In romaneste aici:
Before I describe a concrete case that shows how Ju$tice works I would make a brief analyze of judicial system regarding the citizens. The legislation is the accurate or even identical copy of global psychic system Conscious- Unconscious relationship. Actually the state could not be something else since it is a product of human psychic system and developed by a perfidious cleverness. Here comes into my mind a case described by Freud of a person that was commanded into the hypnotic state to open his umbrella several minutes after he wakes up. Indeed that is exactly what happened next after his waking up. But when asked about the meaning of his gesture that person answered serenely: “I just felt like”. That is the exact way the sate works except that the network movement of commands is more complex and shapes up not in several minutes of hypnosis but during the whole life. “I just felt like” that everybody does when practice her/his profession it is the illusion of freedom that system offer in exchange for its benefits. Being a legacy of classical slavery state the contemporary neoslavery state spread out through Unconscious its interests into the most hided parts of society.

Every profession is meant to produce objects or satisfactions for masters or to supervise the slaves or bring down their spirit in order to bring down their willing to rise up. “I just felt like” is felt by every slave when does not work, when gets bored and when not feeling well if do not execute the masters command. Such a feeling is critical for the global economy function. This feeling is build up by the state institutions using the spiritual mutilations during many generations. We live in the Matrix meant to satisfy the needs of such cyborgs of traveling on the moon or of having luxury residences and, finally of having a rival or somebody at his/her knees from whom to extract the feeling of power. Such a bizarre need is pointless today but it satisfy the reflexes of community old big robbers called masters that today masters have from. Stealing and enslaving the innocent community is the base of civilization but instead of old sieges today we have the state that manages to robber more efficiently than the power of armies. The rules, the procedures and the legislation are the tools that mainly replaced the killing weapons but, as the cause survives in the effect the classical weapons now technological developed are good supports for such a “democratic institutions” that serve luxury neorobberers.

But inside every legislative there are two unwritten and untold big laws universally applied with the use of the others. The first one is that the master has the right to steal from slave. This kind of robbery was called “divine right” in the past. Today “divine right” turned into artificial, exclusive and luck of concurrence praiseworthiness that masters offer one another. The first one is that the slave is not allowed to steal from master and has no right to take back its damage of being stolen before. These basic unfair laws are the untold latent content of Ju$tice and the manifest ones that that state show to people is actually meant to cover up and mend their image.

The constitution is the base of legislation and the base of state functionality. But there is nowhere to be found in any constitution such two basic laws. On the contrary, at the first sight the constitution convince the reader that such a thing is quite impossible no matter how obvious is in real life. The state builds up a complex system of laws to mask their discriminating and inhuman face and to artificially create a more natural aspect. This cosmetic strategy involves 4 types of laws or human rights.

1. The most important laws for the master minority are the compelling and abusive laws that basically are used for what the masters did during all the civilization: that is to collect taxis that support their parasite situation in society. Any kind of law settlement and restriction of citizen’s behavior reveal this interest of parasite goal. These laws actually limit the liberty of slaves and help increase the liberty of masters. The social privileged ones overuse the need of human being to accept some restrictions in exchange for living in society. The press or the election campaigns measure this collective acceptance or dissatisfaction about these restrictions in order to prevent the slave’s revolt. The most of the people does not figure up the way that this general civilization robbery goes and everything seems very smooth and clean. I pointed here the need of developed society for half sleepy and not very smart people.
2. Other laws are artificial rights (of human being) because they show nothing new to the natural life of people. Their first purpose is to cover up the trust of people in the other laws and to give them the impression that the laws are good and very helpful. In law constitution one could find rights like “the right of life, of marriage, of drinking water, of breathing air etc.” with the subliminal induced idea that all these realities of natural life would be actually the benefits offered by state.
3. Other laws are partially applicable or completely inapplicable because there are no social conditions for applying them. They are putted into law constitutions for propaganda reasons to make people trust in the system but they will never bring to all the people their promises. They promise natural rights to people but these “rights” are the exchange coin that system uses for the labor of slaves. So called “the right of home” or something like it is just on paper. Even in the western countries there are homes that look more like lairs than like houses. If the slave stops being productive any more than this so called right disappears just like that. The banks with their credits system of mortgage works in this way.
4. Other laws are deceiving and contradictory to their own enounces. They give the false impression that helps people but actually hide the state interest of manipulation and dehumanization. For example “the right of education” is just the obligation of becoming highly efficient, of getting used to the work in factory since early age. “The right of information” works only with manipulation filter information. When it comes for intimate details of institutions activity, of future social projects and laws then that information are discreetly kept away from citizen’s attention or classified as state secrets. If the urban space are suffocated by panels and billboards that obsessively plays political news or commercials that is presented by authorities as the respecting “the right of information” of citizen. It is easy to see that this “right of information” is actually the greedy authorities’ need for manipulation. What is really important for the citizen to know, the dark sides of social system, the making of political decisions, the money functionality or the detailed study of legislation is out of this deceiving “right of information”.

In the next blog entry I will continue this general description of the way that Ju$tice works by bring up to analyze a real case .

Inainte de a oferi descrierea unui exemplu concret de functionare a Ju$titiei voi face o sumara analiza a sistemului juridic in relatie directa cu cetateanul. Pentru mine legislatia este copia fidela sau chiar identica a relatiei dintre Constient si Inconstient la nivel de psihic global. Ca produs al psihicului si ajutat de o inteligenta perfida in fond statul nu poate sa fie altceva decat aceasta relatie. Imi vine in minte cazul enuntat de Freud cu un subiect caruia i s-a cerut in starea de hipnoza sa desfaca umbrela la cateva minute dupa ce se va trezi. Chiar asa s-a intamplat. La intrebarile asistentei cu privire la sensul gestului sau subiectul a raspuns senin : „asa mi-a venit”. In acelasi mod functioneaza si statul doar ca reteaua de circulatie a comenzilor este mult mai complexa si vizeaza nu doar cateva minute ale hipnozei ci o viata intreaga. Acel „asa mi-a venit” e de fapt iluzia de libertate pe care sistemul o ofera in mod perfid oricarei profesii. Ca mostenitor al statului sclavagist clasic statul neosclavagist contemporan si-a raspandit interesele pe cale inconstienta in cele mai ascunse parti ale societatii.

