About management

 In rally car there are 2 seats one for pilot and one for co-pilot.

The pilot drives the car, the co-pilot says what turn is next. Left 30 degrees, right 60 degrees.

In this way the pilot focus on driving and doesn't waste time to take decisions and  can go faster.

Who is the manager in this case ? The pilot who has the throttle and the wheel or the co-pilot who gives orders ?

The real management should be like co-piloting: detachment from actual implementation, forward looking and trusted.

The employee who doesn't receives from manager a clear direction is like a pilot without a co-pilot: he has to drive slower to be careful about turns. He will finish the race but it will lose.

People build houses without managers, but if you need to build the pyramids, the great wall of China, Hagia Sofia or any other big project you need good managers.

Anarchists and libertarians are against  hierarchical structures, but without hierarchical structures in which someone must be separated from actual implementation in look forward we would live today in mud huts.

But as we saw in Stalin's,Hitler and Mao's case, wrong guy in top of a hierarchy can do more harm than good.

Here comes the power relations: the pilot and co-pilot are not subordinates,are dependent of each other one drives and another give directions, and wrong teams are eliminated from competition. 

So roles must be separated but a interdependence must be between actors and team must be set under competitive pressure.

The democracy separated the power of the state and made a dependence between government and people. Electoral system weeds out the combinations that don't work.

But if the co-pilot is not believed the democracy is losing the race.

In dictatorship we see the opposite: concentration of power, dependence, no selective pressure from inside the country and if the country is big enough no selection from outside either.

The direction is clear, but wrong, the pilot is not motivated to drive fast enough.

White privilege, race war and reforms

I saw on the internet this expression: "white privilege".

So I searched on the internet, on wikipedia it is about that the Europeans privileges had in the colonies and in US

It seems that the source for this term now is this article from 1987 by Peggy Macintosh.

Few remarks: if you were born in Sweden from Swedish parents, you will have the same privileges as in the article and you can call them "Swedish privileges".

They are privileges coming from majority.

Every country thinks that they are the top of civilization especially those who had colonies. Portuguese are proud of their explorers, Spanish of their conquest, Brits,French, Russian, Chinese, Arabs, Indians all think that their culture is the best, and not all are whites.

True being inside a culture is blinding you to the outside.

What disturbs me is not the findings that are mostly true but the solution:

Abolish the privilege.

Very communist. Why some people to live well when we can all live bad.

If you treat the white people how the black are treated this doesn't mean that you improve the life of blacks.

You must improved the life of black to have the same 'privileges'.

This idea of 'white privilege' can heat up a race war, because white people can see it as threat to their rights, and black people might think we are living bad because  white are living better.

And black and whites will fight one each other, and those in power will remain in power and suck the money from both races.

The movie 'Blue collar' from 1978 describes very well what will happen.

Maybe the use of excessive force in American police is due to overwork,fear and conditioning to react violently.

There are several causes:

First they are a lot of guns in US.

Second they are a lot of drugs.

Third all he psychiatric patients are on the streets since '80.

Forth we have tradition from Wild West, elected sheriffs, and shoot first ask later.

Fifth the are some immunity for officers. I don't have sources, but in the '80 was a court decision in which some officers had immunity, so bye bye equality in front of the law.

Sixth, the jury is biased always. Think of OJ Simpson.

Seventh there is no minimum wage, so people must take 2 jobs to work.

Eight they are pockets of poverty from which one cannot get out.

Solutions:

You can't take the gun away, second amendment.

But you can treat drug addicts in clinics, put person with psychiatric diseases in hospitals.

You can guarantee a minimum wage.

Some jobs will disappear because they will be more expensive, but instead 2 people having two jobs each,everyone will have one job.

Free college education, or if don't like free because as an American you learn that nothing is free, education that is paid after you gain enough money, like in Australia.Free college will rise many smart kids from poverty.

Stop H1B visa's corporations use them to bring programmers from overseas, for 'training', but in fact for low paying jobs.

Abolish all immunity privileges.

Federal oversee of the local police. Train the police to hod suspects in a safe manner, and to deescalate.

It seems to me that the Minneapolis police was not well trained. Chauvin was a sadistic bastard but the other 2 police officers that sat on Floyd's body, were not trained.In order to pin down a human body is enough to put your weight on the pelvis not on the thorax.

But I expect that everything will be about the race and none of these ideas will be implemented.

Boris Johnson is UK's Stalin

Quite harsh isn't it ?

Well I don't expect that Boris Johnson would round up opponents in middle of the night and deport them in Shetland islands, but regarding reducing distancing below 2 m (6 feet) it has the same approach to science as Stalin.

Stalin meddled in the soviet biology when he supported the theory of Lysenko against the scietinfic truth of genetics.

What resulted were a failure of soviet agriculture, famine and death of people, imprisonment of scientist who disagreed.

Boris Johnson is meddling business interests in the epidemiology of COVID and he wants to reduce the social distancing limit of 2 m.

Since 1934 when Wells and Riley they discovered the formula for estimating the number of infected people based of air circulation, it is admitted that the safe distance from an ill person is 1.5-2m.

The original document is hidden behind a pay walls so I could not retrieve it, but I found this article: http://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/18723/html_1

From which I extract:

" Droplet spread and airborne transmission are two main routes to transmit respiratory diseases. Droplet spread refers to the passage of pathogens from a source to a susceptible through large droplets. It was calculated that droplets of greater than 100 m in diameter released from a height of 2 m deposited on the floor within 3–6 s with less than 1.5 m in horizontal distance at room air temperature and relative humidity of less than 60%, while droplets of less than 100 m evaporated within 3–6 s (17,25,26,30). So droplet-borne transmission is a short-range process, with distance less than 2 m due to the evaporation and high settling velocity of large droplets. "

So the safest distance to be is 2m.

Why BoJo wants to reduce it ?

The pub-industrial complex make pressures for it ?

The real estate price for restaurant, and shops are dropping?

Stalin in his demented mind,willingly killed people for creating a better world.

Boris unwillingly kills people for pub owners.

Brits drink your beer at home.

Make a grill in your backyard, invite some friends, buy beer from supermarket (is cheaper) and wear mask when speaking.

Staying in the open air, with few friend is safer than staying in a crowded room with many people.

Revolution in US?

What is happening in US is familiar to those witnessing a revolution:

In the country exists a charged atmosphere caused by economic hardship and arrogant leadership, see Romania in 1989, Tunisia and Egypt during Arab Spring in 2010 and 2011.

Then a minor event happen:

A pastor refuses to be removed from office (Romania), a fruit vendor self immolate (Tunisia)

People riot.

Government intervine heavy handed.

Misterious agents are infiltrated in the crowds to create more Chaos by killing people (Romania in Bucharest, Egypt in the Tahrir square)

Those who smash windows actually work in favour of the government because the anger is directed towards things not people. 

If people are eager to loot the shops this means that they are not eager to become martirs in a revolution.

Next step: people are surrounding key points of the government and media. Building of the communist party and television in Romania.

There are few outcomes from this tense situation based on what happened in Eastern Europe in 89 and what happened in Arab Spring

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

- the leader is fleeing. But Trump cannot flee, only resign. And resigning it because some afro Americans are in the street is a huge blow for his ego.

- the government makes some concetions, and stays in power. But Ceaușescu tried the same thing in the last moment, and didn't succeeded because it was hated. Now let's say that Trump is a polarising figure.

- government crushes the revolution with it's own military forces or outside help. I don't see that happening in US. The culture of civil rights and disobedience is too engrained in US society.

- government tries to crush the revolution and things escalate to civil war. Trump was no shy about public violent speech, he might find a fool in the armed forces to help him. But trying to repress 300 million people who believe in freedom and have access to guns is futile, and will cause a civil war, which will be lost by Trump.

The good thing about US is that is decentralized government, and as we saw in this epidemic, states have enough power. Also there a lot of NGO that can help with the governance if the government really colapses.

So if Trump falls it won't be a vacuum of power and civil war as in Lybia.

If Trump stays in power he will be an atractor for public discontent and so long that people have a person that they love to hate, they will be united.

Good thing for US is that they have elections in fall and they can solve this issue peacefully.

It will be a war between India and China

Covid 19 pandemic has created chaos in many countries, also in China.

But China has the advantage of producing 30% of the world goods by quantity and every type of product. So chines doctors are having professional protected gear while western doctors had to improvise.

Putin used the chaos from Ukraine to annex Crimea.

Japanese in 1937 use the chaos from China to invade it.

Why China shouldn't do the same ?

Xi presidency was shaken by the pandemic, a national war will strength the unity of the country and dissenters will be silenced.

Milosevic has done this in Yugoslavia, the Argentinian junta did it 1986 and occupied Falklands.

The economic success was the silk glove that covered the iron fist of the communist party. But the glove is worn down, and the steel is more visible than ever. The communist ideology that made everybody equals was thrown to the dust bin of history when Deng Xiaoping said in '80: "Get rich"

Without ideology and without money to bribe people, CCP was left only with nationalism. And nationalism needs an enemy.

What enemy will China pick to fight ?

It seems that they are in good relations with Russia, we can exclude them.

They can go to the east and take Taiwan, and risk a naval warfare with US,Japan and other allies.

In naval warfare the technology is winning the battle.

In 1860 opium war few British Iron clad ship sunk all chines fleet.

In a war on sea China's strength in numbers is useless.

On east China has the economic heart,the majority of the population and of the economy, it is enough a missile to hit a power-plant and you can shut down a 10 million people city.

On the west it has India.

Between the Indian border and Beijing it is the scarcely populated Tibetan plateau.

New-Delhi is closer to the border.

It will be a land base war so China can deploy all its infantry and air-force.

There are people in Kashmir who want independence from India, and can offer information and guerilla support to Chinese.

Pakistan an ally of China, wants the region also.

There were 3 wars between China in India in region.

Conquering Kashmir region, China strengthens the ties with Pakistan, it can make an oleo-duct with Iran, and can have access to Indian Ocean.

The advantage for India is that is a mountainous region and can be easily defended.

It will be a regional war or a world war ?

If US decides to attack China in SE Asia ? Or at least to blockade the ports ?

A blockade on ports will reduce the imports of oil,iron ore and copper.

If Xi won't back because he can lose everything and Trump will not back-up either things will warm up and escalate.

US wanted to remove Assad because the wanted Russia out of Syria, and the civil war still continues today.

US can attack China coast, with losses but China cannot attack US coast without ballistic missiles.

The US has spread its economy and cities on 2 coasts, China has everything concentrated on east coast.It is more vulnerable.

US has no problem with food supply, China has a reduced arable land.

When e everything will be directed to the army, a new famine will emerge in China.

Communist party controls China and the anti-war movement can be suppressed in the bud.

US cannot control its democracy, people are tired of wars. The are worn by Afghanistan and Irak. US army is based on volunteers, China on conscripts.

If US doesn't finish in 1 or 2 years the conflict then will sue for peace, and will lose SE Asia. It will be a second Vietnam.

A Chines proverb says: "If 2 tigers are fighting one is dead and the other badly wounded"

IF China,US and India will collapse what will happen with the world ?

Brexit movie review

I have just finished watching the movie Brexit, and I wonder how the average Tommy who just finished high school could match with PhD in physics armed with algorithm and huge amount of data, with experts in behavioral psychology.

How he could face billionaires who fond it?

Tommy is swept away as the tribes from America,Africa,Asia and Australia were swept away by the machine of the colonial empires. 

In the movie the character of Dominic Cummings, says that he wanted to reset the political system to find a meaning.

The same thing Peter Thiel said in an interview with Eric Weinstein on podcast Portal, made by the former.

He wanted a reset, a kind of rejuvenation of US politics.

Little did they know that revolutions trigger return to traditions.

In 1979 after Iranian Schah was chased away, Iranian spontaneously returned to Islamic reorganisation.

In 1789 french after the terror they returned to centralized state ruled by a monarch, Napoleon.

Related to centralized state United Kingdom is more decentralized. UK is more insular and individualitic, unlike the rest of the Europe, where centralized states are the norm.

Dan Puric "Suflet romanesc"

De mult vroiam sa scriu despre cartea lui Dan Puric "Suflet romanesc" dar recentul scandal cu declaratiile privind incidentul de la Colectiv mi-au adus aminte de acest lucru.
Din pacate nu am gasit decat un fragment din sursa originala pe reddit si multe declaratii revoltate.
Dar scopul acestui post nu e sa analizez declaratiile domnului Puric ci sa descri ce am inteles despre domnia sa in carte.
Tatal domnului Puric a fost detinut politic, si intors din iadul inchisorilor comunistea a decis sa-si protejeze fiul de rautatile acestei lumi si l-a crescut la tara apoi intr-un orasel mic de provincie.
Domnul Dan Puric a dat fata cu rautatea in armata, unde sergentul a torturat o pasare ca sa-l faca sa sufere. Firea sa sensibila nu s-a impacat cu mediul brutal de acolo asa cu nu s-a impacat cu nepasarea marelui oras Bucuresti.
Ceea ce l-a ajutat sa razbata a fost copilaria sa fericita de la tara, care i-a fixat si imaginea arhetipala a romanului: un suflet bland, bun si sensibil in pericol sa fie corupt de lumea exterioara.

In carte descrie urmatoarea fabula taraneasca:
"Un taran merge pe drum cand aude niste gemete dupa o stanca: un balaur era prins intre o grota si o stanca.
Balaurul: Tarane ajuta-ma te rog ca sunt prins de stanca asta si am sa mor.
 Taranul il ajuta, si balaurul in loc sa-i  multumeasca vrea sa-l manance.
Taranul: Stai balaure e drept sa ma mananci dupa ce te-am eliberat?
Balaurul: E drept daca mi-e foame.
Taranul: Nu e drept, si am sa-ti arat judecandu-ne.
Balaurul: Sa ne judecam
Se duc la bou si apoi la cal pentru a ii judeca. Dar nu i-au dat dreptate taranului pentru ca i-a exploatat in trecut. In final ajung la vulpe.
Vulpea: Nu cred ce imi spuneti trebuie sa vad cu ochii mei.
Se duc la locul cu pricina.
Vulpea: Balaurule arata cum stateai exact in grota, ca nu imi dau seama.
Balaurul se pune in grota, iar vulpea ii face semn taranului sa puna piatra la loc sa-l prinda pe balaur"

Ce intelege domnul Puric din asta ?
Ca totul e bine numai ca ne trebuie o "vulpe". Taranul nostru roman nu poate fi viclean.
Ori realitatea il contrazice. Un misionar catolic se plangea pe la 1600 ca taranii din Moldova nu-s asa simpli cum credea.
Dar exemplele cele mai clare le avem de la marii nostrii oameni de stat care au avut calitati negative:
Mihai Viteazu si-a ucis creditorii, Vlad Tepes a tras in teapa pe cine a apucat, Stefan cel Mare era manios si degraba varsatoriu de sange.
Romania s-a creat printr-o viclenie in 1859 cand ambele tari romane l-au ales pe Cuza.

In viziunea domnului Puric, daca romanul e bun si pur, raul vine din afara, de la straini, uitand ca sarpele s-a aflat in paradis de la inceput.
Dupa viziunea sa solutia pare simpla: purificarea neamului romanesc reintoracerea la radacini.
Asta se poate face prin eliminarea a ce e occidental, evreiesc,oriental, slav, chiar si a ce este roman. In fond romanii au fost straini. 
Din fericire nu stim mai mult despre preistorie altfel ne-am intoarce pana la civilizatia Cucuteni sa ne gasim radacinile.
Din fericire domnul Puric se opreste la daci. Oare dacii care nu vorbeau o limba romanica sunt romani? Adica esenta identitatii noastre este limba romana, cea mai grea dovada ca suntem aici macar de la anul 106. Cum sa renuntam la ea pentru a fi mai romani.

Va suna cunoscuta ideea ca strainii au stricat natia ?
Nazistii aveau o idee similara, numai ca pe baze rasiste.

Nu cred ca domnul Puric va sustine vreodata, deportarea cetatenilor necorespunzatori, insuficineti de "romani" dar ideea asta ca  totul e rau din cauza strainilor, si ca poporul roman a fost corupt, poate inflori in alte capete mai mici si mai predispuse spre violenta si gata sa renunte la scrupule morale.

Poetul Gabriele D'Annunzio i-a inspirat pe fascisti, sper ca actorul Dan Puric sa nu-i inspire pe neo-legionari.

Unirea a doua elemente diferite: taranul naiv si puternic si vulpea vicleana au invins raul. In fata raului nu poti rezista singur doar cu naivitatea si puritatea sufleteasca, trebuie si putina viclenie.Si daca nu poti avea aliaza-te cu cineva care are.
Vulpea reprezinta strainul binevoitor cu puncte de vedere diferite, cu abilitati diferite dar manat de aceiasi dorinta de dreptate ca si noi.