Andrei Jebeleanu

    • This is where the shenanigans begin
  • A Cemetery for Sonnets

    August 10th, 2025

    Picture this.

    I needed someone who could lift a coffin without spraining a wrist, someone who understood the blunt logistics of death — earth, wood, weight, silence. I asked my boss to send me that person.

    What I got instead was a PhD in Psychology: twenty-something, sun-warmed skin the color of late August, a manicure that had never met soil, and the calm, padded voice of someone trained to ask, “How does that make you feel?” while the shovel lay untouched.

    Her name was Noelle. Lovely girl. Barely old enough to know almost nothing.
    And there we were — standing in the shadow of the inevitable — trying to figure out how to bury my parents, and drifting, somehow, into a conversation about soul and love.
    The kind of talk that starts politely and ends like a knife fight in an alley.

    I was trying to make her understand what mattered: I wasn’t returning to the earth just two people, but a hymn to love — one of the rare ones that didn’t sound like cheap stationery from a gift shop. Lives engraved into each other. The kind of love that doesn’t burn in all directions, but follows a single luminous trajectory — fixed, unwavering, perfected in its clarity.

    My mother was born to be the visible extension of my father, his exponential function. Every quality she possessed — and every flaw — was in direct proportion to that defining role.

    “The gods have allowed that from two we may once again become one,
    thus bringing healing to the human condition.”

    She was proof that Aristophanes’ Myth is not just a metaphor, that Brâncuși’s The Kiss is not just stone. There are loves that dissolve two people into something else entirely — into perfection and into tragedy. Into a constant as fundamental to the cosmos as light or gravity.

    “Listen… listen…
    There are pairs without death,
    forever in motion,
    resembling a metaphor, resembling an idea.
    They remain together / in a kiss, as in a sweet storm.”

    The stability of the universe is not upheld only by the speed of light, the gravitational constant, or Avogadro’s number. It also depends on the rare few who can turn the relentlessness of time into permanence and devotion, who can find stillness in the heart of entropy. Through their improbable alliance, my parents had become one of those constants — the kind you won’t find in any textbook, but without which the universe would quietly fall apart.

    So I ask her — dead serious:
    “Can you find a cemetery where we could bury this? A coffin that could contain every declaration of love ever made? A plot of ground woven from everything unearthly, guarded by roses tying heaven to earth? Can you do that?”

    She didn’t even blink.
    “A hymn in every love song, a cameo in every sonnet, and the lead suspect in every human tragedy… the soul’s been coasting on good PR for centuries. Mine? Less a divine spark, more a repeat offender.”

    I frowned. “What?”

    “If you want me to help you bury two people, I can do that. If you need more… I’m not your person.”

    “Why not?”

    “Because I don’t believe in great loves. Same way I don’t believe in the soul. The soul is just the sum of our weaknesses. That’s all it’s ever given me: flaws. Certainly not love. I remember it only when I need an alibi for my screw-ups.”

    “The soul as a legal defense?” I asked.

    She smirked like she’d been waiting for that.
    “Exactly. The soul was humanity’s first scapegoat — the perfect patsy. Every time we fail, it’s there to take the fall. Anxiety. Depression. Fromm’s alienation. Durkheim’s anomie. Too much empathy, no empathy, envy. ‘Your Honor, Freud’s melancholia pulled the trigger — I was just holding the gun.’

    Go further back and it’s the same: Aristotle’s akrasia, Pascal’s divertissement, Kierkegaard’s sickness-unto-death, Nietzsche’s ressentiment, Sartre’s nausea. You can dress it in any philosophy you want, but the plea bargain’s always identical: ‘It wasn’t me, it was my soul.’

    Modern times just rebranded the racket. Maslach calls it burnout. Seligman calls it learned helplessness. Herman sells you trauma-bonding. Throw in impostor syndrome, decision fatigue, toxic positivity, dopamine addiction, screen-induced attention collapse — the TED Talk editions.

    From the Stoics to Silicon Valley, the diagnosis changes, the hashtags change, the merch changes — but the excuse never does: ‘My soul is damaged goods, so what did you expect?’

    And here’s the thing you won’t like: the second you admit to having a soul, you’ve made yourself prey. You’ve told the world you’re too soft, too earnest, too willing to speak in a language they stopped learning generations ago. They’ll clock you instantly: wrong choices, hesitation, self-doubt, confusion. Delicious.

    Don’t imagine the soulless have it better. We just traded one predator for another. The world expects us to be razor-sharp, efficient, untouchable. Nobody asks for empathy; they reward its absence. The people they worship — whether they know it or not — are sociopaths: the penthouse set, the yacht class, the ones sipping champagne on private islands while we doomscroll their Instagram.

    So yes — the mind is better paid than the heart. Which is why I keep my payroll clean. I don’t invest in the heart. I don’t budget for a soul.

    Side effects? Sure. Too much mind rots whatever you’ve got left in there. And if we opened it up now, yours or mine, we’d see it’s already decomposing — not metaphorically. I mean visibly.”

    I stared at her. Not because she was wrong — plenty of what she said had teeth — but because she’d mistaken cynicism for clarity.

    “The Apocalypse According to Noelle,” I said finally, like I was naming a gospel that hadn’t made the final cut.

    “Here’s what I think you’re missing: the soul does matter. It matters so much that, before the millennium takes its last bow, we’ll realize it’s the missing variable in the theory of everything. Without it, the leap from quantum physics to cosmic physics stays impossible.

    Reality is a continuous tremor — a drunk poet slipping between metaphors. Those possibilities only collapse into the here-and-now when someone witnesses them. And only that fragile, inconvenient, dangerously exploitable thing called the soul can force the quantum stutter of being into the singular, irreversible fact of now.

    So maybe it’s not a flaw. Maybe it’s not the scapegoat. Maybe it’s the only proof we were ever here. And if that’s true, then losing it to someone isn’t the tragedy we imagine — it’s the only proof we ever had one.”Would you marry me?

    She didn’t argue. She just looked at me, the way you look at someone who’s either onto something… or hopelessly lost in it.

    For a moment, we sat there — two people in the same conversation, staring at entirely different maps.

    And I couldn’t tell which was worse: living as if the soul didn’t exist… or living as if it did.

  • Stairway to Seventeen

    August 7th, 2025

    My parents just died.
    Car crash.
    And for the first time since their disappearance, I’m back at their house.

    A house is never just a house. It’s a theater. A fossil. A crime scene.
    Sometimes, it’s all of the above — depending on what version of yourself opens the door.

    I stop at the base of the staircase, one hand resting on the banister, unsettled by a feeling that rises in me like an uninvited guest.

    “Is this nostalgia?”

    Most likely.
    Nostalgia is one of the headliners of the emotional pathologies — the Lana Del Rey of the limbic system.
    Once considered a quaint affliction of those far from home, it’s now a fully weaponized faculty of the central nervous system. A conjuror. A set designer.
    It doesn’t store memory; it re-stages it, with better lighting and selective silence.
    It doesn’t remember — it reimagines.

    In doing so, nostalgia becomes less about what happened, and more about what could have been beautiful — even if it wasn’t.
    It’s more gifted than the best filmmakers, and more dishonest than the best writers.
    It turns recollection into forgery.
    Elegant forgery.
    A counterfeit so perfect, even the forger forgets it’s fake.

    That’s why, as I begin to climb the stairs, I realize I’m not ascending anything.
    I’m walking into a version of myself that only existed here.
    And only when I was still partially unmade.

    By the time I reach the landing, the regression is complete.
    I’m seventeen.
    At my most serene.
    At my most scripted.
    Youth, when it isn’t tragic, is at least operatic — and I, of course, thought I was the libretto.

    This hallway — broad, square, dimmed by the evening — is still haunted by the idea that puberty chose me to manifest itself.
    It was here that my parents, in a scene I can replay frame by frame, gave me their reluctant blessing to leave.

    “Certain things, they should stay the way they are.
    You ought to be able to stick them in one of those glass cases and just leave them alone.”

    They were seated together on a velvet sofa the color of radioactive mustard — a color that gave their hesitations a certain royal gravity.
    Across from them, I sat in a silk-covered armchair, performing detachment like it was a family duty.
    My father looked at my mother, searching for a cue. She looked at me, searching for the end of something.
    And then, with a smile that knew too much, she said:

    “The day you become a student, you can do it.
    You can move out.”

    And when I did get in — Computer Science, because irony is always wearing a white lab coat — she handed me a key and a scribbled address.
    It was the Unirii Boulevard apartment.
    She said: “It’s yours.”

    I moved in at the end of summer. And from that moment on, this house became a relic — one I visited less and less, each time with less of myself intact.

    There are four bedrooms on this floor — one for each wall of the hallway.
    Mine is the first on the right.

    It’s not the biggest.
    Not the prettiest.
    But it’s closest to the stairs — a tactical advantage, if your specialty is disappearance.

    And it has one more secret: it faces west.
    So while the rest of the house collapsed into shadow, my room became a cathedral of amber.

    “La terre est bleue comme une orange.”

    Just like now — a golden slice of light cuts under the door.
    I open it. Push it back against the wall.

    Roger Deakins would weep.

    The sun, in its theatrical descent, dresses the room in tones usually reserved for memory.
    I take a step in.
    And there it is — the truth of the room:

    Its clock stopped in 1997.

    Proof?
    That Pentium II on the desk.
    Frozen. Like everything else:

    The white wardrobe to my right — so massive, it might qualify as a guest room.
    The oversized bed.
    The twin nightstands, carved like regret.
    The custom white bookshelf, stretching wall to wall like an exhale.
    The beige curtains, still drawn across the windows, the narrow balcony door, and the desk that once held all my unknowable futures.

    Sometimes, grief is a place.
    And sometimes, it’s a password.
    Today, it’s both.

  • Have I ever told you about the most beautiful love declaration I ever received?

    August 4th, 2025

    Two nights of chemical chaos behind me, sprawled in a bed that didn’t feel like mine, I was only just sobering up when—

    “You’re awake!”

    I flinched.

    On the far side of the bed, a woman stood naked in the middle of the room. The light behind her melted her contours, turning her into a living bas-relief. Three-quarters turned toward me, she kept drying her hair with a towel, unhurried.

    “Am I hallucinating?”

    I glanced at my left hand: inert by my side. I wiggled my toes — they felt real. My right hand was braced against the mattress. I turned my head to the left: on a tray sat two fists of cocaine, neatly arranged in the shape of a penis. I was just about to exhale in relief when her voice cut in again.

    “Or maybe you’re not.”

    I looked back. She hadn’t moved. Still drying her hair with that same deliberate grace.

    “How…”

    “…did I manage to get in?”

    She smiled:
    “No one knows the autumn when it first came into the house / and the years since it’s been collapsing the walls, to find a way out.”

    She tossed the towel onto the bed. Light clung to her skin – shoulders and hips – like an imperfect halo. As she took a step toward me the room began to unravel. The objects around her first lost their weight, then vanished, one by one — as if she were cancelling the gravity around her, sending everything that wasn’t her to the hidden side of reality.

    My mind — still silted with the chemical sediment of the last few days — clawed for logic, for some tether to pull me back. And as my gaze traced her anatomy, I knew: there was something there. Something that reached back and unlocked long-repressed memories — of someone who once embodied everything divinity had hidden in the golden ratio. Yes. It was there.
    In the length of her arms and the breadth of her shoulders.
    In the sculpted geometry of her cheeks and forehead, in the line of her mouth and nose.

    The woman standing before me was a logarithmic spiral made flesh.
    The golden ratio rendered in lymph and blood.
    The dream of mathematicians, architects, alchemists, and plastic surgeons.
    Proof that the irrationality of a number could become something unbearably beautiful.

    When she stopped in front of me, the world went white and boundless —
    I was suspended in a strange, all-encompassing limbo.

    I managed:
    “Dia!”

    Her gaze wrapped itself around me.
    “It can’t be you!” I stammered.

    Propped on my hands, head tilted back, I stared at Dia with the hunger of a psychopath. And yet, the Dia of my adolescence was still there.
    I saw her in the mathematical perfection of her features, in the golden proportion expressed in lymph and blood. A familiarity hidden inside everything that felt foreign.

    Is that what all great loves you never finish living are like?
    Perplexing, confusing, and painful — sharpened by everything I no longer recognized. Gestures I didn’t know, expressions I’d never seen, wrinkles that hadn’t existed before…

    I blame the time that flowed between us.
    The people she met and I didn’t.
    The things she did alone.
    The joys she celebrated far from me.

    She ignored my incredulity.
    “It’s been so long, and you still haven’t learned to faint properly!”

    I almost asked if there were courses for that — how to pass out with grace, or at least with a shred of dignity. But another question wouldn’t let go:
    “Did I recognize you? When we met?
    You told me I reminded you of someone you loved…”

    “It seems I never got to tell you how much I hated you. How much I still hate you.”

    She didn’t answer.

    “And you? In all these years… was I ever in your thoughts?”

    For a long moment she just looked at me, smiling in silence — her eyes mapping my features. She gestured for me to be quiet. Pushed me back. Straddled me. Skin against skin. Breath. The radiant heat of her body.

    It is impossible to dream something like this.

    Her hands moved slowly over my skin as she went on:

    He walks in punctuation marks,
    changing the meaning of everything I am
    without moving a single word…

    …Who knew a dash could undo me?
    Make the space between my words
    feel louder than the words themselves?
    I am the one speaking,
    but he’s the one making sense of me —
    with something as small
    as an apostrophe.
    And even if he is
    the fading breath
    of an ellipsis
    He’s still the scaffolding
    I’m climbing,
    long after I
    ‘m gone.
    And the world I thought I knew?
    It’s blinking in the light —
    finally,
    coming into focus
    And I wonder —
    am I the full stop?
    Or is he?

  • The Sacred Science of Letting Go

    July 31st, 2025

    Treat what is as though it were not.

    There it is — a prescription so absurdly serene it feels almost illegal in our day and age. A heresy against productivity. A blasphemy against attention. A threat to the entire data economy. Because what that means — and what we’ve desperately forgotten — is that you don’t always need to respond to the world in order to be part of it. You don’t need to say “yes” to every ping, every post, every dopamine-colored balloon floating across your screen.

    Sometimes, the most radical form of presence is a dignified absence.

    We are not well. Our sickness has a thousand names: scrollitis, multitaskosis, feed fatigue, reality deficit disorder. We used to tell stories to understand what happened. Now we scroll through stories to avoid what is happening. And in that crowd of images, that overload of urgency, something sacred is lost: the ability to let go. To not-know. To be fully present by being partially absent. To make space. For grace. For silence. For God, maybe. Or at least for breath.

    The sacred science of letting go begins where the algorithm ends.
    It is not about detachment as indifference, but detachment as discernment.

    You don’t need to see everything.
    You don’t need to have an opinion about everything.
    You don’t need to watch all fifteen thousand reels about that panther that may or may not exist.

    Let the news go. Let the meme go. Let the hot take go.

    Treat what is as though it were not.

    Don’t agglutinate the world.
    Don’t build yourself out of other people’s urgency.
    Don’t mistake stimulation for depth.

    The fear of not seeing it — is just the latest avatar of spiritual greed.

    You will not die if you miss a trend.
    But you might forget to live if you chase them all.

    In the end, the most sacred truths are not the ones you cling to — but the ones you let slip through your fingers without panic.

    And maybe that’s what the mystics meant all along:

    The world is the sum of all that does not happen.

    That sentence would get flagged by today’s algorithms.
    It would be shadowbanned for “low engagement potential.”
    Maybe even demonetized for “insufficient relevance.”

    Because what it proposes — this heresy wrapped in apophatic silk — is that you don’t have to react. Not to every post. Not to every war. Not to every artificially inflated tragedy wrapped in Canva templates and set to emotional piano music. What it proposes is discernment — and that is dangerous in a culture built on reflex.

    We are no longer living our lives — we’re busy co-curating them for an imaginary audience that claps in silence and scrolls without mercy.
    We are drowning not in ignorance, but in stimulus.
    We don’t suffer from too little information, but from too much insistence.

    Insistence to care. To share. To watch. To have a position. To weigh in. To react now. To see everything. Always. Enter the modern mutation of anxiety:
    FONSI. The Fear of Not Seeing It.

    To let go is not to abandon.
    It is to make room.
    For stillness. For thought. For ambiguity.
    For the soul, which — unlike the feed — has no refresh button.

    Treat what is as though it were not.

    Try it.
    Don’t add that story to your story.
    Don’t frame every sunset.
    Don’t convert every pain into content.
    Don’t turn your life into a press release.

    The world does not need another angle. It needs witnesses who know when to close their eyes. And when you do… when you finally learn the sacred science of looking away — you may find that clarity doesn’t come from seeing more, but from letting go of what you were never meant to carry. Because the world — the real world, not the one optimized for metrics — is the sum of all that does not happen.

  • Let Me Introduce You to the Procession of the Bodiless Powers

    July 30th, 2025

    I have, in my book, a collective character. An ensemble so strange, so deliberately mythological, that I hesitate to call them fictional. They are called: The Procession of the Bodiless Powers.

    Their names echo through apocrypha and personal notebooks alike: Uriel — their Archon. And the rest: Raguel, Remiel, Ramiel, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael. Are they perfect? Of course. They are my imaginary friends who, out of sheer love, became real.

    I gave them those names for a reason.
    Raguel, Remiel, Ramiel — always meant to be women.
    Michael, Gabriel, Raphael — inevitably men.
    And Uriel… Uriel is different. The terrible angel who rules over the Inferno. The Archangel of Divine Fire. The one who, in another age, might have stood at the left hand of God — and now lingers in the footnotes of history, uncanonized, untranslated, unwanted.

    I must confess something, Glorious Uriel:
    When I look at you, I feel a strange sadness. You were the first, the fiercest, and now you’re the most forgotten.
    Once a Prince of the Heavenly Powers.
    Now… a discarded metaphysical relic.
    An Archon exiled by canon law. A footnote in Heaven’s bureaucracy.

    Their calling?
    To encircle Dia — the being of light.
    Their mandate? To be the gravity around which her singularity revolves.

    Dia met them early in life — in childhood, perhaps even before language. Whenever I asked her about the first encounter, she’d wave me off:

    “The circumstances are irrelevant.”

    She only spoke of them when euphoric, when they emerged behind her shoulder like a procession of forgotten saints. She’d gesture toward them and say:

    “They’re perfect, aren’t they? My imaginary friends who, out of love, became real. That’s why I named them like this… Raguel, Remiel, Ramiel — they were meant to be women. Michael, Gabriel, Raphael — destined to be men. And Uriel — the terrible angel who governs the Inferno. The exarch of this strange synod. The one without a gendered emblem.”

    There were seven of them.
    Three women. Three men. And Uriel — the seventh seal, so to speak.
    They were always near Dia. Inseparable. Stylized, yes — but not performative. Aesthetic gravity fields unto themselves.

    The world never quite knew what to make of them.
    Were they a sect?
    The cast of a dystopian film?
    The haute couture inmates of a philosophical asylum?

    They wore black — always black — but never as cliché.
    Rather: as vocabulary. As silence. As defiance.

    Their look whispered Goth Chic, Dark Romance, Bohemian Void, Celestial Minimalism.
    If their garments weren’t signed by Azzedine Alaïa or Gareth Pugh, they at least felt that way.

    When they entered a room, the air bent slightly. Conversations dimmed. The temperature changed by half a degree. They were received the way miracles are: in stunned disbelief.

    Were they romantically entangled? I never knew. They touched like smoke.
    Did they live together? Hold jobs? Eat?
    Unclear.
    But when they were near Dia — she became the hyperbole of their lives. Their axis. Their theology.

    They were, and remain, The Procession of the Bodiless Powers.
    And I, Andrei Jebeleanu, remain their reluctant scribe.

  • How to Tell an Epic Story in the Age of Thumb Scrolls

    July 28th, 2025

    (or: What Zenon Taught Me About Breaking a Thousand-Page Story Into Bites That Still Burn)

    Yes, the students are still with me.
    Which, in the era of TikTok, is the academic equivalent of levitation.

    So when I looked around the lecture hall, I realized I wasn’t teaching a class —
    I was trying to hold attention hostage in a room full of minds trained to swipe every three seconds. Yes! Attention is the new currency. And mine was on the verge of hyperinflation. So I did what any underpaid Deadpool with a PhD would do: I wrapped a brutal 20th-century history lesson inside stand-up, sprinkled it with sarcasm, and sealed it with a pop culture GIF no one saw coming.

    And it worked. Kind of. Because here’s the thing: they’re not stupid. They’re saturated. And saturation behaves a lot like indifference — but faster.

    And I — poor me — have a story to tell.
    Not a story. A monster. Spreading across more than 100 years. With conspiracies, suicides, fake revolutions, real disappearances, and a cast of characters that includes at least three versions of the same man. Basically, it’s The Odyssey, if Odysseus had Wi-Fi and a surveillance file.


    So how do you tell an epic to a generation trained to scroll?

    How do you narrate something vast — to minds engineered for fragments?

    My answer: Live Infinite scroll-fiction.
    Or, if you’re feeling philosophical: The Zenon Approach to Storytelling.


    So who the hell is Zenon?

    No, not a lifestyle brand.
    Not a DJ.
    Not a supplement you buy at 2AM when you’re Googling “brain focus hacks”.

    Zenon of Elea.
    Ancient Greek philosopher. Inventor of paradoxes. And — hear me out — low-key the patron saint of every writer trying to finish something that never ends.

    His most famous trick?
    He proved, with a straight face, that motion is an illusion.

    Here’s how it goes:
    Imagine Achilles — the fastest man alive — racing a turtle.
    He gives the turtle a head start. No big deal, right? He’s Achilles.

    But here’s the catch: every distance can be sliced in half.
    So before Achilles can reach the turtle, he has to get halfway there.
    And before he gets to halfway, he has to get halfway to halfway.
    And so on.
    Infinite halving. Infinite steps.

    Which means that, in theory, Achilles never actually catches the turtle.
    Because every time he reaches where the turtle was, the turtle has moved — even just a little.

    Speed can’t beat infinity.
    Zenon broke motion with math.

    Repeat this forever.
    Because between any two points, there’s always another point.
    Every distance contains another, smaller distance.
    And if you divide reality enough times, you never actually arrive.

    Boom. Paradox.
    Motion dies. Infinity wins.


    And that — in a weirdly beautiful way — is how I tell my story.

    I don’t aim for the ending.
    I live in the in-between.
    Every chapter is a halfway point that never stops halving.


    Zenon storytelling = fractal fiction

    = narrative sliced into sharp, dense, addictive shards.

    Each fragment is self-contained.
    Each fragment secretly contains the whole.
    A history lecture becomes a monologue.
    A monologue becomes a meme.
    A meme becomes a moral wound you weren’t expecting.

    Because if you can’t hold their attention with one long story,
    give them a thousand sharp ones.
    Like micro-cuts.
    Like amuse-bouches for the soul.
    Like paradoxes wearing TikTok makeup.


    No, I’m not dumbing it down. I’m cutting it differently.
    This isn’t dilution. It’s distillation.
    This isn’t surrender. It’s sabotage from within.

    So yes, I write infinite scroll-fiction.
    Not because I love the scroll.
    But because I love the story enough to meet the reader where their thumb is.


    📜 The story is long.
    📱 The world is short.
    🧠 So I serve it fractured.
    Each piece a trap.
    Each line a lure.

    And if I do it right?

    They won’t even realize they’ve read the whole thing.
    Until it’s too late.

  • Frankenstein’s Monster, But Make It Gluten-Free and Biodegradable

    July 25th, 2025

    What If Mary Shelley Wrote Her Classic in the Age of Chia Pudding and Molecular Foam?

    by Andrei Jebeleanu


    Somewhere between oat milk activism and avocado enlightenment, I had a thought I can no longer unthink:

    If Mary Shelley were writing Frankenstein today, the monster would be vegan. Obviously.

    He would no longer be assembled from bits of corpse, tombstones, and male guilt, but from organic tofu, kale stems, and trauma processed in cold-pressed juice bars. He would be Frankenstein’s Conscious Living Creature™, engineered not in a thunderstorm, but in a Scandinavian co-living lab powered by solar panels and gentle jazz.


    🌱 A New Kind of Monster: Ethically Lab-Grown and Compostable

    Dr. Frankenstein — rebranded, of course, as Dr. Victor Wellness — no longer raids graveyards. Instead, he sources ingredients from a local CSA. His creature is crafted from:

    • Tofu blocks (fermented in biodynamic silence)
    • Heirloom carrots (harvested only during Mercury retrograde)
    • Flaxseed skin (stitched with love using non-GMO twine)
    • And a spleen made from jackfruit (because meat alternatives, duh)

    The brain? A chia pudding. Suspended in activated almond milk. Enhanced with lion’s mane extract. Microdosed, of course.


    🧪 Molecular Gastronomy? More Like Emotional Alchemy

    Lightning? That’s so 19th century.
    In this reboot, the creature is animated using:

    • High-frequency tuning forks
    • Sound baths administered by a wellness DJ
    • And a whisper of matcha-infused breath from a Level 4 Reiki chef

    No need for lightning when you have kombucha-scoby consciousness.
    No need for horror when you have oat milk calm.


    🍄 He Walks Among Us — and Orders Brunch

    The modern creature doesn’t lurch. He floats — in barefoot shoes, with a reusable tote bag slung over one shoulder, full of ethically foraged mushrooms and resentment.

    He does not grunt. He curates silence.

    He doesn’t yell “I am alone!” but rather:

    “I don’t vibe with the emotional availability of this space.”

    Instead of terrorizing villages, he writes Substack essays on intergenerational trauma and the politics of protein powder.

    “I am not unnatural,” he says.
    “I am unprocessed.”


    🥑 His Demands Are Simple (and Sustainably Packaged)

    All he wants is to be seen, understood, and fed:

    • Locally sourced seitan
    • Adaptogenic mushroom broth
    • A smoothie named after a feeling (e.g. “Clarity”)

    And if he lashes out? It’s not rage. It’s burnout.
    Don’t cancel him — offer him a turmeric latte and a listening circle.


    ⚠️ Closing Warning for Future Generations

    Let this be a message to all literary purists and paleo-holdouts:
    The Monster is already among us.

    He has a podcast.
    He teaches breathwork in Berlin.
    He’s ghostwriting cookbooks for your favorite mindfulness influencer.

    And yes — he’s biodegradable.


    So yes — if Mary Shelley were writing Frankenstein today, she wouldn’t call it a horror novel. She’d call it “an embodied exploration of synthetically awakened potential through plant-based integration.”

    And it would win a sustainability grant.


    👻 Andrei Jebeleanu is a writer, lecturer, and suspected oat-milk heretic. He believes tofu is not evil — just misused. You can find him in cafés that still serve cow’s milk and in stories that never quite forgive the Enlightenment.

  • 🎓 They Came with Wi-Fi and Vitamin Water: Top 4 Things That Shocked Me While Teaching at the Faculty of Journalism

    July 25th, 2025

    1. The Rise of the Hydrated Zombies

    On October 3rd, at precisely 9 a.m., I began my first lecture. There were about eight people in the room — an honorable number, considering that, in my student years, 9 a.m. was when one typically went to sleep, not to school.

    By October 10th, the second session had drawn twenty-one students. I looked at the first row with mild alarm: they were hydrated. Lucid. Suspiciously well-rested.

    I murmured to myself: “Unholy! Disturbing on a cellular level!”

    Fifteen years ago, no self-respecting student would show up to a morning lecture with such bright eyes. By October 17th, there were over sixty of them — and with that, the final confirmation: student life had changed. And not for the better. I blame the vitamin water — now sold on every corner — and that raw vegan ripple that seems to run perpetually through generations X, Y, and Alpha.

    I nearly shouted:

    “Ah yes, the eco-youngsters, pubescent food-nazis and the new wave of food absolutists! If Mary Shelley were writing Frankenstein today, she’d make him vegetarian. Something with tofu. And stitched vegetables. Using ethically sourced, pesticide-free thread.”


    2. Recording Is the New Photocopy

    Just when things couldn’t get any more surreal, on October 2nd — a day before my fifth lecture — I received a WhatsApp message. No greeting. Just a link to a YouTube channel titled “The BrainFuckedProphet”, and the caption:

    “Boom. Cortex Killer level: unlocked.
    This ain’t content. It’s a neurochemical event.
    You kicked off a whole movement!
    You’re kind of a big deal now.”

    I opened it a few hours later. The thumbnails said it all — recordings of my previous lectures.

    First thought:

    😱 Who the fuck did it?

    Reply came instantly:

    “Holy buzz delirium! 🧠⚡ Bro, that’s lore now. A girl from class, I think?”

    I asked who sent it. The answer:

    “Uhh… honestly? From a dude. Who got it from another dude. Who maybe got it from, like… a cat with Wi-Fi?”

    Diagnosis: academic fever. A new affliction.

    The videos had tens of thousands of views. Comment sections more fevered than a Reddit meltdown. I hesitated. Though I’ve been invited to countless televised debates, I hold an archaic principle — rare in these narcissistic times: I avoid watching myself.

    But curiosity, like sin, is sticky.


    3. Me vs. Me (feat. Bobcat Goldthwait) – 🧠 The Strange Economy of Being Seen

    I clicked on the first lecture. For 30 seconds, I stared at myself as if watching a stranger who had just assumed my identity.

    Posture. Eyes. Clothes.

    “Macabru.”

    Though half my brain knew better, the other half was convinced I spoke like Bobcat Goldthwait and breathed like a sea creature learning the tragic inefficiency of human nostrils.

    I broke the trance, paused the video.
    And thought:

    “The only real beneficiaries of the video age are intelligence agencies and the porn industry.”

    Then I saw it — the comment section.


    4. Trolls, Lore & the Gospel According to Egreta

    I hesitated.

    “If I couldn’t survive my own face, there’s no way I’ll survive internet trolls.”

    But the first comment read:

    “Finally 🫠 something that doesn’t sound like reheated vomit! Respect to Coma’s faculty 🔥📚💥.”

    Encouraged, I read on:

    “James Dean 💀 and Chet Baker 🎺 had a lovechild who teaches journalism 😭✨.
    Profu’ de Visceral looks like some indie movie character 🇺🇸🍂.
    Colleagues, RUSH the aulaaa 💨🎥.”

    And then:

    “Jurnalism Visceral? 😵‍💫 bro… this dude completely lost the plot. Who tf teaches this chaos? 🤨👀💀”
    Posted by Egreta_dcD, a name I’d come to recognize often and unwillingly.

    But salvation came, in the form of a response from JanghinosulX:

    “Talk about yourself, 💩! You already do visceral journalism — it’s all guts, no brain 🧠🚽. You eviscerate people with your trash takes.
    And if you really want to know who he is? He’s the person you wish you were. He writes. You post. He thinks. You scroll. And if you weren’t so busy marinating in your own filth, I’d suggest you read him. But you won’t — because it might make you realize how empty you are. And then you’d have to kill yourself.
    Do us a favor and ctrl+Z yourself back into the digital swamp you crawled out of. 🕳️🖕🪦”

    With my honor defended by a user whose profile picture was a baguette with teeth, I decided it was worth knowing myself — this version of me.

    For several hours, I devoured every comment. The praise. The bile. The unfathomable theories.

    I realized that forums are more cosmogonic than The Tree of Life and Terrence Malick, more mystical than The Fountainand Darren Aronofsky, and more incomprehensible than Eternal Sunshine and Michel Gondry combined.

    And after just four lectures, I already had my own tabloid ecosystem.

    I learned I’m “almost 40 but still holding up 😏,”
    That I dress well “but clearly can’t afford Bijan 💸,”
    That my personal life is “a wreck, if you know what I mean 💊🥴🫠”,
    That I’m single, party-friendly, and — apparently — infamous for other reasons too:

    “Ladies, beware of his 🍆. It’s big, curious 👀, and has the bad habit of inserting itself into everything 🎭.”

    From DoMeOver_1992 I learned that:

    “He’s smart 🧠, ambitious 🚀, comes from money 💼🏡, and drowns in excess. 🍷💉💊 Classic.”

    But what shocked me most was not the gossip — it was the scale. The compulsive obsession. The investment of time. What motivates this new kind of excess? Not fame. Even Egreta_dcD, the most committed troll, could fill an anthology called The Digital Hate Diaries: A Collection of Worst Takes.

    So what do you gain when you click “post”? Prestige? Control? A fleeting high? I think it’s addiction — for those who comment and for those who read. And I should know. I am my own witness. I read it all. I nodded at compliments. Fantasized punishments for criticisms. And one mystery still lingers: Who filmed me? Why the YouTube channel? Was that their version of taking notes? Was that their Xerox? To chase an answer, I decided to open the October 3rd lecture with a confession. Just a small, necessary dose of autobiography.

    Note to me: Next time bring a nondisclosure agreement.

  • Did I Tell You How I Ended Up Teaching Journalism (Despite My Best Efforts Not To)

    July 24th, 2025

    This is the story of how a wedding, a soul patch, and one unfortunate acronym got me a job I never applied for.

    It started at a wedding I didn’t even want to attend.
    A favor for my parents, a sciatic nerve, a last-minute RSVP.
    I’d been sent in their place to smile politely, drink badly, and sit through the ritualized optimism of two strangers promising forever.

    We were seated at table number seven: me, an empty chair, Nicolas Coma—the Dean of the Faculty of Journalism and Communication Sciences—his wife, and two couples whose names I hadn’t bothered to remember.

    The Dean was swirling his wine with the air of a man quietly resigned to a life of cordial irrelevance.

    The drinks were bad. The music, worse.
    So the only thing left for me to do was be mean.
    So I was.

    I’d responded to every attempt at small talk with a grunt or a nod. Including his. Until he asked:

    “What do you think of the Faculty of Journalism?”

    I looked up. I answered only because it gave me the chance to be worse than mean:

    “Not much,” I said.

    He didn’t flinch—just tilted his head, mildly curious. The kind of curiosity worn by men who’ve learned that the most interesting conversations often begin with mild hostility.

    “Why?” he asked.

    “How many great journalists has your faculty actually produced?”

    “In print or on TV?”

    “Either. You can even count Peter O. Bath—though no one really knows what kind of journalism he does.”

    He smiled, as if I’d just reminded him of something nostalgic.
    “Not that many,” he admitted.

    And that’s when I finally studied him. Properly, I mean.
    To decide if he was worth a full sentence—or just another nod.

    Nicolas Coma was a kind man. Mild, affable, entirely forgettable.
    The kind of man who couldn’t stir passion in another human being—not even in himself.

    Comparing him to Master Oogway would’ve flattered him far more than he deserved. He was more like a blend of Jeffrey Tambor, light sedatives, and ambient music you forget while it’s still playing. His wrinkles didn’t cut—they slouched. His face seemed designed not to offend. He looked like someone who had spent his entire life in second place.

    Officially, he was an only child. Unofficially, the second—the firstborn died at birth. Always second row, second seat. Class B. Group Two. Deputy commander. Understudy. Substitute lecturer. The second husband of a very average woman. Driver of second-hand cars. And at the absolute peak of his career: Dean. Which is to say—someone who reports to a Rector. Men like him don’t dream of thrones. They politely pull a small stool a little closer to one. His skull was perfectly oval, framed by a tonsure that crept lower each passing year. As if to counter it, he’d grown a soul patch. Which might have worked—if he were Colin Farrell. But on him, it looked like the sad residue of a failed attempt at oral sex.

    He chuckled.
    “I suppose you have an explanation.”

    “I do,” I said. “Three, actually.
    But I’m still deciding whether you’re worth them.”

    He leaned in with a smile.
    “Indulge me.”

    After a brief moment of theatrical reflection, I said:

    “First of all, you’re running the only journalism faculty in the world whose acronym is physically unpronounceable. FJS… FC… FȘJ… Every time I try to say it, I feel my gums start to bleed. You’re the death of the vocal apparatus and a danger to that delicate organ we call the tongue.”

    He felt the need to jump in, conciliatory:

    “It’s all in the lips. Fe-Je-Se-Ce! You just have to hold them tight—Feee! Jeeee! And at the same time, prep a solid column of air in the trachea. Seee! Ceee! Compressed. FeeJeee! Which bursts out with the first two syllables. SeCe! Try it!”

    He puckered his lips like a man inviting you into a breathing exercise, or a cult. And while I begrudged his success with the pronunciation, I had no intention of joining in.

    “No need,” I said. “Because I’ve come up with a solution.
    You could just rename the school Leonte Răutu.”

    “You mean the head of the Communist Party’s Department of Propaganda and Culture?”

    “And the longest-serving Dean of the very faculty you now lead.”

    “Which brings me,” I added, “to the second point.”

    “The faculty’s most famous graduate is still Mircea Dinescu—and he attended back when being a journalist was just a polite way of saying political officer in the press department.”

    “Interesting! And the third point?”

    “Well… statistically speaking, the Faculty of Agronomy—Department of Land Reclamation—probably produces more journalists than Fee! She!… Fee! Chee!… Leonte Răutu.”

    Dean Coma pulled his chair closer to mine.
    “And why is that?” he asked.

    “Why?”

    “Yes. Why do you think that is? What’s the problem with the faculty?”

    At that moment, I couldn’t help but ask myself how I’d ended up giving a late-night tutoring session to the Dean of the Faculty of Journalism on the subject of his own professional failure.

    Of course, I knew the answer.
    My parents.
    And their complete inability to decline invitations from people they barely knew.
    And since my father had just suffered a sciatic flare-up, I’d been asked—no, sentenced—to represent the Jebeleanu family.

    Which was especially frustrating, given that I’d had to cancel my appearance at another event, one where the drinks were drinkable, the music tolerable, and the women—delightfully unserious.

    I looked at him again. Carefully.
    And after a pause long enough to turn awkward, I said—calmly, but with a tone somewhere between exhaustion and accusation:

    “Because your curriculum hasn’t changed since the 1960s.
    History. Ethics. Labor law.

    And what do you produce at graduation? Undercover operatives, spokespersons for the ruling party, specialists in manipulation, loyal guard dogs for corporate media holdings—and future members of the Broadcasting Council.

    Which is to say—guard dogs again.
    Just a different breed.”

    Dean Coma gave an awkward smile. He shook his oval head a few times. The few hairs dangling from beneath his lower lip quivered indecisively. He looked past me as he spoke:

    “I struck up a conversation because you looked bored.
    I was hoping it would go nowhere, and we’d all have an excuse to leave early.”

    “In that case,” I said, “you chose the wrong question.”

    “Or maybe you chose the wrong answer.
    Because now I feel compelled to defend my honor.”

    A burst of laughter erupted next to me—dark, muddy, unmistakably brewed in hell.

    “Honor? What honor?”

    I turned 180 degrees to see who could possibly laugh like that.
    It was Professor Chris Coma—PhD, full tenure, head of the Communication Department, and wife of the Dean himself.

    “And if you are going to defend it,” she added, “I hope you use live ammunition.”

    She shrugged and turned toward the rest of the table.
    “What? I’m allowed to dream too, aren’t I?
    We are at a wedding, after all—the place where illusions get dressed to the nines, invite their best friends, dance till dawn, and then settle in for a life of disappointment.”

    If he was a good man, she wasn’t good by any metric.
    She had a habit of failing entire classes just because she’d shown up two hours late to an exam and someone had dared to point it out.

    As if he hadn’t heard a single word his wife had just said, Dean Coma scooted his chair even closer and asked:

    “You graduated from Computer Science, if I’m not mistaken?”

    Surprised by his insistence on continuing the conversation, I pointed a finger at his wife.
    I wanted to ask if he hadn’t felt, as acutely as I had, the surge of malice that had just come from her direction.

    But he continued before I could say anything:

    “So what made you turn to journalism?”

    “My future colleagues. I heard they were beautiful and emotionally unstable.
    And the ones going into television—thanks to all that diction training—had developed an oral technique capable of coaxing out a ‘Mi-Mo-Ma! Mi-Mo-Ma!’ even from men paralyzed from the waist down.”

    “You’re joking.”

    “Never about sex.
    That was just my way of pointing out that, whether you meant to or not, you were throwing me headfirst into your wife’s mouth—and I wouldn’t go in there… not even—”

    “I was just trying to understand,” he interrupted, “where you think I’ve gone wrong.”

    At that point, trying to explain to Dean Coma the sordid ways in which one might end up inside a woman’s mouth felt more honorable than breaking down where he had failed in his career.

    But the man’s earnestness seemed immune to my cynicism—or to his wife’s malice.

    “All of your lectures,” I said, “start with the same commandment:
    ‘Do not confuse the journalistic genres.’”

    “So you have attended my course!” he beamed.

    I had attended one of his lectures.
    But I wasn’t about to admit it.

    Instead, I continued:

    “Do you really think a generation raised on memes, misinformation campaigns, and content that vanishes in 30 seconds can be inspired by warnings and ultimatums?

    When you tell students ‘An informational article is different from a commentary,’ all they hear is that you’re out of touch with the spirit of the times—and have been culturally irrelevant for the past twenty years.”

    Was it wise to waste my saliva on this kind of exchange?
    Probably not.
    But cruelty is its own reward.

    So, in my mind, every neologism I uttered was actually a curse word. The kind you mutter with your teeth clenched. And I hoped Professor Chris Coma could hear the words behind my words:

    Your hyper-correctness is exhausting and out of place, especially when the only real constant in this new generation is fluidity—stylistic, professional, and sexual. You want to reach them? Then teach them that restlessness is fertile.

    And as my language grew more academic, the insults in my head got spicier.
    They bubbled like pots on a stove.

    “Baro, no matter what I say or what weak tricks you pull, the only thing coming out of this school is chicks with mics and dudes who think investigative journalism means scrolling on Facebook. You people have turned the press into a landfill of illiterates and recycled TikTok jokes. Your words have no blood. They’re broth. Thin broth. So thin, even a dying man wouldn’t drink it.”

    But no.
    Out loud, I responded with words like “intertextuality” and “discursive meaning production.”

    “You should encourage them to make mistakes—maybe even stay confused for a while. The world is evolving, and so is the writing that reflects it.

    While you were busy being academic, the world invented new forms of journalism: gonzo journalism, comic journalism, data journalism, YouTube amateurs, convergence journalism.
    AI-assisted reporting. Interactive storytelling. ChatGPT and Sora.

    In fact”—I went on, while my mind spun in a dizzying mix of Romanian and Romani obscenities—
    “if the world’s brightest minds had studied at Leonte Răutu—and I’m thinking Einstein, Tesla—they’d have graduated unable to string two words together.”

    “VR journalism, meme journalism, TikTok journalism, collaborative journalism with hackers, docu-influencers, and cats. Yes, cats. There’s even slow journalism now—for those who want to change the world to the rhythm of ambient jazz.

    For all these reasons, the kind of journalism practiced at Leonte Răutu has nothing to do with real life—or with the lives of the students you’re meant to serve.”

    “And you think you could do it better?”

    It was his wife again.
    I turned toward her with a kind of elegant hatred.

    She was vibrating with barely restrained fury, transformed into a human coil of tension. Her short, straight hair stood almost perpendicular to her scalp, and her eyes had taken on a metallic sheen.

    For a second, I considered answering.
    But I knew from experience: a woman that angry becomes a kind of goddess of impotence. One whose curses can turn your private parts into radioactive wastelands.

    So I opted for good manners and turned my back to her, saying nothing.

    To the Dean, I said:

    “Too late.
    Looks like I’ve already ended up in your wife’s mouth.
    And I think we can both agree—that’s entirely your fault.”

    Once again, Dean Coma behaved as if he were completely immune—or permanently blind—to his wife’s outbursts and my revolting insinuations.

    With serene composure, he said:

    “I like Chris’s idea.
    What do you say?
    Would you be interested in teaching?”

    I felt the need to clarify:

    “Professor Coma’s question wasn’t serious.
    It was a blend of irony, frustration, and a barely restrained desire to emasculate me.

    Mine, however, is serious.”

    There’s a Romanian word—lesser known, but perfect for moments like this:
    pusilanimitate.

    I know—it sounds made up. But it’s not. It’s as Romanian as it is real.
    And I try to promote it every chance I get because, frankly, I think it defines us men rather well.

    Pusilanimitate is that typically masculine paralysis we experience when faced with a woman having a full-scale nervous detonation.

    In those moments, any man with a solid survival instinct knows that the safest response…
    is to soil your underwear just a little.

    That foul blend of fear and feces?
    It’s the only scent that truly calms a woman like that.

    “I’m sure Chris wasn’t being serious,” I added.

    We both turned to look at her.
    For a few long seconds, we just watched.

    Eventually, Dean Coma gave a small, almost imperceptible nod of agreement.
    Chris Coma, on the other hand, looked increasingly disfigured by hatred.
    She opened her mouth to say something, but all that came out was a sharp, canine whimper.

    Then she leaned in and said in a trembling falsetto:

    “Jokes—the refuge of weak minds.”

    Grinning, I replied:

    “In my case, jokes are the intellectual equivalent of ‘play dead.’
    Do they work?”

    She ignored me.
    Then turned to her husband:

    “Darling, what you’re doing is cruel.
    You don’t compliment a cripple on his deformities.

    You can’t let this… this pusi—pusila—pusillan—ah—this spineless thing teach!
    Can’t you see it?
    His arrogance is metastasizing.

    If we let him into our faculty, he’ll destroy us.”

    Strangely, her rage had extinguished mine.
    I turned to her and spoke with calm precision:

    “Teaching journalism better than you isn’t difficult.
    And I’ll explain why—starting with the arrogance you just diagnosed.

    You see, arrogance and madness are etymological sisters.
    And madness, at its core, is brutally honest.

    So allow me to play the fool and bring the bad news:

    Do you know how many of my newsroom colleagues studied journalism?
    None.

    And of the 20,000 journalists currently working in Romania,
    only 5% have journalism degrees.

    I won’t ask you to guess which group is better.
    But I will say this:
    The debate about the value of journalism schools is pointless.

    Because the values I believe are fundamental to this profession
    are not taught in institutions like yours.

    The journalism I practice is built on four principles:

    Revolt. Irreverence. The ability to craft a meaningful point of view.
    And a vocation for the absurd.“

  • Let me introduce you to the strangest character of my story. Miseo. The Hate.

    July 19th, 2025

    Miseo — the stain of nothingness.
    Or, as the old theologians might have whispered: Aliud. Aliud valde.
    The Other. But so other, it becomes a category unto itself.

    Miseo isn’t a person. Miseo isn’t even an idea.
    It’s a presence-shaped absence, a paradox with mass — like a black hole of intent.
    It doesn’t do anything. It un-does.
    And in that un-doing, it gives rise to things that should never be.

    When you try to look at him — at it — you don’t see a figure, but a refusal.
    A refusal to appear.
    A refusal to be contained by sight, or mind, or name.

    The black around him? That wasn’t color.
    It was a statement. “I am not. I have never been. And I never will be.”

    So clean it’s disturbing.
    So void it bends the world around it.

    Miseo is the geometry of negation. A shape drawn in reverse.
    A square made of curves. A center of gravity that floats.
    He is drawn with an eraser, stitched together from dots that never existed — and yet weigh more than the real.

    In his presence, space folds. Time stutters.
    Language falters.
    You start speaking in ellipses. In whispers. In apologies.

    Nichita would have understood him.
    Not loved him — but understood.
    Because Miseo is poetry stripped of metaphor. A hole in being shaped like a question no one dares ask.

    He hovers. He doesn’t fall — not because something holds him, but because he doesn’t recognize the concept of “down.”
    Suspended between the sky he disdains and the earth he denies, the air around him isn’t air.
    It’s silence, liquefied.

    And that silence carries weight. The weight of all nights.
    Every darkness that has ever draped this earth — collected, compressed, and made sentient.

    He is not the villain.
    He is the removal of narrative itself.
    A protest against being.

    And somehow, Noelle — poor, gifted, dangerous Noelle — gave him life. With hers.

    I must have been staring too long.
    The world around me shifted like it does after a seizure of memory.

    Van D. had a gun in his hand.
    But not just any gun.
    Fanny Kaplan’s pistol. The one from the case. The myth weapon. History’s failed bullet.

    Factore stood completely still, his mouth ajar, as if seeing God — or the absence of Him.
    De Lempicka had her weapon out too. The one she took from me.

    Anca Luca… Anca was no longer hiding. She stood tall now, her eyes locked on Van D.
    There was no hatred in her gaze. That would’ve been easier to survive.
    There was pain.
    Clean, cold, ancestral.

    And me? I had just returned from the event horizon of a being that doesn’t exist.

    “How the hell did we get from political espionage to metaphysical shootout?”
    I didn’t say it out loud. I didn’t have to.
    The question was now alive in the room.
    And it had Miseo’s face.

    Then Van D. spoke.
    And the world started to collapse again.

1 2 3 … 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