Fiecare profesie este menita fie sa produca bunuri/satisfactii diferite stapanilor fie sa supravegheze productivitatea sclavilor sau sa se scada moralul in asa fel incat sa le piara ideea de revolta. „Asa mi-a venit” o resimte fiecare sclav atunci cand nu munceste, cand se plictiseste si cand nu se simte bine daca nu executa comenzile stapanilor. Un astfel de sentiment este indispensabil pentru functionarea economiei generale. El are in spate un intreg sistem de dezumanizare care se intinde pe mutilarea spirituala a unor generatii intregi. In realitate traim intr-un Matrix menit sa satisfaca nevoia unora de a calatori pe luna, de a se refugia in resedinte luxoase si, in final de a avea un rival sau un semen la picioare pe care sa il umileasca si din care sa extraga sentimentul de putere. O astfel de ultima nevoie nu are nici un scop in zilele noastre doar ca acestea sunt reflexele vechilor mari jefuitori numiti seniori, stramosi ai actualilor cyborgi care le-au transmis aceasta molima morala. Jefuirea si inrobirea comunitatilor inocente este baza civilizatiei dar in locul vechilor asedii astazi avem statul care este mult mai eficient decat jefuirea prin forta armata. Regulile, procedurile si in principal legislatia este instrumentul ce a luat in buna parte locul vechilor arme de foc insa, dupa cum cauza supravietuieste in efect acestea au ramas in continuare suport fidel neojefuitorilor de lux.

Doua legi nescrise si nespuse insa universal aplicabile cu ajutorul celorlalte sunt importante in legislatie. Prima este ca stapanul are voie sa fure de la sclav. Tipul asta de hotie permisa in cazurile privilegiatilor social se numea in trecut "Drept divin". Astazi „dreptul divin„ se manifesta pur si simplu ca merit artificial, merit in absenta concurentei si dat de stapani lor insisi. Ce-a de-a doua este ca sclavul nu are voie sa fure de la stapan si nu are voie sa incerce sa isi recupereze paguba. Aceste doua legi inumane sunt continutul latent, nespus al Ju$titiei iar toate celelalte legi spuse sunt menite sa le carpeasca si sa le ascunda de ochii lumii pe acestea.


Constitutia este baza legislatiei. Acolo sunt prezentate legile de baza dupa care functioneaza statul. Nicaieri in acest cod fundamental de legi nu este prezentata o astfel de realitate. Ba dimpotriva. La prima citire orice constitutie convinge cititorul ca asa ceva este cu adevarat imposibil desi in acest mod functioneaza efectiv statul tehnologic contemporan. Pornind de la functionarea latenta a acestor legi statul a creat un intreg stufaris de alte legi care sa le mascheze caracterul discriminatoriu si inuman al acestora si sa le cosmetizeze putin, sa le dea un aspect natural. In continutul manifest al legislatiei exista patru tipuri de legi sau drepturi ale cetateanului.

1. Cele mai importante pentru minoritatea stapanilor sunt legile constrangatoare si abuzive care in principiu se refera la ce au stiut foarte bine sa faca stapanii: sa colecteze impozitele sau taxele din care sa isi creeze situatia lor de paraziti sociali. Orice reglementare si orice limitare a comportamentului cetateanului cu ajutorul legislatiei ascunde un astfel de interes. Acest tip de legi in plan concret micsoreaza libertatea omului de rand si o maresc pe cea a privilegiatilor sociali. Pornind de la nevoia nativa a omului de a se asocia in grup si de a-si crea legi de convietuire, adica de necesitatea constrangerii, statul discriminatoriu isi permite cresterea nivelului de constrangere. Institutii ca presa sau votul iau pulsul cu privire la gradul de acceptare sau de nemultumire fata de aceste supraconstrangeri in asa fel incat sa previna revolta sclavilor. Cei care nu au suficienta inteligenta incat sa le poata anticipa scopurile nesatioase nu isi pot imagina o astfel de escrocherie generalizata a civilizatiei si astfel totul se face foarte discret. In ce masura statul clasic si contemporan are nevoie de astfel de cetateni adormiti pe jumatate sau cu un nivel intelectual scazut am aratat aici.
2. Altele legi sunt drepturi artificiale (ale omului) deoarece practic nu aduc nimic nou starii naturale a omului. Ele sunt menite sa acopere increderea celorlalte in ochii sclavului manipulabil dar care de fapt reprezinta realitatii naturale ale vietii. De exemplu "dreptul la viata, la casatorie, la bautul de apa, respiratul de aer " cu pretentia inconstienta ca astfel de realitati ale vietii insasi ar fi beneficii pe care chipurile le-ar acorda statul.
3. Altele sunt partial aplicabile sau inaplicabile deoarece nu exista socialmente conditiile pentru aplicarea lor. Ele sunt puse acolo pur si simplu ca masura de propaganda necesara increderii in sistem si niciodata nu vor aduce concret rezultatul promis. Cumva ele sunt menite sa ofere ceva drepturi nenaturale sclavului dar in realitate asa ceva nu se poate intampla deoarece aceste drepturi sunt cele care momesc sclavul sa ofere munca lui la schimb . Asanumitul „drept la locuinta” sau ceva de acest gen exista doar pe hartie. Exista case care seamana mai mult a barloguri decat a locuinte inclusiv in tarile dezvoltate. Daca sclavul inceteaza subit sa mai fie productiv atunci acest drept dispare ca prin minune si omul nostru isi pierde locuinta cat ai zice peste. Bancile cu sistemele creditelor si ipotecilor functioneaza perfect in acest sens.
4. Alte legi sunt inselatoare si contradictorii cu propria lor enuntare. Ele dau impresia ca ofera drepturi cetatenilor dar de fapt ele ascund actiunea sistematica de manipulare si dezumanizare. De exemplu "dreptul la educatie" este pur si simplu obligatia la a deveni eficient si a te obisnui cu munca in fabrica inca din frageda pruncie. De asemenea "dreptul la informatie" functioneaza doar cand este vorba de informatii trecute prin filtrul manipularii. Informatii intime despre functionarea institutiilor, despre viitoare proiecte sau legi sunt tinute discret in afara atentiei cetateanului de rand sau clasate ca secrete de stat. Faptul ca spatiul urban se sufoca cu monitoare pe care ruleaza obsesiv stiri politic(ianist)e si reclame comerciale este prezentat ca o respectare a autoritatilor a acestui "drept fundamental" al cetateanului. In realitate acest „drept la informare” este de fapt o nevoia lacoma a autoritatilor pentru manipulare. Ceea ce este cu adevarat important de stiut pentru omul de rand, zonele obscure ale sistemului, luarea deciziilor politice, functionarea monedei sau studiul amanuntit al legislatiei nu mai apartine „dreptului la informatie”. Atunci acest "drept" dispare ca prin minune si astfel isi arata adevaratul sens.

