Motanul Incaltat

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Cele mai tari trei citate

Cristian Preda spune intr-un articol publicat in Ziare.com: „Iar nu ma pot decide – asa ca va invit sa judecati singuri – care e cel mai mare guguman al saptamanii trecute„.

Parerea mea:

Locul 1 – „Summa cum laude” (evident, glumesc 🙂 ):

Olguta Vasilescu: „Eu v-as ruga sa mai puneti mana pe o carte de matematica de clasa a V-a, ca vad ca unii dintre noi nu inteleg limba romana. La fel am spus si anul trecut, dar nu ati fost atenti. Am explicat atunci clar ca dublare nu inseamna automat o crestere cu 100% a salariului. La unii dublare poate fi o crestere de 10% sau chiar o scadere de 40%, depinde de care parte a diagramei te situezi. Eu ce sa va fac daca nu v-a placut matematica? Aici e stiinta pura, nu limbi straine, unde mai poti sa apelezi la gesturi, mimica sau limbaj al trupului”.

Locul 2 – medalia de argint 🙂 :

Petre Daea: „Eu circul bine in Bucuresti, pentru ca sunt invatat cu patinajul. Toata viata mea am fost pe camp si stiu cum sa ma feresc si de groapa si de alunecus, altfel nu ajungeam la anii astia. […] Bucuresti e o capitala frumoasa a tarii romanesti, pe care trebuie s-o respectam. […] E atat de frumoasa incat nu merita sa vezi daca exista o groapa”.

Locul 3 – medalia de bronz 🙂 :

Daniel Zamfir: „Sa ma lase Danca cu principiile liberale! Daca au plafonat [dobanzile] toate statele din SUA, nici acolo nu e liberalism? Si acolo se incalca principii liberale? Spun inca o data: ma doare in cot de principiile liberale pe care le invoca Danca”.

Avem si doua mentiuni! 🙂

Mentiunea 1:

Liviu Dragnea: „Din partea noastra, din partea mea personal, nu a existat in ultimii ani niciun fel de actiune impotriva sistemului judiciar. Daca vom discuta in continuare pe senzatii si pe perceptii, atunci nu o sa fie bine si n-o sa putem merge mai departe in ritmul si pentru atingerea obiectivelor pe care ni le dorim cu totii”.

Mentiunea 2:

Codrin Stefanescu: „Prost esti tu, iti spun direct! Nu te uiti in oglinda? Vii cu totul felul de foi notate, citeste naibii de pe foile alea si nu mai bate campii aici!”.

Citatul din Olguta e uluitor: „Am explicat atunci clar ca dublare nu inseamna automat o crestere cu 100% a salariului. La unii dublare poate fi o crestere de 10% sau chiar o scadere de 40%, depinde de care parte a diagramei te situezi. Eu ce sa va fac daca nu v-a placut matematica?” – asta e ideea care m-a facut sa-i acord medalia de aur!!! 🙂 Va dati seama? Dublarea nu-i de fapt dublare! E de ce parte a diagramei te situezi. Vorbim romaneste, zau asa! 🙂 Deci daca spune dublare, asta poate sa insemne ori o crestere mica, ori o scadere susbstantiala. Zau, chiar trebuie sa va explic notiuni de matematica de clasa a 5-a? 😆 😆 😆 😆

Insa se mai poate remarca ceva la cele zise de Olguta: caracterul mafiot al celor spuse de ea. E ceva infractional in ce spune. Ea incearca sa convinga auditoriul ca ceva nu e de fapt acel ceva, adica o inselaciune in faza initiala: ca dublarea nu e de fapt o dublare, adica nu e asa cum spune si manualul de matematica de clasa a 5-a, ci este ce vrea ea sa insemne, ba chiar mai mult: ceea ce impune ea sa insemne. Exact cum un boss mafiot incearca sa-ti impuna sa intelegi ce vrea el, sfidand bunul simt elementar si definitiile cele mai clare. Este o inselaciune combinata cu exercitiul fortei – doar a ajuns ministru! – in ceea ce a spus Olguta.

E surprinzator sa gasesti similitudini intre Lia Olguta Vasilescu si Al Capone!! 😉

Lia Olguta Vasilescu

 

Al Capone

La Petre Daea – prostia bucolica, senina a baiatului de la tara! 🙂

Daniel Zamfir – Antena 3 din PNL!! 😆 – nu l-au dat inca afara pe asta?

Liviu Dragneace vreti mai multa ipocrizie?

Codrin Stefanescu – cazul rar in care un intelectual se transforma in derbedeu!! Dar, macar, sa fie un derbedeu inteligent… Insa comportamentul si ce-i iese pe gura arata un individ ce e sub nivelul lui prost. Adica spre cretin! Pacat de el!

Recomand citirea integrala si in original a articolului domnului Preda!

La aceste citate as mai adauga unul – nu figureaza in colectia D-lui. Preda –  caruia ii dau Mentiunea 3. E vorba de ce a declarat Marius Pieleanu la emisiunea Denisei Rifai de la Realitatea, si anume ca PSD pentru a avea rezultate pozitive, bune inclusiv in ceea ce priveste guvernarea, „trebuie militarizat”. Ca are sau nu dreptate Dl. Pieleanu si din ce punct de vedere se poate discuta, desigur. Insa ce spune poate fi caracterizat printr-un singur cuvant: FASCISM! Or, eu nu vreau ca sa ma conduca nici un partid militarizat si nici un partid fascist. Romania e o tara libera, democratica, in care libertatea este si trebuie sa fie respectata. Si atunci de ce unii vor sa ne indrepte spre experiente mussoliniene, putiniene, sau cum sa le mai zic? Dar, pe de alta parte, uitati-va numai putin la aceasta poza:

Mussolini – uitati-va ce mutra de pesedist are!! 🙂

Ce sa-i faci? Asta e PSD! Astia sunt pesedistii!!

🙂

Reclame

martie 8, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 comentarii

Super Tuesday

The Washington Post

Super Tuesday state results

Se arata, printre altele, ca:

What happened

Even though he lost Texas, Donald Trump was the clear winner for the Republican Party on Tuesday, ending the day as the unrivaled favorite for the nomination. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton strengthened her momentum, helped in part by a sweep of Southern states with large black voting populations.”

Daca veti deschide link-ul veti gasi si rezultatele.

Am urmarit ceea ce s-a intamplat la aceste alegeri primare din interiorul principalelor doua partide din SUA pe CNN. Am stat pana dimineata pentru ca am vrut sa vad atat comentariile de presa, dar si rezultatele, precum si discursurile candidatilor, focalizandu-mi atentia pe Donald Trump, cautand sa inteleg mai bine fenomenul.

Ce se intampla? Donald Trump a obtinut o victorie stralucita atragand voturi de la un electorat din afara celui traditional al Partidului Republican. Faptul ca a venit in forta, cu discursuri pe masura, stilul acesta, este, dupa cat mi se pare, caracteristic GOP (Partidul Republican). Si se vede ca strategia lui da rezultate. Deoarece, pentru ca sa castigi niste alegeri, ai nevoie sa cumulezi voturi mai mult decat contracandidatii tai. Mai ales ca nici rivalii nu stau cu mainile in san.

Insa e un lucru care e trecut cu vederea (sau poate putin inteles), cel putin la noi: discursul D-lui. Trump. Eu le-am urmarit pe toate, si pe cel al domnilor Sanders si Cruz, si pe cel al doamnei Clinton. Dintre toate acestea, discursul lui Donald Trump a fost cel mai aplicat pe probleme economice, de interes inclusiv pentru cetateanul american.

Dl. Trump, spre exemplu, a pus problema enormului deficit comercial pe care SUA il are in relatia cu China, pe faptul ca trilioane de dolari parasesc America si se muta spre alte zari mai bune, adica paradisuri fiscale. Si, intr-adevar, de ce Apple trebuie sa produca in China si sa nu produca in America? Trebuie stiut ca acest deficit comercial e finantat pana la urma din banii cetatenilor americani si nu ajuta la crearea de locuri de munca in America. De asemenea, a pus problema relocarii unor industrii peste granita, spre exemplu in Mexic. Din partea Mexicului, America „castiga” o imigratie in cea mai mare parte ilegala si devine si o piata de desfacere pentru traficul de droguri. Dl. Trump a si dat exemplu statul New Hampshire unde se traficheaza ilegal, desigur, heroina fara probleme. Dansul a facut referire la Marele Zid Chinezesc insa ideea a fost ca SUA nu poate construi un zid care sa apere granita sudica de o imigratie ilegala care pagubeste tara si prin care se realizeaza traficul de droguri. De asemenea, dansul a sustinut dezideratele republicane: renuntarea la Common Core si Obamacare. De asemenea a vorbit ca va lua masura reducerii de taxe si impozite – masura liberala (in sensul liberalismului clasic, nu al Partidului Democrat) – pentru ca sa stimuleze sectorul privat si capacitatea acestuia de a crea locuri de munca.

Interesant este ca aceste aspecte importante ale discursului sau nu prea sunt prezentate, sau cel putin asa mi se pare mie. Mie mi s-a parut ca a fost un discurs ce s-a deosebit foarte mult de cele dinainte, in care Dl. Trump a fost mai mult concentrat pe a face show. De data aceasta s-a referit la problemele reale ale SUA. Inca nu prea stim care vor sunt coordonatele sale de politica externa, dar mai e timp. Din discurs rezulta ca exista cercuri importante in SUA interesate de astfel de probleme macroeconomice care ingrijoreaza, nu doar Dl. Trump e interesat. Impresia pe care mi-a lasat-o este ca astfel de probleme exista, deci sunt reale, si, drept consecinta, se cer rezolvate.

Presa noastra prezinta partinitor lucrurile, in favoarea Democratilor, mai exact in favoarea D-nei. Clinton – parerea mea. Dar s-ar putea si e foarte probabil sa avem un presedinte republican la Casa Alba. Dl. Trump s-a referit in special la problemele Americii – nu inseamna ca prin discursul sau ar dori sa impuna o conduita generala aliatilor din Europa. Noi insa ar trebui sa ne zbatem sa atragem investitii americane importante in Romania, sa avem un parteneriat economic de succes cu SUA.

Sa vedem acum ce critici i se aduc D-lui. Trump din interiorul partidului sau, partidul republican.

The Rightscoop

Ben Sasse pens ‘Open Letter’ on what Constitutionalists should do if Trump is nominated…

Se arata, printre altele, ca:

„Ben Sasse hits all the right notes in this open letter to Trump supporters about what a Constitutionalist should do if Trump is nominated.

Give it a read:

AN OPEN LETTER TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS

To my friends supporting Donald Trump:

The Trump coalition is broad and complicated, but I believe many Trump fans are well-meaning. I have spoken at length with many of you, both inside and outside Nebraska. You are rightly worried about our national direction. You ache about a crony-capitalist leadership class that is not urgent about tackling our crises. You are right to be angry.

I’m as frustrated and saddened as you are about what’s happening to our country. But I cannot support Donald Trump.

Please understand: I’m not an establishment Republican, and I will never support Hillary Clinton. I’m a movement conservative who was elected over the objections of the GOP establishment. My current answer for who I would support in a hypothetical matchup between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton is: Neither of them. I sincerely hope we select one of the other GOP candidates, but if Donald Trump ends up as the GOP nominee, conservatives will need to find a third option.

Mr. Trump’s relentless focus is on dividing Americans, and on tearing down rather than building back up this glorious nation. Much like President Obama, he displays essentially no understanding of the fact that, in the American system, we have a constitutional system of checks and balances, with three separate but co-equal branches of government. And the task of public officials is to be public “servants.” The law is king, and the people are boss. But have you noticed how Mr. Trump uses the word “Reign” – like he thinks he’s running for King? It’s creepy, actually. Nebraskans are not looking for a king. We yearn instead for the recovery of a Constitutional Republic.

At this point in Nebraska discussions, many of you have immediately gotten practical: “Okay, fine, you think there are better choices than Trump. But you would certainly still vote for Trump over Clinton in a general election, right?”

Before I explain why my answer is “Neither of them,” let me correct some nonsense you might have heard on the internet of late.

WHY I RAN FOR SENATE

***No, I’m not a career politician. (I had never run for anything until being elected to the U.S. Senate fifteen months ago, and I ran precisely because I actually want to make America great again.)
***No, I’m not a lawyer who has never created a job. (I was a business guy before becoming a college president in my hometown.)
***No, I’m not part of the Establishment. (Sheesh, I had attack ads by the lobbyist class run against me while I was on a bus tour doing 16 months of townhalls across Nebraska. Why? Precisely because I was not the preferred candidate of Washington.)
***No, I’m not concerned about political job security. (The very first thing I did upon being sworn in in January 2015 was to introduce a constitutional amendment for term limits – this didn’t exactly endear me to my new colleagues.)
***No, I’m not for open borders. (The very first official trip I took in the Senate was to observe and condemn how laughably porous the Texas/Mexican border is. See 70 tweets from @bensasse in February 2015.)
***No, I’m not a “squishy,” feel-good, grow-government moderate. (I have the 4th most-conservative voting record in the Senate: https://www.conservativereview.com/members/benjamin-sasse/http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com/membe…/member/S001197 )

In my very first speech to the Senate, I told my colleagues that “The people despise us all.” This institution needs to get to work, not on the lobbyists’ priorities, but on the people’s:

Now, to the question at hand: Will I pledge to vote for just any “Republican” nominee over Hillary Clinton?

Let’s begin by rejecting naïve purists: Politics has no angels. Politics is not about creating heaven on earth. Politics is simply about preserving a framework for ordered liberty – so that free people can find meaning and happiness not in politics but in their families, their neighborhoods, their work.

POLITICAL PARTIES

Now, let’s talk about political parties: parties are just tools to enact the things that we believe. Political parties are not families; they are not religions; they are not nations – they are often not even on the level of sports loyalties. They are just tools. I was not born Republican. I chose this party, for as long as it is useful.

If our Party is no longer working for the things we believe in – like defending the sanctity of life, stopping ObamaCare, protecting the Second Amendment, etc. – then people of good conscience should stop supporting that party until it is reformed.

VOTING

Now, let’s talk about voting: Voting is usually just about choosing the lesser evil of the most viable candidates.

“Usually…” But not always. Certain moments are larger. They cause us to explicitly ask: Who are we as a people? What does the way we vote here say about our shared identity? What is actually the president’s job?

THE PRESIDENT’S CORE CALLING

The president’s job is not about just mindlessly shouting the word “strong” – as if Vladimir Putin, who has been strongly bombing civilian populations in Syria the last month, is somehow a model for the American presidency. No, the president’s core calling is to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution.”

Before we ever get into any technical policy fights – about pipelines, or marginal tax rates, or term limits, or Medicare reimbursement codes – America is first and fundamentally about a shared Constitutional creed. America is exceptional, because she is at her heart a big, bold truth claim about human dignity, natural rights, and self-control – and therefore necessarily about limited rather than limitless government.

THE MEANING OF AMERICA

America is the most exceptional nation in the history of the world because our Constitution is the best political document that’s ever been written. It said something different than almost any other government had said before: Most governments before said that might makes right, that government decides what our rights are and that the people are just dependent subjects. Our Founders said that God gives us rights by nature, and that government is not the author or source of our rights. Government is just our shared project to secure those rights.

Government exists only because the world is fallen, and some people want to take your property, your liberty, and your life. Government is tasked with securing a framework for ordered liberty where “we the people” can in our communities voluntarily build something great together for our kids and grandkids. That’s America. Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of speech – the First Amendment is the heartbeat of the American Constitution, of the American idea itself.

WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO MR. TRUMP?

So let me ask you: Do you believe the beating heart of Mr. Trump’s candidacy has been a defense of the Constitution? Do you believe it’s been an impassioned defense of the First Amendment – or an attack on it?

Which of the following quotes give you great comfort that he’s in love with the First Amendment, that he is committed to defending the Constitution, that he believes in executive restraint, that he understands servant leadership?

Statements from Trump:
***“We’re going to open up libel laws and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before.”
***“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak…”
***Putin, who has killed journalists and is pillaging Ukraine, is a great leader.
***The editor of National Review “should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him.”
***On whether he will use executive orders to end-run Congress, as President Obama has illegally done: “I won’t refuse it. I’m going to do a lot of things.” “I mean, he’s led the way, to be honest with you.”
***“Sixty-eight percent would not leave under any circumstance. I think that means murder. It think it means anything.”
***On the internet: “I would certainly be open to closing areas” of it.
***His lawyers to people selling anti-Trump t-shirts: “Mr. Trump considers this to be a very serious matter and has authorized our legal team to take all necessary and appropriate actions to bring an immediate halt…”
***Similar threatening legal letters to competing campaigns running ads about his record.

And on it goes…

IF MR. TRUMP BECOMES THE NOMINEE…

Given what we know about him today, here’s where I’m at: If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, my expectation is that I will look for some third candidate – a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.

I do not claim to speak for a movement, but I suspect I am far from alone. After listening to Nebraskans in recent weeks, and talking to a great many people who take oaths seriously, I think many are in the same place. I believe a sizable share of Christians – who regard threats against religious liberty as arguably the greatest crisis of our time – are unwilling to support any candidate who does not make a full-throated defense of the First Amendment a first commitment of their candidacy.

Conservatives understand that all men are created equal and made in the image of God, but also that government must be limited so that fallen men do not wield too much power. A presidential candidate who boasts about what he’ll do during his “reign” and refuses to condemn the KKK cannot lead a conservative movement in America.

TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT

Thank you for listening. While I recognize that we disagree about how to make America great again, we agree that this should be our goal. We need more people engaged in the civic life of our country—not fewer. I genuinely appreciate how much many of you care about this country, and that you are demanding something different from Washington. I’m going to keep doing the same thing.

But I can’t support Donald Trump.

Humbly,

Ben Sasse
Nebraska”

Dude makes a lot of sense. I don’t think all of Trump’s followers care about the Constitution, so this probably won’t reach them – but SOME do. And they really need to strongly reconsider what it means to elect Trump as our nominee.”

In presa noastra s-a prezentat cum ca ar fi vorba de un „razboi civil” in randul republicanilor. Mai degraba este vorba de atitudini si e normal sa fie asa intr-o societate libera.

Criticile aduse lui Trump de catre constitutionalisti sunt justificate. Pentru ca in America, nerespectarea Constitutiei poate echivala cu instaurarea unei dictaturi. Asta e lucrul cel mai periculos. Iar Dl. Trump trebuie sa tina cont, dupa parerea mea, de aceste critici. Recentele sale declaratii au pus, desigur, pe ganduri oamenii. De asemenea, un sfat pe care i l-as da D-lui. Trump este sa se fereasca de orice declaratii rasiste sau cu iz rasist. Un presedinte republican – Abraham Lincoln – a militat si a reusit sa aboleasca sclavia negrilor in SUA! Cum a remarcat un invitat la CNN, Ku Klux Klan a actionat dupa o agenda progresivista, pe criterii de rasa, iar Partidul Democrat divide si acum societatea americana pe criterii de rasa. Iar Dl. Trump si tot Partidul Republican ar trebui sa-si aminteasca de cuvintele lui Antonin Scalia:

„To pursue the concept of racial entitlement—even for the most admirable and benign of purposes—is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American.[76]

Deci „in ochii guvernului suntem o singura rasa. Suntem americani.” si aceasta e atitudinea corecta.

Iata ce a aparut in presa noastra:

Gandul

Explicaţie uluitoare a lui Donald Trump pentru refuzul de a se delimita de Ku Klux Klan care îl susţine în alegeri

Se arata ca:

Candidatul în alegerile primare republicane Donald Trump a refuzat duminică să se distanţeze de fostul lider al Ku Klux Klan (KKK) David Duke, care a anunţat că-l susţine, miliardarul atrăgându-şi astfel un val de critici, relatează AFP în pagina electronică.

Duke a fost liderul organizaţiei rasiste în anii ’70, dar s-a distanţat de mişcare la sfârşitul deceniului trecut.

Însă el apără în continuare teoria superiorităţii rasei albe, revizioniste, şi-i atacă în mod regulat pe evrei.

Întrebat despre susţinerea pe care şi-a exprimat-o acest reprezentant al extremismului din Statele Unite faţă de el, Donald Trump a dat asigurări că nu ştie nimic despre David Duke.

El şi-a schimbat astfel poziţia, după ce a afirmat vineri că dezavuează această susţinere.

Îndemnat să condamne Ku Klux Klan şi mişcările care susţin extremismul, Donald Trump a declarat că mai întâi trebuie să se „informeze” cu privire la aceste grupări.

„Nu vreţi să condamn o grupare despre care nu ştiu nimic. Va trebui să mă informez”, a declarat promotorul newyorkez pentru CNN.

Aceste declaraţii ambigue au fost condamnate de către trei dintre ceilalţi patru candidaţi în cursa pentru obţinerea învestiturii republicane în vederea alegerilor prezidenţiale de pe 8 noiembrie.

„Într-adevăr trist, @realDonaldTrump, valorezi mai mult. Trebuie să fim cu toţii de acord, rasismul este un lucru rău, KKK este detestabil”, a afirmat Ted Cruz într-un mesaj postat pe Twitter.

„Mişcările care promovează ura nu au ce căuta în Statele Unite. Suntem mai puternici împreună. Şi atât”, a subliniat, la rândul său John Kasich.

„Nu putem să fim un partid care să desemneze pe cineva care refuză să condamne apărătorii supremaţiei albe şi Ku Klux Klan-ul”, a afirmat, de asemenea, Marco Rubio, într-un mesaj postat pe Twitter.

Această polemică are loc în contextul în care trei persoane au fost rănite cu arme albe, dintre care una grav, în timpul unor ciocniri, sâmbătă, în California, între membri Ku Klux Klan şi opozanţi ai grupării.

Donald Trump a fost criticat duminică şi din cauza unei mesaj pe care l-a postat pe Twitter.

Criticat pentru că a republicat un mesaj postat pe Twitter în care era citat fostul dictator italian Benito Mussolini, el şi-a apărat gestul şi a spus că nu-l interesează autorul, ci acel citat în sine.

„Mai bine trăieşti o zi ca un leu, decât o sută ca o oaie”, este citatul republicat de către Trump.”

Asemenea atitudini nu-i fac bine D-lui. Trump si ar trebui sa se fereasca de acestea. La CNN, intr-o disputa aprinsa, un analist de culoare a pus corect problema: daca e impotriva terorismului atat de hotarat, de ce nu spune despre Ku Klux Klan ca e o organizatie terorista? Asemenea inclinatii catre Putin sau Benito Mussolini, sau admiratia pentru forta Partidului Comunist Chinez, evident ca au ridicat semne de intrebarea in interiorul GOP… Insa Dl. Trump ar trebui sa se gandeasca la faptul ca mesajele pe care le transmite sunt privite cu interes de Uniunea Europeana, de aliatii Statelor Unite. E foarte probabil sa ajunga Presedintele SUA. Cum ar trebui sa privim noi aceste afirmatii care denota admiratie fata de puterea unor dictatori sau care mangaie pe crestet Ku Klux Klan-ul? Evident, astfel de mesaje sunt extrem de toxice si te-ar putea duce cu gandul la transformarea Lumii Libere intr-una totalitara. Fereasca Dumnezeu de asa ceva!

De aceea respectarea Constitutiei SUA trebuie sa fie o prioritate pentru Dl. Trump si dorim sa vedem o atitudine in acest sens. Nu doar una conservatoare, dar si una constitutionalista, care apara Constitutia SUA si intreaga Lume Libera. Este deosebit de important pentru Europa, pentru tinerele democratii din Europa de Est, tari supuse in perioada postbelica unor regimuri comuniste, dictatoriale, in care au suferit milioane de oameni! Asemenea derapaje de la Constitutia SUA trebuie condamnate!! Iar Dl. Trump ar trebui sa le evite cu orice pret. O America mareata nu inseamna o America mussoliniana, o America fascista in care drepturile si libertatile oamenilor sa fie incalcate!

Daca Dl. Trump isi va revizui atitudinea, comportamentul si declaratiile, va reusi sa coaguleze intreg Partidul Republican de partea sa. Dansul a vorbit despre extinderea partidului, de marirea partidului, pentru ca a atras sustinatori din afara lui. Insa lucrul acesta nu trebuie facut cu orice pret, cu pretul incalcarii Constitutiei SUA.

Speram ca alegerile din SUA nu vor aduce un Presedinte ce sa provoace derapaje grave, derapaje de la Constitutia SUA, ce ar putea influenta toxic, negativ Uniunea Europeana si relatiile SUA cu Uniunea Europeana. E o perioada de dezbateri, fara indoiala. Iar acestea trebuie sa fie constructive. Totusi, in discursul sau Dl. Trump a lansat cateva teme de dezbatere interesante. I s-a pus o intrebare si despre atitudinea D-lui. Ben Sasse. A evitat un raspuns direct si clar. Speram sa ia aminte totusi la aceste critici. Si sa-si aminteasca faptul ca America a reprezentat pentru Europa un far al Libertatii, pentru Europa de Est a reprezentat speranta pentru o societate libera, dupa decenii de totalitarism. Mie mi-e teama ca o deplasare politica a SUA in zona fascismului ar putea reprezenta un dezastru in Europa. Speram sa nu se intample asa ceva!

In rest, da, sunt de acord cu temele de dezbatere propuse de Dl. Trump. Trebuie sa tratam problemele cu luciditate.

Recomand citirea integrala si in original a tuturor articolelor.

martie 3, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 48 comentarii

Asupra unui editorial…

Am citit un editorial al D-lui Cristian Campeanu in Romania Libera:

Spre ce duce alianţa Ponta, Crin & Voiculescu

in care, la inceput, se arata:

„Când lumea se înghesuie să facă tot felul de comparaţii neghioabe între Ceauşescu şi Mubarak sau, şi mai excitant, între ultimul şi Băsescu, în aşteptarea marii revoluţii socialiste care nu mai vine, cel mai bun lucru este să explicăm de ce ne îndreptăm spre un regim de tip fascist sub noua coaliţie de stânga.

