a physician, and his interests were limited by the patient’s small world; Barnays was almost a businessman, with specific interests.

It is easy to see that Freud’s nephew is much closer to behaviorism than to psychoanalysis, even if the two trends are closely related. It is well known that many behaviorists practiced psychoanalysis before turn their ways to some more profitable or “quicker results” psychotherapy. Actually, the behaviorism and the psychoanalysis are the two main and rival currents in the psychology. Adam Curtis seems to be unaware of this. He roughly takes behaviorism as psychoanalysis.

Still, there is to say that psychoanalysis never excelled in USA. It didn’t find resonance in the American mentality as did in the European one. In USA it was also used, there were some remarkable psychoanalysts, a strong organization was developed around it, and was masterly applied (especially in the psychosomatic medicine). But it never gained the influence that the European one did over the world. Maybe that happened because the psychoanalysts fit more to the introverted European neurotic mentality, rather than to that of the American pragmatic one. The documentary says that, in some institute, there were trained “thousands” of people to become psychoanalysts. However, that is not important. Adam Curtis has no idea of what it means to become a psychoanalyst, of how many years of practice and how many years of paid one’s own didactic cure is needed for to be accepted as member in the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA). IPA does not recognize as psychoanalysts those who don’t pass all kind of formation very bureaucratic steps.

The government does not want to pay psychoanalytical formation for “thousands”, that documentary mentioned. The very big costs of such a mental treatment are the main reason for the behaviorism appearance, with lower costs and superficial benefits for the patient. The government or medical assurance companies pay for psychoanalytical cure only in extreme cases, when nothing else (cheaper) shows any improvement in patient’s condition. The government barely pays cure for genuine neurotics cure (like in Germany and never in the USA). It is out of the question to pay for the psychoanalysis’s didactical cure formation, unfortunately. It is the trained one who pays for as it is very expensive, so few would be interested to do it. The training offered by the authorities in some several cases is very superficial. Someone with skills and talent can have the luck of finding a good psychoanalyst, but such training is totally insufficient. That’s why behaviorism has thrived in the U.S. Many of its pioneers have failed practicing psychoanalysis so that they have turned into something more practical and with “faster” results, usually other than those of psychoanalysis. The training that the author refers is actually specific for behaviorists, very different from that of psychoanalysis.

Quote errors and distortions in showing the psychoanalytical phenomena


Unfortunately, in this documentary are interviewed only a very small number of psychoanalysts. Besides, there are shown the insignificant parts from their affirmations, with no relevance to psychoanalysis. Instead of giving an idea of what the psychoanalysis and the Self are, the documentary presents all kind of theorists which have no connection whatsoever with the psychoanalysis. An experimented eye can easily see that they are not psychoanalysts and they do not understand what it is all about. And, when a well known psychoanalyst, Martin Bergmaann, is interviewed, the ideas exposed in such short sequences have nothing to do with the previously exposed ideas. These theoretical connections are very artificial matched.

For example, in the second part of the film, at the 17.28 minute, “Dr. Neil Smelser political theorist and psychoanalyst” is talking. Only a short look on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_J._Smelser) shows Neil Smelser as a “University of California, Berkeley sociologist who studied collective behavior.” So Neil Smelser seems to be a behaviorist but not a psychoanalyst.

The physician Ernest Dichter is magically transformed into psychoanalyst just because he was Freud’s neighbor in Vienna, even if the Institute he worked for was “The institute for motivational research”, which sounds 100% behaviorist. It is possible that Dichter have been practiced psychoanalysis before coming to America, but it does not mean that, after leaving Europe, he was practicing it anymore in such an institute. If Maradona was a former football player, that does not mean he is still today a player.

In the second part, at the 14.30 minute, the documentary shows an experiment made by some American psychiatrists, by applying psychoanalysis out of the cabinet into a metasocial field. That experiment gives the impression that psychoanalysis wants to change the inner thinking mechanisms of a person. But still, the psychoanalysis and psychiatry are different. They usually reject each other because each one of them has a different way of improving patient’s condition. The psychoanalysis produces a mind’s ideas revolution after making peace with some existential personal dilemmas, as the psychiatry just uses the dugs for a mental equilibrium. Of course, there are psychiatrists that practice psychoanalysis also, but this is exception.

When Anna Freud’s nephew, Anton, says (second part at minute 30.15) that she became politically very powerful, I am confused. What kind of political functions in institutions did she occupy? Wasn’t she just a psychoanalyst? What was actually her political power? Further on, the example of a failed therapy made to Bob Burlingham is not representative for the entire psychoanalysis, as the documentary gives the impression.

In the second part, at the minute 45, the documentary describes the unpleasant secondary effects of electroconvulsive therapy. Those who does not knows much about psychoanalysis can get the impression that this is one of its techniques but, in fact, such a thing has absolutely nothing to do with psychoanalysis.

Also, in the second part, at the minute 58, there are shown some sequences from a scream therapy that also is something else than psychoanalysis. Screaming psychotherapy fundamentally differs from psychoanalysis.

At the minute 49, we have a story about a so-called psychoanalyst (Ralph Greenson) that took Manrlyn Monroe at his home and made her a part of his family. This approach is probably the most non psychoanalytical fact of all that were presented in this documentary. The classical psychoanalysis needs a professional relationship only between the analyst and the client. They must meet in the cabinet only and nowhere else. This is part of what is called “the psychoanalytic frame”. I don’t mean that what Curtis showed could not be psychoanalysis in a certain future. But, for sure, it is not traditional psychoanalysis, so the example of its failure or success cannot be judged for this moment. I am not getting into details here, a person that knows the transference phenomena in psychoanalysis would get the idea.

The author also gives the impression that the psychoanalysis’s main idea would be educating the children in the spirit of accepting with obedience the rules of society, as Anna Freud sustained that once. Anyway, this is not psychoanalysis but pedagogy or politics. It is just an opinion that other psychoanalysts may not agree with. On the other hand, the children imitate the adults by nature so there is no need for psychoanalysis to be blamed for. This is simply human nature.


The documentary's name shows a superficial understanding of psychoanalysis basic concepts


The documentary’s title, “The century of the Self”, shows that the English term “Self” failed to translate the German term “Es”, sometimes also translated by terms like “Id” or “Se”. “Es” is part of the second Freudian topography, developed at the middle of 20-s, well-known from the «Self-I-Super I» triad (Es-Ich-Ubeich). Adam Curtis took this technical handicap of English language and was not able to restore it during this documentary. “Es” is a very profound part of “Unconscious” from the Freudian first topography («Unconscious-Preconscious-Conscious») that corresponds to the “I” (Ich) and almost all “Super I” (Uberich) from the second topography. Curtis says that the whole XX-st century stays under the shadow of this “Self”, but he just has no basic understanding of psychoanalysis’s concepts. He does not seem to know that this Freudian second topography was developed due under the Jungian archetypal theories influence on him. In fact, “the Self” was conceived as being more active in the humanity’s deep history than in the XX-st century. Only recently the contemporary life rough pragmatism gained power over the traditional relationship with the environment.

Using the term “Self” for today corporatist manipulation is a kind of finger measure for the ocean. The market research superficiality made by corporatism is so insignificant among the “Self” term deep connotation that this comparison is inevitable. Adam Curtis is not able to make the difference between such ambivalent mixture of contemporary pragmatism and superficial parts of “Self” (Es). Even the old concept of “Unconscious” (witch is smaller than “the Self”) is much wider that corporatism “marketing philosophy” that is roughly mistaken with psychoanalysis here…

Conclusions

Nobody is able to understand psychoanalysis from these misunderstanding positions no matter how hard tries. If someone does not sacrifice several years in studying it, then that person will not be able to make an objective analysis of this phenomenon. Unfortunately, when the mind is focused on the politics and it is fulfilled with and the attention captured by all kinds of politicians lies, then it would be almost impossible to find some more place inside of it for psychoanalysis concepts. Maybe the TV should be stopped for a while. Anyway, it is well known that politicians use to lie most of the time. Why bother remembering their lies? The time and memory saved could be used for understanding such a discipline that, among existentialism, means the backbone of twentieth-century philosophy. I say it is convenient.

As previously pointed, the psychoanalysis has never been at power in USA, as the documentary says in the second part, at the minute 47. I wish it would. But the psychoanalysis problem is exactly the opposite accusations made by Adam Curtis. I think that the classical psychoanalysis is too hamletian, too isolated into cabinet and too Cartesian concentrated over the single person, without understanding that the socio-political environment as the main cause for its pain. It is true that some psychoanalysts changed their views and sold their soul to corporatism but not all psychoanalysts did. Nevertheless, this is not psychoanalysis’s fault itself.

As for me, I think that both the psychoanalysis and especially the behaviorism made compromises with (repressive) authorities. They created development conditions for both of them in exchange for efficient propaganda materials. Such “Institutes” were, and are still today, manipulation laboratories, comparable (on a different scale, of course) to the extermination ones during the Nazis. I think that the psychoanalysis has many problems. One of them is its neurotic conservatism stagnancy. But, unfortunately, this is not what this documentary is all about.




Popular Posts

Etichete