In urmatorul articol voi continua aceasta descriere generala a modului in care functioneaza Ju$titia cu analiza unui caz concret.

Niciodata nu am avut ca natiune (in masura in care termenul "natiune" nu e total lipsit de continut) un varf de lance in materie de estetica si filosofie. Eugen Ionescu a fost mai mult un scriitor decat un teoretician. Cioran a fost mai mult un eseist. Blaga a fost prea national si, paradoxal, prea pretentios pentru simplitatea romaneasca. Dar si ... prea putin universal. Noica e tot pe acolo. Petre Tutea e unul dintre cei mai intarziati teoreticieni. Cred ca l-au retrogadat torturile inchisorilor comuniste. Eliade e singurul cu care se poate compara atat in privinta anvergurii internationale cat si cea a complexitatii operei. Dar parca a fost un pic cam servil lui Jung in materie de filosofie.

Matei Calinescu a fost cam primul astfel de roman. El aspart gheata culturala. "Fetele modernitatii" e o lucrare respectata in toata lumea. A creat o teorie originala si universala despre evolutia culturii. Daca teoriile sale seamana un pic cu ale lui Foucault sau altii totusi nu se raporteaza la ei in asa maniera in care Eliade o face la Jung fie si involuntar.

Pentru mine postmodernismul e o chestiune dubioasa. Insusi Matei Calinescu mi-a spus fara echivoc ca nici pentru el nu mai insemna mare lucru. Dar pentru faptul ca a fost acolo la construirea lui teoretica merita tot respectul nostru.

Nu sunt un mare nationalist insa ma simt mandru ca intr-o societate romaneasca plina de escroci la costum si cravata sau de intarziati contemporani iata ca cineva a reusit sa se desprinda si sa isi construiasca un loc in istoria culturii. L-am intalnit fata in fata, am stat de vorba cu el fapt pe care n-am sa il uit niciodata. Mi s-a partut un monument de simplitate si claritate la fel ca si scrierile sale. Desi am putine puncte comune cu el in materie de preocupari artistice si teoretice totusi simplitatea din "Fetele moderintatii" m-a influentat decisiv. "Contradictiile, iluziile si virtutile postmodernismului" pe care am scris-o in anul 2003 i se datoreaza exclusiv. Nu cred ca as fi scris-o daca nu as fi citit "Fetele moderintatii" .

In romaneste aici:

In the last blog entry I made a short analysis of particular civilized human being psychic regarding the influences of civilization during the centuries. Haeckel and then Freud showed how the primitive human being survives into the civilized one or how the child survives into the adult person. I am going to cover the part that is missing between the primitive culture and the childhood. I think we can understand better the human being and the society that lives in if make this connection and complete its evolution chain.

This connection between these periods is the classical civilization. That means classical culture and colonialism witch is the relation between slave and the master. Such a relation survives in contemporary society as the primitive survives in contemporaneous. The classical hermetic separation between slave and master is to be found in contemporary society also but this image is very undercovered. The (official) culture made such an artificial and untruthful distinction between the classical slave and the contemporary worker so that these two concepts look like totally different one from another. In fact these are almost identical. The only difference between them relies in the fact that the violent weapons that classical slave was threatened in order to work for master was replaced in modern society by manipulation and big lies. Today the violent weapons are used by masters only these "peacefully" ones fail in convincing the slave to work.

It is true indeed that the classical slave disappeared as classical culture disappeared. Only the mafia or some small work Traficant band sometimes uses classical slavery. But if the contemporary slaves are different from classical ones that does not mean that that slavery just disappeared but it just only transformed. This change is very small in many cases for contemporary people.

Nevertheless the contemporary culture manipulation modified in such a level the common perception of such reality so that if an extraterrestrial creature would read the school books and watch TV for a wile then would be sure that the social hermetic separation between slaves and masters is simply gone just like cholera or plague. The social deep manipulation developed after the early Christianity experience that took position against Greek-roman slavery and also after the more or less hypocrite reactions of western traditional humanism. But the civilization responded to such potential revolt of slaves with a as a huge propaganda system meant to clean up the dirty image of social system. The causes for such a strategy are two:

1. The development of technology that transformed the classical slaves work into machines work.
2. The revolt of slaves with the risk of being killed by them. The classical hero might die by the sword as well and French Revolution showed this very clearly.

So the development of technology and the experience of slaves uprising for rights and revenging forced the masters to look for another ways of stealing their goods. The masters decided to offer more personal satisfactions and more freedom to the old slave like the right of getting married, the freedom of speech or the abolishment of classical slavery that authorities enforce their image with. But the contemporary social system developed in parallel huge propaganda machinery which in fact cancels these liberties and just builds into the slaves mind the illusion of being free. But in the end the reality of stealing goods from slaves using all kind of procedures is the same in the contemporary social system as in the old classical one. The state is meant to protect the (neo)aristocracy and to provide it goods from the slaves in exchange for nothing but lies and false ideals. The liberties that some died for are paid recently with the propaganda slave soul mutilation.


But to explain in more details the way the modern social system works I will simply use the structure of old and efficient armies. The modern social system actually developed from old armies and inherited their bad habits as well. The Spartan society exists in different degrees in every developed modern society. There are still slaves that produce goods, there are mercenaries or warriors that threaten them to accept giving up their goods in exchange for life and, last but not least, there the cyborgs, the aristocrat cast that is the "ultimate goal" of the other two. The relation between the slaves and masters ate very much the same with the thief and its victim. Using this kind of relationship betweens citizens and getting used to it for centuries and with little help from school make the social system a mafia at a very high level as pointed here.


People know what slaves and masters are and I kept talking about them on this blog. Further more I would like to analyze the mercenaries. Traditionally they are that kind of people that realized that is much easier to steal fro the others under the weapons threatening than produce goods on their own. In the developed society the mercenaries are that kind of slaves very unhappy with their situation and very close to uprising. Such potential situation is very unconstructive for authorities/masters because slaves population would not be so profitable if fight back. There are two consequences of slaves uprising: they could be decimated by the power of master’s weapons or they could win the battle and free themselves. In both cases there could be big wastage of slaves useful or master’s inestimable lives. So the nowadays social system developed an agile ability of discovering and protecting such potential revolt leaders of slaves. Instead of leading a slave revolt such powerful characters could be isolated in all kinds of state positions and be calmed down. Nowadays slavery is not made with the concrete threatening of killing weapons anymore but with the equivoque threatening so the revolt may stop before actually begin. Instead of classical mercenaries that use that killing weapons there developed new kind of mercenaries, those who handle the weapons of manipulation and persuasion.


Anyway, starting from classical armies and ending at the contemporary state, the mercenaries are half masters and half slave. They are the slaves charged by the masters to control and supervise the productive slaves. Like in the past they are the used for conquest and subdue the unprotected communities so to be systematically stolen. They are slaves regarding the masters that they serve and masters regarding the actual slaves they supervise. Actually supervising the workers is their job.

The contemporary state is huge and diabolic machinery that safely extract and process the work of slaves. There are no state powers separations for so-called democratic equilibrium but just division of tasks and co-laboration for the maxim efficiency of convincing the slave to work and maximum profit. This is the main reason for mercenaries. Those that participate to such a bluff finally loose their soul and shape their beliefs, conceptions and mentalities in the light of the system they serve. Those are mercenaries!

The ju$tice, the police, the army, the school, the government, the parliament and all the institutions are similar to the cavalry, infantry, vanguard and other structures of old armies. The modern armies of mercenaries do not kill with the swords or fire weapons anymore but with the Chinese drop of consciousness dismemberment. Like all the army this huge cultural and legislative mercenary’s army could not survive without robbery the innocent communities as pointed here. Further than nice look that presents itself at a free and democratic debate, as a natural feedback of social forces the open society is just a bunch of mean interests that parasites the work of slaves. "Public debate" is just propaganda. Political struggle is just a pray (slave work) negotiation between predators.

At this particular moment must be made the distinction between the slave-master relationship and the division of tasks in a communitarian activity like hunting where every member of community takes its place. Wild nature looks better than human civilization. Even when alfa individuals of a pack of predators chase away the omega ones there is still a pack. The weaker sometimes steal some bites from the kill. In the civilized society there are the mercenaries only that can get some pieces from the masters’ greed. The developed society is hermetic. The masters live in another social, ethical and existential layer. They are protected by the threatening big fences an guarded by armed stony-faced mercenaries.

The slave of classical and contemporary society is not allowed to take part in this kind of hunt as a hunter because it is the hunted one. Just like a pray chased by predators the contemporary slave is chased since it is born for all its life in order to become a slave. With their pathological appetite the masters helped by the mercenaries systematically shapes the slaves population with statistics, manipulation and "ethical correctness" to become next toilets washers, street cleaners and garbage carriers.

The power to escape this nightmare and to free oneself by this manipulation yoke is the power to forget whatever the system teaches starting form family and continuing with the school and ending with the job. Some manage to escape slavery and become mercenaries. But there are very few that can escape the big mercenaries’ mentality that slave’s one survives in. That is possible. The system can afford such a small risk because most of them will follow the manipulation course.

In the next entry I will show some real facts to sustain such general description made here.

english version here:


In articolul precedent am facut o analiza sumara a psihicului specific omului civilizat cu urmele pe care societatea civilizata le-a lasat de-a lungul secolelor. In ce masura omul primitiv supravietuieste in cel contemporan sau copilul in adult ne-a aratat destul de clar Haeckel si apoi Freud. Eu as vrea sa acopar o veriga lipsa intre aceste doua perioade, cea a omului clasic care supravietuieste in cel contemporan. Odata ce vom face aceasta legatura anumite aspecte ale societatii contemporane vor fi ceva mai bine intelese.

Ei bine, intre copilarie si perioada primitiva pe care orice om o are incorporata in sufletul sau exista perioada clasica. Cand ai spus om clasic ai spus cultura clasica si colonialism, adica sclav si stapan. O astfel de relatie supravietuieste in societatea contemporana in aceeasi masura in care primitivul o face in insusi omul contemporan. Separatia ermetica intre sclav si stapan specifica epocii clasice exista si in societatea contemporana insa realitatea unui astfel de ermetism este puternic cosmetizata in asa fel incat sa nu fie observabila. Cultura (oficiala) a facut o asemenea distinctie intre sclavul antic si muncitorul contemporan incat cele doua notiuni par total diferite. De fapt ele sunt aproape identice. Diferenta este aceea ca armele cu care sclavul secolelor trecute era amenintat pentru a i se subtiliza munca au fost inlocuite de manipulare si minciuni gogonate. Abia cand aceste noi „arme” se dovedesc a fi ineficiente se poate face o „regresie” la „convingerea” sclavilor cu forta armelor ca trebuie sa se supuna.

Evident ca sclavul clasic a disparut in general si abia traficantii de forta de munca mai abuzeaza de aceasta forma clasica de sclavie. Insa daca sclavii moderni au alt regim asta nu insemna nici pe departe ca ar fi disparut ci doar ca s-a modificat. Schimbarea in cauza este doar una formala de multe ori.

Sistemul social actual a modificat in asemenea masura perceptia cumuna a acestor realitati ale civilizatiei incat un extraterestru care s-ar uita o zi la TV si ar consulta manualele scolare ar fi ferm convins ca cele doua clase sociale au disparut pur si simplu asa cum au disparut marile pandemii ale trecutului ca holera si ciuma. Acest lucru s-a intamplat dupa experienta crestinismului originar care a condamnat sclavagismul greco-roman si dupa reactiile mai mult sau mai putin duplicitare ale umanismului traditional. Insa ca reactie la o astfel de revolta a spiritului uman in fata sclaviei civilizatia a pus in miscare un urias sistem de propaganda care sa dea sistemului mizerabil un aspect placut, cosmetizat. Cauzele pentru o astfel de strategie sunt 2:

1. Aparitia si dezvoltarea tehnologiei a facut ca muncile facute de sclavul clasic in antichitate si chiar ulterior sa fie astazi facute de masini.
2. Revolta sclavilor. Riscul eroului militar care ameninta sclavul cu armele lui de a pieri pe limba lui ucis de revolta si razbunarea sclavului s-a vazut cel mai bine la Revolutia Franceza.

Tehnologia si experienta revoltei sclavilor a facut ca sistemul sa caute alte forme de parazitare a acestora. Acesta a oferit satisfactii in plus vechiului sclav de genul abolirii cu surle si trambite a vechii sclavii, libertatea de casatorie de expresie etc. In schimbul acestor libertati sistemul a creat o uriasa masina propagandistica ce ii creeaza iluzia ca e liber. In final realitatea parazitarii contemporane a sclavilor este identica cu cea din lumea antica iar casta aristocratoida nu contribuie la imbunatatirea vietii comunitatii ci doar la infrumusetarea ei insasi folosindu-se de comunitate pentru a o sustine. Iar libertatile oferite de sistemul social contemporan se platesc mai nou cu mutilarea sufletului atins de propaganda.

Pentru a explica ceva mai bine sistemul social modern voi folosi in continuare modelul vechilor armate din care de fapt a provenit statul contemporan si carora le-a mostenit naravul. Vechea formula a societatii spartane exista in grade diferite in orice societate „dezvoltata” de astazi. Exista sclavii care produc bunuri, exista razboinici mercenari care ii ameninta sa le cedeze bunurile si, nu in rand, exista cyborgii, clasa aristocratoida care efectiv beneficiaza cel mai tare de pe urma acestei situatii si este „scopul” celorlalte doua clase. Relatia dintre aceste clase este efectiv aceeasi ca aceea intre jefuitor si victima sa. Repetarea in timp a acestei „simbioze” si sustinerea sa prin educatie fac ca sistemul sa devina efectiv unul mafiot pur si simplu cu principiile de functionare ale mafiei asa cum se cunosc. Mai multe detalii aici.

Despre sclavi si stapani am mai vorbit pe acest blog si oricum se cam stie ce sunt. De aceea in continuare o sa fac o analiza asupra mercenarilor. La origine mercenarii sunt pur si simplu acei oameni care au observat ca e mai usor sa ii ameninti pe altii cu armele sa iti cedeze munca si produsele lor decat sa o-le faci tu insuti. In sistemul social contemporan mercenarii sunt acei sclavi care potential sunt nemultumiti de conditia lor si ameninta sa se revolte. O astfel de situatie este destul de „neconstructiva” pentru autoritati/stapani deoarece nu ar mai avea ce sa paraziteze sau ar avea de pierdut din „populatia” de sclavi. Intr-o potentiala revolta a sclavilor fie acestia se elibereaza fie sunt decimati cu forta armelor ceea ce inseamna „pierderi grele” de utile vieti omenesti din partea sclavilor si de inestimabile vieti omenesti din partea lorzilor. Sistemul social si-a dezvoltat abilitatea de a-i descoperi pe astfel de capi ai revoltei oferindu-le posturi diferite in stat si calmandu-i. Iar sclavia nu se mai face cu amenintarea concreta ci cu amenintarea echivoca in asa fel incat o revolta sa se opreasca inainte de a incepe efectiv. De aceea in locul mercenarilor clasici care manuiesc armele ucigatoare mai nou au aparut mercenarii care manuiesc armele manipularii si convingerii.

In orice caz, incepand de la armatele clasice si ajungand pana la statul contemporan, mercenarii sunt pe jumatate sclavi pe jumatate stapani. Ei sunt acei sclavi pe care stapanii adevarati ii racoleaza pentru a-i controla pe sclavii productivi. La fel ca in trecut si astazi ei sunt carnea de tun pentru cucerirea si subjugarea comunitatilor diferite pentru a le parazita. Ei sunt sclavii fata de angajatorii lor si stapani fata de sclavii pe care ii supravegheaza. De fapt acesta este rolul lor direct – sa supravegheze sclavii cei mai de jos.

