Make your own free website on

Recent Events in America                                                   16 September 2001

By Pavel Kollar

The problem calls communication in authoritarian system. It seems that it cannot be better in this system, where institutions, intended to serve individuals, turned in authority over individuals. When it goes about their ego interests, they are ready to enslave or even sacrifice their own customers to compete with adversaries, presenting own interests as higher interests, deserving great sacrifices. So, they have two goals: keep own public loyal and fight competitor and possible gain the public of competitor a side. To accomplish the first one, one needs an outer enemy. History delivers evidence that this was the easiest way of governing in all periods.

The truth today is also that one authoritarian group want to replace another in world affairs. The difference between the two is that the one is less authoritarian than another, is fast changing while another is sitting on tradition. One has overhand today. Another wants to have it tomorrow. What they have common is the object of governing. The difference is only in quality and quantity of services for individuals they deliver. They compete for the object of governing, for 'customers' of their established institutions.

In reality they are playing in hands of one another, also when they are in evilest conflicts. There is an organic relation between external competition and internal cohesion of one group in this system. More external enemies, more internal fear which sticks people together. The latest is the desire of every governor. Competition was said to be in favour of public but it seems that it is turning to be on account of public.

This is possible thanks monopoly some institutions have on living conditions. The choices for individuals are really very constrained. Freedom of choice is reserved for a small group on the top of the income pyramid. They are using their excess money to finance irrational competition. The subordinates are involved in their game plays because they are manipulated.

The traditional institutions are already long time off the date, they seem to serve for a just opposite purpose for what they were founded and what they declared. They turned governing science into a rude war, declaring impulses as normal behaviour and thinking as suspect feature. They brought this world in the crisis with their contradictions. One and the same behaviour is interpreted once as criminal and another time as legal, one and the same information is once public another time as greatest secrecy, all depends on the position of the performer in social hierarchy. The interpretation of law is in hands of blind fanatics but they are still authorized to issue moral certificates about the behaviour of individuals.

Science is in hand of authoritarian interests. Internet was a chance for freedom but it seems falling also in hands of monopolies, becoming mean in competitive game plays of authorities.

Who are morally today? Those who follow their opinion, propaganda, ceremonies and shows without critical remarks and alternatives, those who are friends of them and those who bribe them. These people will pass all their tests. Personality is divided in abilities and character, the latter rather vague term, the first is demanded for success but in reality the second is more important.

Today the attribute 'evil' is usually reserved for individuals as though some organizations or authorities were free of this feature. But what about the evidence which comes to public usually after the deals? Then isn't it so that evil is sitting in authoritarian institutions? Evilness explained with God's will is common cynicism.

People are trusting them because do not know how they function. Some institutions hide their methods as greatest secrecies. Stupefying the young generations to take away them the brains is the best method of preserving the longevity of one authoritarian system. All is explained with the so-called responsibility, but so far known neither to whom nor for what.

Even the moral of the free world today is a mix of promoters and inhibitors. First ones are playing liberalism, another just the opposite and being in overhand today. The feature of the first one is a show and exhibition of collective impulses but without clear direction, the feature of the second one is a good guarded stability of small circles under the skirt of big authorities. They play in hand of one another, also when they are in conflict. They are organic one. The moral of the big competitor to this free world today is common slavery. Nice prospects for the future.

But individual, usually that one with least influence on their affairs, is the final payer of how their failures so their successes. When it comes to final solution then all the big words about moral, ethics, humanity and similar are sinking to common places.

The way out looks like doesn't exist. Retaliation won't solve the problem, only reorganization. There were already experiments with popularization as opposite to elitism but they failed to solve the problem of authority. Replacement of one authority with another is not solution. Representation of interests of one by another or direct representation of own interests is not finally solved. So, for the future there remained open two questions: what and, if there will be some alternative, how to implement it.

In relation to first question I would say that freedom of choice for individuals requires demonopolization. What this world really needs is less authoritarian arrogance, less police, less military, less priests and churches but more security and freedom for individuals. This is the chance for world's liberals to present their alternative. So far there is already some theory or ideology, a free market of goods and services of all kind, offered and demanded. But it remained open the question: by whom, who to be demander and offerer. Big collectives or individuals? Big collectives require authority. So, only by individuals. But these individuals must be stabile.

What's the second question, how to implement, I see the stabilization of individual as crucially important point. To make individual resistant to pressures of different authorities. But this requires reform of education system as first. Education which will institutionalize individual, as different from education for the role of employee today. This should be the first step. Demonopolization without this first step can turn the world into anarchy.

Some were quick to proclaim that ' ... capitalism is down .... entrepreneurship is prevailing ....' and this just after the fall of the two towers, possible with the aim to take off the wind from the sails of anticapitalist demonstrators. Capitalism and entrepreneurship are inseparable. The communism delivered proof for this. There was no entrepreneurship because the capitalism was removed. So, there remained nothing. And why should capitalism go? Capitalism is a way of thinking immanent to all individuals, despite that some are trying to suppress it. See what happened with ex-communists. They became the greatest capitalist when the opportunity came. What is to be go are the monopolies. To be replaced with perfect competition. But the latter is still capitalism, individual capitalism. Monopolies are symbols of authoritarian era, of capitalism of authoritarian era, of big collectives. Individual capitalism is the symbol of liberal era. The alternative to this is either a continual war or nothing.

Your comment:

                       previous    next    top    home
                           ©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar