The forgotten children of Checenia. Life in Grozny. Picture taken by Musa Sadulajew.

The forgotten children of Checenia. Life in Grozny. Picture taken by Musa Sadulajew.
The forgotten children of Checenia. Life in Grozny. Picture taken by Musa Sadulajew.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

10 concrete proposals for a R-Evolutioned Society

What really matters in a modern R-Evolution (that, as explained in "Pages" section, must be distinguished from an old Revolution) is a sense of concreteness.

Old Revolutions most of the times are the results of an ideological way to look at life. Yes, it is understandable that "Nothing is more concrete than a good Theory" (as Carlo Rubbia, the Nobel Prize for Physics, used to tell to his students) but an Ideology is not a Theory, even if both are a product of our minds. It seems something that looks like, but definitely it is not.

An ideology is always like a park under vigilance: you can come into the park crossing the open gates, but when you want to go out, you don't know why the gates have been closed.

A theory (i.e. for physics or mathematics) is much more flexible. As you can come in, as you can get out. There is no obligation to remain anchored to a theory. Until the theory is valid you can apply for it. But if for any reason the theory is no longer valid, you can dismiss it with any kind of problem. Nobody wakes up saying: you are an enemy of the people. Does it sound to you or remember you some old ideology?

So the main difference between a political ideology and a scientific theory is the same difference between heart emotions and rational thoughts. In the first case you are a victim of them. In the second one you are the master of them.

There is all a literature about how important is to follow your heart feelings. Yes, it is good. But most of the times if you follow them you get the same result of Icarus. How more he went close to the sun higher the probabilities that the sun could burnt his wings. And this is what exactly happened, as you know.

So be very careful regarding ideology. Do not trust blindly to a social system based on an ideology. With the passing of the time it could be revealed it is just a jail. It is very much better if you believe a theory. Any moment you can go out of it because you don't need to ask permission to anybody. Don't you feel more free in this way?

Right now the theory is very easy: the concreteness must be the base onto R-Evolution must rely. No ideology, only theory.

What happens if you are the owner of a hotel and suddenly you change all the accesses to the rooms and you do not give the new keys to the hosts? They must keep out of the hotel, of course.

Well, my dears. It is time to change the accesses to the rooms of the hotel. It is time to change the way people can access the Public Power and the rules to maintain in it. This is the concreteness I am talking about. No words, only facts. The most important 10 facts for me are:


·       The origin of the modern western world States, as we know them, must be searched in the year 1815, after the Congress of Vienna. 

Well, it is not really correct because maybe we have to come back up to 1776 when started the U.S. Confederation. However, in Europe, the year of the Congress of Vienna is a mile stone in western world History. But we should remember if we want to be really correct, that more than States in that period existed Empires, no States. However from the existence of those Empires (and even older empires) it starts an important concept: on Earth there are portions of land delimited by political borders where are living people speaking the same language. A bit more than one century later due to the dissolution of the European Empires we assist to the transformation of them into States. This transformation is the European Empires answer to survive but transformed in something apparently different whose substance is always the same. The substance is to preserve a portion of territory where are living people speaking a same language. In short this means that nobody is ready and available to renounce to his “national ego” exactly a as person it is not ready and available to renounce to his “ego” even if he committed a lot of mistakes. The Empires have been committing a lot of mistakes up to the end of 19th century and the beginning of 20th. But all that they were able to invent was a change of their names. It is the same process of a work organization (a company, for instance) which, instead of changing his working process and eliminate old people responsible for the failure, all that they do is to change the department titles on the doors. This behaviour is known as “to change all because nothing changes”. So this happened with the creation process of the States in Europe

They were the fake answer to a real exigency of independence of that time. But now? They are old and over passed by the events. States have no more sense. States are old. States are only the expression of a plutocracy representing economics and politics elites. People do not need elites that lead them like they were a flock of sheep. People nowadays only need other people solving practical problems like to find a job, have a house where to live, to be sure of getting his pension when due, to educate children in good school, to receive good health care. This is all people need. Most of the times people do not receive this kind of services because we are still living in a society shared in classes, like in the past ages. We are still exactly living as hundreds of years ago. It is now time to say stop and change. How? No more State, please. Just people without social difference like, for instance, for quantity of money owns. People organized for their languages and local history, of course, but not discriminated for their sex tendency, religious believing or ethnic origin. Differences are good, they must be preserved. There is no need to impose a multicultural vision of life if people don't like it. We can improve peace between populations simply improving other ways like tourism, cultural exchanges, students studying abroad. There is no obligation for people to expatriate in a country for working reasons. Because this is not implementing the way people can agree between them. It is just the way that economic elites invented to exploit better the "human capital" i.e. a mean of production. Economic elites just think in terms of benefits and they don't absolutely mind if people are living in sub human conditions or lying as "laboratory rats". For all these reasons the idea of State is now old and must be revised if we want to survive in the future avoiding the risk of a new world catastrophe. Because this time the risk is bigger than in the past and could give up with the whole human race. We must be very careful. Really.


·    How is possible that a minority is controlling a Democracy? When I say that a minority is controlling a Democracy we have to think about an election process, any kind of election process. Actually when people are called for a general election or a referendum, almost a third of them prefers not going to vote. A third means something around 33% of the people having the right to vote. Now, look at this simple calculation. If the electoral body, for instance, is made of 30 millions of voters, 10 millions of them do not vote. This process is well known as “abstention”. The remaining 20 millions voters probably are voting for a minimum of 3 political parties. We can imagine a possible scenario of the results now. One Party get 40% of the votes (which means 8 millions votes), another Party get 35% of the votes (which means 7 millions votes) and the last Party get 25% of the votes (which means 5 millions votes). Since Democracy had been inventing from Greek people more than 2500 years ago one thing is clear: the majority has the right to govern over the minority. The question now is: if the concept of majority is 50% plus one vote more is it correct than in a nation with 30 millions voters is governing a Party with only 8 millions votes? Because to reach the majority a Party needs, in this case, a vote more than 15 millions votes to be considered majority. Due to in the modern Democracy is already impossible to reach an absolute majority we conform to the concept of a relative majority. We have found acceptable that a relative majority has the right to govern, to avoid an “impasse of the system” because the absolute majority is almost impossible to get due to the big amounts of no voters, the so called abstention voters.  So the result is we have given the power to a minority as I have just explained. This is all but Democracy. This is dictatorship of a minority on the rest of the people of a society. We must absolutely reconsider this acceptance that a minority can govern to avoid the impasse of the system. This is only a blackmail of some “Elites of Power” to the society. What we have to do is to spend more time creating consensus until an absolute majority it is created. Democracy needs to come back to his origin, to his historical Greek roots I mean.


·     The period of time of a public charge is too long. The normal period of time of people elected in a public charge is 4 or 5 years. Too long, too much long nowadays. A shorter period of 18 months seems to be much more than suitable to exercise a public charge. We don't need somebody indicating us for a long period of time which are the things to do. Everybody knows which are the things to do. All we need is somebody doing them. In 18 months it is possible to make a lot of things thanks to the high speed technology tools. Is anybody out of there doubting than 18 months is a time too short for a Public charge? Well, all that we have got in the actual system of charges elected for 4/5 years is that corrupted people has all the sufficient time to increase their power so, when it is time to fire them it results almost impossible. What is better then? 18 months or 4/5 years? Think about it, but not too much, please.


·       It is possible and due to change a Constitution if it shows us it is no more suitable to the present time. Because Constitution most of the times becomes old and only represents the willing of our ancestors, not the willing of living people. It is a good thing to have a Constitution because it gives us like a “road map” to follow. But, let me ask: what if the road map is wrong because has been drawn in past times and never updated? You will never arrive to your destination, right? Sometimes we have to wonder if the road map that a Constitution represents is still valid or we have to revise it. If revising a Constitution we find it is still good, no problem. But if we find out it is no longer suitable for the new times, well, we must have the courage to change it. So I suggest that every 5 years people must vote if they are still agreeing with their Constitution or there is something they want to change.


·       Politics have shown us they are not able to represent people’s real interests. We must change the way we think about our social representatives. Do we really think that politics are doing people’s interests? Not at all. Nothing could be more wrong. They are only doing their own personal interests. Nowadays a person that genuinely wants to help people doesn’t need to dedicate his/her time and efforts being a politic. If you really have a genuine sense of helping people you can be doctor, fire-man, NGO member, nurse, teacher, rubbish collector, gardener and so on. You can be all but politic, if you want to do a job by which really helping your community. In our present time the role of being politic is evolved to a level that we can consider it absolutely useless. It is a not productive role but it only produces huge costs and almost 100% of politics are both corrupted and/or corrupter. Why we are accepting all this I wonder? We are not obliged to accept politics in our life. There is no universal law to do so. We can live without politics. Really. We are not stupid children that need mom or dad to drive us. We are all adults able to decide which our responsibilities are. So all that we need it is just temporary representatives with only an 18 months public charge. Every 18 months we must change them to avoid they can accumulate too much power. We must change them even if they are working well; to avoid the risk they can be corrupted by the power. We have too much experience right now to think that this could not happen. It always happens, because the power in itself is a powerful corrupting agent. To better avoid this dangerous risk we must assume that nobody can be re-elected in a lapse of 6 years time. The new name of the charge for a person dedicating his time to an 18 months public charge shall be Common Wealth Supervisor or CWS.


·     The principle of immunity for Parliament Members is still due as a form of self-defence in case of defamation attacks from other people. The sense is that a Parliament Member must remain free to express his opinions (in name and behalf of people which he/she represents) without taking the risk that somebody can accuse him/her for his/her opinions and in consequence of them he/she could be condemned in a court. In general terms this point of view it is correct. What is actually wrong it is the degeneration of this principle. We are assisting to an incredible amount of corruption crimes whose main responsible most of the time are politics i.e. elected members of Parliament. How we can continue to tolerate this, I wonder. We are accepting to live with a “cancer” not wit a simply “cold”. A cold it is organic to our health body, we can tolerate it for life. But cancer it is not, it is not organic for our health body. Cancer kills us. Corruption is the cancer which is killing the good health of our social body. So it is time to understand we can no longer accept those corruption crimes committed by Members of Parliament. We cannot accept they are not going to be judged in a court because they are always using the umbrella of the principle of the immunity under which they can repair. It is time to re-think the principle of immunity and re-establish new rules. In these new rules must be clear that politics which are found guilty of a corruption crime must be judged and, if guilty, condemned by a popular jury in the court. If we maintain still alive the principle as it actually is we are not allowing a right self-defence principle since we are allowing an incorrect privilege.


·       People, in name and behalf of a superior collective interest, in our modern democracies, have renounced to bring guns. In USA people have not renounced to this right. In Europe most of the time there are voices criticizing this behaviour because we think it is dangerous. We think that taking away guns to people is more safe and secure for our lives. Nothing could be more wrong. First of all it is not true that in USA there are much more armed crimes than in Europe. Statistics do not reflect this point of view because the number of armed crimes is almost the same.

But what seems is helping people is indeed that nobody is considering that in name of the security we have now renounced to a big portion of our freedom. Let me ask a question: do you know why in USA any government think twice any time that wishes to propose not really popular decisions? Because a government knows that in USA a citizen in three is armed by a gun. In practical terms this means that in USA there is a permanent army of 100 millions people! Even if you are the President of United States with an Army of 3 millions well equipped soldiers at your orders, you know you cannot fight against 100 millions people armed with guns. In this way people can equilibrate the power of the government which will think twice or more times any time that must take a too much unpopular decisions. Did you ever see this under this point of view?


·      Armed corps are no longer absolving in a correct way their functions and must be re-thought. Basically there are two armed corps in our democracies. In some cases are three. The two basic corps are the Army and the Police. In some States like France, Italy and Spain there is a third corps. They are respectively Gendarmerie, Carabinieri and Guardia Civil. In this analysis we don’t mind how much they are. All that we matter is they are armed, such as in the following draw:

The New Capitalism Pyramid
(courtesy of

      This is the vital point of the problem. In the name of eliminating permanent armed conflicts between people, we have decided that only a limited number of people must be legally armed. This is a good idea if the armed people behave in the correct way. But what happens if they don’t behave correct? This is the point, my friend. Such as for the already explained principle of the degeneration of Parliament Members’ immunity, we are also assisting to a degeneration of the principle that only a few people must be armed with the aim of preserving social peace. Armed corps for what we are seeing are not behaving to defend weak people from the attacks of delinquency, for instance. No, most of the time they are in association with criminals, they are accepting money from them to close both eyes on their crimes. Another time it is a matter of corruption, as you see. But we can add something more, anticipating the next #10 point. Dominant elites are using armed corps to defend their interests and control society. 
      Elites, for definition, only represent a little portion of people. This means they are, numerically speaking, a minority. But if a minority takes the power this means we are assisting to a degeneration of democracy (see previous #2 point). Last but not least armed corps most of the times are behaving for themselves. Imagine for a while we are all agree to dissolve armed corps by a referendum. Do you think this action could be fully realized in a practical way? No, I don’t think so. Because armed corps will refuse this people decision and will react with a “golpe” of State. Using their military force they surely would take control of the State. Military corps with the pass of the time has been loosing their original mission of serving people because they are only serving themselves.


·      Governments must never ever declare a war in the name of the people. Actually the juridical process of declaring a war seems enough well organized. But even if a declaration of war must be ratified from the Parliament, this does not avoid that a Government can declare a war even witouth the previous Parliament authorization. By the way even if in a second time this authorization is due and given, the problem remains unsolved. The reason because it remains unsolved must be searched in the origin of our democracy system. Since we need an agile system of government we have invented a system based on representatives of the people i.e politics. These politics after being elected decide which of them will be part of the government. Less or more, with some differences, this is how our democracy system works. Well, it is a good thing for ordinary administration. But what happens in extraordinary cases as just taking the decision to declare a war? What really happens is that a very limited number of people i.e. the politics forming a government, without a direct consultation and only because once a time they were voted and elected, decide that a nation i.e. people must be involucrate in a war. This was what exactly happened with Afghanistan and Iraq wars. People expressed almost a full and total reaction to these two wars, but government (politics) ignored this refuse. 

They declared war, not people!

    These two wars equally started and are still continuing even with a contrary opinion by most of the people. It seems now more reasonable that such an important decision like declaring a war cannot be taken by a restricted number of persons only because they were previously elected. We must re-think this idea to fully delegate our willing for years to only a few persons such as politics (see previous #3 point). Maybe it is acceptable to delegate for ordinary administration like administration of public health, school, transportation and food. But such an important matter like to declare a war, I am sorry, we can no more include it in long period term. It is a too much important matter because we can delegate it for years to so a few people. What I suggest is that any time there is a decision to take like to declare a war we, the people, must be consulted via referendum. If two third of the electoral corps vote for the war well, even if war is never a solution but always a problem, the war is accepted and declared. But if the numbers of voters favourable to the war it is legally no sufficient, well, no war there will be declared. People decide, not politics on such an important matter like war. Because the soldiers that are going to make war are not toys, but real people. We have the main responsibility of thinking very well about their lives. We have to think if it is worth of throwing them into the battle field where most of the time they are going to die. Without forgetting that for any soldier killed in action there are at least ten people crying and suffering. Without never forgetting collateral effects like killing civil innocent children, women and elder people during a bombing assault. We never ever forget that a war it is not a game we are playing at the Sony Play Station, please.

·      Elites are no more suitable in the actual society organization. Elites are an ancient structure of the past times. They are survived until our present times only because the majority of the people is not able to self-organize his life, like in the following draw:

     Even if this is not really and totally true. The real truth is that the majority of the people is retained in a world of ignorance. The majority of the people most of time is not able to self-organize because they have always lived like a flock of sheep. Cultural, economic, politic elites are not worried of this ignorance of the people. No, they like to increase it. Look at the access of university, for instance. University is the topic place where you can find knowledge. It is very difficult that some brilliant scientist doesn’t have a university background. The same for doctors, lawyers, professors, advocates, judges, economists, engineers of any kind of subject, chemistries, biologists and physicists and so on. I admit recently there are a couple of exceptions which are Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Well, but just because they are exceptions they are confirming the rule. 99 % of the people occupying public and private prestigious charges are coming from universities. But not any kind of university. Usually they are coming of a restricted circle of universities such us Harvard, Yale, MIT, Chicago, Caltech, Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, UCLA Universities in USA; Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, London School of Economics in UK; La Sorbonne, École d’Administration Publique, ENS, École Polytechnique in France; Bocconi, La Cattolica, La Sapienza, La Normale in Italy; ESADE in Spain; Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Technische Universität München in Germany;  ETH Zurich in Swiss; HKU, HKUST in Hong Kong; The University of Tokyo, Kyoto University, Osaka University in Japan; University of Toronto in Canada; NUS in Singapore; University of Sidney, University of Melbourne in Australia; Peking University in China. As you see the number is very restricted, just a little circle of Universities. Did you have any idea how much it costs for a family to allow their son or daughter could study in one of these universities? In dollars sometimes more than 100.000 dollars for a 4 years academic school. Do you think that anybody can allow such a big cost to maintain his son or her daughter studies at university? Don’t forget please another kind of elite study such as Military Academy. Have you ever heard about West Point Military Academy sometimes?  Well I think a matter it is clear now: elite are retaining knowledge in a restricted circle which first base is formed by expensive universities with high cost of maintenance. In this way the social elites are perpetuating their power generation by generation. The high costs of accessing some important universities are the barriers for people to access knowledge in general. If you do not have knowledge you are condemned to not understand what is happening around you. For instance you don’t understand why your country enters a war or a group of terrorists are killing innocent people or why an economic crisis starts or if there are new medicines available for some horrible diseases like HIV, cancer, Alzheimer, Parkinson. So now I ask you: why we are allowing a system based on elites? A system based on elites it is like caste system in India. We are changing the name but the basics are really similar. If we criticize caste system, why we accept elites system in western world? I think it is time to re-think elites system setting society up with more individual freedom. Individual freedom must be the new rule and the new order. Individual freedom is the mile stone of our next future. No more elites please.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Españistan: es decir el perfecto ejemplo de cómo no se debe hacer una R-Evolution.

Es particularmente interesante ver el relato animado de Aleix Saló sobre como una nación puede joderse a si misma. Animo a todos a ver su interesante video al respeto aquí abajo.

Comparto al 100 % el análisis del simpático viñetista el cual pero de viñetista tiene muy poco. Su relato a través de dibujos no es nada más y nada menos que un relato histórico de como España, o mejor dicho los españoles, no han sabido mantener la cabeza fría. No solo no han sabido mantenerse fríos, sino han creído que violar las más elementales leyes económicas a ellos les estaba permitido. Creían, evidentemente, de ser los únicos en todo el planeta de ser tan listos de hacer caso omiso a las más elementales leyes del mercado.

Los españoles en su tiempo se apuntaron a la moda de comprar viviendas sin ningún tipo de razonamiento económico. Solo subyacían a la vieja enseñanza típica de la gente de campo: "Hijo mío, cómprate un piso en cuanto puedas, que en la vida siempre hay que ser previsor y nada es mejor que tener tu propio techo sobre tu cabeza". En general parece ser esto un buen consejo, siempre y cuando uno se halle en las condiciones de poder cumplir con los pagos por la compra de su vivienda. Por que propio en la cuestión de los pagos reside el problema.

Por otro lado es verdad que sus gobernantes les han engañados, pero pregunto: ¿si alguien nos hace un engaño y nosotros somos cocientes que nos esta engañando, quien es más responsable? ¿Lo que engaña o le que se deja engañar a sabida de que el engaño le va a traer la ruina? Aznar con su nueva "Ley del Suelo" le vendió una gran mentira al prometer que lo precios de la vivienda iban a bajar cuando hasta un estudiante de economía al primer año de universidad sabe que la "Ley de la Demanda y Oferta" dice que a mayor demanda mayores precios. ¿Como podían bajar los precios, según Aznar y los españoles que le creyeron, si se iba a disparar la demanda de viviendas?

No es un dilema de poca importancia, por que hasta en la jurisprudencia se admite que la negligencia es una responsabilidad. La negligencia de los españoles es cierta por que por un lado los bancos prestaron más dinero de los que las familias podían permitirse de devolver. Y por el otro lado las familias aceptaron de endeudarse a bien sabida que no podían devolver el dinero si algo fallaba. Siendo que algo falló no por que fue un caso sino por que se sabía que antes o después el engaño hubiera quedado al descubierto, el resultado ahora todos lo tenemos delante de nuestros ojos. Si pero yo sé que estoy cogiendo a préstamo un dinero que, ya desde principio sé que no podré devolver, ¿soy o no soy responsable? Claro que lo soy, por cuanto luego pueda quejarme que quien me lo prestó no hubiera debido. Esta excusa no rige de ninguna forma. 

Yo creo que sí, que uno es responsable, por que esto es como  la historieta de la manzana que Eva le dio a Adán. Se puede no creer en Dios, obviamente. Pero la historia es interesante en su relato simbólico. Adán no estaba obligado a aceptar la manzana, pero lo hizo. Luego le ocurrieron todas las desgracias posibles. El sabía que no debía comer del árbol del Bien y del Mal. Haciéndolo se le iban a ocurrir todos los castigos. Y así fue.

Si tú sabes que comer la manzana te va a traer desgracia, ¿por que lo haces? Yo creo que solo hay una respuesta: eres tonto. Los españoles sabían que endeudarse más allá de sus posibilidades era una manera para arruinarse el futuro más o menos cercano. Pero lo hicieron igualmente. No le importó un bledo de "comer la manzana".

Por lo tanto los movimientos como el 15-M o de los Indignados no son tan serios. Solo han servido por hacer ruido. O algo de movida como es típico de la mentalidad española. Tanta movida, para quedarse en el mismo punto. Mientras que los islandeses y griegos si que han sabido plantar la cara a sus gobernantes. Ellos sí que lo han sabido. ¡Uy si lo han sabido!

¿Y cual es el punto, dirán Ustedes? Para mi solo es uno: España es como Afganistán, un país donde la ignorancia ha cegado sus habitantes y les ha traído a la ruina. Por esto sería tan importante invertir en cultura en vez que en ladrillos. La gente culta y preparada se lo piensa dos veces antes de endeudarse si sabe que no puede permitírselo. Pero los "españistanistas de Españistan" en su orgullo campechano creían que era suficiente endeudarse por "sacar España fuera del rincón de la historia" (Aznar dixit!).

Sí claro, como si bastara comprar viviendas para redimirse de haber permitido a un dictador de morir en su propia cama después de 45 años de insoportable dictadura. Esto es el otro gran error de los españoles, aunque ellos sigan sin admitirlo.

España nunca será Europa si los españoles no cambian su forma de pensar, solo será el Norte de África o, como he dicho, Españistan.

Para concluir: Españistan es decir el perfecto ejemplo de cómo no se debe hacer una R-Evolution.  

Monday, July 4, 2011

The Art of War as learnt by Sun Tzu

The real winner of the war is who does not fight for it. This is the deepest learning if you read the Sun Tzu's manual on the Art of War.

Under any sky on this Earth, any time there is a coming conflict of huge social proportion between two different populations all that people seem able to do is starting with a war. Nothing could be more wrong. Why nobody thinks that the right way should be to avoid to fight for a war?

Even if our societies (from West to East, from North to South) in general terms are considered more developed than in past times and, in general terms, more civilized, any time we assist and start a relevant social conflict all that societies do it is to start a new war. Even at local stage or as answer to internal social conflict of a state.

Almost nobody stand up and shout: guys, it is really stupid starting to fight a war. And even if there some wise men or women doing so, they are unlistened.

We have learnt nothing from our past history. We are always repeating the same mistake. The mistake is like an automatic answer. At the start of a conflict the answer is: fight. At the end of the fight (which I mean war independently of the grade of this fight) all that we get is: deaths, injured people, pain, and suffering. Anybody of us knows this process. But never ever we do something to avoid it. We constantly walk on this path even if we know how dangerous it is.

So I wonder: have we really evolved up to a point to consider us civilized people? I don’t know your answer, but I know mine. My answer is: no, we still are to a Palaeolithic level.

No matter how much technology we have developed. What has not evolved is our brain or better, the way our brain answer to a conflict. The way developed is always the same: destroy for not being destroyed.

We are not able to answer: co-operate even with your enemy to find a peaceful solution. If we were able to do so, we would be applying Sun Tzu’s teaching. Applying in full Sun Tzu’s teaching would mean we would have finally learnt his wise lesson. This would be a real form of R-Evolution. This is the R-Evolution I am talking about.