Harmoniously

I have withdrawn from public life and created an ambitious reading plan, ranging from Croatian history and "Lord" Owen to Foucault writing on subjectivity, or Krleža—this time focusing on the intellectual and an authoritarian regime in Central Europe. My phone hasn't rung for four days now, as incoming calls are blocked unless the "system" wants something—but that doesn't necessarily mean a lack of freedom. It is incredible how much time you have in a day when you give up on the "news," as well as cafes and the fools! And soon, it will be beach season. When I was younger, I believed that wrong-headed policy—which undoubtedly exists, otherwise we wouldn't find ourselves in these minor troubles—should be ruthlessly overturned. Through dismissals, for example. However, exclusively. Even on this blog, I wrote that the tax administration should be reorganized by firing absolutely everyone, because bureaucracy has a life of its own. Although such a policy has predecessors—notably Hitler and Stalin in the twentieth century—it was exactly what Tuđman applied. And Milošević. Meanwhile, the Western world, most recently in the form of Trump, became infected by it through technology and a fifty-year struggle against the USSR. In general, that Tuđman would change "officials" as easily as socks. In the case of the HOS—who actually wanted an alliance with the Muslims and a fight all the way to the Drina River, while he only wanted Herzegovina—he even employed political assassinations. Former JNA "operatives" who had even crossed over to "his" side were left without pay for six months in cold blood, and so on. Like Milošević, he turned parliament into a machine that could no longer even explain to itself why it voted one way one day and the opposite the next—for instance, in the case of the Hague. But his successors essentially inherited the same thing; the consequence today is that they are more or less powerless against foreigners, yet they trumpet about "national interests." And whoever is against them is against the nation. Exclusively. Milošević also believed that whatever wasn't on the Evening News simply hadn't happened. A similar consequence of the "exclusivity" I’m talking about can be seen in the EU: the falsification of reality. The EU was apparently ready to organize a referendum on Ireland's entry indefinitely, until the voters confirmed what the "large-toothed cattle" had not already mapped out in their wisdom. In the case of Moldova, the media has completely failed, so, well, we are expected to believe that black is white. Certainly, we must seek the causes also in the stunning passivity of ninety percent of the population, as well as a certain stubbornness among intellectuals. On the other hand, there are those voices—I still remember them—who were against "revanchism" or who occasionally advocated for consensus. I fear I belong to them now. After I pursued a certain justice—primarily by driving the HDZ's own policies to their logical conclusions and proving that I am not what the system declared me to be, "mad"—in my old age, I have mellowed. I believe in a certain amount of listening and questioning, and that in politics one should not—must not—use the "rabid, aggressive, or primitive." Because this last war in the Balkans was, in large part, a re-encounter between the village and the city. People from the villages tore down cities, both literally and metaphorically; and with media like this, they are given the right of way, and the circle closes. In my ivory tower, I am reading The Banquet in Blitva.

Setting

„We“ in Croatia often debate violence. As, I guess, do „you“ in the States, but most often this comes down to the state having „the monopoly,“ ideological appeals to „civic and historical norms,“ what not, but it's worth reminding this country had a revolution mere 70 years ago, and a civil war 30. Of course, than we debate some more „wicked communist state that killed,“ only to be remined from abroad the CIA still does the very same thing, as do the Russians, „and they say they don't.“ During the last batch of posts I tried explaining I do not perceive school shootings in USA as an aberration, but a symptom of society which surfaces, and I do not agree at all with WaPo violence is unjustified, unfortunatly, for than our issue would but quite simple: there aren't that many truly mad individuals around and some of them also have trouble walking. No, violence is a response to poverty, psychological violence which includes propaganda and, worst of all – struggle for power. Do remind yourself of anthrax attacks. A revolution is easy to explain: the goal, expressly so, is to eliminate any vestige of the previous regime. Civil war is different, but Tuđman is on footage saying there would have been no war had he given up on the idea of independent Croatia i.e. being a part (albeit possibly even totalitarian) Yugoslavia. Like men in the West I dubbed „diabolical“ (Their student body is wickedly called Skulls and Bones.), he managed both those who wanted Yugoslavia but also right wing extremists by skillfully employing money, or lack thereof, and an occasional murder. This is the monopoly. What else is the Floyd case? And why should anybody be surprised if some other faction employed the same „cure“ against a pharma corporation or if somebody just flips and has his or her say in an uncoordinated fashion? This might come as a big surprise to some, but the same is visible in the Trumpian takeover. Layoffs, different kind of ideology and – a parody of all American problems: president not being omnipotent but a person who requires nominations in the FED board, claims against Dominion machines, anti NATO rhetoric that some still dream of but for which the US does not have enough greenback. This too might be a shock – but to poor students of history. True, the sole penalty in the realm political is incarceration for corruption or breaking of the laws and the Constitution. In reality, however, from Roman emperors executed by their Praetorians, through Kennedy and Tuđman and Milošević all the way to Prigožin and possibly Zelenski – the penalty for wrong kind of politics is – still – death.

Aggregation

I think I might be a communist. Not that rigid that I'd go on a rampage, but I do sincerely believe the world is money crazed, produces misery and unhappiness.

I get the origins of Dutch capitalism: a few guys got together to finance „a venture,“ but that too was basically based on plunder, and moreover produced today's mastodonts that are, as we speak, ruining democracy, distorting news and even the world of books, and causing wars. Sure, they try to lure the small „investor“ with the promises of untold riches of „togetherness,“ but it's all basically a Ponzi scheme – or betting, in good ol' plain speak. Not to mention the mentioned world of politics and information proves the good old boys never intended to share anything. 

The way I see it, there are two kinds of Les Miserables in Croatia. The first kind work hard indeed, and one would expect them to be content with their lot, in contrast to my opt out misery, but, no, they but dream of more money, so that they would not have to work any more, work they have seen through as prostitution. The second type hinder any and all reforms by not daring to say aloud and accept the system has surpassed them, has no need for people like them any longer at all.

I had a brief exchange yesterday on the topic of inheritance tax, and I argued, basing this on my fifty years' experience of both socialism and capitalism, and first hand vision of the accumulation of wealth, the haves should pay and finance pensions and healthcare. „But this is irrelevant as we will never face the situation of deciding this in any parliament; they would rather drag us into intrasocietal strife and wars with neighbours.“

As for being a communist, I think the world needs some kind of new socialist economy, but am no economist. However, does anyone feed me, other than my parents? Do you clothe me? Choose your own path freely, I'll be ready to smirk at your stumbling, doing the finer things.

Private Theatre

If I have largely been able to see ahead, it's now winter in Dubrovnik, like „it's coming“ much around the globe, and today I decided to treat myself to a cinema screening: it’s quite a super strange experience since we, on account of utter state failure, have a socialised version of it for €2. Still, it is bizarre, you watch a movie with five other people inside. The hall was modernised some fifteen years ago so the place isn’t a dump though the latrine soon enough reminds one he is deep within the Balkans.

The flick was Brazilian, it is called the Secret Agent, and was nominated for four Oscars. The tale revolves around a university professor who gets killed by an “entrepreneur” within the then regime for refusing to hand over research results and patents to such private sector. It is somewhat arty, very slow moving (And lasts for two and a half hours.), and, as a friend commented – even the colours are washed out: “They were really like that forty years ago!”

Forty years ago, the world was full indeed with dictatorships, ranging from Greece, “through Spain and Portugal,” straight to Brazil, and it is from this time that the image of “free USA” comes from. The Secret Agent explicitly opens the topic of collective memory and forgetfulness, placing an emphasis on the young who even aren't that much at all interested in what had occurred before their time. 

If only it were that easy! As I once joked, “we” may not remember wars but there are always those around us with handy knowledge ready to instruct. Do check all you like, the “new” age, as it was laying the internet cables, was already laying ground for brand new dictatorships, and brand new conflicts.

I next plan to see La Grazia, an Italian film about a guy who pretends to be president and these two nicely portray what has happened “to me” during my “absence” from this blog. Theatre indeed, a very private one smack in between of a very visited place in “the middle” of the world.