I had no idea he was going to do this (de pe marea scena a tarii, pe micul ecran: Oda-Suntem Defecti, B1TV, CanCan, CoolStuff, A3, VladPetri, PSD-1:15h, VictorPonta, Badea), but back on Friday I was writing in an article published on Saturday, on Superwritings and other contests:
we have a plagiarizing prime-minister who has never done anything relevant or of substance. He’s never come up with ideas worth remembering (except for being paranoid) and he wins elections only because disadvantaged, uninformed people have come to recognize his name and the name of his party, despite his lack of positive achievements, and associate them with handouts.
There were 70000 people according to the organizers and 30-40000 according to independent sources. Some people claimed they were brought from outside of Bucharest and paid to show up.
Not long ago, in 1974-the tipping point, I was explaining how Nicolae Ceausescu ejaculated his “July Theses” after having visited Mao’s China and Big Kim’s Korea – Ponta emulates them so well, he even looks Korean. Ceausescu’s out-of-bounds cult of personality started in earnest soon thereafter. Henceforth, Victor Ponta did not even have to travel that far, he now has an example in his forebear, ceasca. Here’s how one expat living in Bucharest sees it (bl-ponta).
Ponta bizarrely said yesterday that comparisons with the old dictator were unfounded, as ‘Ceausescu actually held his party congress at the Sala Palatului.’
So that’s alright then.
Anyway, as the full, appalling spectacle unfolded on Saturday we said that ‘today is the day Ponta loses the presidential election.’ A couple of days on and we think it was a good call. Ponta will not be Romanian president. No matter who faces Ponta in the second round (and the most likely candidate remains Mayor of Sibiu Klaus Iohannis) we simply can’t see the prime minister winning. We refuse to believe that – beyond the medieval PSD heartlands of Teleorman, Olt, Gorj, Dolj and Moldova – anyone will choose Ponta over Iohannis. (Not, we should add, because Iohannis is the ideal candidate: he is far from it).
Ponta’s campaign by the way has been firmly centered on the nationalist slogan Marea Unire, the name given to the unification of Transylvania with Moldova and Wallachia in 1918. Beyond the slogan’s nakedly obvious expansionism there is also another parallel with Nicolae Ceausescu to be drawn: the idea of ‘uniting all Romanians behind one leader’ is very much the same as the Party – Ceausescu – Romania narrative of the 1980s, which made the notions of Ceausescu and Romania inseparable. Ponta is Romania: that’s what we are being told to think. Fortunately, people are refusing to do so.
One way to interpret Ceausescu’s descent into an increasingly disgusting cult of personality may have had more to do with his humiliation in his youth by the secret police – he had been arrested as a kid in what was obviously a serious abuse of policing that may have actually turned his life into a different direction. The usual interpretation by “historians” is that he was such an angry and radical youngster that police just had to arrest him when he was 14, but is it not possible that he was just a normal, rebellious kid who was radicalized by his unfair and illegal arrest, and who knows what humiliation he endured there? Is it not fair to also assume that Vlad Tepes was a normal person before being thrown in a Turkish jail and abused in ways that make us fidget when we even think about it? Wasn’t Nixon’s paranoia during his presidential term caused by what many consider widespread electoral fraud in JFK’s earlier win against him?
Ponta, for his part, made his war with the president-elect the cornerstone of his leadership (and never managed to win) and only dares to run for president after his arch-nemesis is constitutionally forced to depart. He had to ask Base’s permission to attend European summits. He got to meet Obama only through the highly controversial backdoor called Tony Blair (who knows how much the latter charged him). He did his PhD with the suicidal prime-minister (they alone and maybe NSA know how much anilingus that involved) only to be unmasked - and that wasn’t even his first foray into lobbyist-mediated politics. His overtures were repeatedly rebuffed by his European Socialist colleagues, culminating with their skipping of a Bucharest summit they had previously confirmed (euract-pes). Even in the hour of his triumph, the Parliament nearly voted to censor his government (real-no-conf).
All these cumulative humiliations may have a similar effect on his infantile, fragile psyche. In a way, his conflict with Basescu may have more to do with Crin Antonescu’s arrogance than his own, he was just holding on to the line he learned in school: “my master wasn’t supposed to be you, B, I was not supposed to serve you, why is my master in jail”? Once in power, he may turn out to be a far worse Basescu, Putin, Stalin and Ceausescu combined than any of us could possibly imagine.
Then again, this is not how he appears to a majority of Romanian voters. Most voters are simply worse off than before 1989 and their hopes of any improvement are also gone. Ponta for them represents the past, with its assurance of subsistence, preferable to today’s chaos. As such, similarities with Old Romania can only increase his chances of getting their vote. The fact that the Romanian Government Youtube Channel is publishing “work visits” to economic agents, cathedral inauguration, restaurant inauguration, declaration-09.23 and his presence at the launching of “l’etat c’est moi” is thus not an ugly parallel to an Orwellian past and an unacceptable use of governmental resources for a personal electoral campaign, but rather a reminder how good and simple things used to be.
Sources / More info: yt, bl-ponta, fb-rxns, real-no-conf, euract-pes
Actually, no. The key to Internet maturity is accountability, not anonimity.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do agree that you should not disclose your personal data when participating to a competition. The organising company can request them, but you should be able to participate as Zamolxis on the public page (as long as they do have some form of ID which they will keep private).
Dan Alexe is indeed a pleasant appearance. Other than that, from Densusianu above, most of the stuff about "The Great Dacian People" has been pure speculation (http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia_preistoric%C4%83)
ReplyDeleteI was using "anonymity" more in the sense of "pseudonymous identity". Why can the latter (and even anonymity) not include accountability?
ReplyDeleteThat is the consensus among "scientists" according to Wikipedia. Do you actually consider history to be science? Also, Alexe is going even against the consensus with his "unearthing of the dead" soldier, claiming that Decebal did not commit suicide because pitong.
ReplyDeletePsychology, mainly. Also, legal accountability beats any other type of accountability :)
ReplyDeleteI think he's just against speculation. History does involve a large quantity of speculation, but it also includes a solid base (artefacts, written accounts etc). In this case, there's no solid base, just speculation (not about Decebal's death, which can be found on the column and within a historical account, but about the whole "Grand Dacian Civilisation" theory).
ReplyDeleteWell, then by taking the side of Tibi Max as Decebalus' killer he engages in the same kind of speculation he accuses "dacopaths" and Romanian priests of. I disagree on the "solid base" because usually both sides of such an argument have both kinds of proof. In the end choosing one side over the other is a subjective stance.
ReplyDeleteWhichever way you look at his position (or that of militant atheists), it's not tenable.
An pseudonymous person expressing an opinion or publishing something online is not any less or more accountable than one claiming an identity that has a correspondent IRL. If suing them, in both cases you have to prove that congruence with the real life identity, otherwise, normally, your case will go nowhere fast.
ReplyDeleteNow, with psychology, you need to explain further. The psychology of the pseudonymous person, the psychology of the reader, the psychology of the advertiser / PR person (who is, in the case of most "journalists", the client)?
There is proof on both sides, but you and / or me may choose to believe some and reject another. Neither of us has the time to really look into this carefully and debate it. However, I'm glad we agree he went off the deep end with Tibi Max.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's kind of an easy shot to pick on a detail which nobody can really find conclusive proof for. I mean, you can find conclusive proof that Troia was real (and someone did), but you can't really know how someone died in battle.
Of course. And that's precisely my problem with Alexic Danopaths: they are saying to Dacopaths "your theory is silly because in my mind that's unlikely; my theory is better because in my mind my theory makes more sense than yours, but neither of us can really know how things have happened, we're just weighing various evidence items differently"
ReplyDeleteI'm not supporting either side, but I don't believe we should encourage Dacopaths by giving them the illusion that they have arguments :)
ReplyDeleteI take a different view. Just like it is "utilitarian" / personally advantageous to take a positive view of things, encouraging the slightly exaggerated Dacian mythology may be good for those who lack role models growing up, and it is better than religion at that - it's more "personalized" for Romanians. Once people develop a few personal accomplishments, they will naturally discard earlier myths as part of their new, mature persona.
ReplyDeleteYet, somehow, most people supporting this theory are not that young...could it be a consequence of the general lack of models and the precarious economical conditions around?
ReplyDeletePossibly. Or, maybe, it is a consequence of an aging populace. The public discourse is dominated by old farts. "Young" is being constantly pushed upwards. Alexic Danopaths are not that young either.. :)
ReplyDeleteYoung is not that relevant, unfortunately :(
ReplyDeleteRemember that Aussie comic? I think I wrote more than one article on the subject.. :)
ReplyDeleteZamo the Destroyer :? http://www.zamothedestroyer.com/2008/12/22/merry-igmas/ (Kidding, just wanted to drop that link)
ReplyDeleteThanx, didn't know about that one. Looks like it died in 2009.
ReplyDelete(I meant comedian: Ferguson, /2013/08/youth-stupidity-and-marin-preda.html )
I know, I know...just wanted to plant that joke :P
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDeleteDarn, this went to moderation because of the f.. word. I whitelisted your email address so that it doesn't happen again.
ReplyDeleteThe pseudonym IS a problem ("might" does not quite describe it since the rules in this particular contest are clear and it's obvious that the organizers are taking issue with it). My point is that not only this SHOULDN'T be a problem, but it should actually be encouraged.
I don't have a problem discussing with random, anonymous people on the Internet. In fact, most of the time I prefer I did not know their identities, because once people proclaim who they are, they expect you to reciprocate, and for an online discussion that is not only unnecessary but actually counterproductive, as it tends to increase the likelihood of a conversation devolving in ad hominem.
I submit to you that it is not the psychology of the pseudonymous person or others, but rather your psychology that takes issue with anonymity. The question is why? :)
Why would an anonymous person have lower credibility to start with, since online it is rather hard to check someone's background or authenticate their claimed persona (assuming that they connect their online persona to a "real" one)?
Most people have no idea of the basic rules of engagement. Giving them a pseudonym is giving them power, rather than giving them a time out to learn them. It's not just "my" psychological bias, it's a generally encountered one and it's mainly an ''intellectual bias''. About 70% of anonymous comments you read online seem to have been written by imbecils. The percentage is much lower among people who use real credentials and ask to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteI haven't noticed that. That could be, however, because I judge more harshly somebody who "asks to be taken seriously" and then makes a mistake or is parallel to logic in general than someone who just makes a mistake or is not very bright. Also, I have difficulties remembering name even IRL :)
ReplyDeleteI usually remember names quite well and associate them with faces. If faces are not available, invalid arguments can also do the trick :D
ReplyDeleteGebeleizis has smiled to you by blessing you with such mesmerizing memory powers :)
ReplyDeleteNeah. Drinking from the bosom of Bendis did that :P
ReplyDeletegood call. stay hetero, my friend :D
ReplyDelete