Many people consider man – as in ‘human people’, is a fallen creature.

For the simple reason that we had failed to obey our father.

Failing to obey your father may be considered a bad thing. The particulars of the incident should also be taken into account but, generally speaking, we should indeed obey our fathers. At the bare minimum, we should pay attention to what they have to say about things.

Coming back to us, humans, being fallen creatures, let’s examine what we’ve done to deserve this label.
According to the ‘many people’ I’ve already mentioned, we are fallen creatures because we have eaten – against our father’s specific interdiction, “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil“.

Further more, the guilt for our transgression is unequally shouldered between men and women. Since it had been Eve who had talked Adam into eating that fruit, women are considered to be the ‘weaker’ amongst us, humans.

Now it’s the moment for me to remind you about Cain.
Abel and Cain had been the two children brought to life by Eve.
For whatever reason – and, again, against God’s advice, Cain had slain his brother Abel.

We – according to what the ‘many people’ continue to believe, in a literal manner – are the direct descendants of Cain. And of Eve, of course.

Yet we are ‘fallen’ because Eve had helped her husband, Adam, to develop a conscience. To learn the difference between good and evil.
Cain killing his brother has nothing to do with our promiscuous nature …

To me, it’s more than obvious that our fallible – not fallen – nature consists in the fact that we are prone to ‘misunderstandings’. We tend to see things in the most favorable manner.
Favorable for us, those who get to call things as being good or evil.

Whenever we are able to do it, we distribute ‘guilt’ and appropriate success.

Eve had offered us the ‘apple’. The opportunity to see ‘the’ difference.
From now on, it’s up to us to consider the facts.

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.””

Does it really matter?

Both fascism and communism appear when enough people are fed up. Really fed up.
So fed up that they have become gullible enough to accept the lies promised by those who want to get ‘at the top’, in the given circumstances.
The difference between fascism and communism, the only one, being the exact conditions which had caused the ire of the people.
Communism can, and will presently be, presented as the only possible alternative to those confronted by a ‘black ceiling’.
Fascism, on the other hand, can, and will presently be, presented as the only possible alternative to those confronted by a ‘glass ceiling’.
The always poor who have no chance of improving their lot will accept the lies promised by the communists. They don’t know any better so they believe those lies are possible.
The impoverished who have no chance of returning to their former situation will accept the lies professed by the fascists. They know what they have lost and need to find a culprit to blame for what had happened.

In a sense you can identify fascism with the right and communism with the left.
In reality, fascism and communism are the two ugly faces of the same fake coin.

An embassy is a conduit.
It brings information back and forth between the ‘host’ and the ‘sender’.

A spy ring is (intended to be) a ‘one way pipe’. It gathers information about the ‘host’ and transports it to the sender.

They have in common the fact that the bulk of the information is gathered from ‘open’ sources. From the media, that is. Newspapers, TV, radio, internet…

Imagine now the following situation.
There is this planet. Let’s say ours. Inhabited by us, the human people.
And you have some other people. One or more species capable of interplanetary travel. Who have found out about this planet and want to learn more about us before making contact.
Since they haven’t yet conquered us – as per our knowledge, and since there’s no evidence of any galaxy wide conflict raging on we may presume the aliens are fundamentally peaceful. Either naturally ’empathic’ – hence in no need whatsoever of being governed, or having such a ‘natural’ form of government that they’re very happy with it.
In their attempt to learn about us and to understand our situation before engaging in any way with us, the aliens have sent an ‘undercover’ fact-finding mission on Earth.

Right now!
When a country capable of yielding almost half the (self) destructing power available on Earth ‘happens to be’ at loggerheads with a coalition of countries which controls most of the other half of the destruction power already mentioned above.

The local agent employed by the fact-finding mission compiles two news articles which, in his opinion, summarize perfectly what’s going on on the planet.

