Andrei Jebeleanu

    • This is where the shenanigans begin
  • The Night A Dead Philosopher Interviewed me in Prague. Part ONE

    June 11th, 2025

    Excerpt from The Patron Saint of Satire and Shenanigans—a novel.

    Scene: A dimly lit café in Prague. Midnight. I – The Patron Saint of Satire and Shenanigans – am seated across from a philosopher who died sometime between two revolutions. The ash in his glass doesn’t move. The clock above the bar hasn’t ticked in years. Smoke lingers. He looks at me with the kind of gaze only the dead can sustain—steady and unsentimental.

    And then he asks: “Why, oh why, did you become a journalist?”

    I told him: Because you’ve been dead a long time now, I can go with the long answer. Right? Good. Then here it is—the very long version.

    “Bob Woodward is the reason I became a journalist. Ion Barbu convinced me that ether and cocaine deserved, at the very least, the courtesy of fascination.
    Russian literature taught me how to love — clumsily, catastrophically, and always too late.
    Annabel Lee acquainted me with reverence. And death. Often in that order.

    I discovered chess thanks to Stefan Zweig — and it was Zweig who also gifted me a lasting affection for monomania.
    My flair for stylistic disaster (and unapologetic flair in general) began with Cioran.
    Monty Python’s Flying Circus taught me irreverence — and made it holy.
    They’re why, even now, I sometimes believe I’m being “counterintuitive” when I’m just being obnoxious.

    Hypochondria I owe to Nietzsche. And to Pascal.
    A curious fondness for poetic maladies bloomed somewhere between a paragraph and a panic attack.
    There was a time when I considered it oddly romantic to harbor a fascination with Treponema pallidum, the bacterium responsible for syphilis.
    Make of that what you will.

    Others joined this tangled parade.
    The Sex Pistols helped me rehearse rebellion as fashion.
    Sid Vicious was briefly my personal stylist — until he got traded for Dave Gahan and the high-gloss melancholy of Depeche Mode.
    Then came Diesel’s “Be Stupid” campaign:
    Smart may have the brain. But stupid have the balls.
    And I nodded. As if that explained something.

    Jeremy Clarkson, against my better judgment, convinced me that cars were worth caring about.
    Which just proves the mind is a junk drawer: chaotic, loyal, and endlessly willing to surprise you.

    Whether trivial or sublime, I can trace most of my life choices back to these borrowed sparks.
    And I don’t share this to impress you.
    This isn’t a spiritual résumé. Nor is it some intellectual calling card stitched from erudition and intent.
    I’m not building a case for the coherence of my life.
    Quite the opposite.

    I offer these fragments because I suspect they’re all I have.
    Because somewhere in this dense mesh of influences — literary, musical, pathological — I’ve lost sight of whatever original node once qualified as me.
    The one speaking to you now.
    Andrei Jebeleanu, editor-in-chief of Momentul.

    Which brings me, reluctantly, to a too-sad conclusion:
    That my so-called authenticity may not be mine at all.
    That the “I” I use so confidently is a fluent pastiche.
    Elegant, persuasive — and barely traceable back to anything solid.

    At best, I am a clever forgery of myself.

    So no, today’s conversation is not about me.
    It’s about the slow, disfiguring violence through which we are born into adulthood.
    It’s about the way the personality we come to call “ours” is often the most foreign and unrecognizable part of us.
    And how the passage from adolescence to maturity doesn’t resemble a growth — but an amputation.
    A severing.
    Sometimes subtle. Sometimes surgical. Often total.

    We become who we are, quite simply, by surrendering who we were.
    Not through transcendence. Through substitution.

    I didn’t choose my profession after a period of soul-searching, wrapped in linen, meditating in some misty cloister, decoding signs from a reluctant divinity.
    No.
    I chose it while watching All the President’s Men on a nondescript Sunday, spoon-deep in stracciatella Häagen-Dazs, my parents half-asleep next to me on the couch.
    And just like that — without ritual or lightning bolt — I became Myself–Bob Woodward.
    Then came Gogol.
    His sadness. His disintegration. The idea that a man might vanish — not into death, but into his own fate.
    And just like that, I mutated: Myself–Bob Woodward–Gogol.

    Later still, Céline arrived like a fever.
    That trembling, toxic elegance. His cynicism that bled like poetry. The black humor of someone who’d seen too much and laughed in all the wrong places.
    By then, I was already hyphenating wildly: Myself–Bob Woodward–Gogol–Céline.

    This is how identity has always worked for me.
    Like a name tag at a badly organized conference — overwritten until the original is no longer legible.

    I didn’t grow into myself. I assembled.
    Accreted.
    I copied what felt magnetic, then let the glue of emotion convince me it was mine.

    I don’t believe in the unified self.
    I believe in the curated one.
    Not forged in fire — but built out of exposure, admiration, and barely conscious mimicry.

    And maybe — just maybe — that’s what authenticity is, too.
    Not a wellspring bubbling up from some inner sanctum.
    But a collage.
    Taped together with longing.
    And accidentally true.

    It kept happening.
    Every time I let myself be seduced by someone else’s dream, by a sentence that shimmered or an idea that wore its madness like a tuxedo—another graft took hold.

    Myself–Bob Woodward–Gogol–Céline–Jerome K. Jerome–G.K. Chesterton–Kafka…
    A procession of borrowed selves, walking arm-in-arm through my bloodstream.

    And with each new addition, the self–myself—the nucleus I once presumed indivisible—contracted a little further.
    Shrinking.
    Thinning out.
    Until it became nothing more than a pretext.
    A vanishing point.
    A grammatical fiction around which other people’s obsessions, sorrows, and salvations continued to proliferate.

    Then came Zadie Smith — with that ironic lucidity that makes you feel smarter than you are.
    Like you’ve understood something, even if you haven’t.
    (Especially if you haven’t.)

    David Foster Wallace followed, with sentences that doubled back to eat themselves — syntax as Möbius strip, thought as nausea, consciousness as recursive trap.

    Then Ottessa Moshfegh — with her bodily nihilism, the kind that stitches itself beneath your skin like an invisible thread, making you aware of every pore and misplaced desire.

    And Ferrante…
    Ferrante!
    Reading her is like surviving a workplace accident in slow motion.
    Emotional blunt force trauma — but somehow you’re grateful.
    You limp away thinking: at least it was artful.

    And that’s when you begin to see it.

    You realize that identity isn’t fixed.
    Isn’t noble.
    Isn’t even personal.

    It’s modular.
    Biological.
    A structure built like a tapeworm — segment after segment, endlessly replicating, each one autonomous yet parasitically dependent on what came before.
    Not exactly a soul. Not quite a self.

    Culture, then, is not enrichment.
    It’s a form of contamination.
    Beautiful. Voluntary. Intoxicating.
    But contamination nonetheless.

    And we — the readers, the watchers, the haunted — are just willing hosts.
    Wearing our literary infections like perfume.

    Myself-BobWoodward-Gogol-Céline-JeromeK.Jerome-G.K.Chesterton-Kafka-ZadieSmith-DavidFosterWallace-OttessaMoshfegh-ElenaFerrante.

    We are born of intelligent forgeries—of borrowed gestures and approximations of those we regard as the gods of our inner lives. Through the choices we make, we validate them, until they become permanent residents of our fate.
    In a sense, they are the ones who choose for us, who fall in love in our place, who read our books and watch our films. And the more cultivated you are, the more inescapable this dilemma becomes.

    Myself—the hyphen between all the names that dwell within me.
    Myself—the spiritual void clothed in everything others have said better.
    Myself—the faint watermark beneath the bold fingerprints of other lives.

    And so I wonder: have we falsified our destiny?
    Each time we fall in love, we do so with our fate. Some loves become professions; others crystallize into tics, quirks, stubborn convictions, a taste for danger, or a fondness for particular fetishes.
    I am a composite of words, revelations, confusions, and revolts that are not my own; my mind is assembled from other minds, my soul from affections and aversions that predate me.

    I am Alex from A Clockwork Orange when I flirt with sociopathy.
    Buster Keaton in the guise of the inscrutable clown.
    Tom Joad whenever I wrestle with injustice and want.

    And among so many extraordinary characters, the true “me”—unfiltered, unborrowed—is likely the least remarkable of all.

    After all, who can compete with Fantastic Mr. Fox?

    Who am I, then, when—in an honest act of intellectual striptease—I strip away everything that isn’t truly mine?
    Where do I exist in this amalgam of characters, both real and fictional, of marketing exercises, dead geniuses, and borrowed mythologies?
    Can one still locate oneself beneath these sedimentary layers of others?
    And why do we continue to call it “self-awareness” when its formation requires the entire weight of human culture—yet, by the time it reaches maturity, what’s missing is precisely the self?

    In this state of mild metaphysical nausea, I can’t help but ask:
    Is culture an assault on identity?

    If the answer is yes, then what we’re living isn’t progress—it’s a reeducation program.
    Not unlike the Gulag.
    Or the Laogai camps.
    Or the labor units of communist Romania.

    Except now, Lavrentiy Beria, Liang Botai, and Eugen Țurcanu have been discreetly replaced.
    Not by new torturers.
    But by directors, curators, and Stanford PhDs whose voices echo with soothing clarity in hour-long podcasts.

    Today, reeducation comes via The Atlantic’s op-eds, through mindfulness retreats with Björk, and the 20th anniversary edition of The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen.
    It’s administered by Warhol, Elia Kazan, Gil Scott-Heron, and Brâncuși.
    It’s the Pitești experiment, globalized.
    Only this time, the machinery is elegant.
    And the engineers are brilliant.

    We’re being reprogrammed to lo-fi beats.
    With the best UX on the market.
    Via an economy of intermittent dopamine rewards.
    Through content that holds us captive ten hours a day—happily.

    We are brutalized, gently.
    Rewritten through Instagram filters and hashtags like #PersonalGrowth.

    Our reformers have understood a terrifying truth:
    To reshape a human being, you don’t need violence.
    You need frictionless interfaces.
    Premium Pornhub.
    A Kindle.
    And Oprah.

    We are softened, sculpted, sublimated.
    And our accomplices are Franny and Zooey, Black Mirror in 8K, and Do I Wanna Know, sung by Dua Lipa.

    Everything is soft.
    Everything is beautiful.
    Everything is final

    The Gulag was unnecessary.
    The New Man is not forged through torment and suffering, but through bibliographic excess, endlessly gratified temptations, and contemporary horrors like decaf almond milk caramel moccacinos.
    Had communist Russia been ruled by a triumvirate consisting of the Marquis de Sade, Elton John, and the head of marketing at Burger King—appointed as Director of Public Utilities—Leninism might have flourished.

    Because anyone moderately informed knows you can conquer the planet over a single weekend with My Year of Rest and Relaxation and two well-placed emojis (💊📚);
    that obesity is obedience in physical form;
    that a Big Whopper can calm even the most existential political unrest;
    and that a nation can be stupefied with something as rudimentary as Minecraft.

    Which is why all geniuses—regardless of their domain—are merely paramedics of fate;
    our minds, hotels overrun by self-impressed intruders;
    and individuation, a complex and strangely elegant process of self-mutilation.

  • Humanism, Transhumanism, Suprahumanism — and the CleverCraft

    June 10th, 2025

    CleverCraft, Part II – Time Is Eternity’s Epilepsy

    Plato once deduced time from eternity — and its motion from stillness.
    When eternity descends into history, it becomes time.
    And its stillness? That becomes passage, decay, the drip of now into then.

    Time is a diseased eternity — infected by our presence. And the passage of time is not a journey forward, but a fall. Time doesn’t move horizontally like a river. It collapses, like a body — vertically, from above to below.

    And here’s the strange part:
    Time doesn’t merely flow — it flows toward something.
    It has a direction. A terminal point.
    And that terminal point is death.

    “So time is a sick eternity? A birth defect in the stillness of being?”

    The phrasing was so accurate it stunned me for a moment.
    “Yes,” I said.
    “Time is eternity’s epilepsy.”

    But philosophy only captures the symptoms. Yes, time flows — but it doesn’t meander. Time isn’t some bored god whistling down the corridors of existence.

    Time has an agenda.

    It would be ridiculous to imagine that humans are born under stars, that they have destinies and callings, while time — that massive, silent architect of all things — just wanders around without a point.

    No. If people have purpose, so does time.
    Which means time has both telos and logos.
    A destination and a reason to move.

    The telos of time?
    From the moment it broke loose from the stillness of eternity, time has always been heading toward one thing: death.

    And its logos? Its reason?
    Time speaks — but only in the present.
    Logos, from lego: I speak.

    Like the divine, time never conjugates itself into past or future.
    It is always: I am.
    Always now.

    “Time says I am? Time speaks? With what mouth, exactly?
    And even if it could talk — what in God’s name is it trying to say?”

    Stick around. That’s where it gets fun.

  • Humanism, Transhumanism, Suprahumanism — and the CleverCraft

    June 9th, 2025

    CleverCraft, Part I: Time Without Time

    “Do you really believe you can escape humanity by digging deeper into the human? That would be the first — and final — paradox. Which is why transhumanism and suprahumanism are exactly what they claim to be: a sharp or a flat in the same old human key. Variations, not transcendence. Tweaks in pitch, not in substance. And when you fuse a person with the very tools they’ve made — in what some reverently call the Singularity — all you’ve done is crank up the volume on what was already there.

    More humanity.
    Louder.
    Sleeker.
    Still human.

    Science — even in its most dazzling, most ingenious forms — doesn’t deliver us from the human condition. It delivers us deeper into it. Sharper, faster, stronger — yes. But still flesh. Still contradiction. Still longing. That’s the hidden clause of humanism itself: The better we become at being human, the more human we become. Which is why no matter how many neural nets we thread into our skulls, no matter how much data we hoard like modern-day pharaohs, we will never be like the God of Genesis — the one who conjured everything from nothing. But CleverCraft? CleverCraft might just make us deathless. And that’s where things start to get interesting.”

    “Come on, now. You mean that kind of immortality where you stroll, fully upright, all the way to the far edge of eternity?”

    “No,” I said. “Not that kind of immortality.”

    “Oh, so now immortality comes in genres? Like soft rock?”

    “CleverCraft doesn’t promise heaven. It offers human solutions to divine dilemmas. But only God gets to resolve the final equation — at the end of history.”

    She rolled his eyes. “Can you fast-forward the sermon? I’m losing interest. What exactly does CleverCraft do with eternity?”

    “It approximates it.”

    She spun her hand, the international sign for get on with it. So I did:

    “It allows us to pass — from one life to the next. Which means death is never ahead of us. It’s always behind. We become fugitives of finitude, smuggling ourselves forward through time.”

    She narrowed her eyes. “You’re saying you’ve outrun aging? Outrun death? That you—CleverCrafters—live outside chronology?”

    “In a way,” I said. “If by outside chronology you mean a kind of time that’s been stripped of temporality.”

    “Let me get this straight. We’ve already got coffee without caffeine, milk without lactose… and now you’re selling me time without time?”

    “Exactly!”

    “And people wonder why the end of the world keeps getting delayed.”

  • The Paradox: It Never Lies, and It Never Quite Tells the Truth. Part II.

    June 8th, 2025

    Paradox reveals the full measure of its beauty when you understand the link between Noein and Poiesis — between the act of thinking and the act of making. Because the best embodiment of paradox is style. That kind of style that says:

    Because of too much black, I whitened.
    Because of too much sun, I fell to night.
    Because of too much life, I over-died.

    In the tension between paradox and style, thought becomes exuberance and creative force, restlessness and seeking — and an insatiable hunger for more.

    And when paradox finds artistic form, something remarkable happens:
    Truth becomes a figure of speech, and uniqueness transforms into miraculous multiplicity.

    I had been nevering before you begun.
    Too much yes had no-ed me.
    Too much sky had grounded my wings.

    I once was rainless in the middle of falling.
    Once sunblind from under the soil.
    Once unborn from remembering you.

    I am still.
    But still is leaving me.

    In the presence of paradox as principle, singularity becomes abundance;
    and the world, once a “something,” becomes “nothing.”

    Which leads me to my own definition of being human:

    “In trying to escape the condition of being a paradox, man ends up affirming himself as the most complex paradox of all — thus becoming the Unman.”

    Or an even shorter definition:
    “By fleeing the fate of being a paradox, man becomes its most intricate expression — the Unman.“

    And this is my favorite Unman — poetic and noetic, coherent in its contradictions, enamored with adversity itself.
    A being who loses itself only when it goes in search of itself; who discovers wisdom at the very moment it understands it can never be possessed; who merges with all only by embracing its nothingness; who fulfills itself through self-renunciation.
    Perfect — because it has contemplated its own imperfection for a lifetime.

    Which, of course, makes sense — and undoes itself.
    Is true — and endlessly untrue.

    Whether we are chemists or programmers, fashion designers or folk artists, our minds operate through paradox and figures of speech: rhythm and verse, gradation and lament, metonymy and synecdoche.
    This is what makes truth eloquent — regardless of the field in which it chooses to reveal itself.

    That is why Nietzsche is as relevant as a scientist, why Niels Bohr can be read as a philosopher, and James Clerk Maxwell may be admired as a musician of extraordinary precision.

    In a kind of retroactive consequence, Poiesis — that primal act of creation through which something came into being for the very first time — is not merely where truth begins to speak, but the shape truth assumes when it dares to exist.

    Which means that our universe is the Supreme Exercise in Style — the sum of all acts of creation, past, present, and still to come.

    That is why Nature inspires.

    Yes, the universe may be decoded by a mathematician —
    but only by one who understands The Art of the Fugue,
    and the beauty of lines like:

    “Ein Gott vermag. Wie aber, sag mir, soll
    ein Mann ihm folgen durch die schmale Leier?
    Sein Sinn ist Zwiespalt. An der Kreuzung zweier
    Herzwege steht kein Tempel für Apoll.”

    The Theory of Everything — of Totality — will be a mathematics that bears the sublimity of a Bach score and the measured elegance of David’s psalms.

    Which is why I propose we begin first — in school — with Bach and King David,
    and only then proceed to mathematics and chemistry.

    I believe the key to untying all our knots lies in words such as these:

    “You are so beautiful, winter!
    The field stretched on its back beneath the horizon,
    and the trees halted by the fleeing wind —
    My nostrils tremble,
    and there is no scent,
    no breeze,
    only the distant scent of ice
    from vanished suns.”

  • The Paradox: It Never Lies, and It Never Quite Tells the Truth. Part I.

    June 7th, 2025

    He is misunderstood.
    Often mistaken for absurdity, dismissed as incoherent, or cast aside as needless complexity. But none of this is his fault.
    That’s simply how he came into the world:
    born of contradiction, raised on the outskirts of logic,
    forced to improvise meaning in a culture obsessed with clarity.

    The Paradox.

    Not a glitch in the system, but the system’s hidden mirror.
    Once you stop mistaking him for error, for inconsistency, or mere incongruence, you begin to see him for what he truly is:
    the brother you never had.

    If Truth is a Person, then Paradox is the estranged sibling — the one we avoid in public, but to whom we secretly owe a statue.
    Not for his consistency (he has none),
    nor for his charm (though it’s dangerous and real),
    but because without him, we’d never dare write lines like:

    My sadness hears the unborn dogs
    Barking at the unborn men.

    A statue for Paradox —
    cast in contradiction, mounted somewhere between rapture and philosophical nausea —
    to honor the way he reflects the truth in our confusion,
    and the beauty we’ve been taught to reject.

    He clarifies so sharply,
    your only honest response is bewilderment.

    He was there when Aristotle inked his syllogisms,
    and again when Gödel gently pulled the rug from under them.
    He’s the reason first principles can be both abstract and violently tactile.
    He’s why nonsense sometimes tells the truth better than syntax can handle:

    You won’t silence, you won’t flame,
    You won’t yesterday your name.
    You won’t walk with feet of maybe,
    You won’t cradle, you won’t baby.
    You won’t thunder through your doubt,
    You won’t neither nor without.
    You won’t rain, and you won’t thirst,
    You won’t second, you won’t first.
    You won’t mirror, won’t be seen,
    You won’t never not between.
    You won’t always, won’t begun—
    You won’t no one. You won’t one.

    Paradox is the quiet law behind every system that collapses under its own elegance.
    He reminds us that every model is true — and also false — often in the same sentence.
    He gave us the set of all sets that do not contain themselves.
    He’s why Hercules overtakes — and doesn’t overtake — the tortoise.
    He’s the one who turned Truth into a man:
    that is, into inconsistency wrapped in skin.

    He whispers what philosophers fear to write:

    Every aporia has a solution.
    And no, it doesn’t.

    Einstein’s happiest thought?
    A falling man — the very image of a cosmic accident.
    Newton’s breakthrough?
    A blow to the head.

    You begin to suspect that genius
    is just collapse performed with grace.

    Follow physics to its trembling edge,
    and you’ll find that what we call attraction
    might be repulsion wearing a kind disguise.

    Because Paradox doesn’t comfort.
    He doesn’t resolve.
    He teaches you to walk through contradiction so sharp
    it teaches you how to bleed.

    So yes.
    He is the brother I never had.
    And he deserves more than polite dismissal
    or a footnote in someone else’s theorem.

  • The Sincerity of Hiding

    June 7th, 2025

    We are born transparent.

    We enter the world like unsealed envelopes — every impulse legible, every emotion unedited, every truth embarrassingly naked.

    And then…
    We begin the long, meticulous apprenticeship of opacity.

    Because clarity is dangerous.
    It exposes.
    It hands people the blueprint of your collapse.
    And once they have that blueprint, they’ll know exactly where to press when they want to watch you fall.

    So we adapt.

    We learn to wrap ourselves in ambiguity.
    To smile while bleeding.
    To laugh at the wrong moment — deliberately.
    To speak in riddles, to weaponize vagueness, to perform sincerity like a stage magician: just enough truth to distract from what actually matters.

    We stop being legible.
    We start becoming encrypted.
    A walking cipher with a pulse.

    Hiding becomes our most sincere form of communication —
    the kind we practice like scales on a piano.

    To conceal is not to lie.
    It’s to survive.

    The best of us hide in plain sight. Behind charm. Behind irony. Behind competence.
    Some even behind carefully curated acts of goodness.

    But make no mistake:
    The deeper you go into someone, the thicker the fog becomes.

    At the core, you don’t find clarity.
    You find the last desperate stronghold of concealment —
    that final interior room where even we no longer know what we’re hiding.

    And that?
    That’s the game.

    We don’t live to be seen.
    We live to be misread — just enough to remain safe.
    Just enough to remain intact.

    Because to be understood — truly, entirely understood — would feel a lot like being skinned alive.

    And we’re civilized now.
    We no longer go around flayed and trembling.
    We wear armor. We speak in metaphors.
    We survive through silences — carefully placed and religiously kept.

    So yes.
    We are born transparent.

    But then life begins.
    And life teaches us the oldest lesson of all:

    How to vanish behind ourselves.

  • CleverCraft. The Science of unending youth and undying life

    June 6th, 2025

    Before I tell you what CleverCraft truly is, let me take you back to a folk tale.
    One of the oldest—and most enigmatic—in the Romanian tradition.
    Its name: Tinerețe fără bătrânețe și viață fără de moarte.

    Translated academically, it means:
    “Youth without senescence and life without death.”
    Translated poetically:
    “Unending youth and undying life.”

    Like most profound truths, it begins deceptively simple.
    A child refuses to be born unless a promise is made: a life free of aging, free of death.
    His parents, desperate, swear it—he shall never grow old, nor die.

    The child is born, grows into a prince, and in time, discovers the lie.
    Time begins to touch him.
    So he leaves.

    What follows is not just a journey—it’s a metaphysical crossing through time, space, memory, and the illusions of paradise.

    And somewhere, buried deep within this fairy tale, there is a man.
    He appears only once. In a single paragraph.
    Not a king. Not a prophet. And certainly not a god.

    Just an old villager.
    A barely mentioned figure—
    And yet, he holds the axis of the entire story.

    Here is the passage:
    “Once upon a time, there lived a great emperor and his empress—young, radiant, and bound by a shared longing: to have a child.
    They tried everything—consulted physicians and philosophers, watched the stars for signs—but all efforts proved fruitless.

    At last, the emperor heard of an old man from a nearby village, rumored to possess a rare and cunning wisdom.
    He sent messengers to summon him, but the old man’s reply was simple:

    ‘He who needs me must come to me.’

    So the emperor, the empress, and a handful of noblemen set out and traveled to the old man’s humble dwelling.
    Seeing them approach, the old man stepped outside and greeted them:

    ‘Welcome. But tell me—what is it you truly seek, O Emperor? The wish you carry will bring sorrow.’

    ‘I haven’t come for your warnings,’ the emperor replied,
    ‘but to ask whether you have anything that might help us conceive a child.’

    ‘I do,’ said the old man.
    ‘But you will have only one. He will be beautiful. He will be beloved. And he will bring you no peace.’

    The emperor and the empress accepted the gift without hesitation.
    They returned to the palace, hearts full of joy.
    And not long after, the empress became pregnant.
    The entire kingdom rejoiced.”

    That’s it.

    That’s the entirety of Unchișul cel Dibaci.
    The Clever Elder. The Master Spinner of Time.
    An old man, sitting at the edge of the world, spinning thread and unspooling reality.

    And yet—from that place of quiet lucidity—he tells the hero what no one else can:
    the path forward.

    He is the patron of CleverCraft—Știința Dibace.

    So let me tell you a little something about CleverCraft.

    It’s not science in the Western sense.
    It’s not witchcraft either—though it shares its intuitive defiance.

    CleverCraft is that strange Romanian kind of knowing—a knowing-without-knowing—
    The kind that lets you cut clean through contradiction, and stitch the world back together, one irony at a time.

    It’s the discipline of irreverence.
    The geometry of paradox.
    The ethics of tricksters.

    And to master it—to place the throne exactly where it belongs—you need one final piece:
    One man born to bend time without breaking it.

    That man?
    My father.

    But we’ll get to him soon.

  • A Short History of the Man Who Made Me Possible. My father.

    June 5th, 2025

    Let me tell you a thing or two about how the world really works.

    It isn’t governed by the strength of the strong, or the iron will of titans.
    No.
    The world is ruled by the ineffable within them—by what slips through definition, resists naming, and still bends history.

    I know this because of a man I met late in life.
    He was a Zeitenwende—a hinge in time, the moment history twists on its axis and nothing remains the same.

    Yes—he truly was.
    With him, old paradigms unraveled. The known world collapsed into insufficiency.
    He made the new possible.

    But not just any kind of new—
    The kind of radical novelty from which I myself was born.

    Without him—without this Zeitenwendemensch—you wouldn’t have been possible.
    The New Man cannot exist without the one who makes the New possible.

    And that man? My father.
    Long-lost. Estranged.

    He marked the precise moment when the past became definitively obsolete, and the future began groping toward a new shape—one that demanded we rethink even how we imagine it.

    Do you know what a Zeitenwendemensch is?
    Someone who lives suspended between “there was a time when…” and “a time is coming in which…”
    Someone who belongs to both eras—and feels at home in neither.
    He is torn between the certainty of an ending and the ambiguity of a beginning that has no name yet.

    That’s why, when he speaks, he does so with the caution of one who knows:
    language cannot contain the shock of the truly new.
    Not even the CleverCraft can name it. But it might help you survive it.

    That’s why, from the very first moment I met him, everything I didn’t understand about him seemed more important than anything I could have.

    Because I was der Mensch des Unaussprechlichen—the Man of the Unsayable—
    In relation to him:
    der Zeitenwendemensch—the Man of the Turning Point.

    And to the extent that the unspeakable in me resonated with the unspeakable in him,
    I—der Mensch des Unsagbaren—understood everything the Zeitenwendemensch could never express.

    Which made everything else irrelevant.

    And so I rewarded him in the only way that mattered:
    I made him something that had never existed before—
    The one I chose to trust.

    And for a while,
    everything worked.

    347 hits

  • Soul. The unbearable nearness of something I’ve spent a lifetime denying.

    June 4th, 2025

    She is the one.
    I sensed her thoughts precisely at the point where thought begins—where raw perception starts to shape itself into meaning. And I bent, almost involuntarily, to the form they were taking.

    And then it happened.
    That moment people only ever describe in books—half myth, half cliché. Until it’s yours.

    But because physics once taught me that the world is made of electrons, protons, and neutrons, I’m trained to doubt that voice.
    The soul hasn’t yet been catalogued among the things that can be measured or seen under a microscope.

    So I dismiss it. Quietly. Rationally.
    Even as it keeps whispering—clearer than thought:
    She is the one.

    You tilt your inner ear. Something in matter flickers—momentarily dishonest. The skeptic in me stirs, irritated.
    The soul—that inconvenient, undocumented thing—begins to hum. And it exasperates me.

    My soul and I—we’ve managed to ignore each other with admirable consistency. A quiet, long-standing non-aggression pact. Which is exactly why I’m vexed. You don’t just start speaking after forty years of clenched silence. That’s not how this works.

    My soul is an autistic child who’s never quite learned to make eye contact.
    My soul is an ascetic, sealed inside a cathedral of silence—who, without warning, has decided it’s time for a chat.

    She is the one.
    And my materialism flinches—
    Not out of principle, but out of sheer moral convenience.
    I’ve built an entire internal architecture on the assumption that nothing follows. That everything is permitted, so long as there’s no “to be continued” waiting on the other side of death.

    Because if soul is true, then I’m forced to reinvent everything: what I know about myself. About others. About the world. About the very structure of meaning. And frankly, that sounds exhausting. So I do what any self-respecting modern mind does when confronted with the possibility of transcendence: I ignore it.

    “I choose to ignore”—arguably the finest slogan materialism has ever produced. But even that, I’m afraid, is starting to wear thin.

    She is the one.
    I am the witness to a spiritual ambush. When it comes to the transcendent, materialists actually hold an advantage—I call it The Saul-Paul Advantage.

    Because when the universe—or Heaven, or the so-called Good Lord—decides to contradict a materialist. He doesn’t whisper. He appears. In person. In full glory. He speaks. Directly. Corrects the error with unflinching precision,
    then assigns a task that sounds suspiciously like a life sentence: “Go and…”

    And if the message isn’t clear the first time,
    it repeats.
    With divine redundancy.
    Until even doubt gives up.

    That’s where I was.
    Same position.
    Same clarity.

    The soul—this inconvenient, unscientific signal—
    kept transmitting the same line.
    Again and again.

    And again.

    She is the one.
    I moved closer to Anca and took both her hands—gently—into mine.

    Was it the temptation to believe?
    The craving for a beautiful detour?
    I’m ten centimeters away from she is the one,
    and I still can’t look at her.
    I don’t trust myself to raise my eyes.

    We’re so close that if the soul were to speak—clearly, out loud—
    I’m afraid Anca might hear it too.

    And yet, I stay.
    I dare to remain beside her.
    I let my fingers drift along hers—
    white, expressive, slender,
    flawlessly manicured,
    as if shaped for gestures that never needed words.

    She is the one.

    rise to my feet—but the whisper clings to me, rising with me like a heat I can’t shake. There are no revelations. No heavenly voices. Only the unbearable nearness of something I’ve spent a lifetime denying.

    She doesn’t say a word.
    Neither do I.
    But for a moment—barely—
    I think we’re both listening
    to the same silence.

    And maybe that’s enough.

  • The Mind of a Thousand Identities

    June 3rd, 2025

    It took me years to realize that what I once called myself was just a prototype. A draft abandoned at the edge of a mental construction site, where the scaffolding was always more real than the building.

    What came after wasn’t growth. It was engineering. Grafts. Alterations. New operating systems calibrated to survive under shifting regimes of reality.

    They’ve named it generously: cognitive engineering.
    In schools, it’s called personal development.
    In HR departments, adaptability.
    In labs, optimization.
    But the blueprint remains the same: break, rebuild, repeat.

    This isn’t an article.
    It’s not even a confession.
    It’s a manual—for anyone who’s starting to suspect that the voice in their head isn’t entirely their own.
    That memory has been outsourced. That thought has been infiltrated. That the mind is no longer private property, but occupied territory.

    If you’re still reading, you probably already know: you’re not alone inside your own skull. And this manual is not here to save you. It’s here to show you the architecture of the cage.

    “The Mind of a Thousand Identities”

    A Manual for Mental Engineering and Adaptive Consciousness

    Doctrine (Internal Propaganda)Annotation (Academic/Outsider Analysis)
    1. The unity of consciousness is a bourgeois myth.Modern psychology presumes a singular, stable self. Totalitarian regimes see that unity as a threat.
    2. The self is divisible. Like borders. Like labor. Like loyalty.Fragmenting identity allows for control—just as empires once divided territories.
    3. Division is induced through trauma, disorientation, and directed ideology.Deliberate destabilization is the key technique in both brainwashing and reeducation.
    4. This process is named ego dissociation.Clinical language masks brutality. What they call dissociation is often violent psychological mutilation.
    5. Dissociation requires stimulus: physical pain, emotional overload, chemical input.Torture, isolation, and drugs become tools not of punishment—but of personality engineering.
    6. At the fracture point, a new identity is born. It will not remember the pain.Amnesia and compartmentalization aren’t side effects—they’re strategic features.
    7. This identity may differ in gender, age, or moral framework. The form is chosen for utility.These identities are tools. And sometimes weapons.
    8. Every mind breaks differently. The goal is to map the individual’s fault lines.Profiling and conditioning replace education—until resistance becomes mathematically predictable.
    9. Repeated fracture enables programming. The subject becomes switchable.MK-Ultra, Soviet mind control, and psychotronic experiments all sought this outcome.
    10. Each alter develops autonomy: private fears, distinct drives, competing loyalties.Once split, the self does not remain static. You’re not controlling a puppet, but a choir.
    11. Most identities remain unaware of each other. This protects the system.Like espionage cells: no one knows the whole truth. Not even the subject.
    12. Capitalist psychology is decadent, idealistic, and sentimental. Burn it.Or, in more academic terms: systems of oppression rewrite the definition of sanity.

    If the mind can be engineered,
    it can also be weaponized.

    See you on the next frequency.
    – AJ

←Previous Page
1 2 3 4 5
Next Page→

© 2025 – Andrei Jebeleanu

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Andrei Jebeleanu
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Andrei Jebeleanu
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar