Homo Sapiens ‘Sapiens’

April 22, 2022 //
1

Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a species of cultured animals simultaneously capable to place a highly sophisticated IR telescope on an orbit around their native planet, the Earth, and to reduce a country to a pile of rubble.

Interestingly enough, the technology used to accomplish both, the rocket, has been imagined a little more than a century ago.
By, among others, Herman Oberth.

He had built his first rocket as a school project, when he was 14. About then he also came up with the concept of a multistaged rocket.
Lack of resources convinced him to study medicine. After only two years he was drafted into the German Imperial Army to serve during WWI. Initially as a foot soldier and then moved to a medical unit. In that period he found enough “spare time” to conduct experiments which had later enabled him to present “designs of a missile using liquid propellant with a range of 290 km to Hermann von Stein, the Prussian Minister of War.“
During WWII he had worked at Peenemunde, were he was awarded a decoration for bravery during an aerial attack, and then at the German WASAG organization developing solid fueled anti-aircraft rockets.

Between the wars he had contributed to a series of experiments in Germany. For one of which he was helped by an 18 years student. Werner von Braun.

After WWII, Oberth moved to Italy to continue, for the Italian Navy, some of the work he had started at WASAG. Then returned to Germany to publish “Mankind into Space, in which he described his ideas for space-based reflecting telescopes, space stations, electric-powered spaceships, and space suits.”

“Oberth eventually came to work for his former student, Wernher von Braun, who was developing space rockets for NASA in Huntsville, Alabama.“

He retired in 1962 and had a brief stint in far right politics (the National Democratic Party of Germany).
He was invited to the US in 1969 to witness the Apollo 11 crew being sent towards the Moon and in October 1985 to view the Space Shuttle Challenger being launched carrying the D-1 Spacelab mission – “the first with German mission management and controlled from the German Space Operations Center“
“However, his primary interest during his retirement years was to turn to more abstract philosophical questions. Most notable among his several books from this period is Primer For Those Who Would Govern.“

Humans, as a species, have harbored the same ‘amount’ of brain for the last 200 000 years. That was when the Homo Sapiens had arrived. But that brain had produced something only about 70 000 years ago. That’s why the second Sapiens was added, by us, to the name of those living since that time. To underline the fact that humans had become ‘fully’ conscious only ‘recently’. That having a big brain was not enough. That becoming fully human also implied self awareness. Wisdom…

Apparently that’s not enough.
After experiencing, first hand, the horrors of WWI such a creative mind as Herman Oberth’s was still capable of building offensive weapons for Hitler.
After experiencing, first hand, the horrors of WWII such a creative mind as Herman Oberth’s was still able of joining an extreme right political party…

After experiencing, first hand, the horrors of WWII at the hands of the nazi, the modern day, post communist, Russia is capable of inflicting the same kind of horrors to their close cousins, the Ukrainians.

When are we going to become Sapiens enough to stop this insanity?
To concentrate our creativity exclusively towards ‘elevating’ purposes?

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, Intent, man as a measure for all things, man induced fragility, Psychology, Trust

Barrabas

April 21, 2022 //
4

We have a fact and two conflicting interpretations.

Barrabas is mentioned in al four gospels.
Which has to mean something.

One interpretation posits that the whole story was made up.
That Barrabas himself was not a real person and that there was no such thing as a “custom whereby the Romans would release a condemned prisoner on the occasion of a holy day“
OK, but for what reason?
“to shift the blame for Jesus’ death away from the Roman authorities and onto the shoulders of the Jews“
By the time the gospels had been written, most of the Christians were living under the Roman authority and outside Palestine. So a little benevolence curried from the Romans couldn’t hurt…
Except the Jews…
“Historically, the release of Barabbas at the crowd’s behest, and their subsequent demands to crucify Jesus, have been used to justify anti-Semitism. Many have placed blame for Christ’s death on the Jews, commonly citing Matthew 27:25, in which the crowd shouts, “His blood be on us and on our children!”“

Another interpretation takes the opposite view.
The whole episode is considered to be true as described and interprets Barrabas as “a flesh-and-blood symbol for you and for me. At this moment the Gospel story paints Barabbas as Everyone. The guilty go free, and the Holy One dies. Barabbas becomes the first one who can say, “Jesus died for me.”“

Being an agnostic, somewhat simplifies things. For me.
At the emotional level, I prefer the second interpretation.
At the rational level, I appreciate the effort made by the first interpretation towards finding a logical explanation for the whole thing. Which explanation might actually be true. In the sense that the evangelists, all four of them, might have indeed tried to lessen the Roman responsibility for Christ’s death.

What bothers me is why so many of the readers have accepted the story as plausible?
A crowd to send a bandit to freedom and an innocent to death?
How likely is this?

But what if the crowd was biased?

Well, not the crowd, since the episode was most likely invented.
The individuals who had a message to convey to their readers. To us.

Let’s start with the beginning. The Old Testament.
According to this writing, the covenants were made between God and the people of Israel. Which gave the people of Israel a special place. They were His people. The chosen ones.
The New Testament changes all this. Jesus died for all of those who accept his sacrifice.
The Jews are no longer the only chosen ones.

The way I see it, the ordinary Jews have no problem with this.
I have no knowledge of Jews discriminating against Christians. Except for the claims made by the anti-Semites…
I’m not so sure though about the likes of Caiaphas… “a member of the council when he gave his opinion that Jesus should be put to death “for the people, and that the whole nation perish not”“
After all, Caiaphas – and all those in the same position, were the only ones who had anything to lose as a consequence of Jesus’s teachings.
As a consequence of all people, not only those who followed the likes of Caiaphas, being able to consider themselves as being children of the same God.
Only the likes of Caiaphas had anything to lose from all followers of Christ considering themselves equal among themselves.

Not at all different from what had happened after Luther had nailed his famous theses to the door of the Wittenberg church.
The established hierarchy felt it’s throne was becoming wobbly and reacted forcefully…

What if the real meaning of the whole Barrabas story is for us, the readers of the Gospels, to be extra careful when we evaluate the ‘recommendations’ given to us by the ‘authorities’ of the moment?
Specially when those ‘authorities’ are about to loose their clout…

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, arrogance, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, man induced fragility, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology

To talk or not to talk…

April 21, 2022 //
0

Just came across this meme.

It was shared on a FB-wall and somebody had commented that “Institutionally they are not your friends.”

My ‘jerked’ comment was:

“Institutionally, cops should be your ‘last resort’ friends.

The fact that too many of them are not, and the fact that too many of us consider them, as a category, to be unfriendly, is proof of how dysfunctional our society has become.

Cops used to be ‘unfriendly’ when I grew up. In communist Romania. When the cops were used, by the communist state, to preserve their power. The communist power over the entire society.

In the free countries of today, the cops are the sole barrier separating our persona and private property from the hands of the criminals.

Without their presence…

Or, putting it the other way around, we have but the cops we deserve. Train and motivate them properly and you’ll have good cops!”

At a second glance, I had an inkling.
Is it possible for the whole thing to be nothing more than a ‘marketing campaign’? Organized by the only people interested in increasing litigation?

Interested in altering the relative stability of our political establishment?

The police, by properly performing their duties – the world over, not only in the communist countries, contribute to the political stability of those respective countries.
For the police to properly perform their duties, there must to exist a proper trust between the general population and the police itself. The population must see the police as their friends of last resort while the police must see the general public as both their employer and their responsibility.
The population must be open in their relationship with the police while the police must treat respectfully every individual, including the suspects and the convicts.

In the communist regime I grew up, the police couldn’t fulfill its duties. Exactly between there was a ‘trust’ barrier between the general public and the police. Between the oppressed and the armed hand of the oppressor.
The communist regime I grew up under, in Romania, had eventually collapsed.
Exactly because of the malignant mistrust between the general public – The People, and the government. The police being nothing but a portion of the government itself.

Who is interested in the collapse of the democratic regimes?
Who is mostly interested in wedging apart the government from The People?

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, democracy, effective communication, In English, Intent, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, Social justice, teleology, Trust

The worst case scenario.

April 18, 2022 //
1

No, Putin’s henchmen executing a nuclear attack isn’t the worst case scenario.

This is.

People around the world asking themselves ‘how is it possible for an army belonging to a civilized country – one currently holding the right to veto any UN Security Council decision, might behave in such a horrible manner’?!?
How is it possible for a civilized people, the Russian people, to allow something like this to happen?

After the Cold War had been lost by the Soviet Union, the world over was under the impression that the liberal-democratic and capitalist model had ‘won’. That nobody could any longer advocate for an alternative.
Nine years later, Russia was on the verge of collapse. After following – ineptly, the capitalist mantra – greed is good, the Russian people was almost dying of hunger. That’s how the Russians had fallen under Putin’s spell. He had turned around the Russian economy and earned the gratitude of the ordinary Russian people.

  • But he had done nothing but reigning in Yeltsin’s oligarchs… and got filthy rich in the process!

Yes, but the ordinary Russians had enjoyed, for some 15 years, a life they had never thought possible. A life of relative abundance.
At a relatively low cost. At a cost they were already accustomed with.

The Russian people has been been accustomed, since always, to keep its mouth shut.
That’s so deeply ingrained into their minds that most of them never even dream of speaking up….

  • OK, OK… but what is the link between your ‘worst case scenario’ and the Russian people being unable to ‘speak up’?!?

Putin is able to do what he is currently doing because nobody is challenging his decisions.
Nobody inside Russia…

Because nobody inside Russia is challenging his decisions – and a ‘handful’ of ‘dimwits’ actually executes those decisions, the rest of the world is under the impression that the Russian people is OK with what’s going on in Ukraine.

  • And who are you to tell us that ‘regular Ivan’ would challenge Putin’s decisions if he had any opportunity?!?

I didn’t say that!
If you are under that impression, I’m afraid I haven’t made my point yet.

You see, what we really need to do is to ‘fold’ the Russian people into our ‘Weltanschauung’.
To welcome them into our social and cultural space.

The current war will end. One way or another.
Putin will die. Sooner or later.
But until the Russian people will learn that with us is far better that against us… we – all of us, will live on a ‘tight-rope’.

My impression, watching the horrors committed by the Russian army, is that those horrors have been ordered by Putin for one reason. And one reason only.

To convince us, the rest of the world, that the Russian people is nothing but a bunch of savages.
That they deserve no compassion.

That their leader – Putin, must be offered an easy way out – at the expense of the Ukrainians, and that the Russian people must be left to rot at his disposal.
That the Russian people deserves nothing. Nothing but to be left at the mercy of their ruthless and mind-twisting sheep-master.

That is the worst case scenario.
Us accepting that another people, any people, is worthless.

Putin’s followers – Le Pen and Orban being but the most obvious examples, are eagerly waiting for that to happen.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology

THE reason

April 13, 2022 //
0

What if there’s no reason, per se?

What if there are only individual reasons for each of the experiences each of us passes through?

Many of those reasons belonging to the ‘experimenters’ themselves and all reasons – even if the individuals who provide the actual causes are not aware of all the consequences, belong to us. To us, humans.

I have no way of determining whether there is any ‘supreme being’ but what I understand of this world has led me to the conclusion that this ‘aspect’ is irrelevant. For us. For those of us who are currently alive.

That supreme being, if it exists, has done nothing more than to provide a set of opportunities.
The world in which our ancestors – some 1500 generations ago, have become conscious human beings. The rest is of our own doing.

Influenced a lot by the specific circumstances in which each culture has been developed – by those having to make do in those specific circumstances, but still ultimately ours.

This ‘conclusion’ is the sole solution I had been able to come up with to the conundrum which opposes the notions of ‘free will’ and karma/fate/you name it.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories awareness, Bounded rationality, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, freedom, In English, man as a measure for all things, Psychology, skin in the game

Despre cum mint poporul cu memeitorul

April 8, 2022 //
0

Cuvântul cheie este „sataniștii”. ‘Sus’, ‘jos’… nu contează!

Cei care acordă o oarecare atenție spațiului cultural nord-american au sesizat intensitatea cu care, de cel puțin 10 ani, ‘publicul’ este îndemnat să nu mai citească ‘presa’. Care e mincinoasă și vândută.

Noi, boșorogii de peste 60 de ani, ne aducem aminte și de spusele lui Ronald Reagan.
Cel în timpul căruia s-a întâmplat să se prăbușească comunismul și cel pe fruntea căruia au fost puși laurii.

Ronald Reagan este considerat a fi fost un mare comunicator.
Citind o mare parte din citatele care i-au fost atribuite, găsești foarte multe lucruri interesante. Și observi cât de măiastră a fost pana care le-a cizelat.
În asta să stea oare ‘esența comunicării’?
În ușurința cu care mesajul este strecurat dincolo de filtrul conștiinței și în adâncimea la care este înfipt în păienjenișul memoriei?

Efectele, și mai ales cele pe termen lung, sunt luate în calcul?
Atunci când judecăm ‘comunicarea’?

Este indubitabil că ‘guvernul’ poate fi ‘o problemă’.
Poate fi chiar „terifiant”.
Astăzi, de exemplu, guvernul Rusiei terifiază, cât se poate de direct, populația Ucrainei. Și, indirect, o lume întreagă.

Pe de altă parte, cam care ar fi fost situația dacă nu ar fi existat și celelalte guverne?
Daca guvernul condus de Zelenskii n-ar fi coordonat rezistența și dacă guvernele din UE și SUA nu ar fi coordonat ajutorarea Ucrainei?
Conflictul s-ar fi încheiat în câteva zile și noi am fi putut să ne întoarcem la ale noastre?

Și cine l-ar fi oprit pe Putin?
De ce să-l oprească cineva pe Putin?!?

Tot în Statele Unite continuă disputa dintre cei care consideră că Trump ar fi fost ajutat în timpul campaniilor electorale de către serviciile secrete aflate în slujba lui Putin și cei care neagă acest lucru, cu vehemență.

Trump a contestat rezultatul alegerilor pe care le-a pierdut.
O parte dintre suporterii săi au ocupat, efectiv, Capitoliul în încercarea de a ‘convinge’ Congresul American să invalideze rezultatele scrutinului electoral.

Lucrurile astea s-au întâmplat în sânul celei mai puternice democrații de pe planetă.
În sânul singurei forțe militare și economice capabile, și dispuse – pentru că nu are alternativă, să-l țină în frâu pe ‘Putin’. Pe orice dictator căruia i-ar trece prin cap să pună în pericol modul actual în care evoluează civilizația umană.

În situația asta ne mai întrebăm ‘de ce l-ar ajuta Putin pe Trump’?!?
De ce ar ajuta un dictator pe cel care era să distrugă singura democrație capabilă să-l țină în frâu?
Care democrație a pierdut deja enorm de mult din prestigiul pe care îl acumulase de-a lungul istoriei?
Care democrație este, încă, atât de puternică încât poate fi distrusă doar din interior?

Care democrație, ca toate celelalte, este doar atât de puternică pe cât este de eficient guvernul care pune în practică deciziile adoptate în mod democratic de către populație? De către „We, the People”?

Și atunci?

Cum să te apuci tu, ‘mare comunicator’ proaspăt ales – în mod democratic, să conduci – ca șef executiv al unui guvern, cea mai puternică națiune de pe planetă, să spui – chiar în timpul discursului inaugural, că „guvernul nu este soluția problemelor noastre, guvernul este chiar problema”?!?

Da, spunerea e foarte bine adusă din condei. Interpretarea a fost fără cusur. Publicul, exasperat de excesele unora dintre guvernanți – exasperat de excesele prea multora dintre cei ajunși prea puternici pentru capacitatea lor de discernamant, a fost încântat de cele rostite atunci.

Și efectul?

Nu cumva însuși accesul lui Trump la butoanele puterii a fost o consecință a dezgustului pe care îl au prea mulți dintre Americani cu privire la guvern? Și la politică, în general?

Și cine are de câștigat din toate astea?
Din erodarea, pe dinăuntru, a democrației?
Din erodarea încrederii oamenilor în capacitatea lor de a genera un act de guvernare transparent și perfectibil prin intermediul feed-backului democratic?

Cine are de câștigat din convingerea alegătorilor că cei aflați ‘la conducere’ sunt „sataniști”?!?
Indiferent de cine or fi ei, sloganul a apărut și este multiplicat, ‘pe garduri’, de cel puțin 10 ani…

Și un ultim calup de întrebări.
Reagan a fost un actor. Un artist. Dacă citatul chiar îi aparține, este foarte posibil ca frazarea să-i fi venit în mod natural.
Dar dacă îi aparține unui ‘specialist în comunicare’? În comunicare strategică?
Dacă și citatul cu care am început îi aparține tot unui ‘specialist’?

Nu vă ambalați! ‘Întrebările’ abia urmează.

Ce-o fi în capul specialiștilor ăștia?
Chiar nu-și dau seama ce efecte vor avea, pe termen lung, cuvintele pe care le înșiră ei?
Sau nu le pasă?

Și, pentru că trebuie să ‘descurc’ toate ‘ițele’ pe care le-am început, voi încheia cu o ‘traducere’.
Media este într-adevăr ‘mincinoasă’ și ‘vândută’. În viziunea celor care promovează conceptul bineînțeles…

Urmăriți doar vehiculele media pe care am reușit să le cumpărăm noi.
Doar celelalte, adică cele care nu au acceptat să se vândă, să-și pună ‘limba în slujba celui celui care plătește mai mult’, sunt mincinoase.
Noi suntem singurii care vă spunem adevărul!
Adevărul nostru… ‘alternativ’…

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alegerile pe care le facem, autoritarism, comunicare efectiva, constiinta de sine, Cu pielea la bataie, Democratie, evolutie, identitate colectiva, In limba Romana, Incredere, Omul ca masura a tuturor lucrurilor, psihologie, rationalitate limitata, respect mutual

Uite-așa a trecut Gloria munții…

April 7, 2022 //
1

Bunicii mei paterni au trăit în Colentina. Undeva între triaj și fabrica de săpun Stela.
Vara stăteam la ei, săptămâni la rând. Din când în când, mergeam cu bunicul la piață. La Obor, adică.
Câteodată traversam Mihai Bravu să mergem la ‘Predoleanu’. Da, am apucat magazinul vechi. A fost dărâmat, împreună cu Calea Moșilor dintre Mihai Bravu și bulevard, abia după cutremurul din 1977.
Aveam 11 ani în 1972, atunci când a fost dezvelit monumentul “1907” – vis-a-vis de Predoleanu. Nu-mi aduc aminte să-mi fi facut vreo impresie. Mai am în nas mirosul de fierărie din magazin dar n-am nici o amintire, din epocă, cu privire la monument. Care era, totuși, uriaș. Mai ales pentru un copil.
În toamna lui ’80 ‘m-au luat’ în armata. Încă mai era de mâncare în magazine. Când m-am liberat, în primăvara lui ’81, deja bătea vântul printre tejghele.
Unul dintre primele drumuri pe care le-am făcut, după întoarcerea în București, a fost la bunica. Bunicul murise, de mult.
Am trecut și prin hală. Singur, de data asta. Prin hala Obor. Era de nerecunoscut.
Poate că cea mai bună descriere a situației a fost ce condensată în noua legendă urbană ce însoțea statuia din fața halei.
‘Stați, nu dați năvală. În hală nu e carne. Ăsta de jos a murit de foame!’
Hala s-a dărăpănat de tot, în fața ei a fost construită noua primarie pentru sectorul 2 iar “1907” a fost mutată în Parcul Florilor.
Și nimeni nu mai știe unde a fost magazinul lui Predoleanu!


Sic tranzit gloria mundi…

Tags , ,
Categories 1989, cadre mentale, Ce tara lasam copiilor nostri?, comunicare efectiva, constiinta de sine, Cu pielea la bataie, In limba Romana, Tara din care traim

Viol

April 6, 2022 //
0

Aflăm din presă că un individ s-a izbit, cu tot cu mașină, într-un zid.
În gardul din jurul ambasadei Rusiei din București.
Și că mașina a luat foc. Că șoferul a ars cu tot cu mașină.

Apoi aflăm că șoferul tocmai fusese condamnat pentru viol. Săvârșit, în mod repetat, asupra fiicei sale.
Vitrege, dar tot fiică!

Mai aflăm tot felul de alte chestii, dar…

Și mă întreb, împreună cu cei de la Vice,

Păi dacă o țară așa-zis civilizată nu poate izola un pedofil condamnat atunci ce ne mai mirăm că o lume întreagă – și mult mai ‘diversă’ decât o ‘simplă’ țară, nu-i poate ‘face față’ unui criminal?

Că nenumărați oameni: civili, militari, ucraineni, ruși, bărbați, femei, copii, tineri, bătrâni… mor aiurea doar pentru că cineva se ține cu dinții de fotoliul puterii?!?

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alegerile pe care le facem, autoritarism, comunicare efectiva, constiinta de sine, Cu pielea la bataie, identitate colectiva, In limba Romana, Omul ca masura a tuturor lucrurilor, psihologie

Pe Drumul către Iad

April 4, 2022 //
0

Dacă aș crede în Dumnezeu, Rusia lui Putin ar fi pentru mine Diavolul.
Dar nu cred. Așa că spuneți dumneavoastră cum pot fi numiți acei români care vor continua să fie putiniști, neutraliști și relativiști în fața Iadului adus în lume de ruși?

De fiecare dată când cineva spune „iadul adus pe lume de ruși” putiniștii își freacă mâinile.

Iadul a fost adus pe lume, iadul despre care vorbim acum, de către Putin. Ajutat de câteva mâini la fel de criminale ca ale lui și de către o mare masă de ‘nedumeriți’ care, practic, (încă) nu-și dau seama ce li se întâmplă.

Atunci când spunem „iadul a fost adus pe lume de ruși”, adică de toți rușii, îi băgăm pe toți în aceiași oală. În aceiași oală ‘criminală’.

Adică îi facem jocul lui Putin!

Ce își doresc dictatorii? Toți dictatorii?

Ca ‘supușii’ lor să stea ‘strâns uniți în jurul „Marelui Conducător”’?

Ce ne dorim noi, cei care vrem să scăpăm de alde Putin?

Ca ‘supușii’ să vadă, odată, cât de ‘gol’ este împăratul lor?

Și cum să facă supușii acest lucru? Cum să vadă cât de gol este împăratul dacă noi, cu pana noastră, îi împingem, strâns, cu spatele la respectivul împărat?!?

Dacă, prin cuvintele noastre, validăm minciunile împărătești?
El, Putin, le spune rușilor că fără el, fără protecția lui, sunt pierduți.
Iar noi, care abia așteptăm să scăpăm de Putin – adică abia așteptăm ca rușii să ne scape de Putin, spunem că ‘rușii aduc iadul pe pământ’…

Mai întâi trebuie să facem noi diferența între criminali și nedumeriți.

Abia după aceea putem să pretindem nedumeriților să vadă goliciunea lui Putin.

Și, ca să răspund la întrebare, românii care continuă să fie putiniști după toate cele întâmplate sunt, și ei, de două feluri. Criminali – plătiți sau, efectiv, ‘duși cu pluta’, și ‘nedumeriți’.
Și aici trebuie să învățăm – tot noi, cei care ne pretindem democrați deschiși la minte, cum să-i deosebim.
Altfel nu vom reuși niciodată să-i ajutăm pe nedumeriți să deschidă ochii.

Tratându-i pe toți la fel, ca pe niște „vite”, îi vom ajuta pe criminali să mâne întreaga ‘cireadă’ – inclusiv pe noi, la abator!

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alegerile pe care le facem, autoritarism, cadre mentale, Ce tara lasam copiilor nostri?, comunicare efectiva, constiinta de sine, cooperare, Cu pielea la bataie, Democratie, evolutie, identitate colectiva, In limba Romana, Incredere, Intentie, Omul ca masura a tuturor lucrurilor, politica, psihologie, Respect Mutual., teleology

White Washing

March 31, 2022 //
0
Putin advisers ‘too afraid to tell him the truth’ on Ukraine: US official
“Putin didn’t even know his military was using and losing conscripts in Ukraine, showing a clear breakdown in the flow of accurate information to the Russian president,” the official said.

There are two ‘things’ which collide here.

Dictators tend to drive away really competent people and those remaining tend to put the entire blame on the ‘guy on top’.

As many of you already know, I grew up in the communist Romania. Ruled by Nicolae Ceausescu, the dictator who ended up being shot on Christmas Day, 1989.

At 28, I was already familiar with the notion of ‘yes-people’. Decision makers who ruled our daily lives were surrounded by people who provided the ‘right’ answers, effectively isolating the decision makers from the reality.
This ‘development’ being the fundamental explanation for how all dictatorial regimes, including the communist ones, ended up in abject failure. For ‘how’, not for ‘why’ – but this is another issue.

After Ceausescu was toppled, I was absolutely flabbergasted when I first heard

‘He didn’t know what was going on. Had his close advisers kept him in touch with the real situation, he would have taken the proper decisions to rectify things’

Really?!?

Who had selected his ‘close advisers’?!?

Who prevented him from asking ‘a second opinion’? From stepping out of his office and ….

Who, step by step, had ‘created’ the ‘atmosphere’ which had driven all those unwilling to lick where ‘he’ had spat to flee, living ‘him’ surrounded by sycophants?

Sycophants attempting, after Ceausescu had been toppled, to pile all the blame on his shoulders…

I’m afraid we are witnessing a replay, with Putin as the lead character.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, effective communication, evolution, In English, Intent, man as a measure for all things, man induced fragility, manipulation, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology, Trust
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »