Can we do without it?
And if not, how much of it?

– If ‘no government’, then who would pay for the army we need to defend ourselves?

Ooops… you’ve just answered the ‘why does Russia ‘encourage’ the trolls who push ludicrous libertarian ideas’ question. Which trolls attempt to achieve two things at once. Weaken the concept of free government and give libertarian-ism a bad rep. Transforming libertarian-ism into yet another form of extremism.

Let’s get serious and try to find an answer to ‘why, and how much of it, do we need government?’

The boring one would be: ‘Whenever one government falls, another one takes over. The interregnum is always bad so… let’s get used to it’.

‘Getting used to it’ works only for very short expanses of time. Left on its own, all ‘government’ becomes sloppy. So sloppy that it soon becomes such a burden that even the most ‘used to it’ lose their patience.
Government, all of them, need to be kept on a tight leash. Otherwise it will soon cease to perform as intended.

– But if you have to keep it on a tight leash, why bother with any in the first place?
Can’t we do without such a bothersome pet?
What’s the point of the whole thing, anyway?

Instinctively, we’re against ‘government’ for two reasons.
It costs us a lot and it used to represent the interests of the ruler.

Until 10 000 or so years ago, we didn’t need ‘government’.
People were living more or less like the modern day Sun People still do. In the Kalahari desert… small bands roam the place, living of the land. The bands are small – so that they might find sustenance, they don’t have any ‘private’ property to protect, hence they don’t need government. Neither did our ancestors.

As soon as people ‘invented’ agriculture – raising ‘tame’ animals at first and working the land soon after, things had changed dramatically.
The advent of agriculture brought two things. An increased productivity and private property.
Soil has not been born equal. Both pastures and arable land can be good, passable or bad. People wish to have the best. Those who already have it are willing to defend it and those who don’t are willing to steal it.
Increased productivity means that those who produce are able to hire people to protect their ‘means of production’. Their property. As a consequence of fighting for it, some people accumulate more and more of it.
More and more ‘means of productions’ – property, means an ever increasing need for ‘management’ and an ever increasing need for ‘protection’. Soon you have a very ‘wealthy’ owner – the lord of the place, call it what you like or use the name given to him by his subjects, the people who perform the day to day management of the ‘whole-sale property’ and those who protect it from ‘marauders’. Both the ‘managers’ – read ‘government’, and the ‘protectors’ – read ‘army’, used to be under the direct supervision of the local lord.
For a while – for as long as the lord kept everything in balance, everybody was happy. The ‘peasants’ were happy because thy were safe, the ‘managers’ were happy because the wise lord used to appreciate their work and ‘compensated’ them accordingly, the ‘protectors’ were happy because they were well fed and taken care of. According to this article, the great Egyptian had been built by willing people, not by slaves.
But soon enough, the lord had become estranged from his people. Government had become an instrument used to extract more and more wealth from the peasants while the army was used to protect the government against the people and, whenever possible, to increase the property of the ruling lord by stealing some from the neighboring ‘lords’. The ’empire’ was born.

But this development could take place only in certain circumstances. Where those below the ruling lord had nothing more to do than to obey. Where the best subject was the disciplined one. Where autonomous thinking and imagination were frown upon by the ruler. Where one mind was enough.
Whenever the ‘environment’ mandated the individuals to remain relatively autonomous, proto-democratic forms of self government had been experimented. From the nomadic pastoralists of the Central Asia to the sailing communities in Ancient Greece and Medieval Scandinavia. Those driving herds or sailing ships need to be a lot more independent-minded that those who just tile the earth. No offense intended here! Simple observation will notice that where the geography of the place had allowed it, somebody had ‘built’ an empire. The Nile Valley, the Middle East, the Russian plain, China, Mexico…
Where ever the geography of the place was fragmented enough by sail-able sea, proto-democratic forms of self-management had been developed. The sailing Ancient Athens versus the land-locked Sparta, Medieval Scandinavia versus Medieval France…

Fast forward to present day.
When we have two forms of government.
The more or less democratic ones. Those under whose ‘guidance’ discussions like the present one can happen.
And the more or less authoritarian ones. Which actively discourage autonomous thinking.

Mind you, there are no ‘perfect’ governments.
There’s no perfectly democratic arrangement anywhere on Earth. Because we are imperfect human beings.
And there’s no ‘perfect’ authoritarian government. Because no government can survive for long if it attempts to centralize the decision power. The closer a government gets to being perfectly authoritarian, the smaller is the crisis needed to topple it. Unless it is supported from the out-side but that’s another topic.

So. It is fairly simple to understand how authoritarian governments fail. Too much ‘stiffness’ makes it impossible for authoritarian governments to evolve. To find solutions for whatever challenges pop up constantly.

But what can go wrong with the collective forms of self-rule? With the participative forms of social self management? Otherwise known as democracies?
Lack of enough popular involvement. Due to a sense of apparent safety, initially. And to a feeling of apparent impotence, soon after.
Lack of enough fore-sight. Those who should know better become distracted, for whatever reasons.
Too much opportunism. More and more of the ‘insiders’ use ‘the power of the government’ to fulfill their own, private, goals instead of making sure that ‘government’ works properly.

And what does that mean?

A government works properly when the community which self manages itself using that particular (form of democratic) government survives in the long run.
When those momentarily working inside the government make things happen for the community at large.
When people, both inside and outside the government, follow, in spirit, Kennedy’s words.

Am I being naive?
Maybe… But wouldn’t it be a nice thing to have?
A nice thing to chase, anyway?

And what better way to chase ‘it’ than voting for people who at least pretend to be honest? Who at least make the ‘right’ noises? Whom we can hold accountable whenever they break their promises?
Instead of voting for those who promise barrels and barrels of ‘pork‘?

Ideological pork or hands-on pork, I don’t know which is worse…

– In which direction?

– I thought we were talking about a glass ceiling, not a glass bottom…

You see, we have to deal here with the difference between depth and thickness.

A ‘coat of paint’ has a certain thickness – we know where it starts and where it ends, while a sea has a certain depth. We know it’s there, we know where it starts – at the surface of the water, but we’re never exactly sure where it ends. How deep it actually is!

Another way to put this would be to compare the depth of human consciousness with the thickness of the cerebral cortex.
The depth of the reality we perceive using our brain and the thickness of the cerebral tissue where this perception takes place.
The depth of the reality we, humans, have built during our history inside the relatively shallow portion of the Earth where we feel at home.

We use a small number of phonemes to communicate among ourselves.
A relatively small number of words to convey hugely complicated concepts.
Two digits, 0 and 1, to build artificial intelligence… inside a wafer thin ‘slab’ of doped silicon.

– OK, enough introduction. How about making in clear what you really meant?
A glass ceiling or a glass bottom?

Whether it is a glass ceiling or a glass bottom is a matter of perspective.
A matter of where you are when looking at it. Above or below.
The only thing which really matters being the fact that you see it despite of it being made of glass.
Despite it being transparent.

Transparent to our eyes but not to our conscious mind.

– But if it’s already transparent, why is it such a big thing to break through it?
We already know what’s behind/above it…

Seeing is not the same thing as knowing… just as 0 and 1 scribbled on a computer chip is not enough to make an intelligent computer…

What happened:

And what various people make of it:

Two idiots go on a fishing trip.
They rent all the equipment – the reels, the rods, the wading suits, the rowboat, the car, and even a cabin in the woods.
They spend a fortune.
The first day they go fishing, but they don’t catch anything. The same thing happens on the second day, and on the third day. It goes on like this until finally, on the last day of their holiday, one of the men catches a fish.
As they’re driving home, they’re really depressed. One guy turns to the other and says
“Do you realise that this one lousy fish we caught cost us $1,500?!?”
The other guy answers
“Wow! It’s a good thing we didn’t catch any more!””

“On his evening walk Tony finds an ancient pottery bottle half buried in the silt down the river next to an old rusted-out van. Carefully examining the bottle, he notices that it still has a stopper in it, and there is some kind of writing etched around the neck of the bottle. Using his shirtsleeve, Tony gently begins to rub the mud from the bottle, to see if he can decipher the characters.
To his surprise, a thread of smoke oozes from around the stopper and the bottle begins to shake violently. With a sudden POP the stopper flies off and a genie appears before him, its arms folded in the traditional genie manner.
“Thank you for freeing me!” cries the genie. “I have been trapped in that bottle for over a thousand years!”
The genie continues “In return for releasing me, I will give you a reward of one million dollars. However, Tony, I must warn you, if you accept it, the person you loathe most in this world will get twice as much. Do you accept the reward with these terms?”
“Of course I’ll take it!” Tony replies with a smile “My family could use the money!””

“Every Friday night after work, Dave would fire up his barbeque on the shore of the lake and cook a venison steak.
All of Dave’s neighbours were Catholic and since it was Lent, they were forbidden from eating meat on a Friday.
The delicious aroma from the grilled venison steaks drifted over the neighbourhood and was causing such a problem for the Catholic faithful that they finally talked to their priest.
The Priest came to visit Dave, and suggested that he become a Catholic.
After several classes and much study, Dave attended Mass… and as the priest sprinkled holy water over him, he said “You were born a Lutheran and raised a Lutheran but now you are a Catholic”.
Dave’s neighbours were relieved, until Friday night arrived and the wonderful aroma of grilled venison filled the neighbourhood again.
The Priest was called immediately by the neighbours and he rushed over to Dave’s place clutching a rosary and was prepared to scold him, he stopped and watched in amazement.
There stood Dave, clutching a small bottle of holy water which he carefully sprinkled over the grilling meat and chanted to it:
You were born a deer, you were raised a deer, but now you are a rainbow trout“.”

“OK, I had a laugh. And your point is?”

If the first two were such idiots, where did their money come from?
If the guy who hates his family is wise enough to accept the genie’s offer, what is it that still makes the rest of us to actually kill each-other?

“And the third joke? What hidden meaning do you have for that one?”

“A turkey was chatting with a bull.
“I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree” sighed the turkey, but I haven’t got the energy”.
“Well, why don’t you nibble on my droppings?” replied the bull. “They’re packed with nutrients”.
The turkey pecked at a lump of dung and found that it gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree. The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch. Finally, after a fourth night, there he was proudly perched at the top of the tree.
Soon he was spotted by a farmer, who shot the turkey out of the tree.
Moral of the story: Bullshit might get you to the top, but it won’t keep you there.”


A system is nothing more and nothing less than a set of relatively stable interactions.
A system can be evaluated only from the outside.
A system exists only in the mind of the observer.

I’ll discuss these three affirmations from the bottom.

Even if the objects that compose the system exist ‘in the real world’, the system itself exists only in the minds of the observers – the person who had first identified the interactions and all those who agree with him.
To illustrate my point I’ll give you three examples.
–  A constellation is “a group of stars that forms a particular shape in the sky and has been given a name“. A long time ago, when those constellations had been named by our ancestors, people thought they were something totally different than what we think of them now. Yet they continue to exist as before and…

View original post 439 more words

Marea majoritate consideră că abuzul, orice abuz, are două dimensiuni.
Că orice abuz are loc la întâlnirea a două variabile.

Ghinionul victimei: să se afle în locul nepotrivit la momentul nepotrivit.
Și ‘pornirea nefirească’ a abuzatorului. Indiferent de ce natură ar fi aceasta!

Mai sunt câte unii care pun măcar o parte din vină și pe umerii victimei.
Ce căuta acolo, nu a făcut tot ar fi fost posibil pentru a evita abuzul, etc., etc.,…
Teoretic cel puțin, fenomenul acesta – mă refer acum la ‘victim blaming’, a fost deja disecat. E suficient de bine cunoscut și oamenii de bună credință reușesc să evite a se mai afla în astfel de situații. Adică reușesc să se abțină atunci când – dintr-o firească, din punct de vedere psihologic, încercare de a nu se încărca sufletește cu necazurile altora, au tendința de a ‘echilibra situația’. Adică de a găsi ‘o explicație’ pentru ce s-a ‘întâmplat’.

Am să fac o paranteză, pentru cei care nu s-au prins încă.
Foarte mulți cei care dau vina pe victimă fac acest lucru din nevoia de raționalizare.
Atunci când crezi că ai înțeles un lucru, el devine ‘predictibil’.

Crezi că știi ce trebuie să faci pentru a provoca repetarea acelui lucru – dacă și când dorești.
Și, în oglindă, crezi că știi ce trebuie să faci pentru a evita producerea acelui lucru!

Știi cum să te îmbraci pentru a evita să fii violată. Ce atitudine să adopți, pe unde să (nu) umbli, cu cine să (nu) ai de a face…
Știi cum să-ți educi copiii pentru a micșora șansele ca fata ta să treacă prin astfel de experiențe…
Știi chiar cum să-l înveți pe băiatul tău să ‘facă față situației’ atunci când ‘are de a face cu o provocatoare’. Dacă chiar nu se poate abține, să dea vina pe ea…

Toate considerațiile de mai sus sunt valabile și pentru barbați. Tați dar nu numai.

Toate considerațiile de mai sus sunt valabile pentru orice fel de abuz. Nu doar pentru cele de natură sexuală.
De la bullyingul din curtea școlii până obligarea unui subaltern, sau a oricărei persoane aflată în ‘deficit de protecție’ – real sau perceput, să facă orice fel de ‘nefăcute’. Sau să nu facă ceva ce ar fi fost firesc să facă în situația respectivă …

Nevoia de a raționaliza situații potențial periculoase apare în orice împrejurare, nu doar în cele în care pericolul este de natură fizică sau sexuală.
Credința că agresorul nu a fost chiar nebun dă potențialei victime senzația că ‘s-ar fi putut face ceva’, de către victimă, pentru evitarea pericolului.

Sfârșitul parantezei este marcat de un link către un articol foarte interesant, în limba engleză, despre diferența dintre vinovăția morală și responsabilitatea cauzală.

‘Ne spui și nouă despre ce e vorba în propoziție, dacă tot ai terminat paranteza?’

Actrița Viorica Vodă a vorbit, pe scena Premiilor Gopo, despre „hărțuirea sexuală din sistem, nu din afara lui” de care a avut parte după ce a înterpretat un rol în filmul Filantropica al lui Nae Caranfil.

O parte dintre spectatori au ales să reacționeze cel puțin nepotrivit. Cu manifestări din spectrul ‘raționalizării dusă la extrem’. Adică ‘dă vina pe victimă’ că ‘nu iese fum fără foc’.

‘Acuma ce faci? Ai zis că ai terminat cu ‘blamarea victimei’. Mergi în cerc?!?’

Nu. Doar voiam să vă introduc în problemă.
Ca să știți ‘ce m-a apucat’…

Ei bine, ‘cineva’, un cititor, a comentat ceva de genul ‘nu cred că Gala Gopo este locul unde să fie discutate chestii de genul ăsta’.

Extrem de revelator!
În momentul acela mi-am dat seama că orice abuz are, de fapt, trei ‘personaje’.

Acesta este locul în care am să fac a doua paranteză.
Cei care dau vina pe victimă sunt, de fapt, niște personaje tragice.
Victimele trec prin abuz și au șansa de a merge mai departe. Cu ajutor, prin forțe proprii…
Agresorii trec și ei prin abuz, la un moment dat își primesc pedeapsa – pământească sau divină, și pot, și ei, să meargă mai departe.
Cei care dau vina pe victime sunt ‘blocați în sistem’. În același timp victime și călăi, nu pot ieși din capcana pe care și-au săpat-o singuri. Încercând să găsească o explicație pe care să o poată înțelege…
Doar că încercarea lor de a găsi o explicație ‘logică’ îi împiedică, efectiv, să ‘iasă deasupra’. Să se ‘mântuie’…
Liniștea pe care o găsesc după ce au aruncat o parte din vină în cârca victimei este doar de suprafață!

‘Bine, bine. Și atunci, dacă ăștia cu victim-blaming-ul fac parte din categoria primelor două personaje, cine e al treilea?’

Măria Sa, spectatorul plictisit. Plictisit și indiferent!
Cel care, considerând că lui nu i se poate întâmpla așa ceva, nici măcar nu încearcă să înțeleagă.
Ce se întâmplă!
Spectatorul care resimte o oarecare neplăcere atunci când află despre un abuz.
Cam același fel de neplăcere pe care o are atunci când este bâzâit de muște.
Spectatorul care rezolvă problema trimițând ‘musca’ să bâzâie la altă masă!

Că el n-are chef de chestii d-astea!

Adică genul ăla de oameni care încep să aplaude atunci când proiecția filmului nu începe exact la timp.
Să-l trezească pe proiecționist…
„Bă! Noi am venit aici să vedem filmul, nu să te așteptăm pe tine!”

Genul ăla de oameni care trec mai departe.
Care trec pe partea ‘cealaltă’.
Care nu înțeleg, nici în ruptul capului, că ‘data viitoare va fi rândul lor’…

Și că, exact așa cum ei nu au făcut nimic – agresorul nestrâns de pe stradă rămânând astfel liber să mai agreseze odata – tot așa cei asemenea lor n-or să facă nici ei nimic atunci cand „ei” vor fi devenit victime.

Am fost întrebat ‘care e faza cu aplaudacii’.
Termenul a fost inventat pentru a-i descrie pe cei care aplaudau frenetic la ședințele de partid.
Mai ales la cele televizate…
Nu din convingere, ci pentru ca sa se termine odată ședința. Să plece și ei acasă.
Aplaudau dorindu-și doar să scape de acolo.
Nici măcar nu îndrăzneau să-și imagineze cum ar fi să nu fie nevoie să facă așa ceva.
Așa cum noi nici măcar nu îndrăznim să visăm la o lume în care cei care abuzează pe alții să fie puși la colț.
La o lume în care opinia publică să fie fermă. Dreaptă și fermă!

Some say that history repeats itself until we figure out what it meant in the first place.
Others maintain that history’s first ‘helping’ comes as a tragedy while the second becomes a farce.

Well, I’m afraid things are a little more complicated.

For starters, history doesn’t do anything.
History is nothing but a string of events. Considered noteworthy and written down by some of those who have survived the above mentioned events.
NB, ‘winning’ is not necessary. Being able to survive – and to write, of course, is!

It is us who consider some of the events we have witnessed – or read about, to be noteworthy.
It is us who attempt to draw meaning from what we ‘hear about’.
It is us who are arrogant enough to believe we have learned anything.

Which brings me to the next step.

We live in a huge reality.
But see only a small portion of it. Understand even less than that.
But consider ourselves rational human beings. We are convinced that what we do – the decisions we reach and then put in practice, are based on reason. And good will!!!

Day to day practice tells us that individuals make mistakes.
I’ll leave ‘alone’ the actual ‘criminals’, I’m going to consider – for the scope of this post, that all of us act in good faith, all of the time.
Hence we need a mechanism to cope with the ‘honest mistakes’ made by every one of us.
No matter how low or how high in the ‘pecking order’.
No matter how feeble or how power full each of us is.
How much decision power each of us musters at anyone moment.

We need a ‘procedure’, an ‘opening’, for each of us who sees something going amiss to be able to tell the others that ‘the emperor is naked.

That’s what ‘democracy’ is for.

But there’s a caveat here.

Like history, democracy is a human concept. A man-made ‘tool’!

Each of the individual members of the group using this tool is ‘limited’. Has a limited knowledge and a limited ‘processing power’. By definition… Otherwise, democracy wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. If at least one of the individuals involved would have been omniscient, they would have – somehow, climbed to the pinnacle of the hierarchy.
The fact that all imperia – all ‘arrangements’ where one individual garners a lot of power over a complex system comprising many other people, have inevitably collapsed is a very powerful empirical proof of my assertion.
Further more, the number of individuals involved in any democratic arrangement is also limited. Also by definition. There’s no place on Earth – there are no humans living someplace else, for an infinite number of people. Hence even the aggregate understanding of things any democracy might reach is also limited. Fallible, that is.

Then even democracies need to follow rules. They just cannot ‘vote’ whatever their members wish to happen…

The first rule, of course, being the fact that you should not vote ‘against’ the rules of nature. You cannot, for instance, abolish Newtons gravity by voting it ‘unlawful’…
The second rule being that the individuals comprising the democratic arrangement have be convinced that each of them is equivalent. Not equal, that’s impossible, but ‘equivalent’. That each of them should be able to vote, that each of them should have only one vote and that each of them should have the opportunity to voice their concerns. In a nutshell, that all of them have equal rights and that nobody – no individual or a smaller number of people than the entire ‘congregation’, has the right to tell anybody else what to do. Or what to refrain themselves from doing.

Now, that I have reached this point, let be go back to history.

The first ‘democratic arrangement’ known to us was the Ancient Athens.
It had evolved, for while, as an increasingly democratic form of government. During this time, the city’s fortune and influence in the region had grown almost constantly until Pericles had ‘bent’ the democratic principles so that he could yield more influence. Almost two centuries of democratic ebbing on and off followed until Philip II of Macedonia had taken over entirely. As a consequence, Athens’ influence had waned and then disappeared entirely.
The second one had dawned in Scandinavia, during the Viking era.
That democratic seed had, in time, spread in Europe, America and, gradually, in many other countries.

In the US, for example, at first only the white men were involved in the democratic process. They were the ones who voted and who were elected into office. Gradually, the democratic ‘rights’ had been extended to the female portion of the society and to the ‘members of the other races’. These successive ‘extensions’ had been parts of the general improvement of the society as a whole. During this period – not necessarily due to but certainly simultaneously with, the entire population lived better and longer lives while the country as a whole had become more and more powerful. The energy and potential of the population – of an ever increasing proportion of the population, had been put to better and better uses.

Simultaneously, individuals – an ever increasing proportion of the individual members of the society, with the criteria of sex, gender and race gradually loosing the previously held power of discrimination, had enjoyed more and more power. More and more autonomy to determine their own fate.

Which brings us to the current developments in the US.

Some people, far from a majority of “The People”, would like to see the ‘other end’ of Roe v Wade.
‘These’ people seem to have somehow convinced a majority of the Justices sitting in the Supreme Court not only to hear their plea but also to ‘consider it in a favorable manner’.

In other words, a very small number of people – five out of nine, are going to restrict a previously granted right which had been enjoyed for almost 50 years by more than half of the American Population.

‘You have got it completely wrong!
Scotus isn’t going to prohibit abortion. Only the states can do that!’

Do you remember what the Civil War had been fought over?
Basically, the Confederates were claiming that individual states had the right to determine which people were to be considered ‘free’ while the ‘others’ kept maintaining that all people, regardless of their skin color, were free. That individual freedom was something which had to be determined at federal level, not by each ‘individual’ state.
Nowadays we have the very same thing. Some states claim it’s their ‘right’ to tell ‘their’ women whether, and in which circumstances, they may – or not, have an abortion.

Not a very ‘appealing’ proposition.
It opens the door for individual states claiming more and more ‘rights’ over their ‘specific subjects’.

The absolutely baffling thing about this whole development is the fact that those who want Roe v Wade to be repelled claim they do this in order to enhance individual rights (to live). I can understand that. I even sympathize with them. Ending a life, even that of an embryo, is not something to be treated easily.

But for a minority to impose their point of view – no matter how sound it might appear to some of us, to a majority… that cannot be, either, taken lightly.

After reading this interview for a second time, I asked myself: ‘Why are you paying so much attention to this guy?!? After all, he doesn’t say anything new…’

Then it hit me!

“Russia” and “we” are two different things.

Russia, the country, cannot indeed afford to “lose”. To ‘lose it’, to be more precise.
Russia will survive, no matter how many more ‘mistakes’ the morons currently running it will commit.

“We”, on the other hand, are the ones who can. And eventually will. Lose. Everything.

And the longer those “we” are allowed by Russia itself to run the Kremlin, the worse it will be.
For everybody. Us – the rest of the world, included.

‘But when will this nightmare end?’

That I don’t know.
All I know is that it will eventually do that. End.

Look at the picture above.
When have you seen anything more British than that?
OK, fake British. Make-believe British. But British nonetheless.

That was which hit me.
That during its entire history, Russia had tried to emulate Britain.
The Russian elite has for ever tried to rise itself to ‘British standards’. From Peter the Great to Putin.
All the while convincing the Russian People that the road they were trundling on was unique…

The sooner the ordinary Russians will figure out that they have been misled – and enough of the elite will understand that British-ness is good only for the Brits, they will make peace.
Among themselves.
With the their Ukrainian cousins.
And with the rest of the world!

The guy in the blue T shirt is being questioned by the Ukrainian police about his activity on ‘social media’.
You probably guessed already what kind of ‘activity’ we’re talking about…

Which brings back painful memories.

During my childhood, in communist Romania, you could get arrested for listening to Radio Free Europe. Or for speaking against the communist rule.

In present day Russia, you’ll soon enough be arrested if you use the word war in relation to what is going on in Ukraine.

In Ukraine itself, you can be arrested for publicly supporting Putin’s actions.

The worst thing being the fact that there still are people out there who consider Putin is right and the Ukrainians – those who do nothing but defend their country, should be ‘left alone’.

To be ‘left alone’ to what?!?
To be bombed away by Putin?
So that we may continue our ‘peaceful lives’?

Peaceful only until Putin – or someone equivalent, will ‘change his mind’?

The guy above hasn’t figured out yet, in spite of the bombs falling over his head, that there’s no such thing as ‘peaceful life’ under dictatorship! Any kind of dictatorship…
Nor have any of those who continue to defend Putin’s actions!

Or use their ‘freedom of speech’ in an attempt to sow doubt about the matter.

A beautiful country, inhabited by a beautiful and proud people who ‘generate’ such beautiful music…
Yet this is how their freedom looks like!

Two successive dictatorial regimes, the first headed by Fulgencio Batista and the second by Fidel Castro…

Read what has to say about each of them. Just click their names.

Then tell me why are we, any of the democratic countries in the world, still making business with any of the dictatorial regimes still plaguing the Earth?
Why do we continue to harbor any of the yachts owned by corrupt oligarchs? Or their money?

%d bloggers like this: