Comfort and safety

In stone age the comfort meant safety, a warm hut, a hearty meal were the difference between life and death.
But now the comfort is no longer safety a big house is a huge mortgage, a hearty meal is a hearth attack.

Comfort zone and banana republics

When Benito Mussolini visited Sicily after he took power, got an argument with a local Mafia cappo.
The cappo ordered that nobody to go Mussolini meeting next day.
Nobody did attend.
Obviously the first to disobey would be killed and it was easier for people to stay in a safe zone.
and applaud the speeches of Stalin or Ceausescu and cry at Kim Jong Il funeral.
After the initial violence of the dictatorship a truce between people and dictatorship is accepted from both sides.
You obey and you will be safe.The dictators will no longer seek actively enemy of the state.
This truce maintained so long conditions are not getting worse.
But sometimes the conditions are changing because of uncontrollable factors: a famine, a climatic change or even the winter.
I am surprised that in Scandinavian countries they no have known dictators, while Africa is full of them.
Of course there are a other factors, that make this difference. Russia is a northern country, yet it's entire history consists of autocrats and evil dictators.
But except Russia and the Warsaw pact countries, it seems that Europe and North America had fewer periods of dictatorships.
In Europe, the southern part had more periods of dictatorship during 20-th century:
Portugal 48 years of Salazar rule,
Spain ruled by Franco for 36 years,
Italy had Benito Mussolini for 21 years,
Greece had 15 years of dictatorship (8 years before the WW2+ colonel regime).
Albania had 15 years of dictatorship under Zogu reign prior to word war 2
Yugoslavia had 10 years from 1929 till 1939
In west:Germany had 12 years of dictatorship under Hitler. The neighbouring countries France,Belgium,Netherlands,Luxembourg,Denmark and Norway didn't had a dictatorship till the conquest of Hitler.

The dictatorships from 1945 in the Eastern Europe and Balkan I consider them imposed by soviet tanks. Once the Soviets decided that that they will not intervene in their domestic affairs, these dictatorships fell, in 1989. So I will consider only the years of dictatorship prior to 1945:
Poland had 13 years of authoritarianism till 1939
Romania had 6 years of dictatorship till 1944
Bulgaria had 10 years of dictatorship from 1935 till 1945

In conclusion a steady climate,a land  with enough agricultural resources or with enough mineral resources favours maintenance of the status quo, and of the dictatorship if it settles it.

Digital Middle Ages

In Middle Age, the seniors observed their subjects from the heights of their castles, and sent armed knights to quell any rebellion.
Now from the towers of IT giants other seniors observe their subjects, and send bankers,lawyers and sometimes drones to prevent any trouble.
Money have replaced the sword.
Before the seniors depended on their peasants for food and shelters.
Now the new peasants depend of their seniors.

Romania si Evropa

Sunt unii traditionalisti ortodocsi gen Dan Purec care se uita stramb la UE, asemunind-o cu imperiul Otoman.
Comparatia este nepotrivita deoarece ei nu stiu cum era imperiul Otoman, pasoptistii stiau cum e, si au avut de ales intre supunerea fata de poarta si apropierea de puteri colonialiste europene, precum Franta.
Franta si tarile vestice in general la 1848 erau mult mai nedemocratice si mult mai sovine decat acum, dar totusi pasoptistii au ales sa se indrepte spre ei. Asta arata cat de rea era situatia din Tarile Romane din cauza imperiului Otoman.
Mai sunt unii care pun victoria de la Marasesti doar pe seama dorintei de a lupta a soldatilor romani.
Dar ce au facut pana atunci? Nu au luptat? De ce nu au tinut trecatorile de la Jiu daca dorinta de a-si apara tara era suficienta?
Eroismul nu e suficient, nu inlocuieste armele bune si ofiterii competenti,lucruri aduse de misiunea militara franceza in 1917.
Misiunea militara franceza a facut ceea ce nu reusesc nicodata cei care conduc Romania: sa valorifice capitalul uman.
Militarii francezi au apreciat disciplina si stoicismul soldatului roman, care suporta tot felul de vitregii in timp ce soldatii francezi in acelasi conditii s-ar fi revoltat, dar au dispretuit purtea abuziva gen Mos Teaca.
Misiunea militara franceza venita din afara si rupta de relatiile politice interen a instituit o meritocratie in armata romana, cerand inlocuirea unor ofiteri prosti promovati pe pile si promovarea unor ofiteri capabili, educati la scolile militare din vest dar de conditie joasa.
Un alt factor decisiv au fost artileristii rusi ai generalului Cihoski, care nu au dezertat si nu au trecut la bolsevici si au oferit acoperire de artilerie vitala, situatia cand frontul de la marasesti in zona fabricii de sticla a fost tinut de 4 mitraliori.
In concluzie ce a contribuit la nasterea natiunii romane: o incapatanare poporului roman de anu fi sters de pe fata pamantului,o tanara generatie de lideri (vezi 1848), dorinta marilor puteri care nu au granita cu noi (Franta,Anglia,Prusia) de a avea un stat prieten in zona asta, niste straini inimosi care au venit sa ajute poporul roman de la Carol Davila pana la Jean Clunet.

Istoria natiei nu este asa unidimensionala cum o prezinta unii, romanii s-au dezvoltat intr-un univers, si daca nu intelegem acel univers si nu ne adaptam, vom produce numai martiri si eroi, rezultate deloc. Daca armata romana era pregatita in primul razboi mondial nu ajungeam sa avem eroicele lupte de la Marasesti.
Daca in al doilea razboi mondial armata romana era pregatita, poate nu accepta usor ruperea Basarabiei (1939),  si nici dictatul de la Viena (1940) si poate am fi putut negocia la sfarsitul razboiului un fel de neutralitate ca Finlanda.
Generalul Erwin Romell spunea "Sweat saves blood, blood saves lives, but brains saves both." Sudoarea previne sacrificiul,sacrificiul previne pierderea de  vieti, dar creierul le previne pe amandoua.
Se pare ca pana in '45 adminstratia statului roman, nu a muncit si nici nu a gandit.

Cred ca generatia de la 1848 in pofida defectelor oamenilor poate un exmplu de urmat astazi:
1. au avut idee transcendenta care le-a focalizat eforturile in ciuda certurilor personale: unirea romanilor si ajungerea din urma a tarilor dezvoltate
2. au luat masuri practice: au deschis scoli au instituit burse, au donat bani si proiect pentru proiecte de interes public,au dus o puternica activitate diplomatica. Au incercat sa transplanteze institutii functionale din afara in Romania.
3. au incurajat stabilirea din strainatate a oamenilor tineri si capabili gen Carol Davila,Alfred Saligny tatal viiroului inginer,parintii lui Iulius Popper si altii pe care nu-i stim, datorita unei viziuni nationaliste asupra istoriei.
4.au redescoperit si pastrat folklorul si traditiile nationale fara a se lasa prinsi in scleroza pastrarii  traditiilor cu orice pret.

Trebuie sa ne gasim ideea transcendenta spre care sa ne indreptam, unirea a fost facuta de cei de la 1848 si cei de la 1917, nu mai avem imperiul Otoman la sud, imperiul Habsburgic la vest, iar Rusia e ceva mai departe. Ce ne impiedica sa ne folosim tot potentialul?

PS.
Un alt lucru care ma enerveaza la traditionalistii ortodocsi este faptul ca accepta ierarhia ca un fapt de la sine inteles.
Ierarhia este cel mai necrestin lucru cu putinta. Iisus a spalat picioarele apostolilor, Iisus a intrat in templu si a daramat afacerile preotilor, crestinismul s-a opus adorarii imparatului roman ca zeu, si implicit s-a opus ierarhiei imperiului roman.
Crestinismul este vorba despre idei si libertatea de constiinta nu de acceptarea ierarhiei si de acceptarea oarba a traditiior.

Politicians from Hungary and Alba Iulia Declaration of independence

Recently the hungarian vice prime minister Semj Zsolt in a personal visit in Tusnad Romania Harghita county, declared that Romania should respect Alba Iulia declaration of independence from 1 december 1918.
Let's see if Romanians respected their part of the deal:

"Alba Iulia national assembly resolution:
I. The National Assembly of All Romanians in Transylvania, Banat and the Hungarian Land, gathered through their representatives entitled to Alba-Iulia on 18 November v. 1 December 1918 n., Decreed the unification of those Romanians and all their territories inhabited by Romania . The National Assembly proclaims in particular the inalienable right of the Romanian nation to the entire Banat between the rivers Mureş, Tisa and the Danube.

II. The National Assembly reserves to the territories above indicated provisional autonomy until the Constitution elected on the basis of universal suffrage.

III. In connection with this, as fundamental principles for the composition of the new Romanian State, the National Assembly proclaims the following:

1. Full national freedom for all congregational peoples. Every nation will be educated, administered, and judged in its own language by individuals of its own, and each people will receive the right to be represented in the legislative bodies and government of the country in proportion to the number of individuals that make up it.
2. Equal righteousness and full autonomous confessional freedom for all denominations in the State.
3. The perfect realization of a truly democratically regime in all the fields of public life. Public, equal, secret, common, proportional vote for both genders aged 21 years to represent in communes, counties or parliament.
4. Perfect freedom of press, association and assembly; free propaganda of all human thoughts.
5. Radical agrarian reform. All properties, especially large properties, will be conscripted. On the basis of this enlistment, by abolishing the fideicomis and, under the right to diminish as needed, it will give the peasant the possibility to create a property (archer, pasture, forest) at least as much as he and his family can do. The guiding principle of this agrarian policy is, on the one hand, the promotion of social leveling, on the other hand the potentiation of production.
6. Industrial workers are granted the same rights and advantages as are legally regulated in the most advanced industrial states in the West.
IV. The National Assembly expresses its desire that the Peace Congress should carry out the communion of the free nations in such a way that justice and freedom be secured for all large and small nations alike, and in the future to eliminate war as a means of regulating international relations.

V. The Romanians gathered in this Assembly welcome their brothers from Bukovina, escaped from the yoke of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and united with the mother country Romania.

VI. The National Assembly hails with love and enthusiasm the liberation of the subjugated peoples to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, namely the Czechoslovak, Austro-German, Yugoslav, Polish and Ruthenian nations, and decides to make this salutation known to all those nations.

VII. The National Assembly with humility bowed before the memory of those good Romanians who, in this war, shed their blood for the realization of our ideal dying for the freedom and unity of the Romanian nation.

VIII. The National Assembly expresses its gratitude and admiration to all the allied powers, which, through the brilliant struggles waged by the cerbies against an enemy trained for many decades for war, escaped civilization by the barbarity of the barbaric.

IX. In order to further the business of the Romanian Nation in Transylvania, Banat and Hungary, the National Assembly decides to establish a Great Romanian National Council, which will have all the right to represent the Romanian nation, anytime and everywhere to all the nations of the world and take all the dispositions on which they find necessary in the interest of the nation.

Dr. Laurenţiu Oanea
Notary of the National Assembly

(Stefan Cicio Pop)
Vice-President of the National Assembly"

Comments on each article:
I. ,V,VI have the legitimacy such as the US declaration of indepence: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
Replace in the text of US declaration of independence the word king and with kingdom of Hungary and you get the same results except brits in 1776 didn't try to impose their language on colonists as hungarians did after 1866.
II The 1923 constitution was approved by parliament not by electorate.This is a failure but at the time in Moldova and Walachia a large proportion of the peasants were illiterate, so it less likely that a referendum would make difference.
III.1 Full national freedom meaning education,administration and judging in that national language.
This happened after WW1 and it is valid now, only during communist time the administration in national languages stopped but even then the education in Hungarian and in German continued till high school level.
Till 1944 in Romania existed a party of hungarians and after 1989 exists Democratic Alliance  of Hungarians from Romania UDMR and another party. Also UDMR participated in many governments.
The article 62 (2) allows any minority to enter in the Parliament even if doesn't have enough votes.
Those who seek independence of Hungarians in Transylvania use this article as proof that the national assembly wanted to grant them independence. No they didn't. Independence for Hungarian in 1918 mean unification with Hungary the country that Romanians wanted to separate themselves.
This article is a deal proposal for minorities: we offer you this and implicit protection and you accept the new state.
If the deal was so bad, why Hungarians accepted it? I mean if you look at the map of the time you see Hungarian and German names, if you go into the cities you hear mostly Hungarian and German, you might think that the majority of Transylvanian's were Hungarian.
You can have a territory either if you have population numbers either if you have an army.
The military situation in Transylvania in 1918 is complex, the Hungarian army was disorganised every minority had its own guards, the biggest one been the army or former Romanian soldiers led by Iuliu Maniu another proof that the Romanians were majority then. The Romanian army was mobilised less than a month before declaration of independence so the declaration was done in a territory free of Romanian troops.
I could say that the military situation between the forces pro-independence and those pro-Hungary was balanced, so the numbers were more important.
The majority of Romanians were peasants, for long time there were not alowed to move into town hence this disproportion of 3 to 1 between village and city dwellers and between Romanian's and Hungarians.
Also it didn't help that others minorities which lived in the  such as Germans didn't sided with Hungarians because of their nationalistic policies.
My point here is: some people decide to separate from Hungary as the Americans separated from Great Britain. They promised to those who live with them and they were loyal to Hungary, a fair treatment. In general they kept their promises, except in communist regime imposed by soviet tanks.
III,2 The 22 article of 1923 constitution guaranteed liberty of conscience and specified that orthodox church and greco-catolic church were romanian churches and had higher priority over other cults. But in fact I didn't heard of any hindrance of other confections till the great comunist terror from '50
III.3 The kingdom of Romania was an imperfect democracy with party in power winning the elections. Only after 1989 we could say that our system is more democratic.
III.4 Except year 1938-1989 the press was free
III.5 Done in 1921. This annoyed German and Hungarian minorities because their churches had a lot of land.
III.6 Only in period 1924-1928, and 1934-1938 Romania didn't have social conflicts. This was failure of the independence declaration.
IX. The national assembly appoints a council to promote interests of Romanian's as now the Hungarians appoint their representatives to promote their interests.
Then in 1918 the interest of Hungary and Romanians were divergent. Romanians took a decision and the events after WW1 gave them right.
In conclusion almost all the points were achieved, despite WW2,despite soviet occupation,despite communism.
Why? Because all people Romanians or Hungarians want the same thing personal safety,prosperity freedom to believe in what you want and freedom of speech.
Freedom gained by Romanians in 1989 translated also in freedom for minorities.Then in 1989 they had the same goal, despite 50 years of nationalistic rhetoric.
After 100 years the nationalistic rhetoric of some Hungarian politicians try to make a wedge between interests of Hungarians and Romanians. Interest that at individual level converge but a national level diverge, due to personal ego and greed of politicians who wants to rule more people to own more money.
Viktor Orban can promise anything, He can promise the independence of Szekelly land. If this succeeds he will have all the glory, if it doesn't nobody can blame him. He wins either way, and the people from Romania will pay the price.
Szekelly land Covasna and Harghita counties are more closer to Romanian province Moldavia than to Budapest, and their interest more connected.
The great victory over ottomans of the Moldavian prince Stephen the Great was possible also because of 3000 szekelly fighters.
Szekelly land and Moldova also have in common the poverty and corrupt representatives.
These representatives fight to get a grip on local power ignoring welfare of their counties.If in Moldova are no nationalism to stir, in Transylvania they use Hungarian nationalism.

This are the sources that I used for the text:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Transylvania_with_Romania
and https://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Rezolu%C8%9Biunea_Adun%C4%83rii_Na%C8%9Bionale_de_la_Alba_Iulia

Ce e in sufletul ministrului Daea

Am aflat tarziu si eu de gafa ministrului Daea ca a comparat operatiunea de eliminare a porcilor bolnavi de pesta porcina cu operatiunea de eliminare a evreilor la Auschwitz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnvRS89dFpE
https://newsweek.ro/politica/gafa-incredibila-daea-compara-incinerarea-porcilor-cu-auschwitz-ul
Pentru mine al doilea razboi mondial e ca o hartie de turnesol pentru al doilea razboi mondial:
Daca apreciezi eficacitatea armatei germane de a face fata a 3 puteri mondiale si a SS-ului de a anihila "dusmanii poporului" atunci ai tendinte autoritariste apreciezi forta bruta si supunerea oarba in fata ordinelor. Probabil faci drepti in fata sefului si urli ordine la subalterni.
Pe de alta parte daca apreciezi lupta de rezistenta, capacitatea de a rezista in lagare in fata exterminarii voite a evreilor,polonezilor si rusilor, atunci apreciezi drepturile omului,legea si democratia.
Constatarea de mai sus e generala,nu-l cunosc pe dl. Daea nu stiu daca este un om autoritar care zbiara la angajati, dar ce am remarcat este ca in guvernele lui Dragnea este promovata supusenia.
Erau doi premieri am uitat cu ii cheama ca au zburat ca nu prea raspundeau la comenzi. Ah Grindeanu si Tudose, restul ministrilor care au ramas probabil au plecat capul.
In plus promovarea de catre Dragnea a femeilor nu are nimic cu promovarea lor si egalitatea de sanse. De obicei barbatii sunt mai agresivi si mai competitivi si te poti astepta din partea lor sa te rastoarne si sa-ti ia locul, femeile sunt mai putin agresive.

Resource economy versus market economy

Nature manufactures with what is readily available: if it has Hydrogen,Carbon and Oxygen. It uses this to manufacture what it needs.
On the other side humans are driven by society demands (market): if gold is desired and rare and it is expensive, then humans will cross seas, and mill mountains  to get it.
On the plus side this allowed a better distribution of of resources and of people on earth. Some cities in Siberia exists because of expensive mineral resources.
Also high price of resources developed technologies, expensive spices payed the development of new ships. 
On the minus side it lead to exhaustion of the natural resources.
The whales were many,cheap and had plenty of oil.This lead to excessive hunting, this increased price for them which lead to investment in new,better whale ship, which lead the whales on brink of extinction.
Other disadvantage is that the market demands an expensive good that has higher consts for environment and for society. For example natural diamonds: the only purpose of this trinket is to be on the finger of a lady, but for this tonnes of earth are excavated, children in Africa are enslaved.
The demand of Chinese for donkey skin has determined stealing and slaughtering of these animals in Africa, where the are main way to transport goods.
In global market economy the side effects are payed by someone else from the other part of the globe.
In order to be beneficial the market economy must be rational (this is impossible) and the technology development must be directed toward substitution, and efficiency not to exploitation.
In 19 century while other invested in whaling ships other invested in petroleum. Finally petroleum replaced whaling oil in lightning and lubrication, saving the whales.
If the investments for new whaling ships should have been directed to oil industry, the whaling industry would died off sooner, and we would have more whales now.
If the money invested in new oil wells would have been in invested in new more economic technologies, we would not use tar sands, and drill on the Arctic.

Difference between tribalism and democracy

Till the end of second civil in England the poor and the weak carried fights for heir lords. Peasants were force to conscript, poor people sold they warrior skills as mercenaries.
Once the parliamentarian regime was established the situation reversed: classes and group of interests fought in parliament using members of parliament. A member of the elite fought with words and persuasion for a group that support him, similar like a king against another king in middle age when they tried to avoid bloodshed between armies.
In this way the conflict was brought from society into parliament.
What happens when you cannot solve the problems in parliament? Like now when a majority ignores all common sense and avoid dialogue with opposition?
The conflict goes into the streets, groups are pitied one against another and they form tribes, which eventually try to kill one each other.
The parliamentarian know each other well and it unlikely that will to kill one each other, while the members of the tribes they don't know each other   and they avoid one each other so the likelyhood that the violence will burst is increasing.
A good parliamentarian regime prevents a civil war.

Soft power

In 1939 a polish boy flee his country, to find shelter in Romania against nazi and soviets.
He lived a happy childhood a nice Moldavian village till 1945 when he returned to Poland.
In 1968 he was an officer in Warsaw pact headquarters.
The soviets discussed the invasion of Romania to punish Nicolae Ceausescu for having the nerve to condemn the invasion of Czechoslovakia from the same year.
Finding out about the date and details, he slipped these informations to the country that had provided him a happy childhood.
I am thinking at 2000 children who are separated  from their immigrant parents.
How they will react to USA if they will be send back, or if they will remain.
If they will remain more likely they will be alienated from society, if they will leave they could join the drug cartels who sell drugs in US.
Every man that you upset it is a lost opportunity.
USA the land of opportunities kicked out 2000 of them.

Fate in humanity

You can say about human race that is selfish and cruel but you cannot say that is stupid.
We couldn't survive and thrive if we were stupid.
I think when all the things will go bad, and everyone will be affected in directly in same way, we will do the right thing that the human specie will survive.
We did it with nuclear weapons, we did it with ozone layer and CFC, we did it with lead gasoline.
With these problems it was easier because we had more control and we had options to stop production.
Nuclear weapons were concentrated in hand of few countries (USA,Soviet,Union,China,France and UK)
CFC compounds and lead gasoline  were produced by few.
Also once you removed the CFC and lead gasoline from system this went to normal.
CO2 is produced by many and doesn't affect clearly the life as the nuclear weapons. Also if we don't produce anymore CO2 the response of the system will be slower, it could take decades to come to normal.
We start to lose a lot of money because of climate warming, this will trigger an economic crisis this will reduce consumption, will reduce CO2, and save life
This economic crisis will be the worst to come, emigrants from Africa and Middle East will pour in Europe, China will experience big internal troubles. In general the more populated will be an area, and more incompetent will be the government the worst will be the problems.
USA will have the standard of living lower than now.
The global economy will be history.
But this crisis will save the world, because it will re-balance the consumption and will force people to cooperate, to find solutions.

What is really backing fiat money

The critics of fiat money and supporters of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are saying that the government printed money have value because we agree upon it. At first sight it seems true, but the fiat money cannot have the value 0 as the cryptocurrencies can have because, there will be always a demand for fiat money from government.
The government demands that the taxes to be payed in current currency, if you don't pay your taxes your good will be seized and sold, and if you opposed you be arrested, if you opposed you can be shot.
So fiat money are supported in fact by the barrel of the gun.

What is politics

Suppose you want to punch someone in the face for whatever reason.
If you punch him, the public will intervene to stop you and maybe you be arrested by police.
But instead if you convince that your enemy is a baby killer, a nationalist warmonger, a stoned hippy, a cosmopolitan traitor, a womaniser and a homosexual in same time, the public not only that it will take your side but a bonus, it will lynch you enemy to the nearest tree.
This all the politicians do, they incite the public against their enemies so that they have the hands clean.
In this game, we have the target (the person to be removed),the public, the message to incite the public, the channels, the politicians who stays in the shadow and those who gain fro he turns of events.
The target, the public and the message are clear.
What is not visible are the channels and the politician who benefits.