“Medvedev alleged that some in the West would like to “take advantage of the military conflict in Ukraine to push our country to a new twist of disintegration, do everything to paralyze Russia’s state institutions and deprive the country of efficient controls, as happened in 1991.” “

Meanwhile, on the other side of the ‘planetary divide’,

Among those in the audience was Melissa Sauder, who drove nearly 350 miles from the small western Nebraska town of Grant with her 13-year-old daughter. After years of combing internet sites, listening to podcasts and reading conservative media reports, Sauder wanted to learn more about what she believes are serious problems with the integrity of U.S. elections.
She can’t shake the belief that voting machines are being manipulated even in her home county, where then-President Donald Trump won 85% of the vote in 2020.
“I just don’t know the truth because it’s not open and apparent, and it’s not transparent to us,” said Sauder, 38. “We are trusting people who are trusting the wrong people.”
It’s a sentiment now shared by millions of people in the United States after relentless attacks on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election by Trump and his allies. Nearly two years after that election, no evidence has emerged to suggest widespread fraud or manipulation while reviews in state after state have upheld the results showing President Joe Biden won.
Even so, the attacks and falsehoods have made an impact: An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from 2021 found that about two-thirds of Republicans say they do not think Biden was legitimately elected.

Forget, if you can, about the war in Ukraine and about the US mid-term elections.
Let’s pretend you’re the head of the alien fact-finding mission.
What recommendation would you send back to those calling the shots in your organization after reading the two articles I mentioned above?

Cică se urcă Ceașcă-n mașină și se duce în vizită la un combinat de creștere a porcilor.
Cum se plimba el pe-acolo, vede o scroafă gestantă cu o burtă enormă. N-are ce face și spune, jumate-n glumă, ‘asta fată cel puțin 12 pui!’. Ăia-își notează grijulii și grupul pleacă mai departe.
Peste ceva vreme, la soroc, scroafa ‘sloboade’ doi pui. Îngrijitorul raportează 4. De frică. Șeful de hală raportează 8. Tot de frică. Directorul combinatului trimite la minister 10. Îi țâțâia curul. Ministrul cere audiență la Ceașcă și începe:
– Tovarășe secretar general, permiteți-mi să vă aduc aminte că în timpul vizitei de lucru efectuate la combinatul de creștere a porcilor v-ați exprimat opinia că o anumită scroafă urma să fete 12 purcei. Ei bine, scroafa respectivă a fătat. 13!
– Bine, bine… Uitasem dar bine că mi-ai adus aminte. Pe cel în plus trimiteți-l la export, restul pentru consumul populației.

‘Te-ai dus cu pluta? Ca restul boșorogilor? Ce-i cu aiureala asta?!?’

Bancurile reprezintă un foarte bun instrument de măsură atunci când vrei să iei pulsul unei societăți.
Indiferent dacă bancul a fost inventat într-o ‘fabrică de trolli’ sau ‘ejaculat spontan’ dintr-o minte ‘excitată’, dacă intră în circulație înseamnă că o parte suficient de mare din populație este de părere că ‘e ceva acolo’. Pentru suficient de mulți dintre cei care intră în contact cu textul respectiv – indiferent cum, bancul este suficient de ‘interesant’ încât să fie ținut minte. Reamintit la momentul oportun și ‘dat mai departe’.
Cu alte cuvinte, unele dintre bancuri – adică cele care supraviețuiesc ‘în libertate’, generează o ‘reacție în lanț’. Care ‘reacție în lanț’ are nevoie de o ‘masă critică’. De suficient de mulți oameni care să considere că textul respectiv merită atenție. Efortul de a fi ținut minte și dat mai departe.

Un moș se duce să ceară pașaport. (Suntem deja în secolul XIX, Ceașcă era mort demult)
Nenea de la ghișeu, în timp ce completa formularele, îl întreabă:
– Ce-ți veni bade? Ori te duci în vizită la ceva copii?
– N-am copii. Iar de plecat, vreau să plec din cauza homosexualității…
– Mai ai probleme din cauza asta?!? Legislația s-a schimbat de câțiva ani, acum e voie!
– Ce probleme să am?!? Eu sunt normal. Sunt căsătorit cu muierea mea de 50 de ani. N-avem copii că nu poate ea! Iar problema mea cu homosexualitatea e că după cum merg lucrurile… mi-e frică ca nu cumva să devină obligatorie!

‘Chiar că te-ai dus cu pluta!
Ce legătură are sula cu prefectura?!?’

După cum spuneam și mai sus, faptul că unele dintre bancuri și unele dintre narațiunile false devin virale spune multe lucruri. Că ‘textangii’ sunt suficient de buni… Și că există un public pentru ‘textele’ alea!!!

Și mai este un lucru de scos în evidență! Menționat deja mai sus…
Publicul respectiv este suficient de numeros încât să constituie o masă critică!

OK, apariția mijloacelor de comunicare în masă – și faptul că aceste mijloace oferă o cale directă de comunicare între ‘troli’ și publicul țintă, a dus într-adevăr la apariția „bulelor”. Locuri unde publicul țintă se concentrează în mod natural.
Locuri unde publicul țintă este ‘educat’. Unde o vagă ‘pornire’ este transformată, treptat, într-o ‘convingere de nezdruncinat’…
Toate astea sunt cât se poate de reale.
Dar nu schimbă cu nimic faptul că ‘pornirea’ exista încă de la început. De dinainte ca ‘cineva’, indiferent cine, să-și înceapă ‘compunerea’.

Pe vremea deja apusă – cu toate că ‘nu era voie’, bancurile politice zburdau. Lumea era împărțită foarte clar.
‘Noi’ și ‘Ei’!
Iar ‘Ei’ erau întotdeauna de vină… ‘Noi’ nu! Noi niciodată nu…

În lumea liberă, chestiile astea nu țin. Nu există ‘Noi’ și ‘Ei’. Toată lumea ‘împreună’!

Până își bagă dracu’ coada…

Uite că am căzut și eu în capcană!

Până când ne ia somnul și cădem în mrejele diavolului!

De fapt, avem de a face cu un fel de ‘infecție cu germeni oportuniști’.
Exact așa cum atunci când sistemul imunitar nu funcționeză ‘la capacitate’ facem coșuri pe față – sau chiar un sepsis letal, de la microbi aflați în mod normal în organism tot așa pățesc și unele societăți.

Care fie n-au știut niciodată cum să se apere de dictatură, fie au uitat.

Indivizi care în timpuri normale ar fi ignorați – sau, cel mult, considerați a fi amuzanți, ajung să domine ‘peisajul’. Și să-l ducă de râpă….

For the outsiders, it seems like Gorbachev ‘made’ Putin.
Gorbachev had destroyed the Soviet Union and, thus, had set the scene for Putin to take over.

I’m afraid things are a little more complicated than that.

Gorbachev – at that time, the best informed decision maker in the whole USSR – had been smart enough to understand that no matter what he might had tried to do, the corpse was already rotten.
That everything but a major ‘upheaval’ could not accomplish anything more than prolong the agony. What he had done was nothing more than allowed the things to happen according to their nature.

I’ll make a short break here and remind you that all ‘imperium’ had eventually ended in failure. The tighter the control exercised by the ruler, the more abject the eventual failure. Check your history book.

So. Gorbachev had taken the appropriate steps. What he had done was in step with the natural flow of history.

Eltsin and Putin, on the other hand, had done the exact opposite.
Eltsin had tried and Putin had succeeded in regaining the ‘reins’ of the government. The reins, the whip, ever stronger control over the barn where the whole stash of hay is deposited…

Why things had unfolded like this?
Because they – Eltsin and Putin, had chosen this venue and because nobody else had been able to do anything about it.

OK, Gorbachev, Eltsin and Putin had made their respective calls in basically the same social and political environments. The economic situations were ‘somewhat’ different but this doesn’t change what I want to stress out. Each of them had done what had crossed each of their individual minds.
Each had been able to do whatever each of them had wanted because…
Because that particular ‘social arrangement’ allows the ruler to make whatever decisions they may see fit.
Because that particular ‘social arrangement’ – dictatorship, no matter how much window-dressing had been slapped on it, allows the person who happens to clamber ‘on top’ to keep making mistakes until the whole ‘carriage’ disintegrates.

Until we learn this lesson…

„Să nu uiți că am avut fabrici de automobile la Pitești, Craiova, Câmpulung-Muscel, București, am avut fabrică de autobuze și troleibuze la București, am avut fabrică de camioane la Brașov, fabrică de tractoare la Brașov,…”



„Aveam de toate, așa să le zici, dar într-o zi de Crăciun, slugile occidentului și trădătorii acestui neam, după ce s-au plătit toate datoriile externe și începeam și noi să o ducem bine după atâta muncă, l-au împușcat după o mizerie de proces!
De atunci nu mai avem nimic, totul s-a furat, totul s-a demolat, de parcă au trecut pe aici 5 războaie mondiale!
Așa să le zici copiilor și nepoților tăi!” ( TEXT PRELUAT)

81 comentarii”

Conceptul cheie al acestui demers este ‘am avut’!

Adică ‘am facut ceva ce nu a rezistat în timp’.

Ce facem în situatia asta?
Acum, că ne-am dat seama?

Cautăm pe cineva în cârca căruia să punem vina?
‘Străinii’, ‘trădătorii’, la o adică ‘forțele de neoprit ale naturii’…

Sau ne uităm în oglinda?
Și ne întrebăm:

Da’ noi am fost cu adevărat vrednici?
Am făcut lucrurile alea cu pricepere? Așa cum trebuie?

Foarte mulți se întreabă care a fost – și continuă să fie, diferența dintre Romania și Cehia. Polonia. Și chiar Ungaria. Toți am avut industrie, a lor a rămas, a noastră e vraiște.
Catolicismul/protestantismul, tradiția, bla-bla, bla-bla, bla-bla!

Toate astea sunt explicații. Mai mult sau mai puțin plauzibile…
Dar diferența? Care e diferența?
Pe ce punem degetul atunci când încercăm să înțelegem de ce lucrurile făcute de ei au rămas, în mare parte, în picioare? În timp ce ale noastre s-au cam prăbușit… prea multe dintre ele!

Până la urmă, fiecare dintre noi am avut câte un dictator care ne spunea ce să facem și câte o clasă muncitoare care punea în practică ‘indicățiile’. Și, judecând după rezultatele obținute de diaspora românească, clasa noastră muncitoare – de la strungari la ingineri, nu e cu nimic mai prejos decât celelalte clase muncitoare.

„Până la dumnezeu te mănâncă sfinții”!

Ceaușescu o fi fost mai brutal decât restul dictatorilor comuniști. Poate cu excepția lui Stalin…
O fi fost și mai puțin educat.
Dar nu poate fi el, singur, întreaga explicație pentru dimensiunea dezastrului!
Poporul, singur, … e greu de crezut că românii au ceva defect. Atât de defect încât…
Mai rămâne ‘interacțiunea’ dintre popor și dictator. Interfața…

Cureaua de legătură dintre stăpânire și stăpâniți!
„Activiștii de partid, de stat și ai organizatiilor de masă și obștești, a cadrelor din conducerea unităților socialiste, a ….”
Cei care aveau în fișa postului să transpună ‘indicățiile’ în ‘proceduri’. Să operaționalizeze ‘strategia’.
Au făcut ei corelațiile necesare?
Sau au făcut orbește – și țâțâind de frică, ce li s-a spus?
Au gândit – adică au contribuit cu ceva, sau doar si-au apărat spatele?

‘Vânătoare de vrăjitoare!!!’

Eu nu caut vinovați!
Vreau doar să înțeleg. Să înțeleg ce s-a întâmplat.
Să pun degetul pe fotografia rănii. Să o arăt!

Și cine o avea ceva de înțeles… n-are decât să tragă concluziile!
Pe care le consideră necesare.

Cât timp mai are la dispoziție un profesionist în zilele noastre?

Conform unora dintre specialiștii în marketing… mult! Foarte mult…
Are atât de mult timp la dispoziție încât abia așteaptă să stoarcă manual roșii din fontă!

Bineînțeles, cu ajutorul unei scule construită dintr-un „material rezistent de înaltă calitate”!!!

There is an old Romanian saying which goes like this:

A bat is all you need to break a wagon-full of pottery.

When it comes to splitting fire-wood, things are no longer that simple.
Using the same blunt force approach, even if theoretically possible, would yield disappointing results.
‘Destroying’ has nothing to do with ‘re-shaping’.

Hence ‘wedge’.

On the other hand, a wedge can accomplish the same results as a bat by using a lot less brute force.
Simply because the wedge concentrates more effectively, and in a more precise manner, the available energy in a very small area.

But the more important difference is the fact that using a wedge demands a way more skilled operator than a ‘mere’ bat.

‘Why don’t you cut the crap and just spill out what you have brewed in that twisted mind of yours?’

Darius, Alexander, Genghis, Napoleon, Hitler.
All of them had started their campaigns in a very successful manner. Two of them had even ended their careers that way. Undefeated.
The fact that all of them, including the successful ones, had been nothing but tyrants is irrelevant here.

And where is the difference?

Darius, Napoleon and Hitler had been, eventually, defeated. Each of them by a coalition.

Alexander had basically vanquished one enemy. Which was already past its prime.
And Genghis had successively conquered a long list of ‘unrelated’ targets.
In both cases it was more about blunt force being applied in a more or less skillful manner and nothing about splitting anything. Except for some skulls…

Each of Darius, Napoleon and Hitler had been successful at first. They had started as skillful splitters of coalitions. But each of them had been eventually bogged down. In their own respective successes…

You see, a bat remains a bat. You have to shatter a huge amount of pottery before the bat wears down.
In fact, most of the times the batter goes out before the bat…

When it comes to wedging…
While pottery is ‘consistent’ – equally fragile, ceteris paribus, no two logs had ever been created equal. Furthermore, even when dealing with a single log, some sections may be easily split apart while others may so ‘tough’ that it’s easier to ‘destroy’ them than to use a wedge on them.
In these situations, being a skillful splitter means being able to recognize which sections should be left alone….
But which would-be emperor has ever been able to let somebody else be? Live in peace…

If they live long enough, all emperors will eventually ‘attempt’ an impossible-to-split coalition!

But when has a would-be emperor been born wise enough to recognize such a situation?!?
Or every one of them, to date, have seen each coalition they happened to encounter as an opportunity?
As a log waiting to be split?

Which makes me wonder…
Why are would-be emperors so blind when it comes to reading history?
And how about their courtiers? Also ‘blind’?

Bonus reading. An excellent piece by Cynthia Calhoun.

How to split logs for firewood by hand.

“When you can’t split a log, do one of two things: give up and throw it in the pile or use a chainsaw.”

Social cohesion is a key concept in modern sociology.
There are many definitions – most of which complement each other, and the gist of them is ‘glue’.

…the glue that bonds society together…

Do you actually perceive modern society as being glued? Bonded? Together?!?

As an engineer – MSc in Mechanical Engineering, Bucharest Politechnica University 1986 – I’m primarily interested in ‘consequences’. ‘Causes’ come second. A close second but still second. Because it’s ‘consequences’ we have to face/endure directly, not ’causes’.
Whenever I feel bad, really bad, I begin by stopping everything that I was doing. To have enough time to determine the proper cause for my malaise. Identifying/dealing with causes ‘on the go’ – usually by having faith in what I already know, without realizing that it was exactly that which had led me to where I am now – is not such a good option.

Very few societies (countries, nations) continue to behave coherently. Many of them – most of them, actually, used to. Until very recently.
Yet most of my ‘recent’ colleagues – B in Sociology, Bucharest University 2009, continue to discuss about ‘cohesion’.

Communities continue to be cohesive. And, as a consequence, continue to behave coherently.
The easiest answer is ‘by definition’.
That’s how you recognize a community. A group of people who act coherently because they are ‘bound together’ by ‘social cohesion’. How that happened to be? Some other time!

Societies, on the other hand, no longer are.
Nations, which used to be whole, are now ‘fractured’. Not entirely, but they certainly behave a lot less coherently than, say, 50 years ago.
OK, this is not the first time that something like this had happened….

Civil wars are nothing new.
None of them had been ‘civil’ though. Which makes ‘civil war‘ an oxymoron
Something so ‘impossible’ that we haven’t coined a proper word for it. Something so horrible that we speak about it using an ‘impossible’ name in order to properly mark its utter impropriety.

What is new is the amount of knowledge we currently have about the whole matter. About the inner workings of our collective psyche.
How we use that knowledge, what we have understood from learning it, the manner in which we allow that information to shape our actions … that’s another matter!

Whose consequences are in the making.
There are no other ‘makers’ but us.
Also, there are no other people to bear the consequences of what we’re doing now.


They say Syria is in the middle of a civil war.

Now what on Earth is that?!?

There are two answers to that question, a broader and a narrower one:

Linguists tend to favor a balanced approach:
“A war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country”

‘Political scientists’ tend to favor the established power:
“Armed conflict between a government and another group from within the same country.”

Scholars tend to favor precision while preserving the bias towards what is perceived as being “the established order”:
“A civil war” is “an armed conflict that meets the following criteria:

View original post 261 more words

%d bloggers like this: