Here's how to ensure a stupid and mecanic administration in the European Union:
First, organize a complex activity of exams, then forget about those who pass them.
Second, write the staff regulations, which are reasonable in size but contain idiotic provisions, like:
- split the contract and temporary agents into groups, each group with several steps
- then put them into probationary periods at half of the duration of their contracts, so if you get a contract for 1 year, you have a probationary period of 6 to 9 months (depends on the group you belong to)
this provision ensures that if you get hired you are kept on your toes, you will wear a tie and a uniform, and think conformist: any (maybe rightful sometimes) conflict has a chance to end your job.
a probationary period of 6 months for a contract of 3 years sounds reasonable; a probationary period of 9 months for a contract of 2 years is a statement that you will have nothing to say and have nothing better to do but to move from an agency to another unless you're prepared to kiss some strategic ass.
and what is the meaning of a probationary period for somebody who has 16 years work experience in chunks of 3 to 10 years?
- then, another idiocy: "produces the appropriate character references as to his suitability for the performance of his duties"; which confirms that the probationary period is there to make your personality and brain smooth.
- then require that the applicant fills a form describing his entire life; the form being different from European Agency to European Agency, BUT written in Microsoft Word of course;
- then charge an Agency with defining a standard form for applications in the entire EU administration, then forget about it; each with his own;
- then, at the interview, bring a commission of people in ties and uniforms, applying a machine test with childish, kindergarten-like, questions to the poor applicant in front of them, who managed to fly or travel over a few countries to reach that place;
- then, for the technical people, offer them contracts of two years renewable, but for those who got MBAs in humanities, give them 5 year contracts, 'coz, I assume, it's harder to check if what they're doing is right;
- then, along with the application form that is supposed to describe your life, force the applicant to fill some other three forms for reimbursement of travel to the interview: and guess how two of them are named "Legal entity" and "Financial entity";
- name the payment for your contracted service: "Emoluments". so that it sounds UN-like. hearing people asking each other: did you get your emolument this month?
- those application forms, I have the feeling that they're completed for a machine; is there a person who reads them up in the end? what's wrong with a structured CV in their stead? I can imagine some serious-looking drones fluffing around stacks of paper and administering databases containing just a job application, ridiculous, wouldn't you agree?
Idiots. There's so much more to write but I don't have the nerves to continue.
What stupid bureaucratic drones designed this system so as to break the patience and determination of any life form with a mind of its own?
I suggest an EU commission be formed, with four persons not wearing a tie. These should be sent in U.S. for a year, to apply for a job continuously, and learn how this should be done in a straightforward way, then get those people to write a goddamn simple and effective methodology for recruiting people in the EU administration.
I had two interviews by now with two EU agencies, guys, once I saw you "at work", I had strong doubts that if I would have been offered the job I would have accepted it. Fortunately, i was spared the dilemma, I didn't get an offer.
I've just located another opening, 9 month probationary, 2 years contract. I will skip this one, and the rest of them with these conditions. I am not a lifeless billiard ball to be bounced around by mindless drones.
- banning the wearing of suit and ties in public places, gatherings, conferences, workshops etc.
- cutting the background sound from the TV news (the one that says tam tapatam tarapatam pa tam while you're struggling to figure out from the noise what the hell happened today)
- writing in any State's Constitution, or in the UN charter, the universal wealth limit principle: no person should own at any time a wealth greater than the equivalent of a lifetime of average salaries
- universal Internet infrastructure availability and accessibility gets recognized as a gauge of democracy
- a psychiatric evaluation is performed for each militant non-smoker, the out of scale results are made public
- no private funds are available to anybody involved in any electoral process; alternatively, all the parties and parliaments get dismantled and replaced with civil servants proposed and elected online on professional grounds by the entire population for task-oriented jobs;
- all those who benefit from some form of copyright today will pay back this year all their sources of inspiration, from the inheritors of Aristotle to the people and cats wandering the streets today; these copyright owners will also have to buy a picture of a hard drive and not the real hard drive itself for the price of the real hard drive;
- all the research paid at least partially from public funds is guaranteed to be comprehensively accessible worldwide
- usage of personal cars in urban areas gets banned
- the words manager, customer, stakeholder, business and market are eliminated from the vocabulary of those who are not directly involved in commercial activities
- all mentions of religion are eliminated from any State's Constitution (inspired from here)
I believe I am a friend of yours because we have similar experiences and, therefore, we (you and me) use expressions that have similar meanings for both of us: the wage slaves, the consumerism, the powers, the hierarchy, the State, the Spectacle, the religion.
Let me introduce myself so that you can easily understand where I'm coming from and where I'm going.
