Archives for category: 1989

The Polish state broadcaster on Saturday suspended
a television journalist who, during the Olympic Games opening ceremony,
reacted to a performance of John Lennon’s “Imagine” by saying it was a “vision of communism.”

And now I wonder…

What kind of communism had Przemyslaw Babiarz, the Polish journalist, experienced?
And where, since the Polish people did not enjoy what had been dished to them by the communist rulers?!?

What a waste of energy….
John Lennon had invited us to dream!
The communists, the real ones, had acted worse than the worst robber barons.
What I had experienced under communist rule, in Romania, had nothing to do with what Lennon had invited us to dream about.
Comparing Lennon’s dreams with the crimes committed by the communists is narrow minded to say the least.
Firing a guy for airing a ‘less than inspired’ statement and pretending to do it in the name of “Mutual understanding, tolerance, reconciliation” is nothing short of idiocy!
For it gives ammunition, and plenty of it, to those who wish to torpedo any mutual understanding and tolerance that still survives.

My first hand experience has driven me to understand:
That ‘government’ – which is nothing but an instrument – will be hijacked whenever ‘the people’ doesn’t pay enough attention. Or has been incapacitated. One way or another.
That communism is just another pretext used by those yearning to hijack the government. And that those people would use any pretext to ‘prime’ the attention of those they want to use in their quest. In their quest to hijack the government.
That democracy – the kind that works – is not about electing the best man for the job. For the simple reason that there’s no way to determine what that person will have to do! The actual things they will be confronted with! In practice, the really useful kind of democracy is that which makes it simple for the people to remove from power/refuse those obviously unfit for the task.

For instance, what’s currently going on in Venezuela. The people tries to remove Maduro from office and the incumbent president refuses to go.

Sounds familiar?
Happened, tentatively, even where democracy was considered ‘too deep rooted to collapse’?

The third thing I understood living under a communist regime was that reproductive rights are very important. That if you want women to have more children, you have to make them ‘feel good’ about it!
That banning abortion will get you nowhere. That banning abortion – and books – will only show your true nature.

I’m vocal about these three things. Including on FB.
Exposing these ideas on FB made it so that I have friends who love Trump and friends who hate Trump.
As a matter of fact and all things considered, I’d describe myself as a Republican rather than as a Democrat. A never-Trumper Republican…

A couple of days ago, the meme above had been shared by a FB friend of mine. A Democrat.
Yesterday it was shared by a Trump die-hard.

Is this strange?

No, not really. We’re all people. Normal people concerned about the future.
The current situation is the consequence of what we’ve done.
Allowed ourselves to be divided into camps.
By those willing to do anything in order to hijack the government. Even if only temporarily.

How many of you cringe when hearing ‘X party/candidate has won the elections’?
Why do we continue to listen when the talking head/would be influencer makes such a horrible mistake?
An electoral process is about us deciding our fate, not a pageant!
Our collective fate!
We, as a community/people, are supposed to be the winners, not any of the candidates/parties…

Each of us expects the others to behave rationally.
While each of us rationalizes their own biases.
And considers this to be normal!

Not so long ago – evolutionary speaking, things were free. As in ‘up for grabs’.
Our not so distant forefathers fed and clothed themselves by picking ‘things’ from nature.

By talking to each other they had become conscious human beings.
Then came up with the notion of property.

‘If I/we have this thing, you cannot have it too’.

Using this notion, they introduced some order unto the social stage.
Some things, albeit fewer and fewer, remained free/up for grabs while the rest – specially ‘the things of interest’ had become private.

Entertaining the notion of property means that individuals are able to link an object to its owner.
This link is a piece of information.
Discussing and remembering who owns what, our forefathers realized that information is important. Not only the information regarding the link between owners and their property but also information in general. Whatever ‘useful’ things had been learned, remembered and passed around.
Thus information became ‘a thing’.

The order created by the communities using the concept of property and by actively circulating information among the members had become the premise for those communities to thrive.

Somewhat naturally, the members of those communities had reached the conviction that:
Property is good. And that more property is better.
Old people are precious. For the simple reason that they deposit what had happened. By sharing their memories, old people make it so that the younger ones don’t need to learn again and again.

Since property and remembered information were good for the community, the communities using them developed faster and had a way better survival rate than those who didn’t. For whatever reasons.

Since in reality people rationalize rather than think rationally, they have reached the conclusion that the rich and old people were the ultimate cause for the well being of the community.
The individuals, not the modus operandi of the community.

Maryan Popescu face un clip. Îl pune pe TikTok.

Un ‘gregoire’, impresionat de performanțele tractorului, fură clipul, îl titrează și-l urcă pe FB.
Îndemnându-și publicul privitor să-i răsplătească eforturile – e și un buton ‘give’ pe laterala clipului – și să pună botu’ la idea de roexit. 25k dintre aceștia, dintre privitori adică, au dat cu liche. Adică au aprobat pozitiv.

Nedumerirea mea e cât se poate de simplă.
Care e legătura?!?
De ce ar trebui să ieșim din UE – adică să roexit – dacă am fost în stare să facem un tractor?

Nu ne lasă UE să facem tractoare?!?
UE nu ne lasă să mai tăiem porci în bătătură și să ne mai batem nevestele… tractoare… n-avem decât să facem! Dacă mai știe vre-unul dintre noi cum… Dintre ăștia rămași aici să muncim fără să gâdim!

Și să votăm fară să gândim…

“To use rules or laws to get what you want in an unfair but legal way”
From Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

Having a name for ‘it’ means that we’re aware of it’s existence.
We’re still using it, though.
It is wise?

We’re not the first ones to use the method.
The HIV virus has somehow ‘learned’ to hide itself inside our immune system.
Not only to ‘bend the rules of life’ – all viruses do that for a living – but to bend the very rules of immunity!
But we are the first ones to use ‘it’ knowingly!

Not fully aware of the consequences but nevertheless on purpose!

How did we get here?

By ‘gaming’ the laws of nature!
Our ancestors believed flying was reserved for birds. By making good use of what we’ve learned about the ‘system’, we’ve been able to overcome many of our limitations.
We’ve also overcame our common sense…

We forget our planet is limited.
Vast but still limited.
We also tend to forget that our knowledge/understanding is also limited.
We’ve become so confident in our ability to game the system that we tend to ignore the two facts I’ve just mentioned.

Even worse, we’ve given up ‘the brotherhood of man’.
We’ve become humans by talking to each-other. By hunting together. By tilling the earth together.
Then we’ve started to fight. For the same earth we’ve been tilling together…
We’ve invented ‘capitalism’. A manner of doing business which relies mostly on trust. On the rational expectation that the partners will rather fulfill their respective parts of the deal than becoming known as fraudsters.
About the same time, we’ve also invented ‘democracy’. A social arrangement relying on mutual respect.

And we “saw that it was good“.
It lasted for a while…

Recently, capitalism has been gamed into a relentless hunt for profit.
Currently, democracy is being played with alternative facts.

We’re becoming viruses!
Some of us, anyway.


“The early details that have emerged about Thomas Matthew Crooks, who was shot dead by law enforcement, show a young man working an entry-level job near his hometown in Pennsylvania, where he graduated from high school in 2022 with a reputation as a bright but quiet classmate. His high school counselor described him as “respectful” and said he never knew Crooks to be political.”

“Two years ago, Crooks graduated from the local high school, where he showed no particular interest in politics, according to one classmate who asked not to be identified. Crooks’ interests centered on building computers and playing games, the classmate said in an interview.
“He was super smart. That’s what really kind of threw me off was, this was, like, a really, really smart kid, like he excelled,” the classmate said. “Nothing crazy ever came up in any conversation.””

At least one of his classmates perceived him as ‘an outcast’ while another – and his high-school counselor – perceived him as being ‘bright’. Neither ‘saw it coming’.

So why would a very young adult attempt to assassinate a very well known, and very well guarded, public figure?

“Jameson Myers, a former member of the Bethel Park High School varsity rifle team who graduated alongside Crooks in 2022, told CBS that he did not make the team.
“He did not even make the junior varsity team after trying out,” Mr Myers added. “He never returned to try-outs for the remainder of high school.”

Let me rephrase the question. Why would a 20 years old male with a steady job, who had graduated from high school two years ago “with a $500 prize for maths and science“, attempt to shoot somebody out, from a distance, given the fact that he wasn’t trained for it. Nor exactly talented in this domain…

Are we sure this was Crooks’ main target? To assassinate a former, and possibly future, President of the USA?
Or was he trying to end it all? Once and for all?

What were the odds for him to get away with it?
To survive after shooting the first bullet?
He was unanimously described as being ‘smart’…

What drove Thomas Mathew Crooks to the conclusion that his life was no longer worth living?

With Chandler Owen, A. Philip Randolph founded and became co-editor of The Messenger,
an African American socialist magazine, in 1917.
In 1925, Randolph established the first predominantly black labor union,
the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, to improve working conditions
for the nearly 10,000 black railroad employees.
The Brotherhood would enjoy longstanding prominence in the labor and civil rights movements.

According to the English lore, “there’s more than one way to skin a cat”.
According to the cat, ‘who cares about how I lose my coat? I’ll end up dead anyway!’
According to the fur tanners, ‘the manner of skinning the pelt is of utmost importance for the end-result of the operation’.

Whom to believe? Specially since all of them seem to be right…

Well, truth has a marked tendency for being complicated.
Hard to comprehend in its entirety and even harder to express in a concise manner.
Meanwhile we, conscious human beings, have a marked tendency to notice only what we’re interested in. To notice only what we care about…

In fact, the manner in which we notice things speaks volumes about who we are. About how we relate to what we call ‘reality’.

The white colonists inhabiting a certain area in Northern America had become ‘Free Americans’ after fighting the British. Only after they had freed themselves through battle!
A. Philip Randoph had fought for his freedom. And for human rights.

All this fighting leads to a bout of pondering.
Are we free together? As in ‘all of us’ and ‘once and for all’?
Or our freedom is defined against other people? Who might try to steal our liberty from us?

What is freedom, after all?
A zero sum game? Where liberty is up for grabs but in limited supply?
Or a ‘grace’ we impart with and upon our fellow human beings?
Something to be jealously guarded or something to be collectively and cooperatively maintained and enhanced?

And one final question.
Why would anyone attempt to steal other people’s freedom?
When history gives us plenty of evidence that whenever freedom was out to be shared people were happy while whenever freedom was in short supply the entire society eventually crumbled under it’s own weight…

What is going now in China – and in Russia, for that matter –
has nothing to do with the ‘left’.
With what is understood as “left” in Europe…
Instead, it has many similarities with fascism.
‘Corporatist’ states imbued with revindicative nationalism.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb has introduced the concept of “Skin in the Game“.
In short, it is about the fact that the decisions made by people who do not directly and immediately ‘enjoy’ the consequences of their choices have a high probability of being bad. A phenomenon that is accentuated as bad decisions are not immediately sanctioned by those who suffer.

Taleb’s observation only confirms the fact that all dictatorships/authoritarian regimes have collapsed.
Without exception!
Alternatively, it is very easy to see that democracies ONLY last as for long as they manage to maintain their ‘functionality’. That is, for as long as people can – and undertake – to voice their grievances. And for as long as people listen to each other. Respectfully! In vain, some shout about being ‘hungry’ if nobody listens/cares ..

Returning to the idea of ​​’leadership’, yes, countries are led. By some who consider themselves/are considered to be ‘elite’. ‘Led’ only from the operational point of view, however…
Countries are living things, ‘natural selection’ still has the last word!
Ernst Mayr, a biologist, said that ‘evolution is not about the survival of the fittest, but about the disappearance of those who cannot find their ‘right’ place. The misfits. ‘. That’s right, countries have big problems if/when they don’t manage to take down the ‘misfits’ who happen to have clambered into power.
Why countries don’t succeed to do this in a timely manner? How did they clambered there in the first place…
Everything starts when the popular dissatisfaction reaches a critical level. Which dissatisfaction is engendered when the members of that country no longer care for each-other. When mutual respect has disappeared.

I will conclude by returning to the major difference between communism and fascism.
Both of them appeared in situations when enough dissatisfied people were ‘wandering aimlessly’ while looked down by the rest of the society.
Some low-life profiteers seized the occasion and ‘grabbed the helm’. Profiteers who have been able to operationalize the dissatisfaction festering in the society. And the lack of vision of those who hated the others. I repeat myself, both communism and fascism had appeared when various sections of the society despised, and sometimes hated, the ‘others’.
The minor difference consists in the fact that the proto-communist dissatisfied looked up without having any chance to get there, while the proto-fascist ones wanted to return to where they had once been. The Russian muzhiks dying during WWI versus the unemployed German workers who had just lost WWI.

This being where the difference appears.
The difference which makes it hard to recognize what’s going on now in Russia/China as being a form of fascism.
Both the Russians and the Chinese have a lot better lives now than they had under communist rule. Statistically and from the material point of view! Psychologically speaking…
Those who live in well-established democracies – people who respect each other – have a greater tolerance for ‘insecurity’. Each of them knows they can rely on the others. In that environment, failure is temporary. People try as many times as they need to succeed. Or that’s how it used to be…
In communism, we had learned – the hard way, that one was not allowed to make mistakes.
When Russia and China switched to ‘capitalism’ and people saw what could happen to them – to make mistakes while trying – they had become frightened!
And, at least some of them, chose to return – especially psychologically, in the past. Where they felt safe…

“An effective way to undermining something of authentic substance
is by producing versions that closely resemble the real thing
but lack genuine substance.
The skill is in knowing the difference.”

On the other hand, we must keep in mind that fakes are also facts. They exist, don’t they?
Even more so, fake facts do engender consequences!
In fact, it’s these very consequences which impart fact-hood to ‘successful’ fakes.

Also, it is high time for us to understand that this undermining might occur ‘naturally’. Due to our attention being distracted rather than ‘intentionally misguided’.

” Cea mai serioasă disfuncție societală este aceea când
publicul care populează colectivitatea respectivă
nu știe sau uită că el este cel ce are nevoie de intelectuali și nu invers.
Nu intelectualul are nevoie de vreun public, pentru a se împlini. “

Diagnosticul, „disfuncție societală”, este cât se poate de corect.
Atunci când intelectualul nu-și găsește locul în societate, întreaga societate are de suferit.
Doar că…. de cele mai multe ori situația atât de corect diagnosticată este produsul unor intelectuali care nu și-au înțeles cu adevărat menirea.
Ceea ce este cunoscut îndeosebi sub numele de comunism a fost consecința strădaniilor unor intelectuali care o luaseră razna. De la Marx până la politrucii care îl făcurseră posibil pe Ceaușescu.
Ceea ce este cunoscut sub numele de fascism a apărut tot datorită unor așa considerați intelectuali.

Una dintre contribuțiile esențiale ale ‘intelectualismului’ este confuzia malignă din jurul pretinsului conflict dintre colectivism și individualism.
Comunismul – și câteodată fascismul – fiind prezentate ca fiind colectivisme nocive în timp ce ‘individualismul’ este prezentat de promotorii confuziei ca fiind ideal.
Am pus individualismul între ” pentru că în zilele noastre avem de a face cu o formă cel puțin ‘confuză’ de individualism. Individualismul de tip ‘fiecare împotriva tuturor’.
Mai mult, faptul că individualismul, de toate formele, provine din liberalism este ocultat cu obstinație, ‘liberalismul’ fiind nociv în ochii intelectualilor ‘individualiști’!
Ei bine, dacă ridică puțin capul deasupra ceței pompate de individualiștii teoretici devine cât se poate de evident că atât soluția comunistă – la care se poate ajunge doar prin dictatură socialistă – cât și cea fascistă – dictatură mândră de natura sa – sunt, în realitate, forme maligne de individualism. Pentru simplul motiv că întreaga societate este dusă de râpă din cauza concentrării disfuncționale a puterii. Din cauza acaparării puterii de către un număr foarte redus de indivizi! De indivizi cât se poate de individualiști…
Asta în timp ce societățile care funcționeză în regim de democrație liberală sunt niște colectivități compuse din indivizi care se respectă între ei!
Așa zisul colectivism asociat comunismului și fascimului este doar o fentă! O promisiune calpă făcută de niște intelectuali cu o viziune extrem de egoistă unei gloate suficient de exasperată pentru a pune botul la o asemenea prostie. Gloată ajunsă la exasperare tocmai pentru că intelectualii care ar fi trebuit să o avertizeze au preferat să doarmă-n post.

Cum rămâne cu individualimul?
Individualitatea se poate defini și apăra doar împreună. Împreună cu ceilalți și doar în măsura în care indivizii care participă la proces își respectă unii altora individualitatea.
Cu alte cuvinte, comunismul și fascismul – pretins colectiviste – sunt doar individualisme duse la extrem. Asta în timp ce democrația liberală este un foarte bun exemplu despre ce înseamnă un colectiv care se autoreglează. Tocmai pentru că – și doar atâta timp câtă vreme – indivizii care trăiesc în acel colectiv își respectă reciproc individualitățile.

Au mai rămas doar ‘nevoile’ intelectualilor. Că și ei sunt oameni, nu?
Au intelectualii nevoie de „public”?!?

Care dintre intelectuali?

Cei care se definesc „pe sine se”, în fața oglinzii?
Plini până la refuz de libertate interioară? Suficient de liberi în sinea lor încât devin capabili să se strecoare printre toate restricțiile impuse de regim? Indiferent de cât de dictatorial ar fi acesta?
Sau intelectualii recunoscuți ca atare de către cei în mijlocul cărora trăiesc?

Care intelectuali?
Cei care au nevoie să fie apărați în fața dictatorilor?
Sau intelectualii care se pun la dispoziția dictatorilor? Cozile de topor folosite de Lenin pentru a-i distruge pe cei care au îndrăznit să se opună ‘voinței poporului’? Voinței poporului personificată de voința lui Lenin… a lui Lenin și a (ne)’demnilor’ săi urmași…
Poate intelectualii care preferă ‘liniștea’? Care scriu ‘pentru sertar’? Dacă se mai ostenesc să facă și chestia asta….
Primii au nevoie de o societate funcțională. Care acționează ca un colectiv. Ai căror membrii se ajută și apără unii pe ceilalți. Care știu că respectul reciproc este singura cheie care păstrează deschisă ușa către viitor.
Cei din doua categorie sunt politrucii lui Ceaușescu. Care o duc bine pentru o vreme. După care li se prăbușește ceru-n cap. De cele mai multe ori încă din timpul vieții! Trași pe linie moartă, câteodată chiar la propriu, pentru orice ‘deviație’…
Cei din a treia categorie o vor duce la fel de prost precum restul societății lăsate la dispoziția dictaturii. Precum societatea ramasă la dispoziția ‘celorlalți’. Precum societatea lăsată fără alternative tocmai pentru că ei, intelectualii, au ales să se dea la o parte.