QR Code Business Card

Join Us on FACEBOOKVă invit să vă alăturaţi grupului Facebook Mişcarea DACIA, ce-şi propune un alt fel de a face politică!

Citiţi partea introductivă şi proiectul de Program, iar dacă vă place, veniţi cu noi !
O puteţi face clicând alături imaginea, sau acest link

Hyperian History Of The World (20th Century, Part 5)

Dicembre 5th, 2019 No Comments   Posted in Dacia Iluministă


Hyperian History Of The World (20th Century, Part 5)

The fracture of humanity was greatly affecting both the arts and the academic world in the 20th century, but it was far more evident in the tumultuous political events of the time. The 19th century had seen a rise in nationalism in the nations of Europe. At the beginning of that century, both Germany and Italy were, as they had been for centuries, collections of smaller city states. By the end of the 19th century, both Italy and Germany had become single, unified nations.

Nationalism in Europe at the time led to each nation taking great pride in their history and culture, but also to each nation trying to outdo the others in terms of industry, economics, technology and, more ominously, weaponry. New weapons technology led to each nation attempting to make for itself the strongest, most powerful armed force that it could. Inevitably, this arms race would lead to war.

European nations had been perennially at war for centuries, but in the 20th century, partly due to these new weapons, warfare would become greater and more terrible than ever before, involving enough nations so as become known as ‘World Wars’.

The first world war began in 1914 when the tensions which had been building between the nations of Europe finally broke. Driven by national pride and eager to serve and defend their country, hundreds of thousands of soldiers were sent off to fight, yet this was the first major war to make use of the new weapons technologies, the effects of which would be terrible. Fighting in the trenches was simply a slaughterhouse, and the insignificance of the initial causes of the war only made the horror all the more senseless.

In 1917 Russia left the war in order to take care of events back home. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was really two revolutions. The first one, in February, saw the people rise up against the ruling Romanov dynasty, one of the old powers of Europe, leading to a confused state of affairs in which numerous factions tried to take control. This led to the second revolution, in October, which was more of a coup by the Bolshevik party led by Lenin. Eventually, inspired by the communism of Karl Marx, Russia and other countries became the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics firstly under Lenin and, after Lenin’s death, under Josef Stalin.

Meanwhile the first world war had ended and Germany, having lost, entered a period of almost poverty. The nationalistic spirit was still very much alive however, particularly in the younger nations of Germany and Italy. This led to the rise of fascism in both of these nations, firstly in Italy under Benito Mussolini, and secondly in Germany with the rise of National Socialism and Adolf Hitler.

Whilst the USSR had become a communist tyranny under Stalin (far from the utopian equality which Marx had imagined), Germany, under the Nazis, took nationalism to the extreme, with Hitler’s ideology being that the German people were the master race and all others were inferior, with particular attention being given to the Jews.

Hitler’s thirst for power (like that of Napoleon over a century earlier) eventually led to the second world war, which began in 1939. As Hitler attempted to control all of Europe and bring it under his control, he was resisted by the Soviet Union and the allied powers, whilst his allies, Japan, after attacking Pearl Harbour in 1941, launched a war in the pacific against the USA. Across the world, violence erupted, but the main war was between the conflicting ideologies of Hitler and Stalin and the fight between Germany and the Soviet Union took violence and horror to another level. The battle of Stalingrad, for example, lasted over five months and more than two million were killed.

Whilst all this was going on, Hitler was also taking his program of racial superiority to its horrifying conclusion. In the course of the war, some twelve million people, half of them Jews, were taken to concentration camps and slaughtered, in what is known as the Holocaust.

In 1945 the Soviets entered Berlin. Knowing that the game was up, Hitler committed suicide and the Nazi regime crumbled. The concentration camps were liberated and the war in Europe ended. Unfortunately, the war in the pacific continued, with the Japanese refusing to surrender. This caused the USA to take drastic action. The major advances in science, particularly in physics, hadn’t failed to be noticed by military forces, and the new science had led to the creation of the most terrible weapon of all, the atomic bomb. Knowing that the Nazis were working on something similar, leading scientists, including Einstein himself who, being Jewish, had fled Germany to the USA, convinced the US government to develop the weapon themselves before the Nazis did. Eventually, as the Japanese refused to stop fighting, President Harry S. Truman ordered the atomic bomb to be dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, although not before dropping thousands of leaflets on the city from the sky informing the people what was about to happen. Nonetheless the city was destroyed and hundreds of thousands killed. Amazingly, the Japanese government still refused to surrender and the US dropped a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki. Finally the Japanese surrendered and the war came to a horrifying end.

Whilst Hitler had killed twelve million in the holocaust and millions more had died in the war, Stalin, who had won the war, wasn’t doing any better at home. His communist regime had become so extreme that any resistance was snuffed out immediately. It is not known exactly how many millions were killed by Stalin and something similar would happen in China, which also adopted communism under Mao. The theme of the century seemed to be mass slaughter.

The conflict of ideologies now led to the ‘Cold War’ between the USA and the USSR. Whilst the Soviets had communism, the USA had capitalism and democracy. No actual war was fought between these two powers, yet the whole world now lived under the constant threat of Nuclear War, with more and more nations developing these terrible weapons.

However, a better result of the cold war was the quest for both of these nations to outdo each other technologically. This was best represented by the ‘Space Race’. Despite the horror of the century’s events, humanity still achieved some wondrous things. In 1961, Soviet astronaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human being to travel into space. After this, US President Kennedy vowed to outdo the Soviets and land a man on the moon. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, yet the program continued and, in 1969, Neil Armstrong walked upon the moon. This was a truly staggering achievement, one of the greatest human endeavours in history.

The USA had begun as a new power, yet had soon fallen under the sway of all the old powers. Both the USSR and the Nazis had been new powers, but the wrong people had ended up in charge. The success of the moon landing was the result of the right people being put in charge of it and the best, most intelligent and skilled individuals being utilised and their potential unleashed. Imagine a government that was entirely run in such a manner. What couldn’t we achieve?

The political turmoil of the 20th Century showed that humanity was growing tired of the old powers, yet they are still not gone. They have clung to power relentlessly and no new system has been the right one to overthrow them and heal the fracture of the world. But that new system is now here. Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, but we shall go further…

…to the stars.

Brice Merci – Hyperian

Este posibil ca imaginea să conţină: text

1789 -1989

Giugno 6th, 2019 No Comments   Posted in Mişcarea Dacia

Ralph Bakker

‘1789 -1989

In 1789, the French Revolution decisively ushered in the Modern Age. The American Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the establishment of the American Republic had signalled the beginning of the end for the era of powerful monarchs, but America was a distant colony of the British Empire and not yet a giant on the world stage. Its liberation did not provide a fundamental psychological rebooting of the human mind. Europe was where the world was controlled and only in Europe could the transformation to modernity begin. The decisive blow was struck in France, which thus takes the honour of being the first modern nation. When one of the most powerful monarchies on earth fell to a people’s Revolution, and the King and most of his ruling order were executed, the irreversible signal had been broadcast to the world that it was no longer business as usual for the ruling elite. Now the people would have their say.

The age of monarchs did not however properly end until the bloodbath of the First World War. In 1917, the Russian Revolution toppled the Tsar who was executed by Bolsheviks in the following year. 1918, the year in which the cataclysm ended, also saw the end of the powerful German monarch Kaiser Wilhelm II. In the meantime, the British monarchy, terrified of its people, was compelled to change its name from the Germanic “Saxe-Coburg-Gotha” to the English “Windsor” – a fake name for a disgusting, fake family.

The one hundred and twenty-nine years from 1789 to 1918 is how long it can take for a dialectical age of the World to be fully resolved. The Illuminati-inspired American and French revolutions began the modern world but only a World War completed the job.

The 1917 Russian Revolution was the beginning of the next phase of the dialectic: class war between the rich capitalist elite (who took over from monarchs and the nobility as the power elite) and the ordinary people. A war between capitalism and communism was inevitable, but, before it could break out, a new dialectical force appeared on the scene, a synthesis of capitalism and communism called Fascism (or “national socialism”). Fascism was based on the concept of a capitalist elite being subordinated to a totally dominant national leader (a Duce or Fuehrer). The Leader allowed the capitalists to make healthy profits, but only if they did his bidding. Capitalism, in Fascist countries, was harnessed to state policy rather than to free markets. Fascism and communism were both based on the same economic model of an enormously centralised command and control system under the charge of a totalitarian, paramilitary political party. The central difference was that communism outlawed private ownership of industry whereas Fascism was happy to use the capitalist class as its economic agents. National Socialism in Germany was spectacularly successful, transforming in a few short years a nation in economic ruin and chaos, suffering from disastrous hyperinflation and enormous unemployment. Of course, most of the reason for the success lay in the fact that the whole nation was given over to rebuilding the German military machine to its former glory.

In the modern day, China has much more in common with Hitler’s National Socialism than it does with Marxism. Like Hitler, the Chinese totalitarian Communist Party now actively utilise the capitalist model of private ownership under central direction. Technically, China is no longer a communist nation but national socialist i.e. Fascist. National Socialism has proved to be an extremely effective way of running economies – far superior to free market capitalism – because it is capable of avoiding the disastrous, irresponsible, greed-fuelled boom and bust cycles of irrational free markets.

Markets are like tiny, hysterical children, driven by greed and terror. There is no rationale at work, no controlling mind. National Socialism, on the other hand, provides a coherent framework, aligning the interests of the state with the capitalist economy. Contemporary America is not governed by politicians but by banks, corporations and lobbyists. Non-elected entities, unaccountable to the people, direct the destiny of America. Politicians are irrelevant and have no real power at all. Elections are meaningless and are performed merely for show. It doesn’t matter who’s in charge, Democrats or Republicans. Wall Street, and the Jews and Freemasons of Goldman Sachs in particular, run America. America isn’t a nation; it’s a corporation run by business and banking interests, and a large army of lawyers.
The Illuminati’s economic system – which can be variously called social, public or meritocratic capitalism – has, technically, a certain similarity to centrally controlled National Socialism, with the critical difference that there is no totalitarian party in charge and no Fuehrer. In social capitalism, there are no privileged elites, no dynastic families, no inherited wealth, no free market mayhem, and no boom and bust.

In social capitalism, the most meritocratic individuals set economic policy according to the needs of “positive liberty”, the doctrine of actively seeking to improve the quality of humanity. All economic activities that seek to degrade, exploit and sedate “the masses” are outlawed. Free markets are fine, to the extent that they support meritocratic objectives. They are never fine if their purpose is to make disproportionate wealth for greedy capitalists who have no interest in the Commonwealth.

Despite all the obfuscation of economists, economics is a simple subject. It is in fact entirely a function of politics. In the nineteenth century, capitalism was production-oriented. That suited the political need to build an advanced industrial nation with a complex infrastructure. Capitalist goods were sturdy and long lasting. A person might own a single pair of shoes for years. Production capitalism was about functionality and utility: everything had to be useful, practical and enduring. But what happens when the infrastructure is built and everyone has their indestructible shoes?

After WWI, American capitalism had to reinvent itself. It switched from production to consumption and the birth of the consumer who has been the focus of capitalism ever since. People no longer bought things because they needed them but because they wanted them. This was a revolutionary change. Now the purpose of capitalism was no longer to manufacture useful things but to stimulate demand for, essentially, useless things. This suited the political agenda because consumers, with an immense number of choices regarding what goods and services to buy, saw themselves not as cogs in a machine but as free people. Democracy, freedom and capitalism became effectively synonymous, and were always presented as a package. So, if you were hostile to capitalism, for example, you would be branded an enemy of freedom.

The major competitor of capitalism was communism. This was also production-oriented but because it banned private ownership, profit-making and extra reward for harder work, production proved inefficient, cumbersome, non-innovative and the goods produced were slipshod and ugly. In other words, the politics of communism and its hatred of salary differentials, hence of any incentive for anyone to try hard and come up with new ideas, inevitably gave rise to an unmotivated workforce manufacturing low-quality goods. There was no market to test goods, and no competition between rival companies since the State prohibited commercial competition.

The Soviet Union produced endless junk. Capitalist America produced endless exquisitely produced junk. Americans liked their glossy junk that they were free to choose much more than the Soviets liked their shoddy junk that didn’t work most of the time and which offered them no choice.

Communist China was once like the Soviet Union, and in fact even more backward, but when it became “national socialist” China, everything changed. The Chinese started manufacturing reasonable-quality consumerist junk that massively undercut American prices. So the whole Western economy started buying enormous amounts of Chinese goods. Credit was handed out like candy to allow people to buy as much as possible. Major Western corporations started transferring their production facilities to China, hence work started to dry up in America. The salaries of the low-paid were driven down. Ordinary American people couldn’t afford repayments on their mortgages. Consumption stuttered and went into reverse. The global economy stalled. All the hidden debts in the system were suddenly brutally exposed and enormous numbers of people started defaulting on their loans. Banks, having loaned incredible amounts of money to all and sundry in order to maximise their profits, and retained practically no capital reserves (because the more they loaned, the higher their profits were, so why not loan every last cent, thus massively inflating the profits of the banks and permitting gargantuan bonuses to the senior personnel?) were now all technically insolvent since they didn’t have the capital to meet their immediate financial obligations. That had never been a problem in the past because they could borrow what they needed from other banks, but now the other banks were in the same boat – the whole system had imploded. The game of musical chairs had ended and there were no chairs left at all.

According to the laws of free market capitalism, the entire banking system should have gone out of business, but of course that would have meant the death of capitalism itself and total political chaos. So all the rich people were allowed to keep their wealth and the gullible taxpayers had to bail out the bankrupt banks. Now it was the State rather than the private banks that was groaning under an unmanageable debt. Governments all across the West had to slash public spending. Millions of workers were laid off and salaries frozen for everyone else. But the rich bankers kept getting their vast bonuses – now paid for by the taxpayers. The rich had found their holy grail – the privatisation of profits (i.e. they get to keep all of the profits in the good times) and the socialisation of losses (i.e. the taxpayers pick up the pieces when the high-risk games go wrong).

That’s the world we live in now. Capitalism is dead, replaced by capitalist socialism – the most monstrous economic miscarriage ever know. The rich, as the controllers of the global economy, simply get governments to transfer the losses of private corporations to the State sector. America could easily have declared itself officially socialist and proclaimed that the State was now running the entire economy, including the banks since the taxpayers had effectively paid for the whole shooting match.

Ask yourself this – why are you paying for something even though you don’t get to own it nor to enjoy any of the profits (vast bonuses), which go to the people who screwed the whole thing up in the first place? Is that the act of a rational people? Moreover, how can employees of insolvent banks be getting bonuses at all (these are not of course paid out of genuine profits since there aren’t any – instead they’re paid directly by the taxpayers)? The reason they are paid bonuses is that that they will all leave if they don’t, and the banks will collapse. In other words, they’re blackmailing the taxpayers and extorting money from them with menaces. Why don’t the people lock them up in jail as if they were Mafia hoodlums (which is effectively what they are)?

Contemporary economics is a madhouse. Politicians aren’t in charge of it. The super rich are. They have arranged to keep getting enormous bonuses, paid for by the taxpayers. The whole point of Western economic policy is simply to prevent the rich from ever losing their wealth, and to keep saddling the taxpayers with ever-increasing debt. The official economic objective of the West (though never expressed in those terms) is: KEEP THE RICH RICH.

The West is terrified of what would happen if the wealth of the rich were allowed to be challenged. Banks would collapse, the stock market would endure the biggest fall in history and the entire political and economic system of the West would die. To avoid this, we keep the rich rich. They have a gun pointed to our heads and we are doing nothing to disarm them.

We are now playing out an economic catastrophe. There are hedge funds in America that are betting so heavily against the Euro that they are making its collapse almost inevitable. But if the Euro goes down, so does the global economy. So American capitalists are actually using the levers of capitalism to destroy capitalism in order to make massive profits from the collapse. What these retards have failed to understand is that without capitalism, all of their ill-gotten gains will be useless.

When ultra-capitalists are betting on capitalism to fail, you know that the system has become utterly insane. This is what it means to have “free markets” in charge of the global economy rather than intelligent politicians and economists with a clear agenda.

Neither Communist China nor Nazi Germany would ever have permitted free marketeers to destabilise the economy. Under Hitler, all of the hedge fund managers would have been put in concentration camps. In China, they might well have been executed.

Is it not an astonishing thing that although Western taxpayers have had to effectively buy the Western banking system, not a single politician anywhere suggested that they should henceforth be running the banks for the public and not the private good and that all future profits would be returned to the citizens? Why weren’t all the rich bankers, who had spectacularly failed to run their banks responsibly, fired and replaced by publicly accountable officials? Why weren’t all of the enormous bonuses stopped? Who arranged the bail out? – expensive gangs of ex Goldman Sachs executives. Well, surprise, surprise. That’s like putting vampires in charge of the blood bank.

The American economy has been hijacked by the rich elite and its only purpose is to protect the wealth of the rich come what may. The Soviet Union was bankrupted by the Afghanistan War, but the debts of the communists were as NOTHING compared with the debts of today’s capitalist West. If the Soviet Union was a failure, the capitalist West is an enormously bigger one. Why has no one in the media commented on this salient fact?

The degree of anti-socialist indoctrination to which Westerners have been subjected is so extreme that no one even suggested that the banks should be “socialised” from now on and their specific remit should be to grow the economy in a stable way without boom or bust cycles fuelled by insane greed and hysterical fear. What sane person would say that banks shouldn’t have that function? As it is, the purpose of banks is to generate enormous bonuses for a select few Jews and Freemasons. That’s their raison d’être.

Free markets must, ultimately, be under political control. If they’re not then they invariably submit to oligopolies and cartels and become irredeemably corrupt. All information relating to all markets should be freely available to all participants in the market at exactly the same time. There should be no hidden gambles going on such as those of hedge funds. Everything should be transparent, including all of the identities of all participants.

Capitalism, hitherto, has been about materialism, about producing objects, mostly of a junk nature. What’s the point? Capitalism doesn’t need to be about objects. Imagine a world with only ten percent of the objects that we have right now. Imagine that to fill the gap, ninety percent of the human working population weren’t involved in producing and selling objects but in creating and delivering educational services covering all conceivable subjects. Imagine that you could make a living from teaching the subject you love best and that everyone around you was doing exactly the same. We all sell our knowledge to others and they sell their knowledge to us, and we all become smarter. There’s barely an object in sight. We go shopping for new knowledge, not for new disposable objects. Imagine an enormous marketplace in knowledge where we pick and choose what to learn – rather than an enormous marketplace in objects where we pick and choose what junk to take home with us and that we use to define who we are (“Hey, look at me, I own this set of objects so I must be cool and desirable.”).

All that really matters is that you should have a viable job. It doesn’t matter what you’re selling as long as there’s a marketplace for it. Objects need not be the main point of capitalism at all; it could be anything: art, culture, knowledge, music, spirituality, whatever you like. All that matters is that money should flow round the system, allowing everyone to live comfortably. Imagine that you taught classes several times a week, and you also attended classes of other people. Instead of accumulating objects, you accumulate knowledge. Some subjects might have much higher demand than others and therefore the teacher can ask for more money. Some teachers might offer cheaper classes in order to boost numbers. Some might want a select audience and charge high prices, and thus we see all the normal marketplace mechanisms coming into play, but without an object in sight.

If we lived in a knowledge economy rather than an object economy, wouldn’t we become enormously smarter? Wouldn’t the quality of the human race rise prodigiously? Wouldn’t crime fall, and social deprivation? We would have a much more informed, cultured human race, with far fewer needless objects collecting dust. The planet would be much cleaner if we could avoid all of the pollution associated with industry and replace it with the ultimate “clean”, eco-product: ideas.

We live in a staggeringly stupid and unimaginative economic system where we define ourselves by what objects we own. We have thereby turned ourselves into objects. We’re barely human at all.

The capitalism versus communism dialectic was taken on a detour by WWII when the capitalists and communists were compelled to unite to defeat the extremely dangerous hybrid form (National Socialism). Then it was business as usual – the “Cold War”.

In 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall symbolised the end of communism. Yet, amazingly, it also signalled the beginning of the end for capitalism, although no one realised. Borrowing from Hegel and Marx, Francis Fukuyama produced a brilliant but absurd book proclaiming that History had come to an end because “liberal democracy” had now manifestly defeated all challengers. Liberal democracy would be rolled out all across the globe and that it would be for the rest of time.

This demonstrated better than anything else the demented triumphalism of the capitalists. The leading capitalists now thought they were gods and routinely referred to themselves as “masters of the universe”. Given that there was no longer any viable alternative to capitalism, the leading capitalists could afford to dispense with all concerns over social fairness and demand ultra capitalism based on zero government interference in the workings of markets. All controls were removed. Regulation practically vanished. Everything the capitalists wanted, they got. All sorts of laws restricting and controlling markets were repealed. Retail banks could start having investment bank functions. The amount of capital reserves they legally needed was shrunk to almost nothing, allowing every dollar invested in the bank to be maximally leveraged (meaning that the risks were magnified to a ridiculous degree). The whole economy of the West began to revolve around a single factor: house prices. While house prices went up, all bets were successful and everything seemed to create healthy profits. People actually convinced themselves that house prices could never fall. Mortgages were given to ninjas – no income, no job or assets. At this point, the system had become insane. The idea was that ninjas could keep borrowing against the rising value of their home to keep paying the mortgage, the ultimate Indian rope trick.

But, of course, if anything went wrong, if house prices failed to go up, the whole system was CERTAIN to collapse. Not just to collapse, but to take the whole global economy with it. Any sane form of government, any economic system based on reason rather than voodoo, would have seen it coming a mile off. After all, isn’t one of the primary tests of a rational system the ability to analyse, predict and take evasive manoeuvres? A few experts – very, very few – did give warnings, but were promptly ignored and called doomsayers. No one in casino capitalism likes a party pooper. Voodoo beats reason every time.

And so the financial crisis descended on the world and things aren’t getting any better. In fact, the warning signs are all there again that we are on the verge of not just recession but the greatest Depression in human history. If it comes, and the odds are now maybe 50/50 or worse – does any leader on earth have any grasp of what’s going on, or any ability to control events? The markets have consistently crushed the politicians.

What is the “market”? It’s essentially a small, elite group of cartels intent on making money in whatever circumstances. When they act in any particular direction, the rest of the market – the hangers on, the sheep, the dumb cattle – does the same. Any effect is instantly massively magnified. Most players in the market aren’t reacting to any rational analysis of anything at all; they are simply reacting to whether indices are going up or doing. If they’re going up, the investors feel great and invest more. If they’re going down, they start to panic and sell.

The market is therefore a small group of huge players harnessed to an enormous number of small players who get infected with greed or fear in an instant. The stock market can crash by hundreds of points because someone spread a plausible rumour of impending disaster. Such rumours aren’t accidents, they’re agreed strategies by big players to “short” the market. The more they can drive down the market the more money they can make. Once they’ve driven it down, they can then of course buy at the new cheap prices and make a huge profit as the prices surge upwards again. So, they profit whether the market is going down or up and more often than not, they’re the ones making it go down or up. Small players can’t have any significant effect at all on the market by themselves. Only the big players can set the trends. The whole system is geared up for manipulation and corruption, and none of it is ever meaningfully investigated.

So this “market”, outwith the control of any government on earth and susceptible to extreme manipulation by organised cartels of big players, can change the economic climate in a second and induce ferocious greed or equally ferocious fear. Moreover, there are enormous computerised trading systems in operation and these aren’t under any human control at all. They are totally reliant on the skill of those who programmed them and anyone who knows anything about programming knows that all programs contain bugs and some of these bugs only appear in unusual situations – exactly the unforeseen and untested situations that occur during rapid boom or bust. And this is supposed to be a sane system! Who’s flying this plane?!!!!

We’re over the ocean, and we’ve just realised there’s no pilot in the cockpit and there’s a catastrophic fuel leak. That’s capitalism for you. It’s utter insanity to leave anything to any “invisible hand” of any market unless you can rationally define the hand, all of the parameters associated with it and its entire scope of operation. If you can’t, you have no choice but to tightly regulate it.

So, the death of communism had the unexpected effect of delivering a fatal blow to capitalism too, though that was the last thing that people grasped in 1989. They thought the opposite had taken place; the absolute vindication and perpetual triumph of capitalism. Yet that’s exactly when hubris takes over, and, as the ancient Greeks understood so well, nemesis is sure to follow. Capitalism removed all the factors that had kept it relatively sane. The reason for this was that the rich elite demanded the removal of all obstacles blocking their path to ever-increasing profits. Governments gave them whatever they wanted and there was an enormous boom, with most of the money going to a tiny elite.

Political analyst Drew Westen wrote in the New York Times: “A final explanation is that he [Obama] ran for president on two contradictory platforms: as a reformer who would clean up the system, and as a unity candidate who would transcend the lines of red and blue. He has pursued the one with which he is most comfortable given the constraints of his character, consistently choosing the message of bipartisanship over the message of confrontation. But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks.”

400 people in the USA have as much money as the bottom half of the American population – 150 million people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

150,000,000 versus 400.
150,000,000 versus 400.
150,000,000 versus 400.
150,000,000 versus 400.
150,000,000 versus 400.

Is this sane? Is it rational? Is it comprehensible? Where is the REVOLUTION?!!! What kind of person tolerates this situation? How can anyone think this is the right and proper way for a country to develop? 400 private individuals, unaccountable to the people, have the same power as 150,000,000 Americans. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended? Wasn’t the separation of powers supposed to stop any group acquiring too much power? Why wasn’t it applied to private individuals? Why were the rich allowed to stand outside the separation of powers? Precisely because of that, they were allowed to use their enormous wealth to buy the political system lock, stock and barrel. They controlled the politicians, but no one controlled them. That’s the law of wealth. Wealth makes you a king above the law, a dictator with absolute power.

The rich became mad with vanity, greed and power. And they have brought destruction upon the rest of us, while suffering no consequences at all. The people are so powerfully brainwashed by the elite’s media machine that no one has taken any action against the rich.

That same situation of infinite power in the hands of the elite applied in pre-revolutionary France. The monarchy and aristocracy though they were immune. Then came 1789 and the world changed forever.

1789 is coming again. The countdown has begun. The arrogant elite are no longer held in high esteem. They are no longer respected or even deemed competent. They are now seen as crooks, robber barons, carpetbaggers, looters, spivs and conmen in it purely for themselves. The total erosion in the reputation of these people will reap a terrible consequence in due course. They are now living on borrowed time, blissfully unaware of the storm coming, as oblivious as the elite of France at the start of 1789.

If they were at all rational, the rich would surrender ninety percent of their wealth to pay off the huge debts that their criminal irresponsibility and recklessness had on the global economy, and they would still be able to live in luxury. But we know they never will. The dialectic always plays out to the end. These infinitely greedy people are incapable of doing the right, honourable and rational thing. And thus they will reap their inevitable “reward”.

1989, exactly two centuries after the French Revolution, saw the birth of another critical dialectical strand that’s having an enormous impact on our world. It was the year Englishman Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. The internet has been a revolution in itself but it also has another unprecedented effect: it’s a Revolution ACCELERATOR.

In past ages, books, newspapers, radios, music records, film and TV all served as social accelerators, but these were almost always controlled by gatekeepers working for one elite or another. What makes the internet radically different is that the gatekeepers can be bypassed. The “word on the street” can become the word all around the globe, without the elite having the vaguest idea what’s going on. The internet allows the elite to be taken out of the loop.

The sociological phenomenon of “other-directedness” goes hand-in-hand with the internet and massively magnifies specific effects. Other-directedness involves such things as peer group pressure, fashion, groupthink and hysterical contagion. Other-directed people are not truly in control of their own behaviour. They are so influenced by others that they quickly adopt whatever posture and opinions are held by the dominant and “coolest” group. Fashions, opinions and memes can spread astoundingly quickly. Viral contagion can infect the internet overnight. A person can go to bed unknown and wake up next morning known all around the globe if something he has done has gone viral.

There has never been a phenomenon like the internet. The world hasn’t even begun to wake up to its true power yet and the changes it is bringing to the world. It has brought to life Marshal McLuhan’s concept of the Global Village. Everything is now local. All boundaries are breached and annihilated. Everything is converging. The existence of different cultures is coming under threat – the world is heading relentlessly towards a single, global culture. The Muslims of the Arab Spring were heavily influenced by American and European ideas. Eventually, Islam itself may start to collapse as Muslims identify more with the global culture than with daily prayers and reading the Koran.

One thing that now seems sure to happen is the death of “tradition-directedness”: life guided by ancient books and ancient bearded leaders. The great weapon used by tradition-oriented societies was separation. Community elders could literally stop the young people from being contaminated by outside influences by using physical barriers. But now anyone with an internet connection has access to the whole world. WALLS DON’T MATTER ANYMORE. It’s no use parents denying their children internet access. All it takes is for one person to have access and all the rest will get access via that person. And if parents don’t allow access, they cut their children off from the world and make them backward.

What caused the Muslim uprisings? – the internet. Many of the Muslims spoke of “freedom”, their idea of freedom clearly being based on Western notions. To that extent, these Muslims are becoming more liberal. But on the other hand, Islamic jihadist extremism has also been massively accentuated by the internet. So we see another effect of the internet – the disappearance of the middle ground. People become more liberal or more extreme. The mid-ground is a position of compromise but on the internet all extremists can find many voices every bit as extreme as theirs, so they no longer feel any need to compromise.

The Tea Party is an internet phenomenon. So is conspiracy theory world. Conspiracy theorists create more and more bizarre theories, being fed all the time by the crazy input from millions of fantasists. The 9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense could never have happened as it did in the absence of the internet. Immense numbers of half-baked opinions, factoids, misquotations, distortions and curious facts and oddities can be spun together to create immense webs of conspiracy. Viral transmission provides a rocket boost and the natural tendency of most people to ignore reason and analysis (Logos) in favour of exciting stories and fantasies (Mythos) means that billions fall under the spell of absolute nonsense. How is it that billions of people believe in the Torture God of Abraham if not by a complete suspension of rationality? Humans are extremely prone to believing what they want to believe and ignoring everything else. A conspiracy theorist is someone who accepts as true everything that supports the conspiracy theory and rejects as false everything that contradicts it. Indeed the contradictions are deemed to be misinformation and disinformation put out by the conspirators to put people off the trail.

A few factoids and anomalies can be combined with fantasy, wishful thinking and a political axe to grind to create something that takes on a life of its own. BULLSHIT can be magnified to a ridiculous degree, and, as Hitler observed, the bigger the lie the more likely it is to be believed. People believe what they want to believe and if lots of others believe it too then it becomes reinforced, socially acceptable and hence TRUE! The internet can therefore make eccentric but popular ideas mainstream and credible.

The internet is a magnifier, accelerator, exaggerator and reinforcer. It makes the world more extreme. A more extreme world is where unthinkable things become thinkable. All bets are off. Black swan events become commonplace rather than the exception.

We can think of the world being converted not into a single global village but several such villages, each belonging to an extremist tribe, each hating the others. Intolerance will grow in all directions. Even liberals will become more intolerant.

The death of communism had the unintended consequence of delivering a fatal blow to capitalism. Flushed with triumphalism, the leading capitalists bullied and manipulated the governments into removing all brakes from the capitalist greed machine. Capitalism went out of control and in 2008 the Western banking system was technically insolvent i.e. capitalism had died on the operating table, but no one was willing to “call it” and pronounce the time of death. Instead, the capitalists did the most outrageous and hypocritical thing imaginable: they invoked socialism to save them. In effect, private businesses transferred all of their debts to the State, but without transferring any control. It was the WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME for the people. They got all the debts dumped on them, with no formal ownership or control over anything. Why did the people get the debts but not the profits? “No taxation without representation!” the American Revolutionaries declared in the War of Independence. Yet now the American people have been swamped by enormous debt and taxation and they don’t have a single representative on the boards of any of the private institutions that needed to be bailed out. Is that not INSANE? The Americans have been betrayed by their leaders. They now have the constitutional right to remove the government from office, just as they had the right to remove the rule of the British Empire. It’s time for the American people to act.

The world has allowed the mad ideology of “free markets” to dominate economics. What is the aim of ALL of the participants in these free markets? TO MAKE MONEY! Generating profit is their sole preoccupation. A market does not care about reason, education, knowledge, quality, goodness, morality, virtue, moderation, caution, stability or any of the other qualities that we would expect to be exhibited by a benevolent government. It’s asking for disaster to harness government to an inherently unstable and irrational greed machine.

There’s a place for free markets but only with a carefully defined framework. The markets have to be subservient to government, not government to markets. We now know for a fact where free market economics leads us – CATASTROPHE. Free market economics is now as dead as communism.

Just as every individual is free to do whatever they like within the LAW in order to ensure social stability, markets should be allowed to operate freely within the legal framework that is imposed on them to ensure economic stability. The stability of the market is the main point, not its freedom, because unfettered freedom will sooner or later generate a catastrophe.

It always comes back to the same issue – who’s in charge? Should elected governments run a country, or private, unaccountable individuals in charge of banks and corporations? Should markets devoted solely to profit-making (usually resulting in astonishing and deranged risk-taking and corporate immorality) be the economic engine of a nation rather than rational policies dedicated to stable growth and the improvement of the nation and its people? Isn’t it time the people were in charge rather than the rich?

All instabilities will now be massively and instantly magnified by the internet and global computer systems. Stock markets in every part of the world have effectively merged to create a single global stock market. All markets tend to go up or down at the same time because they are all reacting to each other. Any local rumour can become a global rumour in an instant. There are no firewalls separating systems any longer. In ships, to prevent them from sinking, it’s essential to have separate compartments in the hull. A breach to one compartment can result in localised flooding, but the ship continues safely on its way because all of the other compartments are unaffected. In the new global paradigm, we’ve lost all the safety compartments and firewalls. The situation is RADICALLY UNSTABLE. Any event can sink the ship or burn down the whole building. It’s absolutely no coincidence that financial turmoil and excessive greed have reached unprecedented levels in the last twenty years. The scale of the gap between rich and poor that has appeared within this timescale is simply breathtaking. The number of major financial crashes that have occurred around the world in the last twenty years is without precedent. Yet no one in power has any idea of what’s really going on. They haven’t understood that we are perched over financial apocalypse because there are no safety mechanisms built into the global financial system. It’s like a nuclear reactor without a single control rod to moderate the chain reaction. And what happens to an uncontrolled nuclear process? – it explodes catastrophically. It’s a BOMB.

We are so close to Armageddon that it’s simply terrifying. And what’s even more terrifying is that the people charged with running the world are patently clueless about what’s really going on. They are driven by the markets and the markets are the detonator for the biggest financial explosion of all time. But who will challenge the markets? Who will face down the rich? Who will build firewalls, watertight safety bulkheads and insert sufficient control rods in the financial reactors? Well, NO ONE AT ALL.

We’re on a runaway train and we’re rapidly running out of track. The buffers are now right ahead of us. Be in no doubt at all, the final dialectical crisis is almost upon us. It cannot be avoided. The current system will definitely fail. It cannot save itself because it doesn’t know how to. It doesn’t understand itself. It will perish through ignorance. In the end, stupidity is a terminal condition.

The real issue is what is to be done when the shitstorm arrives. Who will pick up the pieces? To whom will the world turn? If the world were sane, it would of course turn to its sanest, most rational, most talented people, but, as we know all too well, the world is neither sane nor rational and anything could happen. We could get Fascist “strong man” dictators, or religious Messiahs. Fundamentalist Islam could sweep the world. All manner of nightmares are possible.

That’s why it’s critical for all sensible people to be ready to speak with a single voice and promote a single clear agenda. That’s why The Movement proved a monumental disappointment. Instead of preparing the agenda for a New Society, the members blabbered on about New Age bullshit, hippie crap and 9/11 garbage. In the end, several members of The Movement thought that their most important task was to investigate other members of The Movement and pronounce McCarthyite denunciations. What the fuck! When a group starts eating itself, you know it deserves to perish.

That’s the fast road to nowhere. We hoped people would write constitutions, declarations, that they would set up political groups and stand in elections, that they would seize the chance to prepare to implement a New World Order. Ho, ho, ho. No chance of that. It takes talented and smart people to do such things: a rare commodity within The Movement. Instead, there were legions of self-indulgent fantasists and bullshitters caught up in their own tiny, unimaginative worlds. How on earth could it serve anyone’s interests to open yet another thread on 9/11? Droning on about it will change nothing at all. Creating a New World Order will certainly change things…so why don’t you devote your time to that rather than to ludicrous, unproductive conspiracy theories?

“You will never get the crowd to cry Hosanna until you ride into town on an ass.”



Gennaio 26th, 2013 No Comments   Posted in Politica romena

În zilele astea de campanie electorală italiană, Beppe Grillo a făcut vâlvă în Italia pe două teme :

Primul motiv de ATAC MEDIATIC AL SISTEMULUI PARTIDIC, a fost afirmaţia lui Grillo că ar accepta în rândurile „Mişcării 5 Stele”, reprezentanţi ai mişcării „Casa Pound”, de orientare fascistă. Realitatea, este că Grillo a specificat că este posibil aşa ceva , în condiţiile acceptării Programului şi Statutului M5S, care sunt cu totul diferite de cele al poundiştilor !
Este evident că s-a încercat „intoxicarea” opiniei publice, sugerându-se alăturarea M5S, unor mişcări politice extremiste !!!

Al doilea MOTIV DE ATAC a fost afirmaţia potrivit căreia SINDICATELE TREBUIE SĂ DISPARĂ în forma în care se prezintă azi, deoarece nu sunt altceva, decât „intermediari” inutili, birocraţi şi „prelungiri ale partidelor” în rândurile lucrătorilor. Cu acelaşi prilej, a demarcat de sindicatele „tradiţionale” pe cei din COBAS, adică din „sindicatele locale de categorie”, singurele care reprezintă efectiv lucrătorii.
Imediat a fost „acoperit” de protestele „sindicatelor clientelare”, cum că ar fi … anti-democratic !?!?

Se ştie că „Mişcarea Dacia” are multe în comun cu M5S şi se demonstrează că şi de această dată „suntem în aceeaşi barcă” !
Şi noi „suntem deschişi tuturor” cu condiţia acceptării Principiilor, Obiectivelor şi obligaţiilor statutare ale MD ! Este evident că trebuie să oferim oamenilor CADRUL IDEOLOGIC ŞI ORGANIZATORIC, de care „nu au avut parte” până la apariţia noastră !
Bineînţeles că asta nu înseamnă „deschidere” către ideologiile altora, sau formele lor de organizare … noi ne adresăm exclusiv OAMENILOR… şi nu le propunem „alţi oameni”, ci … ALTE IDEI !!!
În această ordine de idei, şi noi invităm OAMENII din toate partidele actuale, să deschidă în propriile structuri organizative, dacă a noastră nu le e pe plac, DEZBATERI pentru PROIECTAREA UNEI NOI PARADIGME SOCIO-ECONOMICE, ţinând cont că actuala este definitiv COMPROMISĂ .
Noi vom fi disponibili să contribuim la aceste dezbateri.

La fel ne asemănăm cu M5S în ceea ce priveşte SINDICATELE, în forma sub care se prezintă azi.
În condiţiile NOII PARADIGME, nu se mai justifică existenţa sindicatelor, deoarece proiectăm diverse măsuri, cum ar fi : bani electronici, grilă de salarizare, muncă pentru toţi şi mai puţină, distribuţie etică a resurselor, largi autonomii locale, educaţie şi sănătate gratis pentru toţi fără discriminări, eliminarea FUTILULUI, etc.
În aceste condiţii, nu numai sindicatele ar fi inutile, ci şi ajutoarele sociale aşa cum sunt acordate azi !
În condiţiile prevăzute de noi ale unui STAT ETIC PUTERNIC, totul va fi reformat : domeniul financiar, bancar, asigurativ, educaţional, igienico-sanitar, agricol, industrial, etc. aşa că numai cine priveşte prin „prisma sistemului”, cine priveşte impasibil umbrele panourilor Mitului Cavernei, cine este afectat de Sindromul Stockholm, nu e capabil să înţeleagă NOUA PARADIGMĂ pe care o proiectăm noi !!!

Continuitatea traco-daco-geţilor în spaţiul carpato-dunăreano-pontic (4)

Maggio 26th, 2012 No Comments   Posted in Attualità

În continuare o să încerc să răspund unor acuzaţii de „naţionalism fascistoid”, primite frecvent de „dacomaniaci” (cum ne cheamă „istoricii lui peşte”).
Aşa am fost acuzat şi eu de diverşi indivizi, printre care şi prof. Ioan Coja, care văd însă cu plăcere, că în ultimul timp „şi-a schimbat opiniile”.
Este adevărat că acest personaj şi-a schimbat des opiniile : după ce a fost secretar PCR pe Universitate, sprijinit de un evreu, a devenit brusc după 1989 … „naţionalist extremist”, care considera „dacomaniacologia” dăunătoare Interesului Naţional, considerând-o favorabilă minorităţii ţigăneşti, căreia îi eram şi eu încadrat în acest context !?… ba chiar m-a făcut „nătărău” pentru ceea ce fac !?
Să sperăm că ultima „schimbare de macaz” este şi ultima.
Am scris toate astea, nu pentru a ataca pe cineva ce-mi este indiferent, ci pentru a mă delimita strict de un anume tip de naţionalism, şi anume de cel… „fascistoid” !
Ceea ce nu pricep „acuzatorii” Mişcării Dacia, este că acest tip de „naţionalism fascistoid” este promovat de unii care se recheamă la … „legiuni”, în vreme ce nouă, numai acest cuvânt ne ridică părul pe spinare, darămite „ideologia” !?
Aceste „mişcări anacronice” produc mai multe daune decât beneficii prin manifestările lor. Exemplul cel mai concludent este „chestiunea Basarabiei”, a cărei rezolvare este întârziată de aceşti adepţi ai „salutului roman” !
Vedeţi domnilor istorici de unde vine fascismul ? … de la Roma !
Tot de acolo, vine şi „romanizarea” prin mijlocirea Şcolii Ardelene, deşi puţini au priceput că a fost numai o „mişcare strategică”, ce în Poker se cheamă „cacialma”, deoarece tot Petru Maior mai scria şi că :

„aceaia iaste adeverit, precum vazum deasupra, ca nu limba latineasca cea proasta s-au facut din limba latineasca cea corecta ci ceasta din ceaia. De aciia, macar ca ne-am deprins a zice ca limba romineasca e fiica limbei latinesti, adeca ceii corecte, totusi, de vom vrea a grai oblu, limba romineasca e mama limbei ceii latinesti.” (Petru Maior, scrieri, vol 1, pag. 311, ed. Minerva, bucuresti, 1976).

… şi tot din Ardeal era şi distinsul NICOLAE DENSUŞIANU autorul memorabilei lucrări DACIA PREISTORICĂ.
Este adevărat că „dacomaniacii” mai fac şi „excese”, mai ales cei ce înţeleg din diverse materiale că am fi o „rasă superioară”.
Eu am explicat până aici, că nu se pune problema în acest fel, ba chiar am afirmat că „am rămas ca naţie în urma altora”, dacă ne referim la „valorile actual recunoscute ale conceptului de civilizaţie” ! Că aceste „valori” nu le recunosc ca atare, e altă chestiune şi de aceea am proiectat o NOUĂ PARADIGMĂ, care să aibă la bază… alte Valori, care am descoperit cu plăcere, că erau impostate deja în trecut: pacifism, ospitalitate (pâine şi sare), simplitate, solidaritate, simbioză cu mediul înconjurător, fără sclavi, fără „chestii futile”, etc.
Eu chiar „m-am împins” până într-acolo, că am definit românii ca „ciobani primordiali”, adăugând un detaliu justificat după părerea mea : „iniţiaţi”. Şi asta deoarece dacii se pare că ştiau „mersul stelelor” şi se închinau Soarelui, cu mult timp înainte ca alţi „civilizaţi” să ardă pe rug pe unul care susţinea centralitatea acestuia în sistemul nostru planetar.
Că suntem „ciobani primordiali” e lucru sigur, deoarece caprele nu au fost domesticite pe Tigru şi Eufrat şi cu atât mai puţin pe Gange, Fluviul Galben, sau cine ştie ce pustie, ci în lanţul muntos european şi pentru început, în „cetatea carpato-dunăreano-pontică”, singura SURSĂ MAJORĂ DE SARE GEMĂ, udată de BAZINUL HIDROLOGIC cel mai bogat, acoperit aproape în totalitate de păduri şi cu zone ample prealpine şi de şes favorabile TRANSHUMANŢEI. Drept urmare, străromânii au produs „prima mare revoluţie socio-economică”, trecând de la stadiul de culegători/agricultori şi vânători, la acela de „zootehnişti”, asigurându-şi nu numai o hrană substanţială, ci şi îmbrăcămintea, într-o societate AUTOSUFICIENTĂ ce nu avea nevoie de SCLAVI.
Suntem singurul popor ce încă mai poartă căciuli de blană de oaie şi care mai „toarce fuiorul” !… iar „am rămas în urma civilizaţiei”, dar eu sper din inimă, să renunţăm la „obiectele din petrol” şi „să ne întoarcem în timp” şi în acest domeniu !
Ba eu am ipotizat chiar, că PILEUSUL DACIC are tot aspectul „învelişului brânzei de burduf”, ceea ce indică provenienţa dintr-un organ intern de ovină. Aşa s-ar explica „elasticitatea/mularea, lipsa cusăturilor şi fineţea/subţirimea” pileusurilor ce acoperă capetele diverşilor tarabostes sculptaţi, ce se găsesc în toate marile muzee ale lumii, provenite pare-se din Forul Imperial al lui Traian. Nu exclud totuşi nici ipoteza unei piei „dezblănite”, rezultate din sacrificarea mieilor/iezilor, tratată după proceduri uitate azi, în urma cărora se obţinea şi culoarea ROŞIE. Iată un subiect de cercetare pentru „istoricii cu patalama”, deşi se pare că nu-i interesează acest detaliu, cum nu-i interesează nici OPINCILE de mare fineţe (de mare prestigiu printre … etruscii „pre-indo-europeni”) şi nici VEŞMINTELE BRODATE ale „barbarilor”.
Ceea ce mă miră cel mai mult este „îndârjirea istoricilor lui peşte” împotriva DACOLOGIEI, în vreme ce împotriva altor mistificări tac precum… peştii !?
Nu am auzit de nicio reacţie a acestora în legătură cu ipoteza „originii khazare a moţilor”.
O să răspund eu pe scurt : khazarii „s-au mişcat” prin spaţiul carpato-dunăreano-pontic alături/concomitent cu ungurii (începând cu secolul al IX-lea d.C.), fiind de origini TURCICE convertiţi la MOZAISM, care nu au deci nimic de-a face cu „populaţia evreiască din Palestina”, sau cu „părul blond şi ochii albaştri” ai moţilor.
Este o mare tâmpenie să se susţină aşa ceva, numai dacă ne gândim la limbă, religie, tradiţii, obiceiuri şi aversiunea multicentenară a moţilor/mocanilor faţă de „prietenii/tovarăşii khazarilor” !!!

O altă teorie des vehiculată este aceea a „primordialităţii evreieşti în Dacia post-traiană” faţă de români !?
Este adevărat că evreii au fost prezenţi într-o legiune romană staţionată în actuala Oltenia, tot aşa cum e adevărat că cohorte de daci au apărat Zidul lui Hadrian din actuala Scoţia, sau au fost semnalaţi în Egipt şi Iberia, dar niciunui „urmaş” al acestora nu i-a trecut prin minte să susţină că au fost numai ei acolo, sau că au fost majoritari !?!? Logic este ca aceştia să fi părăsit un spaţiu unde a fi fost legionar, devenise un motiv de „curăţenie etnică”.
Istoricii noştri tac din nou ca … PEŞTELE !? … e drept că unii sunt într-adevăr cu origini evreieşti, sau cu alte origini ne-dacice, dar sunt de „provenienţă mai recentă” şi au neobrăzarea „să se bage unde nu le fierbe oala” !… şi pe urmă unii se scandalizează că sunt urâţi !? Eu personal nu sufăr de această „boală”, ci îmi manifest numai… nedumerirea, fiind Mişcarea Dacia o promotoare a Bunului Simţ.
O altă ABERAŢIE ce nu este luată în consideraţie de „istoricii lui peşte”, este CHESTIUNEA DICŢIONARELOR ROMÂNEŞTI care au fost întocmite de IGNORANŢI şi mai ales de către ALOGENI, în urma căutărilor în Dicţionarele… altora !?
Această chestiune am tratat-o deja în parte, dar o readuc în discuţie, deoarece este atât de evidentă ABERAŢIA, că mă întreb de ce nu este tratată de istorici !? Domnilor, este vorba de Identitatea Naţională a poporului nostru !!!
O altă acuzaţie a „istoricilor lui peşte” este aceea că REGIMUL COMUNIST a pus bazele „dacomaniacologiei” în scopuri propagandistice, de parcă Densuşianu şi toţi promotorii dacismului ar fi fost agenţi ai Securităţii !?
Aşa de „dacomaniaci” erau comuniştii, că au turtit COIFUL DE LA COŢOFENEŞTI în filmul Dacii !?… ca dovadă a priceperii „istoricilor lui peşte” cu studii la Ştefan Gheorghiu, care încă mai ocupă fotoliile Academiei. În altă ordine de idei, dacă am ajuns să condamnăm comunismul, nu înseamnă că TOT ce au făcut ei a fost de CONDAMNAT. Să ne amintim de INVAZIA CEHOSLOVACIEI, de EDUCAŢIA GRATIS şi EGALĂ pentru toţi, de SĂNĂTATEA gratis şi pentru toţi,lipsa şomajului, dreptul la un acoperiş, etc… măcar că erau la nivel de PRINCIPII, aplicate RĂU !

De curând a coborât în Arena Confruntării „dacomaniacilor” d-na Zoe Petre, cu un articol publicat (unde altfel ?) pe Historia. Răspund „pe fugă” unor afirmaţii ridicole ale domniei sale :
1. Zoe Petre :
„„Moştenirea“ geto-dacă a devenit pentru mulţi egală cu mândria de a fi român. Exagerările voite din perioada Epocii de Aur şi nu numai nu doar că au prins rădăcini adânci în mentalul colectiv, dar au făcut ca în concepţia comună naţionalismul românesc să fie strâns legat de o populaţie a cărei moştenire o „păstrăm“, semnificativ diluat, în ADN-ul nostru.”

a. Densuşianu, Haşdeu, Eminescu, Blaga, etc. nu au trăit în Epoca de Aur ca d-na Zoe.
b. Cum justifică „istorica lui peşte” afirmaţia următoare, deoarece nu este o specialistă în domeniul genetic : „o populaţie (DACICĂ) a cărei moştenire o „păstrăm“, semnificativ diluat, în ADN-ul nostru.” Adică ne dăm cu părerea în domenii în care nu avem … „patalama” ???

2. Zoe Petre :
„Vreau să spun că niciunul dintre compatrioţii noştri de azi nu are un stră-străbunic dac de care familia lui să-şi amintească, cum nu are de altfel niciun străbunic roman cunoscut de bunicii lui; în schimb, oricare dintre noi poate avea un străbunic pe care familia l-a ţinut minte, şi care să fi fost grec, ungur sau armean: eu am avut o străbunică grecoaică de la Tulcea şi o bunică austriacă.”

FALS !!! … deoarece majoritatea nu au bunici alogeni, iar dacă ăsta e cazul d-nei Zoe, nu se poate generaliza o astfel de ABERAŢIE !
CĂSĂTORIILE MIXTE sunt şi azi obiect de „anatemă” şi o invit pe d-na Zoe să viziteze românii din jurul României pentru a pricepe că am dreptate. Este adevărat că PROPAGANDA „vecinilor”, susţinută puternic de mijloace media, devine un pericol real pentru Identitatea Naţională, dar suntem încă „în timp util” ca să stopăm evoluţia.

3. Zoe Petre :
„scribo-scribere, verbul latin care desenează actul de a nota în scris – dar citim în slavonă – de la verbul читать”

Mai sunt şi alte exemple în primul rând „sută/cento”, care demonstrează delimitarea CENTUM-SATEM ca fiind artificială şi fără susţinere. Este mult mai logic, indicativ al caracterului de „limbă matcă/matrice” a „latinei prisca”, numele sub care se defineşte LIMBA ANTERIOARĂ apariţiei, nu numai a limbii latine, ci a latinilor înşişi ! D-na „istoric al lui peşte” vorbeşte de latină de parcă ei au început primii a vorbi şi a scrie, uitând că LATINA este o FĂCĂTURĂ ca şi GREACA VECHE din care derivă, acestea fiind de fapt EVOLUŢII ALE UNEI LIMBI ORIGINARE/MATCĂ/MATRICE (Noam Chomski), care nu au alterat FONDUL LINGVISTIC al popoarelor TEMPORAR SUBJUGATE, azi fiind declarate… LIMBI MOARTE. Reamintesc doamnei că ultimul imperator roman de origine etruscă a domnit la Roma în sec. al 3-lea î.C. (Claudius), deci se presupune că LIMBA LATINĂ nu a apărut din senin la Roma, ci a rezultat din LIMBA MATCĂ a populaţiei italice în care latinii din Lazio erau „o mână de oameni”, faţă de majoritatea etruscă, umbră, celtică, etc.
Reamintesc de asemenea că SLAVII sunt un popor migrator cu o cultură originară „inferioară” şi nu pot emite pretenţii de „civilizatori”, iar dpdv numeric au fost şi sunt NESEMNIFICATIVI, pentru a putea determina „influenţe lingvistice şi identitarie” în spaţiul carpato-dunăreano-pontic: Ei nu aveau nici măcar o scriere când au ajuns aici, fiind „dotaţi” cu aşa ceva de către nişte călugări din Tesalonicul armânesc !  În cazul lor, se poate vorbi despre o „dictatură/asimilare lingvistică” favorizată de Biserica ortodoxă de Constantinopol, deoarece dpdv genetic, „sensul asimilării” a fost… INVERS ! 
Acelaşi raţionament se poate face şi în legătură cu maghiarii, ce au avut „în spate” sprijinul Vaticanului.
Apropos de „naţionalism extremist”, aduc la cunoştinţă că nu există dovezi ale „romanizării forţate” a altor popoare, pe când despre „SLAVIZĂRI FORŢATE, sau despre MAGHIARIZĂRI FORŢATE, putem da exemple chiar şi din zilele noastre !!! Cu toate astea, „rumânul nu piere”, ba din contră, deoarece FACTORUL NUMERIC îi este net favorabil !!! Că slavona a fost folosită în Liturghii, e adevărat, dar asta nu înseamnă că „băştinaşii” pricepeau sau îţi însuşeau ceva. Putem afirma cu certitudine că se scria cu litere „slavone”, dar în… româneşte ! Este cam acelaşi lucru cu latina liturgică, pe care „poporul nu o cunoştea şi nu o înţelegea” … ca dovadă… a murit ca orice „făcătură” !

4. Zoe Petre :
„În fapt, aşa cum sugerează şi Katherine Verdery, era vorba de o luptă pentru putere, în care Institutul de Istoria PCR voia să-şi subordoneze întreaga cercetare istorică din România.”

De când trebuie să ascult eu de o ALOGENĂ şi să ignor un Densuşianu, Eminescu, Maior, Haşdeu, etc ??? Cine e KATERINCA asta ???
Aceasta vorbeşte despre o „LUPTĂ PENTRU PUTERE” … să înţelegem că acum au câştigat ALOGENII ???

5. Zoe Petre :
„lipsa de legitimitate a ambelor calificative ale acestui stat (Dacia), care nu era nici centralizat, nici dacic”

Reamintesc d-nei „istoric al lui constantinescu…pardon PEŞTE”, că Burebista intervenea masiv în politica Romei, că romanii au plătit tributuri Daciei. Întreb şi eu aşa ca prostul : „dacă nu era dacic, ce Dumnezeului era ???”… cumva evreiesc, grecesc, austriac, maghiar, etc. ???

Multe aş mai fi putut scrie dar sunt sătul de AROGANŢA unora ce bagatelizează interesul crescând pentru „Ambii regi (ce) fac şi azi obiectul unor evocări fanatice în diferite medii, de la emisiuni TV la publicaţii diverse şi zeci de pagini de internet”…în acelaşi timp, aceştia exaltă rolul unor REGI ALOGENI, al unor ISTORICI ALOGENI, al unor LINGVIŞTI ALOGENI, etc. Ce-ar fi să „stea ei în banca lor şi să ne lase pe noi să ne scriem Istoria şi Dicţionarele” ???
D-na Zoe Petre se declară descendentă din greci şi austrieci şi în această postură, este invitată „să nu se bage unde nu-i fierbe oala” !
Dacă înaintaşii săi şi dânsa s-au lăsat asimilaţi de români, fiind „primiţi cu pâine şi cu sare” (a se citi despre SARE şi importanţa sa), nu înseamnă că trebuie să scuipe în farfuria din care au mâncat … UN PIC DE BUN SIMŢ, că nu ne interesează opiniile domniei sale despre „de unde ne tragem noi românii” ! Deja are responsabilităţi pentru actuala stare de lucruri din România, fiind participantă activă în calitate de consilier prezidenţial, la jefuirea Neamului !!!
Atitudinea dumneaei, demonstrează un „ataşament bolnăvicios” la principiile GLOBALIZĂRII, care este după părerea noastră o „modalitate nouă de colonialism şi deznaţionalizare”. GLOBALIZAREA este cu mult mai condamnabilă decât… NAŢIONALISMUL !!!

Apropos de Zoe Petre, iată un comentariu al unui român care a trăit o perioadă în Sardinia şi care confirmă „legătura sarzilor cu protoromânii”, precum şi „atitudinea sceptică a italienilor înşişi apropos de … ROMANIZARE”, aşa cum am constatat şi eu din discuţii cu „istorici cu patalama” italieni (vezi postarea despre CARSULAE):

„părerea mea că un răspuns lui Zoe Petre este doar o imensă pierdere de timp… referitor la pisică (sunt specialist în pisici!) în Sardegna se spune pizetù (într-unul dintre dialectele lor, nu știu în care) spre deosebire de italienescul gatto pe care-l știm cu toții. iar chiogioții bătrâni spun la furtuna pe mare Fortuna și nu pricepeau unii de la un post de radio italian ce legătură are dezastrul pe mare cu norocul! am urlat la ei că și la noi se spune furtună, dar nu cred că m-au auzit…”
„ah, am uitat să spun ce-i mai important: nici ăia din sardegba și nici ăia din Chioggia nu se consideră italieni, latini, și alte treburi din astea… în condițiile în care ei ar trebui să se considere mai romanizați decât Zoe Petre, nu-i așa?”

Iată cum un „căpşunar” mai isteţ şi mai „umblat”, poate pricepe mai bine trecutul nostru, decât un „istoric al lui peşte” care nu-şi mişcă fundul, decât ca să frecventeze simpozioane unde „se bate apa-n piuă” (în cel mai bun caz) !


Iată în continuare alţi „naţionalişti” din afara României… poate citeşte şi află şi d-na Zoe Petre :

Sursa :   http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/texasczech/Valachs/We%20are%20Valachs.htm

 Despre volohi- românii din Tatra :

We Are Valachs!
Translator: Joseph Bittersman
Editor: Leo Baca 

„baci, brânză, sălaş, sălaşnic, colibă, brânză, ritualuri străvechi, etc…. tot ce derivă din activitatea oierilor e de origine românească, ci nu turcească, albaneză, sau slavă cum scriu Dicţionarele noastre ! (???)
„Furthermore, the Valachs maintained a greater degree of self determination. It was expressed by different judicial customs called Valachian Law. ”
“Moravian mountain people around Vsetin, so called Valachs, a courageous people, after Frederick’s (Czech King) defeat in 1620, refused to accept the Austrian yoke and for full three years managed to defend with arms in their hands their freedom.”
„ The real center of Valachian uprising was in the mountains, which protected them against arbitrariness of the enemy, like a mother protects her children.”
„In spite of this, the mountains were full of ‘zbojniks’, who, especially according to folk stories, took from the rich and gave to the poor”…

ZBOINICI-RĂZBOINICI care „luau de la bogaţi ca să dea săracilor” !… „mocanii” au ştiut dintotdeauna ce este „omenia”, deoarece ei aveau „LEGEA VALAHĂ” ce le-o dicta !
… în acest document se face o singură „concesie/omisiune”, vorbindu-se de o „venire a valahilor din ţările române”. Eu sunt convins că (aşa cum se specifică şi în text)  nimeni în afară de valahi nu se ocupa cu oieritul în Carpaţii Vestici. Deci „venirea lor” trebuie fixată cu multe sute, mii de ani înainte, şi anume din timpurile când a apărut această îndeletnicire de CIOBAN. Este imposibil de susţinut că până la „venirea valahilor” nimeni nu se ocupa de oierit !!! … mai degrabă, erau mai puţini şi mai puţin organizaţi (în lipsa „agresiunilor externe”),  fapt ce determina „lipsa informaţiilor despre ei”.  Astfel se explică răspândirea în toţi munţii Europei a creşterii oilor… trebuia să înceapă undeva, iar acest „undeva” este ACOLO UNDE ESTE SAREA ! OIERITUL care începe cu domesticirea caprelor/muflonilor, este PRIMA REVOLUŢIE SOCIO-ECONOMICĂ MAJORĂ din Istoria ultimelor 10 milenii, cu mult înaintea apariţiei „civilizaţiilor urbane”- „civilizaţiilor scrisului” !!! LEGEA VALAHĂ este cea mai veche lege şi nu s-a transmis pe cale scrisă, ci orală, iar noi o chemăm azi LEGEA BUNULUI SIMŢ, A LIBERTĂŢII ÎN ARMONIE CU NATURA ÎNCONJURĂTOARE. În trecut, aceste legi se chemau LEGILE BELAGINE-LEGILE FRUMOASE.


Un alt exemplu de „dacomaniaci”  de data asta  din Franţa : 

Sursa :  http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.revuedesdeuxmondes.fr%2Fuser%2F&h=2AQEW4e8EAQFjQbJVkDSR8GcQ7R1CWa1PxLX4Yy_-wyIUrQ


 „Dacii sau Geţii pe care ştiinţa îi încadrează în neamul Tracilor, ocupă într-adevăr acest teritoriu din cele mai vechi timpuri”
„”Les deux principautes de Moldavie et de Valachie son habitees par une population que l’on peut regarder comme parffaitment homogene,…”Moldaves et des Valaques son repandus dans la Hongrie orientale et remplissent la Transylvanie presque entiere, la Bucovine et la Bessarabie. Le Dnister, les Carpathes, la Theiss, le Danube et la mer Noire forment une frontiere naturelle autor de ces diverses provinces, partagees entre 3 grands empires, et ce vaste territoire semble etre ainsi dispose pour contenir une seule nation.” (La Moldo-Valaquie et le MOUVEMENT ROUMAIN – H.Desprez)”

Numéro : Janvier/Février 1848 (Première quinzaine) Voir tous les articles de ce numéro
Auteur : H. DESPREZ


Iată cum se ocupă alţii de Istoria noastră, în vreme ce „ai noştii competenţi cu mucii pe piept” se înverşunează împotriva „dacomaniacilor” (observaţi că pun ghilimele !)


Febbraio 28th, 2011 No Comments   Posted in Politica italiana


Iată pe scurt, un exemplu din „cea de-a cincea putere democratică a Lumii”, care este (mai bine zis era) … ITALIA.

În această ţară, este Prim Ministru SILVIO BERLUSCONI, membru obscur al organizaţiei masonice „Loggia Propaganda 2”, plecat de pe poziţia de cabaretist şi ajuns în scurt timp, cel mai bogat om din Italia. Se spune că acest „salt” s-a făcut cu ajutorul banilor murdari ai Mafiei, dar nu asta ne interesează.

Fapt este, că are la activ zeci de procese, multe dintre care, PRESCRISE  pentru „depăşirea timpului procesual”.

Azi poţi să faci orice delict, deoarece, cu buni avocaţi şi un Sistem Judiciar Labirintic, aflat în slujba PUTERII, ai toate şansele să nu ajungi la Sentinţă.

Acuzaţiile la adresa sa „se ţin lanţ”, ultima fiind aceea de „favozizare a prostituţiei minorile”. Tot zilele acestea urmează a fi judecat pentru FRAUDĂ FISCALĂ şi CORUPŢIE. Din multe procese a reuşit să „iasă”, confecţionând „legi pe măsură”, cum a fost aceea referitoare la „depenalizarea FALSULUI ÎN BILANŢ”. De asemenea a încercat aprobarea unei legi (LEGITTIMO IMPEDIMENTO), care l-ar pune la adăpost de ORICE acuzaţie pe durata mandatului. Această lege nu a „trecut” de Preşedintele Republicii, dar se mai fac încă… „săpături”.

Ei bine, conform zicalei „HOŢUL STRIGĂ – HOŢIIII !”, acesta a adoptat o atitudine de denigrare a Magistraturii, punând bazele unui „conflict instituţional”, în care o putere în Stat, delegitimează o altă Putere autonomă. Pentru Berlusconi, acei magistraţi care îl acuză, sunt COMUNIŞTI ce nu urmăresc altceva, decât RĂSTURNAREA VOINŢEI POPULARE EXPRIMATĂ PRIN VOT.

Italia are 60 de milioane de locuitori, dintre care 12 milioane au votat alianţa de Centru-Dreapta, din care fac parte diverse partide (Lega Nord, Socialiştii lui Craxi, Creştin democraţii, etc., dar şi Popolo della Liberta (deşi eu l-aş numi … DELLE LIBERTA), rezultat din confluenţa : Alleanza Nazionale (ex-fascist) şi Forza Italia (a lui Berlusconi). În toată Coaliţia, Berlusconi ca exponent al fostei Forza Italia, poate conta pe circa 50 % din sufragii, deci rezultă că a fost DIRECT votat de circa 6 milioane de votanţi. Dar ceilalţi 38 de milioane de italieni cu drept de vot, NU L-AU VOTAT !!!! Cu toate astea REFUZĂ JUDECATA, deşi probele sunt zdrobitoare, pe motiv de PERSECUŢIE POLITICĂ !?

Ei bine, eu cred că cei ce-l votează sunt : IGNORANŢII, MAFIOŢII şi… PROFITORII, însumaţi cu RASIŞTII din LEGA NORD şi „nostalgicii fascismului”, toţi sprijiniţi „subtil” de Vatican. Dacă mai adăugăm şi „impotenţa cronică” a opoziţiei de Centru-Stânga, de a propune SOLUŢII ADECVATE, ajungem la concluzia logică la care am ajuns şi anume că SISTEMUL PARTIDIC nu favorizează PROGRESUL SOCIETĂŢII OMENEŞTI PE PRINCIPII SĂNĂTOASE !

Iată cum se prezintă „DEMOCRAŢIA AVANSATĂ” tolerată, deci propusă de COMUNITATEA EUROPEANĂ !

Acesta este SISTEMUL care ni se propune, şi asta nu de azi de ieri ! De 2000 de ani, nu se face altceva !

Voi, cei ce acuzaţi „Mişcarea DACIA” de UTOPISM, „luaţi-vă de pe ochi vălul” ! Daţi la o parte PRISMA DEFORMANTĂ ce vă condiţionează „vederea” !

SISTEMUL nu mai are „SOLUŢII” la problemele Omenirii ! Acesta ne propune SĂ CONSUMĂM, când … NU MAI AVEM CE !!!

SISTEMUL se bazează pe REPRESIUNE, deci… VIOLENŢĂ, iar „cine seamănă vânt, culege FURTUNĂ!”.  şi nimeni nu este „la adăpost”, cum mai cred încă unii ce „nu fac politică” !