Dezbaterea academică privind găsirea unei definiţii complete, universal acceptate a fascismului este atât de complexă încât unii istorici s-au declarat obligaţi să admită că o asemenea definiţie pur şi simplu nu există. Ceea ce nu înseamnă că nu există trăsături pe care un observator raţional şi informat să le poată identifica pe loc ca fasciste, ci că nu există un set complet de astfel de trăsături. Pe aceste baze teoretice modeste se poate susţine cu argumente că noua coaliţie de stânga formată de Ponta, Crin şi Voiculescu (PC&V) se pregăteşte să introducă în România un regim de tip fascist.”

Recomand, fireste, citirea intregului editorial. Dar recomand de asemenea citirea pe Wikipedia asupra ceea ce inseamna fascism. Dupa cum se poate vedea din ceea ce ne spune Wikipedia, fascismul are cateva trasaturi destul de clar, daca nu chiar foarte clar conturate. Una din trasaturile fundamentale ale fascismului nu este neaparat corporatismul, desi nu neg ca acesta ar fi juca un rol central in ideologia fascista. Ci nationalismul! Iata ce spunea Benito Mussolini:

We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism. Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program, and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative. If its views had prevailed, our survival in the world of today would be impossible.”(subl.mea)

Socialistii erau internationalisti, deci se opuneau, in viziunea dictatorului italian, nationalismului. Fascistii vedeau in internationalismul proletar un esec.

Este adevarat ca, in ceea ce priveste problemele economice, Wikipedia ne spune ca:

„On economic issues, fascists reject Marxist ideas of class conflict and internationalism in favour of class collaboration and statistnationalism.[56][57] However, Italian fascism also declared its objection to excessive capitalism, which it called supercapitalism.[58]Zeev Sternhell sees fascism as an anti-Marxist form of socialism,[59] but he still places fascism on the political Right.[60]

A number of fascist movements described themselves as a „third force” outside of the traditional political spectrum.[61] Mussolini promoted ambiguity about fascism’s positions in order to rally as many people to it as possible, saying fascists can be „aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists”.[62] Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism’s economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved „the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation.”[63]”

Si mai spune ca:

„Fascists supported the unifying of proletarian workers to their cause along corporatistic, socialistic, or syndicalistic lines, promoting the creation of a strong proletarian nation, but not a proletarian class.[204] Italian Fascism’s economy was based on corporatism, and a number of other fascist movements similarly promoted corporatism. Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists, describing fascist corporatism, said that „it means a nation organized as the human body, with each organ performing its individual function but working in harmony with the whole”.[205] Fascists were not hostile to the petit-bourgeoisie or to small businesses, and they promised these groups, alongside the proletariat, protection from the upper-class bourgeoisie, big business, and Marxism. The promotion of these groups is the source of the term „extremism of the centre” to describe fascism.[206]

Fascism blamed capitalist liberal democracies for creating class conflict and communists for exploiting it.[207] In Italy, the Fascist period presided over the creation of the largest number of state-owned enterprises in Western Europe, such as the nationalisation of petroleum companies into a single state enterprise called the Italian General Agency for Petroleum (Azienda Generale Italiani Petroli, AGIP).[208] Fascists made populist appeals to the middle class, especially the lower middle class, by promising to protect small businesses and property owners from communism, and by promising an economy based on competition and profit while pledging to oppose big business.[206]

In 1933, Benito Mussolini declared Italian Fascism’s opposition to the „decadent capitalism” that he claimed prevailed in the world at the time, but he did not denounce capitalism entirely. Mussolini claimed that capitalism had degenerated in three stages, starting with dynamic or heroic capitalism (1830–1870), followed by static capitalism (1870–1914), and reaching its final form of decadent capitalism or „supercapitalism” beginning in 1914.[58] Mussolini argued that Italian Fascism was in favour of dynamic and heroic capitalism for its contribution to industrialism and its technical developments, but that it did not favour supercapitalism, which he claimed was incompatible with Italy’s agricultural sector.[58]

Thus Mussolini claimed that Italy under Fascist rule was not capitalist in the contemporary use of the term, which referred to supercapitalism.[58] Mussolini denounced supercapitalism for causing the „standardization of humankind” and for causing excessive consumption.[209] Mussolini claimed that at the stage of supercapitalism, „a capitalist enterprise, when difficulties arise, throws itself like a dead weight into the state’s arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously.”[210] He saw Fascism as the next logical step to solve the problems of supercapitalism and claimed that this step could be seen as a form of earlier capitalism which involved state intervention, saying „our path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head. In either event, the result is the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation.”[63]

Other fascist regimes were indifferent or hostile to corporatism. The Nazis initially attempted to form a corporatist economic system like that of Fascist Italy, creating the National Socialist Institute for Corporatism in May 1933, which included many major economists who argued that corporatism was consistent with National Socialism.[211][212] In Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke enthusiastically about the „National Socialist corporative idea” as one which would eventually „take the place of ruinous class warfare”[213] However, the Nazis later came to view corporatism as detrimental to Germany and institutionalizing and legitimizing social differences within the German nation. Instead, the Nazis began to promote economic organisation that emphasized the biological unity of the German national community.[214]

Hitler continued to refer to corporatism in propaganda, but it was not put into place, even though a number of Nazi officials such as Walther Darré, Gottfried Feder, Alfred Rosenburg, and Gregor Strasser were in favour of a neo-medievalist form of corporatism, since corporations had been influential in German history in the medieval era.[215]

Spanish Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera did not believe that corporatism was effective and denounced it as a propaganda ploy, saying „this stuff about the corporative state is another piece of windbaggery”.[216]

Dar fascismul nu se reduce numai la atat. Practic, exista si alte elemente, fara de care, daca pot spune asa, fascismul nu ar mai fi fascism. In primul rand, cred, fenomenul ar trebui analizat din punct de vedere cultural, pentru ca aici sunt cateva din trasaturile sale definitorii.

Fascismul a promovat principiul masculinitatii, eroismul, militarismul si disciplina, si a respins pluralismul cultural si multicultualismul. Mussolini a spus : „war is to man what maternity is to the woman„. Interesant este ce ne spune Wikipedia despre rolul femeii in societatea fascista:

Italian Fascism stood in favour of expanding voting rights to women. In 1920, Benito Mussolini declared that „Fascists do not belong to the crowd of the vain and skeptical who undervalue women’s social and political importance. Who cares about voting? You will vote!”.[179] In November 1925, women were given restricted voting rights, juxtaposed to the eliminaton of opposition parties and enabling of the Fascist government to rule with dictatorial powers. Fascist women’s organizations, disgruntled at the lukewarm reforms, were then made subordinate to the secretariat of the party, headed by Fascist conservative and misogynistRoberto Farinacci, although gradual women’s suffrage was retained.[180][179] In the 1920s, the Italian Fascist government’s Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro (OND) allowed working women to attend various entertainment and recreation events, including sports that in the past had traditionally been played by men.[181] The regime was criticized by the Roman Catholic Church, which claimed that these activities were causing „masculinization” of women.[182] The Fascists responded to such criticism by restricting women to only being allowed to take part in „feminine” sports, forbidding them to be part of sports that were played mostly by men.[182]

Mussolini perceived women’s primary role as childbearers, while men were warriors; he once said, „war is to man what maternity is to the woman”.[183] In an effort to increase birthrates, the Italian Fascist government gave financial incentives to women who raised large families and initiated policies designed to reduce the number of women employed.[184] Italian Fascism called for women to be honoured as „reproducers of the nation”, and the Italian Fascist government held ritual ceremonies to honour women’s role within the Italian nation.[185] In 1934, Mussolini declared that employment of women was a „major aspect of the thorny problem of unemployment” that Italy was facing at the time and that for women, working was „incompatible with childbearing”. Mussolini went on to say that the solution to unemployment for men was the „exodus of women from the work force”.[186]

Nazi policies toward women strongly encouraged them to stay at home to bear children and keep house.[187] This policy was reinforced by bestowing the Cross of Honor of the German Mother on women bearing four or more babies. The unemployment rate was cut substantially, mostly through arms production and sending women home so that men could take their jobs. Nazi propaganda sometimes promoted premarital and extramarital sexual relations, unwed motherhood and divorce, but at other times the Nazis opposed such behaviour.[188] The growth of Nazi power, however, was accompanied by a breakdown of traditional sexual morals with regard to extramarital sex and licentiousness.[189]” (subl.mea)

Pe de alta parte se opuneau homosexualitatii.

De asemenea Fascismul s-a bazat pe rasism. Practic un partid fascist este un partid rasist. Iata ce spunea Mussolini:

The singular, enormous problem is the destiny of the white race. Europe is truly towards the end of its destiny as the leader of civilization.” (subl. mea)

Practic un partid fascist este un partid nationalist, rasist si care exacerbeaza principiul masculinitatii, bazat pe ateism, sau, asa cum arata Wikipedia, pe un „post-crestinism”. Ideea era distrugerea crestinatatii si punerea societatii omenesti pe cu totul alte baze decat cele crestine, adica pe cele ale darwinismului social (care sa asigure si sa garanteze politica rasista) si ale interventionismului social, pentru crearea unui „om nou” si a unei „civilizatii noi” (se vad, in acest punct, asemanari izbitoare cu comunismul, deoarece si comunismul vroia sa creeze un om nou, iar homo sovieticus e doar un exemplu in acest sens). Darwinismul social le permitea sa absolutizeze conflictul, vazut ca generator de progres si civilizatie. Iar pe aceasta teorie nazistii au contruit teoria rasei superioare, care trebuia sa iasa invingatoare din ceea ce ei numeau lupta de rasa (ca de aia era superioara, nu?) care continua in competitia si conflictul dintre rase.

Iata ce ne zice Wikipedia:

„Italian Fascist Alfredo Rocco claimed that conflict was inevitable: Conflict is in fact the basic law of life in all social organisms, as it is of all biological ones; societies are formed, gain strength, and move forwards through conflict; the healthiest and most vital of them assert themselves against the weakest and less well adapted through conflict; the natural evolution of nations and races takes place through conflict.”

De unde se poate observa clar ca aceste teorii duceau la concluzia ca si razboiul este inevitabil.

Ar mai trebui remarcat ca problema avorturilor, spre exemplu, era vazuta tot din perspectiva rasiala: acestea erau deseori obligatorii pentru non-arieni. In schimb, pentru rasa ariana, „pura”, avorturile erau strict interzise. In Italia, pedepsele pentru avort au crescut in 1926, si acestea erau declarate crime impotriva statului (din nou o asemanare izbitoare cu comunismul, sau, mai exact spus, cu ceausismul).

De asemenea un alt element cararcteristic al fascismului este indoctrinarea prin folosirea aparatului de propaganda. Indoctrinarea avea drept scop glorificarea miscarii fasciste si trebuia sa sublinieze marele sau rol istoric. Fascismul era o miscare anti-intelectuala. Iata ce spune Wikipedia:

„Therefore, fascism tends to be anti-intellectual.[167] The Nazis, in particular, despised intellectuals and university professors. Hitler declared them unreliable, useless, and even dangerous.[168] He said: „When I take a look at the intellectual classes we have – unfortunately, I suppose, they are necessary; otherwise one could one day, I don’t know, exterminate them or something – but unfortunately they’re necessary.”

Si, bineineles, un regim fascist este unul dictatorial – fascistii promovau un stat totalitar. Pe de alta parte expansionismul imperialist era privit ca o necesitate. Iata ce spune un fascist japonez despre democratie:

„Japanese fascist Nakano Seigo advocated that Japan follow the Italian and German models, which were „a form of more democratic government going beyond democracy” which itself had „lost its spirit and decayed into a mechanism which insists only on numerical superiority without considering the essence of human beings.”

Iar pe de alta parte elementul central de autoritate, cheia autoritarismului, era liderul:

„A key authoritarian element of fascism is its endorsement of a prime national leader, who is often known simply as the „Leader” or a similar title, such as Duce in Italian, Führer in German, Caudillo in Spanish, Poglavnik in Croatia, or Conducător in Romanian. Fascist leaders who ruled countries were not always heads of state, but were heads of government, such as Benito Mussolini, who held power under the King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel III.”

Mi se pare deosebit de important ce spune si anume ca: liderii fascisti care conduceau tara nu erau numai si sefi de stat, cat si sefii guvernului. Practic, toata puterea de decizie era concentrata in mana unui singur om – liderul!

Am facut acest preambul pentru ca oamenii ar trebui sa citeasca si sa se informeze asupra a ceea ce a fost si este fascismul. Cu o asemenea teorie nu este de glumit. Pentru ca asemenea teorii au condus la catastrofe in Istorie, la tragedii de neinchipuit! A condus la una din cele mai monstruoase file din Istoria Umanitatii – nazismul, caracterizat prin exterminarea omului de catre om si la cel de-al doilea razboi mondial.

Sa caracterizezi balacareala damboviteana drept fascism, este o exagerare ce poate fi periculoasa. Este regretabil ca se ajunge la un asemenea discurs. Astfel de discursuri pot conduce la o radicalizare absolut inutila a unei lupte politice care, ce-i drept, s-a acutizat in ultima vreme. Eu cred ca cel mai bine ar fi ca partidele noastre politice sa caute solutii economice pentru iesirea din impas. Eu cred ca aceasta ar trebui sa fie prioritatea numarul 1 si sa mai lasam prostiile despre fascism, ca nu duc la ceva bun. In niciun caz la o viata mai buna, asa cum Istoria a si demonstrat dealtfel. Ma mira ca s-a ajuns la astfel de discursuri, de pareri exprimate in tusele cele mai groase. Eu cred ca ar cam trebui sa ne calmam cu totii. Pentru ca daca vrem cu adevarat sa gasim solutii democratice, atunci le putem si gasi.

Realitatile din Romania de azi sunt destul de precare, asta e adevarat. Criza economica a determinat un declin economic ce se face simtit in viata noastra. Insa daca abordarea problemei se va face cu calm, realist, fara patima si ura, atunci se pot gasi si solutii. Trebuie spus ca solutiile depind de noi, in primul rand. Avem un stil de a astepta solutii venite din alta parte – UE, SUA, etc. Este o greseala, pentru ca nimeni nu ne va rezolva problemele.  Una e ca cineva sa te sprijine, si alta e ca sa-ti rezolve problemele. Mie mi se pare ca noi nu prea intelegem lucrul acesta. Problema nu este atat razbunarea, tragerea la raspundere si nici nu cred ca mesaje de genul: „pedepsirea vinovatilor pentru tot ce s-a gresit in acesti doi ani” vor aduce ceva bun. Deoarece acest lucru ar putea conduce spre o curba periculoasa a razbunarilor politice si ar putea produce mai multe abuzuri decat lasa sa se intrevada. In niciun caz nu este de natura sa asigure o pace sociala. Ci cred ca ar trebui sa ne mobilizam, daca se poate spune asa, capacitatea de a gasi solutii pe cale democratica, intr-un climat de pace sociala. In special solutii economice. Pacea sociala conteaza foarte mult si aceasta se poate obtine numai daca vom privi problemele si vom actiona fara patima si ura. Poate ca discursurile ingrijoratoare despre fascism pe care, iata, le vedem in editoriale si pe bloguri, reflecta tocmai aceasta stare de patima interioara si de ura, stare care ne-a cuprins pe toti, din disperare si frustrari, dar care nu este in regula. Pentru ca ne radicalizeaza inutil. Si, de suferit, tot noi vom suferi pana la urma. In general vorbind, o lume mai buna nu se poate construi asa. Iar aceste discursuri despre fascism, in felul acesta, Puterea si Opozitia gratulandu-se reciproc cu epitete care mai de care, sunt periculoase pentru ca, tot repetate, Doamne fereste, chiar ca ar putea sa ne conduca spre un astfel de regim. Si nu cred ca armonia sociala se poate obtine cu discursuri radicale.

februarie 4, 2011 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Un comentariu