Statul este un urias si diabolic aparat de extragere si prelucrare in siguranta a produsului muncii sclavilor. Nu exista separatie a puterilor in stat pentru echilibrare democratica ci doar impartire a sarcinilor, o co-laborare astfel incat eficienta sa fie maxima iar sclavul sa fie stors cat mai profitabil. Acesta e principalul criteriu al existentei mercenarilor. De aici se intelege in ce masura cei care participa la o astfel de mascarada isi pot modela credintele, conceptiile si mentalitatea in functie de sistemul ce il slujesc. Cei care activeaza in aceste institutii sunt insisi mercenarii.

Ju$titia, politia, armata, scoala, guvernul si parlamentul sunt similare cavaleriei, infanteriei, avangardei si a altor parti specifice vechilor armate. Armatele moderne de mercenari nu mai ucid rapid cu armele albe sau de foc ci in timp cu picatura chinezeasca a dezmembrarii constiintei. Ca orice armata nici aceste institutii nu pot trai decat prin jefuirea comunitatilor dupa cum se poate vedea de aici. Dincolo de aspectul cosmetizat si frumos ornat al statului de drept care cica ar fi o dezbatere libera si democratica a punctelor de vedere, o echilibrare armonica a fortelor se ascunde interesul de parazitare a muncii sclavului. „Dezbaterea publica” pe care asanumita societate deschisa o foloseste astazi in scop propagandistic este de fapt o apriga negociere a prazii constituite de statutul de sclav.

Aici trebuie clar facuta diferenta intre relatia sclav-stapan si impartirea sarcinilor intr-o activitate comunitara de genul vanatorii unde fiecare membru al comunitatii are rolul lui acceptat si asumat. Natura are o intelepciunea nativa. Chiar daca membrii alfa ii alunga uneori pe ceilalti de langa prada toti membrii care au participat la vanatoare fac parte din acelasi registru, au participat la vanatoare si mai fura cate ceva din les. In societatea umana abia mercenarii mai primesc ceva firimituri. Societatea civilizata e scindata. Stapanul se afla in alt registru social, etic si existential. El e inconjurat de garduri amenintatoare si de mercenari inarmati si lipsit de zambet pe buze.

Sclavul civilizatiei clasice si contemporane este exclus de la aceasta „vanatoare” pentru ca el este de fapt cel vanat. Asemenea animalului haituit de pradatori sclavul este haituit din frageda pruncie mai intai in scoala apoi la fiecare secunda din viata lui. Cu un nesat aproape patologic stapanii ajutati de mercenarii isi modeleaza sistematic prin statistica, manipulare si "indreptari etice" viitorii spalatori de WC-uri, maturatori de strada, spalatori de lenjerie etc.

Puterea de a te salva si a te elibera de sub jugul manipularii consta in puterea de a uita tot ceea ce sistemul te invata inca din clipa in care te-ai nascut incepand de la familie continuand cu scoala si terminand cu jobul. Unii reusesc sa scape din registrul sclaviei si sa devina mercenari. Putini sunt insa care pot scapa efectiv de mentalitatea mercenarului in care cumva supravietuieste si cea a sclavului. Dar sistemul isi poate permite o astfel de marja de eroare.

In urmatorul articol voi descrie in fapte concrete aceasta realitate generala a societatii contemporane.

In romaneste aici:

This entry is linked to some still to come with the main purpose of explaining first of all the Becali getting to jail and some press favorable articles about Atanasie Stanculescu (the convicted general for the army crimes against people in 1989 events). These two issues are specific to Romanian public life but analyzing them will help understand some features about contemporary global state. They seem totally different but at the closer look we will see that are very close related one another. But I will make this analyze in a future entry. For now I will make a deeper and more general analyze of social system.

In a metasocial approach the state works just like Unconscious that Freud described. Beyond the mincing and „spiritual” statements the state hides very practical, material and concrete intentions just like Unconscious does. The individual classical neurotic Unconscious that Freud described and the state Unconscious could not be separated because they both relate to the same system – the human being.

The first structure theory of human psychic system that Freud proposed (the so-called „first topography”) has many dynamic-explanatory and definition lacunas. Freud was aware of some of them and that is why he finally launched „the second topography”. But this „First Topography” is still very useful for introduction and description. Everybody understands something about the basics of psychical system even if „the first topography” is still a metaphor. I am not going to get into details here – that is not the purposes of this text – but if somebody wants to find out about it than can check the ”dynamics of abyssal psychology” I wrote. That characteristic of better communication makes me use Freud s „First Topography” in this text for a general description of some features of social system. I am sure that that couple of concepts form „First Topography” would not be enough for a detailed analyze of social system but it is ideal for the text here.

The psychic from „First Topography” is defined as an ensemble of conscious and unconscious forces that struggle for influence of behavior, thinking and feelings. The Unconscious of slave that became bourgeois and who develops neurosis as Freud described is only a part of human kind collective Unconscious; the psychopathological part. The slave’s unconscious and the master’s have the same principle but works differently and have different results.

The development and evolution of Psychopathological Unconscious described by Freud is closely related with the crude reality of slave-master hermetical society and the robbery that take place between these two big social actors. The inequity of such ugly situation relays not only in the robbery itself that flagrantly contradicts the fundamental basis of human ethical spirit but it also has the ambition that this robbery should be forgotten by omission or by metaphisicsing it into heavens with the classical culture. At the Romanian countryside – there where the medieval costumes and mentalities can be seen easier – some parents threaten their children if crying with more punishment after beating them. That is the way that classical culture deals with their slaves: after stealing their products with no shame and regrets the classical state douse not forget to come at the end with the last threaten that that kind of wild parents does to their child: „quite!”

