Archives for category: authoritarianism

How many apples had fallen?
Before one of us noticed?

I really don’t care whether the story is true or not.
All I’m interested in is ‘why it took us so long’?
After all, things had fallen towards the center of the Earth since always. Eratosthenes had already calculated the circumference of the obviously round Earth back in 240 BC. And “By the 1st century AD, the spherical model was widely accepted, and Ptolemy developed maps based on a globe with systems of longitude and latitude.” According to the currently famous internet, obviously …

The way I see it, the world was not ready for it. Before Newton.
We didn’t have the ‘language’ in which to spell this new reality. And nobody really cared about the matter. Really invested into the matter, as opposed to interested about the subject…

But things change.
1492 Christopher Columbus discovered America. Trying to go to India but steering into the ‘wrong’ direction. Inaugurating the era of sailing into the unknown.
1524 The posthumous publication of Johannes Werner’s method of determining longitude and latitude by measuring the angular distance between the moon and other astronomical objects. The method was not usable at the time because the necessary data, ‘tables of ephemerides’ had not yet been published.
1543 Nicolaus Copernicus. a priest, published his famous book about how the planets circled the Earth.
1600 Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for defending and promoting Copernicus’ ideas. The world was still not ready.
1595 – 1627 Johannes Keppler published a series of works detailing Copernicus’s heliocentric model of the Universe and elaborating mathematical tools for the job. Including a set of Ephemerides, in 1617. His work was met with mixed reactions, the opposition being mitigated by the fact that Keppler, a very religious person, never crossed any of the significant figures he came in contact with.
1687 Isaac Newton published his Principia Mathematica. Integrating and formalizing the work of many, Newton’s synthesis filled the ‘need to know’ of those concerned. While his theory was met with some philosophical opposition – Huygens and Leibniz, among others, on the practical side no one had raised any objections. Until Einstein, but that is another subject.

What happened?

People had been already sailing for some 2000 years.
But until then, it used to be a ‘craft’. Something passed on from father to son and kept, more or less, into the family.
The ‘Sea People’…
Vasco da Gama, the first European to reach India by sailing around the Cape of Good Hope, 1498, was the last of the ‘craftsmen’ who ‘discovered’ places. By sailing there using ‘the good old, time sanctioned, manner’.
Christopher Columbus, by sailing the other way around, was the first to transform this craft into an industry.
He also started the process which transformed the whole world.

Sailing and trading on an industrial scale demands a different kind of people. And transform those who embark unto the adventure.
Ancient Athens, heavily involved in sailing and trading, had invented democracy. The city continues to exist while we consider democracy to have been invented by the Ancient Greeks.
Ancient Sparta, Athens’ fiercest domestic competitor, a quintessentially agricultural society, was run as a dictatorship. Only ruins survived. And a myth…

Isaac Newton, and his readers, were able to understand gravity because they needed that knowledge.
Which was but a step in the road they were opening. For themselves and for those who followed.
Basically, what they did was to spin a new story, read ‘narrative’ out of information which was already floating around.

Are we capable of following in their steps?

For ‘only God knows what reason’ this very morning I was reminded by ‘the FB algorithms’ about a comment I made some 7 years ago.
“Democracies fend off challenges when participants value the preservation of the system—its norms and ideals and values—over short-term political gain.”

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/understanding-death-democracy-not-really-trump/


Id, Ego, SuperEgo.
Freud.
Consciousness is the ulterior level of self-awareness.

Added by humans through languaged interaction.
Humberto Maturana.
AI is a function. A human developed computer application.

Built by cramming information available over the internet
into computer circuits sophisticated enough to defy human understanding.
Social Media

Some 70 000 years ago, people – human people, that is – have learned to articulate. To communicate in a symbolic manner.
The next step up from coordinating their moves while hunting.
Acting like a pack was inherited from their primate ancestors.
Active communication, speaking with the intent to teach, was a human addition.

Not without consequences.
They were already accomplished hunter-gatherers and skillful tool makers. Some researchers have unearthed evidence that they were also artists. They were painting on cave-walls some 20000 years before the modern humans, the Sapiens, had started to displace them.
They were our uncles, the Neanderthals.
But it was us, the Sapiens, who have survived. To tell the story…

Us being able to speak, to language our interactions, has had tremendous consequences.
The most important one, even if rarely mentioned, is the ‘shape’ of our consciences. And the depth of our consciousness.

Some 10000 ago, people have invented agriculture. Planting crops and raising animals.
Already conscious, they had figured out the ups of the whole thing.
Unfortunately – their rationality was just as bounded as our still is – they didn’t knew what was coming…
According to some researchers – and to my first hand observations – being able to grow your own food doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll live longer. Or better…
But society, as a whole, was able to leap forward!

It took our homo ancestors some 2 and a half million years to evolve from primates to cave-painting humans.
In another 50 000 years, our already speaking ancestors have invented agriculture. And built things like Stonehenge and the Great Pyramids.

You don’t need to speak in order to coordinate your actions while hunting. Wolfs do it ‘silently’.
But you need a different kind of coordination, a deeper one, if you want to build things. ‘You’, in this case, is ‘you, the people’.
When building things, the builders need coordinated thinking. Coordinated action is not enough.
Hence religion.
Reflexive self-awareness, developed in contrast to but in cooperation with the individuals comprising the community becomes a shared consciousness. A collection of cooperating individuals generate an entire space. Open-up a brand new ‘volume’. One full of human made opportunity and governed by culture.
Nota bene, competition is nothing but yet another form of cooperation. Of a deeper nature!

Some 500 years ago, our fore-fathers have invented Science.
While philosophy was a coordinated effort to make sense of things, science had been invented to coordinate knowledge with reality. While philosophy had sprouted naturally, as a consequence of how people used, and continue, to be, science had been born, intentionally, out of necessity.
Philosophy and religion have happened naturally, depending heavily on the particulars of when and where they happened to appear. Science was invented as a consequence of where the people involved had ‘opened their eyes’. As a consequence of the circumstances produced by the previous efforts.


Nowadays, in the technologically built circumstances we have prepared for ourselves, we are currently cramming already gathered knowledge – too much of which being nothing more than mere crap – through computer circuits so complicated that we no longer understand.
Hoping that the elusive AI we expect to be born as the result of our efforts will ….

Will what?!?
Make more sense? Of what we call ‘reality’?
Or makes us even richer? Well, make some of us even richer than they already are…

One caveat here.
While humankind, as a whole, has leapt forward each time, individual humans have had a more nuanced experience. Depending more on the circumstances each of them had been born into rather than on their individual efforts.
Yes, people who were able to grow their food had been able to build magnificent things. The Egyptian and the Mayan pyramids, for example. The Stonehenge and the Atlit Yam monuments.
But if we look closer… only a small number of agricultural societies have been able to generate remarkable things. And only for a limited time… The rest of the agricultural societies had experienced nothing but hard work. Sometimes, too many times, wasted at the whim of authoritarian rulers.
In fact, each and every such breakthroughs had been a blessing in disguise. To be experienced by others but those who had borne the brunt of them being introduced.
Those toiling the fields had to work harder than the foragers before them.
Those sweating in the factories had to work more hours, yearly speaking, than the peasants.
Currently, people working remotely – connected to a computer – can hardly escape off-line.

History is full of peasant uprisings and various revolutions.
None of which had accomplished anything.
We’d better have a talk with our alter-ego. Or pray…
We’re headed towards interesting times!

1939, September 1. The III-rd Reich invades Poland.
1939, September 3. France and Britain declares war against Germany.
1940, April 8, Germany invades Norway.
1940, May 10, Germany invades Belgium.
1940, June 14, German soldiers occupy Paris.

The British Army in France 1939 Army and French Air Force personnel outside a dugout named ’10 Downing Street’ on the edge of an airfield, 28 November 1939.

OK. War makes no sense. Starting one, that is.
Unless you have to defend yourself, of course!

It was Hitler’s Germany which had started WWII.
France and Britain declaring war on Germany was nothing but a formality.
But what happened next…

Waiting for 8 months while your opponent was busy elsewhere makes even less sense. Than starting the war in the first place…

Counterfactual history is interesting.
Imagining ‘what could have happened if’, we may learn how people think.

We know what happened.
We’re not happy with much of it. It would have been a lot better if WWII was never fought. In the first place. For all of us.
The next best thing would have been a lot shorter war. France and Britain invading Germany while Hitler and Stalin were dividing Poland among themselves.

I’m not going to enumerate arguments. Neither for nor against. I don’t actually know whether the war would have been shorter or not. Whether the end would have been significantly different. Or in which way different…
But I would really like to understand what was going on in Chamberlain’s head! As well as in Daladier’s. The British and French prime-ministers at that time, respectively.

On the other hand…
1936. Hitler had ordered his army to enter the Rhineland region. In breach of the Versailles Treaty.
1938. Hitler had occupied Austria.
1939, March. Hitler invaded what was left of Czechoslovakia, breaching what he had promised in September 1938.
During this time, France and Britain did nothing!

Not so drole anymore, eh…

Political prisoners and Death Camps can’t exist without “Gun Control”.
Some Americans still feel “Gun Control” is a good ideea.
To prevent a Schindler’s List in America, we must destroy “Gun Control”!!

“Say the words “gun registration” to many Americans—especially pro-gun Americans, including the 3.5 million plus members of the National Rifle Association—and you are likely to hear about Adolf Hitler, Nazi gun laws, gun confiscation, and the Holocaust. More specifically, you are likely to hear that one of the first things that Hitler did when he seized power was to impose strict gun registration requirements that enabled him to identify gun owners and then to confiscate all guns, effectively disarming his opponents and paving the way for the genocide of the Jewish population.“German firearm laws and hysteria created against Jewish firearm owners played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in the Holocaust,” writes Stephen Halbrook, a pro-gun lawyer. “If the Nazi experience teaches anything,” Halbrook declares, “it teaches that totalitarian governments will attempt to disarm their subjects so as to extinguish any ability to resist crimes against humanity.””

Bernard E. Harcourt, On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler… 2001 The University of Chicago

“As the videos begin, Pretti can be seen filming as a federal agent pushes away one woman and shoves another woman to the ground. Pretti moves between the agent and the women, then raises his left arm to shield himself as the agent pepper sprays him.
Several agents then take hold of Pretti – who struggles with them – and force him onto his hands and knees. As the agents pin down Pretti, someone shouts what sounds like a warning about the presence of a gun. Video footage then appears to show one of the agents removing a gun from Pretti and stepping away from the group with it.
Moments later, an officer with a handgun pointed at Pretti’s back fires four shots at him in quick succession, footage shows. Several more shots can then be heard as another agent appears to fire at Pretti.”

“”How many more residents, how many more Americans need to die or get badly hurt for this operation to end?” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said at a press conference.
Trump accused local elected officials of stirring up opposition.
“The Mayor and the Governor are inciting Insurrection, with their pompous, dangerous, and arrogant rhetoric,” the Republican president wrote on social media.”

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

And you call this ‘a complex reality’…

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PUT GOOD PEOPLE IN AN EVIL PLACE?
DOES HUMANITY WIN OVER EVIL, OR DOES EVIL TRIUMPH?
THESE ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE POSED IN THIS DRAMATIC SIMULATION
OF PRISON LIFE CONDUCTED IN 1971 AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY.

“How we went about testing these questions and what we found may astound you. Our planned two-week investigation into the psychology of prison life had to be ended after only six days because of what the situation was doing to the college students who participated. In only a few days, our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress. Please read the story of what happened and what it tells us about the nature of human nature.”

Professor Philip G. Zimbardo

1971

A group of California students was divided in two. Half were told to act as prison guards and the other half to obey the first. The experiment was meant to last for two weeks but was cut short after six days.
“I ended the study prematurely for two reasons. First, we had learned through videotapes that the guards were escalating their abuse of prisoners in the middle of the night when they thought no researchers were watching and the experiment was “off.” Their boredom had driven them to ever more pornographic and degrading abuse of the prisoners.” Professor Philip G. Zimbardo.

2025-2026

People living in the US have been told that some of them don’t belong there. That if and when those who do not will have been removed, the rest will resume their previously ‘great’ lives.


Some forty odd years ago, a co-worker asked me: ‘What do you think about the UFO-s?’.

Romania, while Ceausescu was still running the show.
People had time on their hands to consider subjects like that. Unidentified Flying Objects. No TV to watch. Only two hours each day. Most of it repeating what Ceausescu had just said. No vacation to plan. People didn’t have enough money. Nor were allowed to go abroad. No books worth reading. No new books worth to be read, anyway… So people spent their time discussing ‘safe’ subjects.

‘Well, I’m not sure they actually exist. I haven’t seen one myself.
But if they do… that might mean we’re under surveillance.
Not that different from what we do in the jungle. Study the chimpanzee. Without interfering in their evolution!’

?!?

‘Do you feel exploited?’

‘No…’

‘Well… We, humans have been exploiting those who were weaker than us. Remember what happened when the Spaniards had discovered America. Or when the English had managed to conquer India. Control China. When the Americans ‘opened up’ Japan…
Now let’s accept the UFO’s as being real.
They must be controlled by very powerful agents. The kind of people which could, if they so wished, very easily control the entire Earth. Transform it into a colony. Which didn’t happen.
Which means they’re not like us. Like we used to be, anyway.
And let me go further.
If they do exist, and do have a certain technological prowess, they may behave in two ways. Peacefully or aggressively.
We’ve already established that they seem to be peaceful. And probably have been so for quite a while.
Then they’re no longer able to fight. Ready to risk their lives in battle.
Hence they’ll be using their technological prowess to protect themselves. Against ‘fresh’, immature, civilizations. Whose members continue to believe it’s worthwhile to risk their lives if the reward is big enough. Who are still ‘ready to fight’.
According to this scenario, the UFO-s are here to make sure we don’t get out in the space until we learn to behave.

A couple of years ago, I stumbled upon Liu Cixin’s Trilogy. In which he exposes the ‘Dark Forrest Hypothesis’. A couple of weeks ago, I came across the final book of the trilogy, the Death’s End.
Reading it, I remembered the discussion I had with my co-worker.

So, which will it be?
And, even more importantly, will we learn from our own mistakes?

Communism failed. Like all other totalitarian regimes.
Some people, most living in countries where it has never been experimented, consider communism to be an interesting idea. They also believe that what took place in the communist lager was not the real deal. Not what Marx had in mind!

First things first.
According to Marx’s Communist Manifesto, communism – as in the communist regime – was going to be instated by “the most advanced elements of the working class”. The communist activists… And the regime was going to be imposed by revolutionary means.
For a very simple reason…

The whole rationale of communism was that everything bad came from private property.
Abolish private property and everything will be just fine.
Yeah but… who in their right minds would accept that? Those who have only their chains to lose, right, but what about the rest? Hence the need for revolution! Which revolution was to install the dictatorship of the proletariat…

Forget about the proletariat and focus on the idea of dictatorship. Top down decision making, at its worse.
Remember the ‘who in their right minds would accept anything like that’ part…

You might have already recognized Brancusi’s Endless Column. World famous sculpture built in Targu Jiu, Romania. Considered to be ‘decadent’ by a local communist activist in the 1950’s. So, being ‘decadent’, it had to be removed. The recovered iron was going to be melt and used in the industry.

Fortunately, the activist running the show was an idiot.
A smarter guy would have attached those chains higher. Far higher. The results may had been different.
The rig pictured above didn’t accomplish anything. The chains broke and the column didn’t budge.

The whole thing is a perfect example.
For what happens when an ignorant nincompoop tries to remodel the reality.
Nothing if the reality is lucky.
Nothing good in all other instances…


Evolution is not as much about the survival of the fittest
as it is about the demise of the unfit‘.
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is

As an engineer, I’m more concerned about consequences than fascinated by explanation.
OK, explanation – as in understanding the process – is necessary when trying to improve things. To fine tune. To ‘increase efficiency’…
But ‘survival wise’… sometimes it’s enough to bring things back to square 1. To repair. Specifically when the thing which no longer works used to make wonders.

Passeist? Anti-progressive?!?
No, as I already mentioned, I’m just a ‘don’t fix it if it’s not broken’ engineer. And currently … IT is broken.

Democracy doesn’t work anymore. Not like it used to, anyway!
If we want to fix it, we don’t necessarily need to understand what happened. Only to return democracy back to where it was.
For that, we need to understand what democracy is, not what had happened to it.

Looking back, we notice that all authoritarian regimes had failed. Crumbled under their own weight, usually, and failed abysmally when attacked from outside. Usually, again.
While no democratic regime had ever failed as long as it had managed to conserve its democratic nature.

‘But the Pharaohs have run Ancient Egypt for three millennia, give or take. In a very authoritarian manner…. they were absolute monarchs, you know!’
Not so fast. During those three millennia, The Ancient Egypt had been run by 33 dynasties. By 33 different authoritarian regimes… When each of those dynasties were no longer able to run the country – when each regime fell under the weight of its own mistakes, with or without ‘outside’ contribution – another dynasty, the next one, took over. ‘Usually’ not in a nice manner…
Same goes for all other authoritarian regimes!

While under a democratic regime, whenever those at the helm of the government start behaving badly, or commit too many mistakes, they are changed in a peaceful manner.

So, basically, democracy is a social arrangement which is able to change itself. To adapt! To what happens inside or outside it.
While the authoritarian rulers do their best – or worse? – to conserve their own power/position at the helm, the democratic regimes contribute to the survival of the entire society.
For as long as they manage to conserve their true democratic nature. Their openness. Their ability to depose those who overcome their welcome at the helm of the government.

I argued in my previous post that corruption is akin to decay.
Going forward, evolutionary speaking, we need to figure out what’s driving it. It’s ‘raison d’etre’.

Decay, also known as decomposition, re-allocates resources. Frees resources. Resources previously used in an currently ‘dead process’. Building blocks currently stuck in a corpse. Waiting to be freed, in order to participate in the next living process.
Corruption does more or less the same thing. Only less naturally. Way less naturally, sometimes bordering malignancy…

I mentioned corruption taking place in two environments. In a closed, abandoned, fridge – in an authoritarian environment, or in an open forest. A free society. In the fridge, corruption begets ‘hairy’, aberrant, ‘things’ while in an open society corruption plays a more nuanced role.

‘Intensity’ wise, at the individual level, there is ‘grass-roots’ corruption – like tipping your restaurant server or your hairdresser – and white-collar corruption. Which culminates in ‘pork-barrel’ politics.

‘Consequence’ wise, at the social level, grass-roots corruption sets the stage for the white-collar variety. ‘Educates’ people. Accustoms individuals exposed to it with the phenomenon. White-collar corruption weakens the entire society. Prepares it for take-over. Softens it for ‘revolution’. Not very different from an insidious rot weakening a seemingly strong tree before it is knocked over by wind.

Historically speaking – as in looking back in time – it’s easy to notice that corruption weakens both kind of societies. Open as well as the authoritarian ones.
The difference being that it works in opposite ways!

Corruption frees, eventually, those living in authoritarian societies.
The same process weakens the open, democratic, societies which allow it to grow malignantly.

Let’s remember.
Hitler’s Germany was defeated not only by the valor of those resisting its aggression but also by its inability to adapt. By its absolute corruption.
USSR collapsed, under it’s own weight, like all other empires. The British one included.
No authoritarian regime had ever survived for the long run. Each change of dynasty was, in reality, the advent of a new authoritarian regime. People had no alternative in those times.
On the other hand, no democratic regime had ever collapsed as long as it had managed to preserve its democratic character. What had happened in Eastern Europe after communism had caved in is ample proof for my thesis.

Corruption kills.
Sometimes literally.

Some ten years ago – 2015, October 30 – a fire broke out in a Bucharest night-club.
64 people died on the spot, including 4 members of the band. “The day we give is the day we die” was one of the tunes Goodbye to Gravity played that night.

The inquiry had determined that corruption was the main cause for what had happened. Safety certificates issued outside any norms, dysfunctional health care, unresponsive authorities… Massive popular protest forced the prime-minister to resign.
Things are better now, in Romania, but only slightly. Too slightly…

The point being that we’ve been warned.
Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Frank Herbert: “It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.

Both were right.
Power both corrupts and is a magnet for the corruptible!
Hence we need to keep it in check…

Nothing moves without power. We need it. To make things happen.
We also need to survive. To remain alive after things will have happened!

In order to do that, we need to understand something.
About the thing which may derail the whole thing.
About corruption!

Current events – Andriy Yermak resigning his post in Ukraine and Federica Mogherini being detained – are hailed as being ‘flaws’. As highlighting the weakness of Ukraine and the EU, respectively. Their ‘unworthiness’.

I forcefully disagree.
Corruption, like decay, is a natural thing.

Let me put it in a different perspective.
Decay may happen in an abandoned fridge. A closed space in which all kind of ‘unnatural things’ will happen if left unattended.
Decay naturally takes place in a forest. Where ‘no longer living’ organisms ‘turn back to dust’.

A fridge – which is a dead thing, specially when abandoned – is incapable of managing anything. Including a process of decaying.
A forest – which is a meta-living organism, if you’ll allow this expression – thrives as long as natural processes can take place. Decaying being one of the most important ones.

Same thing goes for societies.
Open societies – the ones known as democracies – are no more and no less ‘corrupt’ than the closed ones. The ones usually known as autocracies. In the sense that those in powerful positions are equally tempted by corruption. Equally tempted to misuse their power…
The difference being that the open societies deal with corruption in an open manner. Above the board. In public. In a court of law.
While autocracies deal with the corrupt people only when the autocrat allows it. Only when the autocrat feels that a particular act of corruption is detrimental for his own well being…

So.
Every time an open society exposes an act of corruption, that society becomes stronger.
While autocratic regimes are corrupt from top to bottom. By definition. Very much similar to an abandoned fridge brimming with ‘hairy’ things.