Some facts – or what we call “Hypothesis” in Mathematics * What EU is in the global economic and technological competition * The sex of angels and its social regulation * A new ideology for destructuring the European democracy – from utopia to dystopia * Who shuts Salman Rushdie’s mouth: The ideologists, commissaries, and clergymen of the new religion * The new political Mecca – the Turkish test: Erdogan’s projectile against the EU and European leadership * Two dangers: The tearing down capital + the radicalisation danger within Western societies * The inevitable Age and its Europe * The conspiracy theory
(Versiunea în limba română: ”Cristian Grosu / Sexul îngerilor și sexul Europei. Despre dușmanul paraideologic din miezul UE”)
Such a text may be featured today, in 2020, but 10 years from now it may dwell only in the mind of its author. It may be not only rejected by the social networks – due to its profound lack of political correctness, to the hate speech label, or to the author having been prone to disgrace for a long time – but it may very well not even be hosted by the Internet (the only place where someone will be able to exist as a social entity, in a world where sociobiology will have regulated the ”social distancing”).
And that because nowadays in the “civilised” world – the one having produced not only spectacular prosperity in its diversity, uncapable of beeing foreseen even by utopias, but also the freedom of movement, thought, and expression, and even the astounding freedom of being wrong as a human being and of correcting the error subsequently – in the world of the strong, autonomous, and self-aware human being, books are being removed from circulation, ideas are being blocked due to vague and arbitrary criteria, valuable people are being labelled as infamous – e.g., genius authors pertaining to each step towards such a civilisation of freedom and towards taking the humankind out of the barbaric state, step by step.
But there is no more time now to talk about “principles”: the war per se has begun a long while ago; this is just a new phase of it.
We are thus forced to recount the facts already. Not a lot – at least 30 minutes:
Some facts – or what we call “Hypothesis” in Mathematics
The Chinese president Xi Jinping modified two years ago – with support from the People’s Assembly, of course – the Constitution, therefore becoming president for life.
The Russian president Vladimir Putin has modified the Constitution two weeks ago – with support from the electorate, of course – and he can remain president until 2036… for life, basically.
The Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan has slaughtered – literally – his opposition after a failed putsch; only death can now take him down, mostly given that in his project, he has the – up front or tacit – support of several Muslim nations that had been waiting for a sharp leader within NATO.
All three of the above have ensured their decision-making power not only due to the psychological drive of power – the one that disappears with the rotting or destruction of any kind of the human brain, but for the continuity of and mostly for the coherence of the decision in the war that started:
building the economic and military walls of the future power poles, given that the world has evolved from the political phase of its division between these poles.
It is worth mentioning how strong these de facto dictators are (the notion of “illiberalism” is a diversion: a society is democratic only when and insofar is allowed – hence, the word liberalism is a sinister prank):
Putin has his adversaries assassinated – not only within EU states, but even those with EU citizenship. However, the EU is in a deeply alarming situation if it fails to protect its citizens and to hold the murderers accountable. Xin Jinping beheaded an establishment as powerful as Interpol by having his fellow national – Meng Hongwei, the chief of this global institution – arrested without any “notice” and with post-factum explanations, and sentenced to prison. There have been no reactions from the “civilised” world.
Erdogan is hunting down his political enemies right in the free EU states; he intervened in Libya as head of a new superpower; he slaughtered the Kurds by invading the northern area of a sovereign state (Syria), and the only one making some fuss about it – with noone taking him seriously – is president Macron.
This is the situation of the EU at the political and military level: we are not saying anything about NATO yet, because things are undergoing changes after Brexit.
Actually, no; this big issue of the EU is still insignificant compared to another: the competition that is on the verge of losing (or maybe lost it already?) in the fields of technology and the economy of the future.
What EU is in the global economic and technological competition
The list of heavy losses and delays would be too long, that’s why we will summarise it in some so-called “relevant details”:
It’s been 20 years since we’ve known the “timetable” of the steps from 3 to 4 and then 5G. Today, however, the EU can choose between buying technology from the USA or from China – both with cybersecurity issues: the USA will not drag on a technologically outdated Europe, lacking its own security system, ideologically torn apart, culturally shattered, and pressed by interests of a local (yes!) range.
We’re talikng about Europe – the cradle of inventions, of innovations, of the great discoveries having freed science of biases and having started the world industrialisation boom.
Elon Musk has announced yesterday that – for the Tesla plant to be built near Berlin – he would hire 10,000 people. Nonetheless Musk didn’t come to Germany, but near a mega-company called Volkswagen, which has understood as late as 3 or 4 years ago to take seriously the trend – be it even transitory – towards electric cars. This is pretty much the “pride” of European economy and also its dependence. But this “very European” agreement is not enough:
80% of the batteries for electric cars are made in China, because they involve natural resources that Europa can’t access (China has simply bought Africa), while the natural elements necessary to top technology – such as “rare soils” – are also made in China: the European anti-pollution policy simply doesn’t allow the processing of such resources, mandatory to turn on any computer.
Without Google, Apple, and Amazon, absolutely nothing works in the EU – from the most basic apps to the institutional communication flows. For 20 years, Europe has watched the ascension of world giants modelling the future day by day – but always has a different agenda, all the while imposing super-regulations, to prevent anyone from raising their heads and joining the significant world league of the economy.
In these 20 years, China – it is not even relevant how – has made parallel versions to these giants and even “innovated”, so that the Americans with “conspiracy theories in their heads” can’t seem to know how to get rid of TikTok.
Even Russia has implemented its own “Internet”, ready to disconnect from the global one in the event of a significant cyberattack, but meanwhile it can access the “Europeans’ Internet” and carries out the ideological war permanently – as an artillery training – meant to fragment the EU society.
In what concerns the so-called “sustainability” (the entire Europe has been splashing this word around) of the economy of the future: EU is currently compromising it through this ideological diversion that has become the Green Deal:
The great problem of the world economy is precisely its paradigm: the limitless use of resources – humans behaving as if these resources were renewable in the future, as well as the management of the transfer speed towards an economy extracting as few resources as possible.
This problem – which should be one of the economists, of the scholars, and of the representatives of big global producers and researchers within the great global centres of intellectual capital – has been packed by the EU within a super-ideology sold at a slow pace by abusing a child – miss Greta Thunberg, removed from school and thrown in the huge marketing and PR machine and carried from one city to another as a propaganda tool.
I’m afraid this is NOT how the EU has the chance of making – actually, of inventing! – the great step towards the economy of the future based on using as little resources as possible. Moreover, given the current actions of the EU, it may never take this step, but just keep on buying technology from the USA or China, when these polluting countries will have won the competition and will have afforded to embrace “sustainability”.
Actually, in terms of Green Deal, the EU has been acting – beyond the propaganda and the small urban pollution reduction gestures, such as the use of scooters – quite the opposite to what it should. Let’s pause and reflect for a minute – to the most visible thing possible:
Nowadays, people don’t “fix” their cars anymore (like my pal Octav used to do, breaking down an electric engine down to the last screw, replacing the brushes – allowing me to save 80% of the price and the planet to save 100% of the high-quality metal and the energy consumed to shape the ore in the super-steel element): today they change the part, the entire “kit”.
The shift from the Euro 5 to the Euro 6 or to…, means always retiring from use tens of millions of cars – accounting for the same amount of extracted resource and pollution, considering that the current economic paradigm lives from products breaking, not from their long life.
One more thing is worth noting in terms of EU’s capacity of facing its economic and technological future: the great research centres are NO longer in Europe: Northern US – Silicon Valley, North-western China, Israel, and, more recently, one in India.
The EU has also evolved: while others prepare or set the last details of truly game-changing technologies, made public only when their blood-thirsty dictators decide it is useful to expose them – Europe has been preparing (just like Hitler sending his “researchers” in Tibet to determine biometrically that there was the origin of Arians) the great research and the comprehensive studies regarding the relationship between gender and sex.
“Europa has been a little naïve concerning China” – was stated on the 3rd of May this year by Josef Borell, the head of the European diplomacy, watching the cherries on the EU economy’s cake being purchased by the Chinese.
Yes: with 27 types of secret services, with connecting them to NATO, with super-think-thanks about the economy of the future, and with super-studies about trends and market for private companies that have become stronger and more professional than governments from this standpoint, after 20 years Mr. Borell has reached the conclusion that “we have been a little naive”.
But Mr. Borell didn’t even have to say it: situated between three de facto dictators – Putin, Xi Jinping, and Erdogan – ignored by the US who in this new war has no more time to “call someone there, in Europe” (in the words of Kissinger, evaluating the Allies’ speed of reaction during the Cold War),
EU attends the festival organised by the West every day on both shores of the Atlantic – where everyone has been bringing their best to the parade for the past five years:
some with Elon Musk (who has just sent for the first time a mission into space on behalf of a private company), others with Greta Thunberg.
The sex of angels and its social regulation
Caught between the construction sites surrounding it, where three de facto dictators – blood-thirsty and without scruples both externally, where they have been carrying for a long time the hybrid disinformation war at the very home of the Europeans and concerning the values and liberties of their peoples – the EU has had a very full agenda within the past ten years.
In the spring of 1453, in the Constantinople sieged by the Turks, between the walls on fire, there was a great debate of religious scholars and philosophers: what is the sex of angels? Are they maybe men? Are they maybe women? Are they maybe asexual? Why are some called one way, while the others differently?
Under a somewhat similar siege from at least three directions, to which we add its lag, our Europe has not lost time in the past decade – as the facts gathered above may seem to suggest – but, stimulated from the inside by a handful of ideologists, it started reconstructing the premises based on which it created, throughout history, not only the most spectacular and prosperous civilisation, but also the most blood-thirsty monsters: Nazism and Communism – with all their derivatives:
Same as 5 centuries and a half ago, we have a problem with the sex of angels, while the walls are being set on fire.
The debate is not informal: the answer that the EU had to find within the last decade has turned into a law – while its application in the freest of the societies already produces monsters: scholars are “crushed”; books are removed from online shops; art is being re-evaluated and cleansed; the Roman law (a civilising line for the still-free society of today) is being overthrown; the freedom of thought and expression is sanctioned promptly and accused of all evils in the world – not only present, but also past and future.
The dilemmas of the EU – actually, of the ideological machinery reactivating the principles of Nazism and Communism using other tools and fabricating other offences – refer to all that is more natural, more spontaneous and more creative within the human being:
Are children made by a man and a woman? What is marriage? What are the criteria by which we select the staff in companies, in management, in any organisation? How do we “balance” the advantage (going as far as the offence) of any majority over a minority, may it be even conjectural? What is the magical equation in a purely political establishment: how many women, how many men, how many ethnic, race, sexual orientation minority members?
What is a mother? What about a father? Would they be upset if we called them as such – mother and father? And when we make (because we do) legislation for this: what is the first word a child says – mother or father? But what if we abolish these words – and we establish that a child may be raised in any given family as well as in his/her natural family? Natural? – the most dangerous word, the bots of Facebook, Google, and of other networks have already reduced the points used for indexing it.
The truly remarkable aspect here is the EU test of resistance to absurdity for human mind. Its biologists – with Darwin leading the path – have drawn the sense of the evolution: it took hundreds of millions of years for the molecules to combine in a certain way and to produce the living being, initially rudimentary, reproducing asexually – the paramecium doesn’t need a “partner” structure to reproduce. It took another hundreds of millions of years for sexual reproduction to emerge. Nowadays, the political puritans and “morally clear minds” drawing the agenda of a Europe in competition with dictatorships on all levels come and – at the expense and work of the nations – not only annihilate the very concept of sexual behaviour difference – but they have just begun making and implementing laws out of it.
Another dilemma: Speaking of the school: what about the values that have refined our society to the current prosperity and freedom – should we include them in the curriculum? Or should we place them among the “tools of the past”:
If we are indeed the product of four super-peaks of human history – Greek philosophy, Roman law, Christian ethics, and the impudence of Protestant reform – to which we have always returned from the wanderings of all sorts of social experiments, throwing over board what we have empirically concluded to be wrong; wouldn’t education in their spirit prevent us from dissolving this society in order to put its desk in other hands?
Due to a horrendous misfortune, all the questions above are NO joke or exaggeration: Europe – the one caught among three de facto and blood-thirsty dictators, who have ensured lifelong reign for themselves because they know they are in full war – has fund time to begin their rigorous regulation within the past decade.
It’s true – given that it is military incoherent, that economic competitiveness is no longer at stake, and that in terms of compact political entity it simply does not exist – Europe has been given a rather easy task: to solve the issue of the free and innocent, strong, and autonomous human being, standing on his own two feet and supporting the society and himself: who has to be held personally responsible for things that happened centuries ago.
The destructuring of this type of individual and citizen should have occurred in a more liberal and less social society than the EU. Thus, the really difficult issues are currently happening in the US, where a minority – a race minority for the moment, but tomorrow or in a few months they will take another one out of the drawer – is being used to break liberal democracy and to impose the same principle for disintegrating individual freedom:
Political correctness – which has become a mandatory ritual, a dogma, a religion: Whereas Nazism had made race purity official, while Communism class purity – the now so-called “Progressism” makes ideological purity official.
However, at the individual control already brought by technology, this entire combination configures one of the most terrifying dystopias. Yes, in the EU – in the space that has given the world one of the most beautiful and prosperous societies.
A new ideology for destructuring the European democracy – from utopia to dystopia
This week, 150 personalities, especially from the cultural field (of the “main culture” of all cultures), as well as university teachers and journalists – from JK Rowling to Francis Fukuyama, from Salman Rushdie to Garry Kasparov – have made public a letter (LINK here) where they draw attention to the disaster brought by the new religion of political purity not only on culture, but also on the very freedom of the individual.
The 150 talk about the excoriation in the press of the new ideology – ever more numerous and more far reaching – of those who refuse to observe political correctness. JK Rowling herself was tarnished by the press after defending a female expert within an NGO who had “doubted” a transgender-related issue.
The letter warns that nobody would risk an opinion (textually) or they are afraid they may be accused of lacking “sufficient zeal” in relation to the new political purity – dangerous mainly for the journalists who refuse to enrol in the cruel “Progressist” ideology.
Furthermore, one of the most bizarre victims of the de facto ideological cleansing currently occurring in the US on the account of the BLM movement is the female editor of an architecture magazine, who complained in an article that she felt sorry for the monuments buildings that the rioters had set on fire.
Should it come as a surprise that three years ago, it took the mainstream press in Germany three days and an international media scandal to write about the dozens of rapes occurred in the New Year’s Eve night, mostly committed my migrants? It is, no doubt, a sensitive topic – but the shocking aspect here is that numerous journalists simply ignored the victims: the (self)censorship of political purity erased not only the elementary professional principles, but also the most basic human solidarity. The bigger shocker was that this represented a “mass” phenomenon in the press – where it is still buried today.
The same thing has been occurring in universities. A Romanian university teacher who had worked for many years in an American university talks about the psychological terror overwhelming the “unregimented” teachers: a “politically incorrect” phrase may entail a total career blocking or even the removal from university.
A person close to me – who completed a two-year Master program at Freie Universitaet in Berlin – told me about the same fear experienced by university teachers: many questions by students to which the answers were: “you’re walking on thin ice here”, or “this matter is too sensitive to approach it”, or even “we should not approach such taboos”. What? Are there any taboo topics in the scientific world of the EU? In an university not of Țăndărei – that’s where some Romanian PMs get their higher education degrees – but of Berlin. And not any kind of faculty, but Freie Universitaet? Freie?
But school has been cut down to its very roots: a former high school mate – living in Canada – accounted me outraged that his 12-year-old daughter was told in school that Communism was a good thing, just wrongly applied. The guy went to school to find out more about it, but he was sent to the Principal, who replied briefly: if you have a problem with what we are teaching here, take your child elsewhere.
Moreover, the new ideology – claiming left-wing roots, but having nothing in common with traditional left (this is one of the most eyebrow-raising words) – has an open agenda. Let’s take a look through it:
The first chapter is allocated to society division:
it is based on the fracture between generations; where it is not clear enough, they provoke it. Anything related to the past before the birth of the followers is outdated, filled with all the sins of humankind from cave evolution to his time – they are actually the purely political and messianic being, born specifically for the new human society.
The fracture is useful for “Progressists” because the link between generations naturally ensures the conveyance of social experience: whoever lived in Communism really has things to pass on to a young man about the horrors of a utopian society, where laws are not made depending on people’s freedom, but people are twisted and torn to fit the laws.
Furthermore, the natural – what a suspect word! – experience between parents and children may bring along the avoidance of the same mistakes and the acknowledgement of the traps as old as the world.
the inclusion within a permanent conflict of any kind of minorities. The so-called “Progressism” seems to hate peaceful coexistence within diversity and it seems to encourage a permanent conflict within this diversity – and if the conflict is not strong enough, it sets it on fire and keeps it burning:
Let’s take an example – the official homosexual union may be simply and rapidly regulated through a perfectly adequate institution – the civil union. However, given that the institution of marriage has strong religious reverberations, related to numerous individual sensitivities, it is preferable to maintain this conflict.
The Romanian case – not enough studied, of the division within USR, which ended with Nicușor Dan’s removal – sparking from the family referendum and the division of party members by their inner beliefs is well-known. In fact, it would have been entirely irrelevant ideologically whether a member of the USR believed or not in “traditional family”: in reality, the “Progressist” wing got rid of the “Conservatives” – who must have had children at home and women/men to love in a too traditional manner. In addition, the case also influenced the Romanian political scene – a lot of people and presumptive allies distanced themselves from the USR precisely upon seeing how prone the party was to externally-induced artificial conflicts.
The same type of conflict between minorities is speculated – and, where it is almost extinct, it gets reignited – in what concerns the ethnic and racial groups. There will never be a better moment that the current period, when the pandemic has created social anxiety; when the crisis it provoked left hundreds of millions of people without resources; when US elections need the empowering of left-wing electorate – a good moment to set (through a logical and social justification fraud) on the real electoral agenda of poverty and disadvantaged people the issue of political purity, of political correctness, of “moral clarity” – the vague definition by which a journalist is deemed “correct” or not.
Furthermore, minorities themselves are victims of the so-called “Progressism”: a teacher who lived in the US academia tells me about the embarrassment experienced by the homosexuals she knew every time the LGBT issue was featured untimely on the agenda of agitators: people were normal in their sexuality; the issue of their sexual identity concerned them personally; no one cared what they were doing with their partners behind closed doors – for homosexuals are not the ones showcasing their cut-out bottom shorts at the parades shown on TV.
Or: does anyone really believe that “Progressists” lose their appetite thinking about black people? The US have managed to fail – with a two-term black president – to establish the only system able to solve this issue; of course, a system requiring a strategy and the patience of two generations: focusing on education, in the lack of which society produces disadvantaged people of all colours.
However, Barack Obama and the others using this minority are people with income way above the average – they are in another world and, in any case, in another paradigm regarding the society.
the radicalisation of the most elementary and the most natural conflicts emerging naturally within any given diversity.
Anyone with more than two kids has a great insight into the natural and even beneficial competition between siblings – either to get the parents’ attention or to obtain something: well, “Progressism” studies even the healthiest social competition and, every chance it gets, sparks a conflict – by seeding hatred, exacerbating differences, and accusing the others of hate speech.
Men against women and vice versa, generations against generations, a social status against another social status – all taken out of the sphere of the perpetual and natural negotiation implied by human diversity and nature.
The second chapter is disintegration of the symbols system ensuring social cohesion:
The war on statues and the “re-evaluation” of personalities is exactly that.
At the level of action, it crossed the Ocean shyly – only as a “leaflet” – because the EU doesn’t need much turmoil at the moment. Taking down Churchill – without whom Europe would have probably sung even today “Deutschland über alles!” – has no effects with a very conservative UK.
However, that’s all it takes for the EU, given that it has done all the work itself.
EU has also abolished the system of symbols ensuring the cohesion of an entity, and this will probably be the cause of its doom, unless it reinvents itself according to the values having built it: strong, autonomous, free individuals, proud of their freedom of thinking and expression, the ones supporting – through their work – the systems and not letting themselves at the mercy of any system.
Whereas, in the US, the anthem and the flag are featured at any backyard party, in the EU, they are just decorating elements in official establishments; whereas the one-dollar bill reads “In God we trust”, the EU has refused to mention in its constitution the Christian origin of civilisation and it has even gone so far as to brag about closing churches (A distinguished lady – public policies promoter – tells me about being hesitant when it comes to wearing the necklace with a cross received as a gift years ago when going to a business party – also attended by the CEO of a super-corporation who comes wearing a turban, thus conveying explicitly that the turban has a religious symbolism to him. Oh, well, he is allowed…);
whereas an American “is proud” of being American, the EU has not even stated it in a long time;
not to mention the simple but identity-generating short stories such as Uncle Sam, the American dream, Thanksgiving Day – while in the UE, the only day we celebrate is May 9, when half of Europe rejoices, while the other half must repent.
And all of these given that any honest sociologist will tell you that at least 70% of the population reacts to such unifying symbols.
Well, it is expected for the next target in the EU to be the Church – they would find a great deal of “ammunition” here: the Inquisition, the missionaries, Giordano Bruno, etc. – the “common” “Progressists” don’t know it yet – but they will receive in due time the arguments from the Facebook bots. If they memorise a couple of quotes, many of them will get ahead of themselves into believing they are erudite.
The education system based on ignoring or disavowing with any kind of arguments of the revealing past:
Excellence is no longer a value. Like in the first years of Nazism, the purebred intellectuals may be ostracised right at the requests of students, if they are imprudent enough – like their ancestors 90 years before – to believe that thought and speech are a virtue of free society.
Efforts have been made for us to make the steady confusion that extended studies (12 years, ending in high school + 5-6 more years in college) necessarily mean higher education. They are actually mere… extended vocational studies, taking more than the three years necessary to learn turnery 50 years ago.
The stake seems to be precisely the failure to understand history and the world one lives in, to realise that there are in this world – in the 6,000 years since the first written signs – 2-300 books accounting exactly what we are experiencing now; and exactly what X and Y will do in the situation we are currently living.
Boks are not being burned yet – as it occurred with race purity within Nazism or class purity during Communism – because it is not necessary: the “Progressist” editors are in a hurry to remove them from the online sources and have them reinterpreted, while the defenders of these books, movies, any form of expression in general are being silenced by the armies of bots, trolls, and little illiterate monks of the new religion.
Who shuts Salman Rushdie’s mouth: The ideologists, commissaries, and clergymen of the new religion
Though they claim a “left” origin or they are also called “neo-Marxists”, the so-called Progressists have NOTHING in common with any of the names.
They are the rear-guard of a new construction wishing to seize the power void left after the disintegration of traditional ideologies and on the moment of the passage to the state’s capacity of controlling every single person, from their body temperature to the next person, standing 1.5 metres apart.
Yes, they are supported by traditional left, but they hope to remain at the playing table, by managing the periphery of societies.
If the new religion allowed them to review the history briefly, they would discover a new thing dating just 100 years ago: “the road companions” – as Lenin called the organisations of useful idiots that he took as allies for the steps of the revolution that was meant to belong to “the oppressed of life”. Of course, once the step was made, the “rod companions” were crushed under some sort of accusation.
Could we imagine what “deviationism” from the new political purity would mean? The question is not for the “common Progressists” – only those from “bishop” up can understand it.
Indeed, “common Progressists” don’t have to understand such subtleties – they act.
During the BLM movement, they are in charge with shaming today’s white people for having had ancestors who has owned black slaves. Obviously, it doesn’t matter if you – free, strong, autonomous being, self-achieved on meritocratic principles, working to survive and to support all possible systems – had NO slaves. The important aspect here is the psychological effect of imaginary guilt (well-known for people suffering from depressions) – but the understanding of it is already specific of the cardinals for the new social religion.
There is a very recent Romanian example, where an innocent victim was left without a serious defence: I’m talking about Vlad Voiculescu who – while running for the position of capital mayor – was accused that his father had been a collaborator of the Securitate. How is it still possible in Romania of the year 2020 for a free, worthy citizen, responsible only for his own deeds, be held accountable and blamed for what another person had done in the past?
The funny thing is – in a party of young people, whose feeling of freedom would entail coherence, one may expect – nobody defended him and nobody fought for him using the argument of individual freedom and no one stated explicitly that in our society it was a shame to shift the blame from someone within the past.
However, Vlad Voiculescu got off easily: had he been part of building the Nazi or the Communist society – social utopias equal to the “Progressism” we witness today – his career would have been over, while in a society of political purity and “cosmic ethics” (according to Progressist theory) the same would have happened.
Furthermore, Eastern Europe – as a “backward area” – has enjoyed special attention, with an organisation dedicated exclusively to the geographical space – for two very visible reasons:
The first is that Western Europe “manages” to cross alone the path towards “Progressism”, given the number of organisations, think-thanks, and other civic entities created there precisely by individual freedom – and the tens and hundreds of millions swallowed by this machinery of propaganda and oppression of thought and expression freedom. However, Eastern Europe requires a more organized “piloting”.
The second reason is that the Eastern-Europeans, more “backward”, are harder to anesthetise:
It is difficult to persuade those who imprisoned 30 years ago for “political incorrectness” that the oppression of the freedom of opinion and speech and expressing values based on a free, strong, autonomous being, self-achieved on meritocratic principles, working to survive and to support all possible systems – is the new law of the “superior society” brought by “Progressists”.
It’s hard to talk about political re-education and political purity to a country that had gone through the “Pitești Phenomenon”. Furthermore – the ostracization of political misaligned is not very different from the one taking place 70 years ago – it functions according to the same psychological principles identical as Pitești Phenomenon: “down with mother, down with father, down with the political impure friend, down with the politically impure, down with the generation, down with politically impure school, down…!”
Thus, in Eastern Europe, a lot is to be done: a couple of days ago, I have published on cursdeguvernare the information that a Dutch minister asks the Parliament to remove gender from the ID of citizens, following the model of Germany, having implemented it already. A “white”, dry piece of news, without any comments or stands. A “reader” jumped quickly: “so, we’re back to traditional family, aren’t we?”. I didn’t explain to the misfortunate that – if the first impulse of reading the information was through the family grid – then the piece of news was not meant for him, but for his psychologist. I replied to him from the perspective of our freedom to publish the news we consider relevant; that he was acting like a Soviet commissary “brushing” through the Communist press to hunt down “suspect and rancorous information”.
This is exactly the psychology of those against whom the letter of the 150 is addressed – to which I would have put Salman Rushdie to the lead: the Iranian having escaped his country, chased down for his Satanic Verses – so incorrect of a book– and sentenced to death through a fatwa.
Oh, well – here I was thinking Viorica Dăncilă was the lowest level concerning the quality of Romanian “elite” – now we know that there is an even lower level: a VioricaDăncilă fluent in 2-3 foreign languages.
The new political Mecca – the Turkish test: Erdogan’s projectile against the EU and European leadership
The “Progressist” attack against the Occidental world has a destructuring and weakening effect on the society of free people and it does the game of its great competitors in the multipolar power equation of the future: I’m talking about the three de facto dictators, while the EU, in its turn, ideologically sinks its only possible ally: the US.
Hence, sensing the opportunity, Tayyip Erdogan has tested Friday night – on his own and without any help – the European Union.
By removing the museum status for the Saint Sophia cathedral and turning it into a mosque again, Erdogan has made a genius move:
No, not because he would expect to thus offend and provoke the “Christian Europe”. But precisely because “Europe” has not valued in a long-time religion and its churches. However, the tens of millions of Muslims within the EU states do value the mosques. Tens of millions for whom – whereas Mecca is the religious reference point – Istanbul becomes the historical reference point for this religion.
The new chess move comes after another: Turkey’s involvement in Libya and the bridge head that it builds there for the future: Erdogan knows from Hitler – who sent one of his most capable marshals, Rommel, to conquer northern Africa – that the Mediterranean is the “soft belly” of Western Europe. And if he wants to build in the pluripolar world of the future a Muslim pole – after the Muslim dictatorships fell like a deck of cards following the “Arab springs” – this is the moment. He has what it takes: Turkey has the second largest army in NATO; he is the geographic force of the Middle East; the leader is strong and lacking any scruples regarding the ideological toxin of “political purity” eating up all the political energy of his Western interlocutors.
And this toxin helps him: it’s been more than a year since Emmanuel Macron has accused NATO of failing to decide on Turkey, while the last two months have been full of warnings from the French president regarding the Turkish involvement in Libya. For – this is Erdogan’s third challenge to the EU – France is the largest military power of Europe after Brexit: what better test for a de facto dictator than to ignore it?
In fact, we don’t even know for sure what Erdogan is ignoring – because this is where the highly clichéd matter of the quality of European leadership begins: is he ignoring the EU or its leaders?
If we take a look at the decision-making gallery within the sensitive points of the EU, we don’t know who may be the interlocutors able to confront – at the human level – any of the three de facto and blood-thirsty dictators.
Let’s assess them one by one, starting with Macron: uncertain even in France, lacking clear ideology (which disappointed both the left and the right supporters), his election was a victory for the entire EU: as a counterreaction to the limitation of individual freedoms and to the enforcement of a “Progressist” ideology, France was almost taken over by Marie Le Pen: he obtained 40% of the votes, given that turnout was significant (76%). In terms of political person. As a person – raised since he was a teenager by his own wife, his former teacher (yes, it is far from politically correct to mention this detail, but any reliable psychologist can attest that this detail matters) – he met the requirements of both political purity and “Progressist” “disinhibition” and the young people’s sympathies (of those who, at least 60% of them according to statistics, would not go to war for their great country) who believe all of these to be very cool.
Furthermore, such details matter because they seem strange coincidences in the construction of European leadership:
If we go even further, we see that Finland – meaning the direct border of the EU with Russia – has made the same efforts. Sanna Marin – the Prime-Minister with a great decision-making force of the country: 33 years, with a political experience to match his years, an equal force against his neighbouring dictator – the most succinct presentation is made by the English Wikipedia: the financial woes of the family determined her father to become an alcoholic, so her mother divorced him and raised Sanna with her female life partner.
Thus, at the border with Russia, the EU has – per the will of the people – an almost perfect political correctness.
There is also Austria – a bizarre country, a combination of energy and oil market, especially Russian oil – with the complicated world of espionage services from all possible directions. Here, the EU had Mr. Kurz, where Wikipedia is even more bombastic: 31 years old; he joined politics since his teenage years, so he had to give up his Law studies to continue his career. This is not the ideal option for the “Progressists” – but he compensates for “Messianic generation” and “studies and education” with the other “Conservative stances”.
This is the gallery of personalities with which the EU – in the moment of inflexion entailed by the post-Covid world – comes to negotiations and competition.
Maybe this is why Germany wants to find a solution for Angela Merkel to get another term: after all, as Kissinger said – you have to find someone to call in Europe, damn it!
But we don’t know if that even means anything for the EU anymore: the extreme left leadership of the Berlin land has crushed 2,000 years of Roman law and regulated – in early June – that, in matters of discrimination, not the presumptive victim of discrimination should prove to have been discriminated against, but the institutions must prove that they have not committed any discrimination… Discrimination of any type.
Two weeks later, the same Berlin leadership decided through a decree to remove from the city the Federal Police. Hence, Tayyip Erdogan can be satisfied with the Muslims’ treatment in Berlin.
Things are different for the string of politicians and leaders “with importance and experience” of the EU: on May 5, 2018, the president of the EU, J. C. Juncker, gave a laudatory speech upon the unveiling of the 4.5 m statue of Karl Marx, in the German city of Trier. History is indeed funny: Juncker, by praising Marx, after having been the Prime-Minister of a state (Luxembourg) developed exclusively on the status of tax paradise, probably for “laundering capital”, one day after Xi Jinping had stated in Beijing before the People’s Assembly: “The permanent promotion of Chinese expansion and the modernisation of Marxism is entirely pertinent”.
It was equally funny last month when – the same week that the “Progressists” vandalised Churchill’s statue – in the German city of Gelsenkirchen, Lenin’s statue was inaugurated.
Two dangers: The tearing down capital + the radicalisation danger within Western societies
I was saying above that this movement models already in a retrograde direction (the name “Progressists” is a gross abuse, carefully maintained through much propaganda compared to the “Conservatives”) the laws of societies. This is not about protecting the minorities, the poor, the marginals of any kind – as they claim.
This is a fight for power – as all the movements aiming to create utopian societies and ending up destroying hundreds of millions of lives, “normal” and innocent people – which technology and the control capacity of societies and individuals may lead towards a dystopia. May lead very easily towards a dystopia.
Two dangers lay within it: a short-term one and then a medium- and long-term one.
For the medium- and long-term danger: read the article “Războiul secolului are deja un învingător” by Radu Crăciun, within Cronicile Curs de guvernare (with a teaser on cursdeguvernare.ro):
whereas the desideratum of the “Progressists” claims to bring the salvation of all kinds of marginals, of minorities of all sorts, and of the socially disadvantaged – the real desideratum seems to be the reverse: the pre-emption of capital over work and the beginning of bipolar society by narrowing to a minimum the middle class: the middle class from the perspective of both labour and capital.
Of the capital: the Covid crisis produces severe liquidity issues worldwide, even for viable SMEs – which can be easily compensated through mergers, purchases, and all the rest by the great capitals. In fact, the phenomenon is happening as we speak.
Of the labour: the poor – those below the national average of prosperity and social status – are not the target of “Progressists” – but the strong, autonomous people, living out of jobs they had earned and based on organisational loyalties; people anchored to a system of personal values determining them to wake up full of energy in the morning not only with the sole rudimentary purpose of starting a new workday, but because they day is meaningful on all 5-6 levels on which a coherent human being builds the life.
In addition, Radu Crăciun ends his text by predicting the future coercion against those who resist this trend: exactly the infamy pillar where “Progressists” send the politically impure today, and the social annihilation through networks and the Internet.
The second danger – short-term – is also currently happening: the radicalisation “of the other side”. As in life, people who understand what is happening and others who react instinctively: both seek solutions for political representation and for psychosocial shelter and they throw themselves in the first cave they find. The results of the elections in France (when 40% of the French chose Marie Le Pen, despite the information trolled copiously, scientifically, and with great technical expertise concerning her shady businesses), when AfD gets more than a mainstream party such as SPD in Germany, when Italians chose a comedian (talented and a great professional, actually…) such as Beppe Grillo – only to mention the first three economies of the EU, then something serious is u, and no one in the sophisticated EU– the cradle of science, of social refinement, and of freedoms of all types – bothers to find out what.
The inevitable Age and its Europe
We are definitely entering a new era, catalysed by the Covid crisis – with radical changes at all levels – from work, telework, flexible work, labour market with robots in ascension – to the capitals grouping – and to …
And to the new phase of world pluri-polarisation: what we have seen only on maps so far, it is now the time for action and for implementation in the economy, in the security equations, and in the technological competition..
Well: where is the EU concerning these three directions? Right now – taken by surprise between three blood-thirsty dictators, who brought under their almost total control the nations and who already started the war?
All the changes to occur more rapidly than we are set to perceive rationally in terms of meaning and to which it will be harder to adapt psychologically than we may think – have one chance to remain in the sphere of humanist elementary field:
Human being and his freedom in the centre of social meaning – the free, strong, autonomous, being, standing on his own two feet and supporting the society, himself, and the disadvantaged of life. The brink of light from the Middle Ages shines freely from the Renaissance. Why? Because it retrieved the being from Greek Antiquity and restored his rights towards the world. It was the grain that – capacitated by beauty – contaminated everything in the subsequent centuries, until the society where we are (still) allowed to write all this. We will go to Mars soon (Elon Musk is currently working hard at the “installation”) and this will be only the beginning of the road towards the “wormhole” with which we will face the space, we will heal our bodies with a power we cannot even fathom at the moment, and we will find sources of energy where we wouldn’t even know to look today.
They will have a higher meaning, however, only insofar as they focus on the individual, not the species: the pre-emption of the species has long been overcome – let’s take a look at an anthill.
Furthermore, I don’t believe that any utopia (such as the new one of the “Progressists”) ever managed to really crush the individual: let’s see North Korea – they enforced a control and brainwashing level more than Nazism ever could: it seems shocking that there are still individuals fleeing to the South and crossing the border, suspecting here those who don’t have the courage to risk their lives, too.
I also believe that progress of all types within science, economy, and technology cannot suffocate the beauty and freedom that made the EU states what they are today – despite its horrendous mistakes – and maybe the best example is the famous essay by Heidegger about an equally famous line by Hölderlin: “Full of merit, yet poetically / Humans dwell upon the earth”. Well – this “poem” always ended up victorious where utopias, ideologies, and willpower of the national or transnational political groups produced bloodbaths. (Yes, I cited Heidegger – the one accused at a certain point of passivity towards the Nazi regime, even of collaborationism: in the world of free people, the merits of a individual are not annihilated by his errors.)
Furthermore, human nature cannot be changed by juridical laws or by education against its meaning. I expect for the majority (“majority”) of those who have accomplished a meaning of any proportion to raise their heads, disturbed by this background noise; to realise what is happening and to speak up, shedding any fear, to speak out loud. I also expect thew fear-inducing tools, the tools for social terror and for blocking interaction among people to become more refined. For they have always and will always be here. It is a shame, though, that it always takes decades and centuries to realise it, which are lost instead of being used for development and for steps forward, pursuant to human genius:
It is just me or such moments of light for the humankind have always been generated by a handful of people who felt free?
The conspiracy theory
In order to prevent the aforementioned ideas from looking like a conspiracy theory (I detest this easy way of reading the world – because conspiracy theories destroy the real warning signs and throws them in derision) – I will give to you the following text:
“Two years ago, a very influential Constitutional Law specialist from Harvard Law School, Mark Tushnet, stated publicly:
« The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. […] My own judgment is that taking a hard line (‘You lost, live with it’) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals (in the US, ”liberal” means left – editor’s note) regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.) I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights. But the war’s over, and we won.»
To understand how influential Mark Tushnet is, we have to know that in 2016 he was listed among the ten most quoted Law specialists. And in order to get an idea about ideological contents of his science, it suffices to quote a scientific paper from 1981 where the acclaimed American Professor stated that – among several possible constitutional interpretations – we should prefer the one that can bring the greatest contribution to the Socialism cause.”
(The above quote from Mr Mark Tushnet was used by Mr Horia Roman Patapievici in an article published 2 weeks ago)
In my opinion, given that I’ve only seen Romania as part of the EU, that EU is not a mere geographical space, but the zig-zag of dozens of centuries of the human genius breeding the creative freedom of individuals,
and given that presently, 3 de facto and blood-thirsty dictators – by oppressing “gently” their nations – have started the war (not military yet) against the EU while it is undermined from the inside by a handful of aggressive utopians demobilising it and destructuring its identity and force to be able to conquer it, following the models of Nazism and Communism –
for this woman left exhausted by births and fatigue, that Michelangelo placed on the grave of Lorenzo de Medici –
I am ready, unlike the 60% of the Europeans who would not go to war for their Europe because maybe it has long been dead in their minds and spirits, I am ready to give even my life for it. My life, I say, not my European soul.