The classical culture fully represents this cynical short-sightedness required by authorities. Despites of that the classical culture is oversaturated by angels, elegant manners , white immaculate gloves or The Good (master) that defeat The Evil (the slave). The classical culture is just like a mafia guy that smoothly takes away the dirt on his coat after a crime. All these affectations are meant to cynically hide this big as Pacific Ocean truth that nobody sees it any more after dealing with classical culture.

The acceptance and assume of such reality as a social class is similar to abreaction of neurosis symptom inside individual. The Resistance of social system is stronger than its victim – the neurotic person. When the aristoctraoid mentalities positioned against psychoanalytical theories it was mainly because of two reasons:

1. 
   Inside of aristocratoid mentality there is just none of those elements found in neurotical Unconscious described by Freud because that mentality has no transgenerational social frustrations of slaves. On the contrary is the aristocratoid mentality that builds its wealth and its cynical world detachment over the slave mentality. That aristocratoid mentality produces such pain to neurotics and to the majority of the mental disordered people.
2. The existence of an Unconscious that does different and contradictory things to what actually says might raise questions about the way society actually works beyond nice statements.

For now it is as clear as the daylight that the Unconscious scandal is larger than so-called “Ego defense mechanisms” described by Freud. The Unconscious scandal was and still is today a matter of political battle because the democratically painted aristocrats desperately fight for the historical social favors that might slip away with contemporary slaves waking up. The psychoanalysis stroke the foundation of classical culture. For a couple of terms that he invented in psychology and for applying to psychology some old theories – maybe nicer and more precisely told by their authors – Jung gained the “prophet” degree and social system invested with culture in such a figure in order to take Freud’s Unconscious down.*

When one actually sees that the psychic comes from deeper than childhood as Jung saw, when one sees its cultural specificity and heredity but still remain blind to the explanation of psychic genealogy as social historic tensions than that is not humanism but hypocrisy. What Jung did is very similar to what the majority of humanists did: a hermetic humanism. That is a false humanism. There is no cynical humanism but a superficial and false one.

It is clear that even Freud did not dig enough here. That is because mainly Freud was a physician and tended to see only medical part of it but loosing the holistic view and staying under a structuralist cartesianism instead of placing the individual deep into society where s/he belongs. Freud was unable to see the genesis of mental disorder outside of family, was unable to extrapolate the familial microsociety into metasocial level and that is why he understood the psychopathology under this limited field of analysis. By doing so Freud only mended in a medical terms some traditional theories that stated the infantile origin of mental disorder.

The two sided of Collective Unconscious represents the mutilation that the double side measurements civilization – as the classical and contemporary civilizations are – caused to humanity: the slaves and the masters. There is no other such splitting creature on Earth as human being is. If nature wants by its very base to combine such separated parts of worlds it is the civilization that keeps separating them systematically. There is no such a thing even in the mechanical inorganic nature. Even the sexes that nature created different one from another still they keep attracting and continuously communicate each other for sharing the information, requirements and tasks. On the contrary, the classical and contemporary state hates this natural reality and struggle as a cancerous disease to keep up this unnatural separation between slaves and masters.

In the next entry I will describe the cultural mercenaries that make this entire nightmare possible, those that are paid by real masters to supervise the slaves, to convince them to work for masters and to clean up the foot-marks and to create such of image strategies that the fine thieves to be perceived as angels.
*The paroxysm of such hypocrisy was the fact that as high society world culture invested a lot in theories that opposite psychoanalysis in the same time Edward Barnays was working the contemporary mind control and collective manipulation monstrous machinery using such theories first stated by psychoanalysis.

english version here:

Acest articol este legat de inca cateva la finalul carora imi doresc sa explic mai intai arestarea lui Becali iar apoi articolele din presa favorabile la adresa lui Atanasie Stanculescu (generalul condamnat pentru crimele armatei impotriva cetatenilor in evenimentele din 1989) . Cele doua evenimente par total diferite insa ele sunt mult mai legate unul de altul decat pare la prima vedere. Dar despre analiza lor directa ma voi ocupa intr-unul dintre articolele viitoare. Deocmdata voi face o analiza ceva mai profunda si mai generala a sistemului social.

Statul functioneaza la nivel metasocial exact ca Inconstientul descris de Freud care, sub declaratii fandosite si „spirituale” ascunde intentii dintre cele mai concrete si mai practice. Inconstientul clasic individual nevroticoid descris de Freud si cel metasocial al claselor sociale nu pot fi doua lucruri diferite deoarece ambele sunt manifestari ale aceluiasi sistem- omul.

Prima teoretizare in structuri a psihicului omenesc (topica) propusa de Freud are multe lacune dinamic-explicative si de definire – drept pentru care el a lansat pana la urma cea de-a doua topica. Insa aceasta „prima topica” e foarte buna la nivel pur descriptiv, introductiv. Toata lumea intelege ceva din esenta functionarii psihicului chiar daca ea e mai mult o metafora. Nu intru in detalii aici, am facut-o in ”Dinamica psihologiei abisale”. Din acest motiv am sa folosesc si eu prima topica in acest articol menit sa descrie cititorilor ceva particular din sistemul psihicului. Recunosc ca ea e insuficienta pentru o analiza amanuntita a sistemului social insa pentru acest articol ea e ideala.

Psihicul dupa prima topica este un ansamblu de forte constiente si inconstiente care se lupta pentru influenta in comportament, gandire si sentimente. Inconstientul scalvului imburghezit cel dezvoltator de nevroza asa cum l-a descris Freud este doar o parte din Inconstientul umanitatii respectiv partea sa (psiho)patologica. Desi are aceleasi principii, Inconstientul stapanilor functioneaza cu totul altfel decat cel al sclavilor. Aparitia Inconstientului psihopatoid descris de el este dat de stricta realitate a scindarii sociale sclav-stapan si a jafului la care primul este supus de catre al doilea. Mizeria unei astfel de situatii este data nu doar de jaful in sine care contrazice legea fundamentala a spiritului etic uman ci si pretentia ca acest jaf sa fie uitat fie prin omisiune fie prin metafizicarea lui, prin ridicarea in slavi a sa pe care sistemul, cultura clasica o face. La tara – acolo unde mentalitatea medievala se poate vedea mai bine – unii parinti isi ameninta copiii ca vor primi si mai multa bataie daca plang dupa ce au primit prima portie de pedeapsa corporala. Cam asa face si cultura clasica: dupa ce ii fura sclavului cu dezinvoltura produsele statul calsic nu uita sa adauge in final: „ai tacut?”

Cultura clasica reprezinta pe deplin acest miopism cinic pe care sistemul il implica. Cultura clasica este plina de ingeri, de maniere elegante, de manusi, de binele (stapanul) care invinge raul (sclavul). Cultura clasica seamana cu gesturile unui mafiot care isi sterge tacticos praful de pe haina dupa ce a executat o amenintare pentru plata taxei de protectie. Toate aceste pretiozitati sunt menite sa ascunda in mod cinic acest adevar mare cat Oceanul Pacific dar pe care aproape ca nu-l mai vede nimeni. Acesta este inconstientul aristocratoid diferit de cel nevroticoid al sclavului.

Recunoasterea si asumarea unei astfel de realitati la nivel de clasa este similara cu abreactia simptomului nevrotic la nivel individual. Rezistenta sistemului este mult mai puternica decat a victimei sale – nevroticul. Atunci cand partea aristocratoida a lumii s-a manifestat impotriva teoriilor psihanalitice, ea o facea din doua motive:

1. Pur si simplu in mentalitatea lor aristocratoida nu exista sau exista doar intr-o foarte mica masura realitatile nevropatice descrise de Freud deoarece stilul ei de viata nu are frustrarile transgenealogice ale acestora. Dimpotriva mentalitatea aristocratoida chiar isi cladeste bunastarea si „detasarea” cinica fata de lume pe stilul de viata al sclavului. Tocmai ea este aceea care le provoaca nevroticilor si majoritatii psihopatilor asemenea suferinta.
2. Existenta unui Inconstient care una spune si alta face ar fi putut pune semne de intrebare asupra modului in care functioneaza societatea dincolo de declaratiile inocente ale autoritatilor.

In acest moment pentru mine e clar ca lumina zilei ca scandalul Inconstientului depasit cu mult granitele unui „mecanism de aparare al Eului” asa cum l-a descris Freud. Scandalul Inconstientului a fost si inca este o batalie politica unde aristocratii vopsiti s-au vazuti in postura disperata de a pierde favorurile sociale istorice ca urmare a colapsarii culturii clasice produsa de psihanaliza. Pentru cativa termeni introdusi in vocabularul de specialitate si pentru vopsirea psihologica a unor teorii exprimate poate mai frumos si poate chiar mai clar de alti ganditori din trecut Jung a primit titlul onorific de „profet” iar sistemul a investit profund in el. *

Atunci cand vezi ca psihicul vine de dincolo de copilarie asa cum a vazut Jung, atunci cand vezi ereditatea si specificitatea culturala a psihicului dar ramai in continuare imun la tensiunile sociale in explicarea genealogiei psihicului trebuie ca esti un ipocrit nu umanist. Ce a facut Jung este cam ceea ce a facut majoritatea umanistilor: un ermetic umanism. Adica un fals umanism. Nu exista un umanism cinic ci doar un fals sau superficial umanism.

Evident ca nici Freud n-a sapat prea mult aici. Ca medic Freud a fost inclinat sa o vada doar pe aceasta si sa ramana prizonierului unui cartezianism structuralist in loc sa bage individul in societate acolo unde ii este locul. Freud nu a putut intelege geneza tulburarii psihice in afara familiei, nu a putut extinde microsocialul familial la metasocial si astfel a preferat sa inteleaga psihopatologia relativ doar la acest domeniu restrans. Facand astfel el a recurs practic la carpirea medicalista a niste teorii traditionale despre originea infantila a tulburarii psihice.

Dublul Inconstient Colectiv reprezinta mutilarea pe care civilizatia jumatatilor de masura asa cum este cea clasica si contemporana a produs-o umanitatii: sclavii si stapanii. Nu exista pe nicaieri vreo specie cunoscuta impartita in doua astfel de entitati. Natura vrea sa le amestece asa cum face ea de obicei iar civilizatia si cultura le blocheaza sistematic. Nici macar in natura la nivel de mecanica bruta un sistem izolat nu exista. In ce masura sexele pe care natura le-a creat pentru o cat mai eficienta perpetuare a speciei se reunesc si se atrag continuu, comunica unul cu altul si isi impart unul altuia informatiile, cerintele si sarcinile. Dimpotriva, statul clasic si contemporan este acea excrescenta cancerigena a civilizatiei menite sa izoleze stapanii de sclavi .

In urmatorul articol voi analiza mercenarii culturali, despre cei care sunt platiti de stapani sa supravegheze sclavii, sa ii convinga sa munceasca pentru stapani si sa stearga urmele jafului, sa creeze astfel de strategii de imagine incat hotii sa fie prezentati istoriei drept ingeri.


*Ipocrizia maxima a sistemului consta in faptul ca in timp ce „lumea fina” investea substantial in teorii opuse psihanalizei in acelasi timp un Edward Barnays crea monstruoasa masinarie contemporana de manipulare si control al mintii colective cu ajutorul teoriilor pe care de fapt la nivel declarativ ea le combatea.