My experience can be described like this: in 25 years of adult life I only got to do what I intended to do only marginally, almost nothing; that's because some stupid people appear in the way all the time (most of them I did not meet), and they cover their own accepted slavery under hierarchical rules, so I understand very well, personally, what dangers lie in accepting a hierarchy or the decisions of a person that is conditioned completely.
I wanted to do theoretical physics (because I wanted to understand the world, I still do), ended up in the physics of condensed matter (superconductors) because there was no place in my country at the time where one could focus on theoretical physics, there still isn't;
I accepted because it still was physics, and socially could become useful, but I ended up focusing on writing research reports and accumulating ISI points because that was the modern trend in research, it still is;
then (9 years later) I revolted, because, beyond this issue, the research ended up being published through commercial enterprises who requested money for that public research to become available back to those who paid the research in the first place, so I signed a declaration around the year 2000 that I'll never publish in such places, but the ISI points, which became a measure of research quality by some idiotic administrators' decisions, are the points that decide if you can continue or not to do publicly financed research; so one ends up doing public research to actually enrich some private publisher and only in a few lucky cases the public would benefit from that;
then (in 2000) I switched from physics to digital libraries, digital document semantics, thinking that Internet will make this theft obvious, I still do; problem is nobody was really concerned in the public administrations about what happens to this public research (it usually ends up in private hands which use this public research to get more profit from the public that paid already), this is still true;
I was concerned with the long-term preservation of this knowledge: given the worldwide irresponsibility in irreversibly consuming finite resources in the name of a fake, inhuman and unsustainable growth, humanity will survive only in a small proportion, and that proportion should not start with a bible, but with a digital library of public research done by then; I'm still concerned.
Other 9 years later, the overall result is that I'm still searching to get involved in a process of knowledge recovery or preservation with no perspective in sight yet, in any case nothing that is guaranteed to stay public and is not just a temporary and opportunistic attempt at adding to a wage slave's career points. It's more than a year now since I am jobless, I can survive happily, but I'm still not doing what I intended to do.
Meanwhile, very well-paid people in public positions are routing public money into private hands doing actually nothing in this direction, or actively avoiding such activities (in libraries or "knowledge management"). I'm getting 45 years old and my optimism and energy are wasted because of corrupt and/or incompetent people covering themselves with the rules of hierarchy.
So, I think, you, my anarchist friend, will agree that I have grounds enough to sympathize with your concern that we, as a society, are forced or encouraged to live our lives in vain, being useful only at vainly "enriching" or empowering a few others. I understand your thinking that none of the rich people or the public administrators corrupted/conditioned by them will ever give up the public resource theft just because somebody explains that to them. I agree that, until now and for some time to come, human history is just the history of the power of a few over the rest.
Apparently, the only solution is violence against them. But what kind of violence? Do you seriously think that burning a bank or breaking some windows will make those in power think? They will think on how to protect themselves, that's it. And there will be plenty of others, following some implicit religious or traditional values (like having children, buying a home, a car) that will get indebted and, therefore, enslaved by the powers that be. These will "cooperate" in promoting the current humanity status as progress, evolution, you name it. In such an environment, even intellectuals are getting transformed into sellers of their "intellectual property", which, in fact, if you look around, isn't worth a dime.
So what kind of violence? The Stalinist, Pol Pot kind, of forcing the good principles of communism on the throat of people who barely understand anything more than the crave for property as a guarantee for life? The USA kind, of forcing countries to play a rigged game by corrupting public administrators, of using the atomic bomb or simply waging wars and killing presidents in the name of freedom to be a slave? That doesn't work, because humans get transformed from revolutionaries into agents of power or from corrupted persons into centers of corruption. So the overall suicidal system gets preserved: a few in power play and exploit the rest. This happens because there is no background of knowledge, a basic set of principles, that everybody agrees with. Obviously there cannot be many such principles, but if you don't have these principles agreed upon, there's no society, that's a set of tribes, kingdoms, turfs, a perpetual war of my family against your family over resources.
You, my anarchist friend, ask for the other anarchists to unite for putting into place a participatory democracy, and I want that too. But on what basis will anarchists unite, or anybody else for that matter, which are the basic principles that allow a participatory democracy? Freedom, you say? Freedom of having seven children with no means to feed and educate them, freedom to have an SUV for each member of your family, freedom of declaring that hill your own property, freedom of exploiting any human being that happens around, freedom to be a sadist, freedom to get so rich so you can buy other people, freedom to own exclusively a media channel so that you can brainwash masses of people into doing something they don't understand? Obviously, my dear anarchist friend, we need a minimal set of principles to agree upon, all of us, anarchist or not, but humans nevertheless.
The violence I was describing above does nothing to formulate and to preserve these principles. The so-called "political left" named a few honorable principles but failed to protect itself from people on the inside who did not understand them, therefore an abuse of power as a cover of incompetence or misunderstanding was the exercise of the day. The "political right" never makes any promise except to those who have the means to multiply their own means. How ridiculous, tragi-comical, can the average guy be in supporting the "political right".
I hope, my anarchist friend, that, by now, you understand that we humans have to agree upon something before doing anything stupid, again.
So what's the effective solution, what are the principles that can preserve a solution for humanity? I can only suggest two, with far reaching consequences: the limit principle and the humanist principle.
The limit principle has to be a principle that doesn't allow, or makes difficult, for anybody to control anybody else's life, including animals. This principle has to survive historically by its own. It should sound like this: no person can own more resources than necessary for one human's lifetime. In concrete, current, terms, this may be written like this: no individual can own, at any time in its life, a personal wealth larger than a human's lifetime of average wages. Given a limit like this, we can live our freedom without ever having a significant enough power, even if we want it, to control other people. We will need to associate, therefore to agree, with other people when we have in mind a project that can affect the lives of people around. This principle is a natural, ecological, sustainable, slowdown of our current gulping of natural resources. It is a principle which is elastic enough to allow any person be itself without letting a significant part of its life being controlled by anybody else except a group unanimously agreeing that this control is necessary. Anybody's decision to interfere or to control somebody else's life will be at the expense of its own effectively limited resources.
The humanist principle would cover the fact that none of us can be considered more than animals until we grasp what values are universal to humanity. This principle says that education (as human knowledge creation, preservation, accessibility and communication infrastructure/Internet), health (as survival information, infrastructure and training), common rule of law (as the minimal interpersonal rules of living among others), are the basic ingredients of a sustainable society if, and only if, the limit principle is already in place. I think this principle guarantees to make obvious the consequences of our actions and helps us live with some understanding of what's happening, what's worth doing and what should be discontinued.
A minimal public administration should be in place to provide these basic services and to monitor the upholding of the limit principle, that should be the State (a different way of saying that these services are public, i.e. cannot be subject of mercantile exchange or at the whim of any person, and are the result of the common values agreement spanning the whole society).
Freedom is what you get only beyond these two principles, no society can survive without unanimously accepting them or an equivalent of them, so, my dear anarchist friend, let's work for carving these principles in any human society's Constitution (that is, if you agree with them, if not, name the alternatives) before wasting your time breaking any more windows.
Stay healthy, think it over and write critically about it, the Internet is with you, but Time is on the opposite side.
"Thought is limited", me is a history, the psyche is stalling, "are we all one, really?", "inseparable whole, you're absolutely right", "we've been conditioned", "in its very nature, thought is divisive", "after a while, you see so much evidence of separation, you say, that you forget how it started", "thought is time", "I want to be...I want to become...non-violent, take that for example. That is, altogether, a fallacy.", "all ideals are illusory, psychologically; the idea of building a marvelous bridge is not illusory.", "become what is, and becoming away from what is, I question both", "self-improvement...something so utterly ugly", "the source of all this, is the movement of thought as time", "..I need time means dividing between the observer and observed",
"then, is it possible to transcend thought?", "greed is a movement", "the attempt to not be greedy is a movement, a becoming", "is it possible to not become psychologically?", "can I remain what I am", "greed is me[..] the attributes, qualities, conclusions, are me", "is it possible to perceive without all the movement in memory?", "we don't experience mismemory", "the activity of thought will never bring it about [peace on earth]", "is there an activity which is not touched by thought, not something wholly sacred...., we are saying there is", "the intelligence is not the activity of cunning thought", "when we operate from memory, we are not very different from a computer", "in this country you are programmed as British", "that intelligence, may act through memory and knowledge, but it's not them", "the end of me",
"why does suffering prevent intelligence", "my suffering is diferent from your suffering [..] an illusory thing", "the world and I are one...it is an actuality", "you are awake, I'm not...your relationship with me is very clear but I have no relationship with you, I cannot, I insist on division and you don't", "the self hides behind many things", "if one has children, what is their future", "..but now educations means merely accumulation of knowledge"
"there is no evolution of the psyche", "giving importance to the self is creating great damage to the world: it is constantly in conflict, not only with itself, ... but with the whole universe", "the constant assertion of the self, is the movement, the conditioning", "can that conditioning be dissipated", "because it the right thing to do"
"in attention, thought has no place", "effort is not attention", "attention can only come in to be when the self is not"