The Velvet Opposition, Procrustean view, and volitional paralysis

I address once more the topic I tackled a few days ago in a video essay, on the two types of political opposition in Romania, that are complementary and not contradictory to one another. The same phenomenon is observable, in fact, in other ex-communist countries, but its impact in Romania is particularly overwhelming and suffocating.

I called the two types of contesting political power from the position of a political party, standalone politician, journalist, or analyst as “controlled opposition” and “convenient opposition”.

The first category is an old trick in mass democracies, dominating by the public spectacle of competition between various political groups, which dispute their primacy of exercising power. The “controlled opposition” is the one created by the government or by the power circles that control this government (foreign networks of influence, secret services, financial groups). This type of opposition is perfectly aware of the role it is being assigned in exchange for material benefits. We are dealing with what in French sociological parlance is called “simulacrum”, i.e. a counterfeiting, an imitation of the role of political opposition to keep that political niche occupied in order not to admit the emergence and consolidation of a genuine opposition, which could pose a real threat to the power structure. That is, they are impostors, often recruited by the secret services, receiving substantial financial backing and widespread mainstream media coverage, who consciously carry out the task assigned by those who control them from the shadows.

The second category is represented by people gathered in political parties, as well as independent political activists or journalists and commentators who, although not in complicity with the rulers, are neither recruited by secret services nor bribed, yet they remain within the mainstream orthodox discourse. Those in the “convenient opposition” level harsh criticism at the exercise of power, sincerely critiquing all its abuses and deviations, but their criticism does not exceed the limits drawn from abroad after the country has been colonized.

This Procrustean state of mind or view of the political phenomenon and of the place and role of the country in the international system, attributed after the fall of communism, is not seen by those in the second category as dishonourable, abusive, and discriminatory.

Among the exceptions that dignify the Romanian nation, who understood and sagaciously articulated with exemplary patriotic duty the country’s national interest in the new historical conditions after the fall of communism are the economists Anghel Rugină, Constantin Cojocaru and Ilie Șerbănescu. Of course, there are other public figures who challenge the system that has been established in the last three decades, especially in cultural and academic circles, in the socio-human sciences, but usually their criticisms do not develop into a fundamental critique, nor do they sketch alternative solutions.

Any solid approach to the realities of society imposes the need for a broad vision of the set of geopolitical and geoeconomics realities on a global scale.

In the wooden language, I would say that one needs to see the big picture. The politician and the analyst, respectively, require certain intellectual weapons to be able to zero in precisely on the issues confronting his country and the world. Namely, a satisfactory academic training, plus an acute critical spirit.

But most of the time, these qualities are lacking in those operating in the public sphere. The underlying causes for the massive presence of mediocrity are easy to understand, but it is nonetheless disheartening for those who are still capable of a minimal intellectual exercise after more than 30 years of cognitive warfare. I shall address them here briefly.

The nations from the communist block had no other model to aspire to and covet than the Western model. Therefore, after the collapse of communism, the general public in our space already presented a psychological predisposition to accept the Western model. The national interest itself, as well as the personal one, was confused with conforming all social sectors to the “Western norm”. The adjustment of political institutions, of the economy, of the educational system, of culture, and of the system of values itself to the western standard represented a generalized obsession.

Too few people realized then, but also ever since, the ingrate position in which we found ourselves. The status of subordinates, of “repeaters” guided by the supermen of the West sent to civilize us, did not bother us at all. On the contrary. It motivated us to become like them. Thus, idolatry of the West was and remains a true state religion, a mandatory cult with its own clergy in the position of Western dignitaries and diplomats, as well as “experts” from the vast network of NGOs financed and ideologically supported from the West. Notions such as democracy, the rule of law, market economy, human rights have become sacred.

But after years of fascination, blind imitation, and veneration for the collective West, some of us (including the undersigned) began to feel a certain psychological discomfort, to intuit that something was wrong with the model of society, which has been lent to us, but also with the country’s international standing. Without the sad historical experience of the last three decades, none of us would have been able to predict how things would turn out.

But how do we explain the fact that, despite the disastrous state in which we find ourselves, there are so few voices that clearly and thoroughly challenge the established system. I summarize here only a few of the causes that inhibit the thinking ability of a large majority and paralyze the desire to challenge the few who still feel that something is wrong.

1. After the disappearance of the communist regime, the only reference system that could replace the old order seemed to be the Western one. The "third way" in the field of political theories, economics, the organization of society as a whole, has gone unnoticed.

2. Ex-communist societies found themselves ideologically, institutionally, economically, and psychologically devastated.

3. The paradigmatic vacuum in the collective mind of ex-communist societies has been filled by the liberal paradigm.

4. The Western system of values has taken over the worldview of the man who escaped communism.

5. The cognitive warfare waged with soft methods against our nations has been devastating. The cause for the total victory of Western strategists is explained by the lack of any resistance in the target nations, who were not aware of the noological and axiological aggression waged against them and therefore did not take any defence.

6. The economic, political, educational, cultural and - more broadly - civilizational colonization has been received by the peoples of our area as an act of benevolence.

7. NATO and EU accession have been and are seen as natural and necessary, as processes that enjoyed immutable historical legitimacy and that would benefit the national interests of ex-communist countries.

8. Western networks of influence have penetrated massively in our countries, capturing the decision-making act at the level of state hierarchies, as well as the national economy, academia, and the media.

9. The man from the ex-communist space is trained via the school, press, countless courses, seminars, and trainings for all social sectors in the spirit of Western-centric paradigms.

10. The few intellectuals who have understood the imperialist and antichristian nature of Western power centres avoid openly confronting the system for fear of being ostracized, discredited, and marginalized.

Against the background of total loss of sovereignty, the Romanian politicians continue to remain captives of the dominant discourse. And with them, the other public actors. Returning to the categorization I made at the beginning of this article, I would specify the following. While the exponents of the "controlled opposition" play the tune dictated by the power structures due to their base corruptible characters, those of the “convenient opposition” are confined to the same ideological vise for two complementary reasons: conformity and ignorance.

Thus, the true masters of Romania from western networks of influence can play their game unhindered, as long as no one tries to expose them. If no one falls back on the axiomatic principle of “Know Your Enemy!”, the do not formulate, showing competence and courage, the major stakes of international politics, nor do they offer sound solutions, those we conventionally call globalists can be sure that no one will violate the status quo established by them.

Ideological and conceptual obedience, carefully shaped by the social engineers of Western neuro-pirates (see Lucien Cerise), which prevails in the intellectual milieu today, reminds me of the Soviet period. At that time, any critique had to obligatory fit into Marxist-Leninist ideology. Everyone recognized the righteousness of the official line, everyone failed in the shell of “captive thinking” (Czesław Miłosz), everyone was in favour of Communist party. Dissidence was then, under the communist regime, and remains today, under the liberal regime a rara avis. And whoever risks of detracting from the established line is regarded as insane. The only difference is that under communism the risks for dissidents were much greater, while nowadays cowardice and docility replace the fear of death or deportation to the GULag.

This ideological blindness and volitional paralysis are all the more serious as, unlike the communist period, today anyone interested has access to an infinity of sources of information, books in any language, alternative press, social networks. In Western Europe, a multitude of academic papers have been written that expose the planetary scale of the kleptocratic system, the inhuman essence of neoliberalism, the monopolistic nature of the world economic system based on corporatocracy, monopolies, usury, huge inequalities, and demonic obsessions. The school of sovereigntist thought in the West has generated a true intellectual and political elite, more and more visible and energetic. But these breakthroughs do not seem to have had any impact on those inhabiting our public space.

The truly critical historical moment we are living requires the rapid overcoming of our own prejudices and naiveties. Otherwise, Romania is not only deprived of the chance to rid itself of the dishonourable role of object of geopolitics of the Atlanticist centres of power, but it even risks disintegrating territorially and disappearing from the world map.

In face of the Western-based power centres’ aggression against the whole world by imposing Agenda 21, of the COVID operation as pretext for the murder by injection of billions of people, demonic plans to cancel private property, eliminate cash, rolling out universal basic income (UBI), forced chip implants, totalitarian digitalization, surveillance, and control, the establishment of a global technocracy as the ultimate form of dictatorship, the imposition of the transhumanist and LGBT agenda, there is no room for tactical manoeuvres or time for long reflection. It is imperative to reject all forms of Western domination categorically, totally, and radically on the peoples of the world.

As for Romania, a program for regaining the sovereignty of the country must include at least a few key points, which should conceptually challenge the current state of affairs. They must start from the premise that the very model that has been imposed on us since 1989 is an anti-national one, which transforms the country into a protectorate of the globalist plutocracy. Here are some essentials for such a program.

1. At the heart of all policies throughout all social sectors must stand the orthodox view of the world. The collective identity of the Romanian nationhood is inconceivable outside the Byzantine matrix, of Eastern Christianity.

2. Any legislative act, any decision taken by the organs of state power must harmonize with Christian-Orthodox morality.

3. It is imperative to abandon the NATO bloc as a politico-military alliance that endangers the national security of the country, as well as the subsequent adoption of the status of a neutral state. 

4. As the European Union represents the concentrated expression of the domination of transnational corporations over European nations, the instrument of political vassalage and economic colonization, Romania is to leave this supranational organization.

5. The country's international relations shall be based on the principles of mutual benefit, good neighbourliness, non-aggression, and respect for the sovereignty of each state.

6. Given that the war in Ukraine has accelerated the collapse of the international economic model based on the Bretton Woods system, Romania must cease lending from the IMF and the World Bank.

7. As the World Trade Organization imposes in an opaque and abusive manner the free trade regime in international trade, which benefits only the transnational private entities and disadvantages the states, Romania must resort to initiating the procedures for abandoning this organization.

8. Romania's economic policy must be based on the principles of economic sovereignty, protectionist measures representing the only chance of the country's rebirth.

9. Given that the World Health Organization has been captured by some Big Pharma mafia circles and covertly imposes the satanic agenda of depopulation by instituting compulsory vaccinations, Romania must withdraw from this organization.

10. The country's policy of regaining its sovereignty must exclude any external funding from media outlets, non-governmental organizations, and religious communities.

I understand that such a position will appal many people. I also fully understand that all the recurring accusations and denigration levelled against me will be resumed. But I cannot remain indifferent to the fact that the country is falling apart, and those who consider themselves elite are wallowing in the swamp of liberalism and the religion of human rights. I understand that cognitive inertia is hard to overcome. Likewise, I know that being one step ahead of others is an ingrate occupation, which does not bring praise, but on the contrary, recrimination. But I want to end with a parallel between today's historical moment and that of the end of the USSR. 

The stalemate in today's globalist project strikingly reminds me of the paralysis in the communist project, which gripped the midst of the then-elite between 1985-1991. Although Gorbachev's new policy had proclaimed a certain opening, known by the two key terms "Perestroika" (reformation) and "Glasnost" (freedom of speech), the only public speeches allowed were within the limits of official doctrine, that is, a type of reformed Marxism, with Lenin as the supreme beacon and the leading role of the immutable Communist Party. Those who were perceived by the general public as leaders, "sacred monsters", writers, elites, "intellectuals" remained the tributaries of this ideological trap. Most did it out of opportunism, others out of sheer stupidity. "Communism with a human face" was the order of the day. And we, those who had dared to challenge the regime, to reject Marxism, to demand a ban on the Communist Party, the KGB, and the withdrawal of the Soviet Army from our territory, were seen as insane or, worse, provocative. In that astral moment of our history, the “men of the nation”, the master of local art, but also of self-admiration, proved to be both fearful, naïve, and devoid of clairvoyance.

Today history repeats itself. By the way, I already managed to get some reproaches. What do you mean by withdrawal from NATO? How to get out of the EU? How to abandon the Western model? Well, what do we do? Return to communism? Do you want to be accused of being with the Russians?

This is the intellectual stalemate in which some of today's opinion leaders find themselves. The lack of imagination overlaps with the lack of thorough knowledge, and the two are worsened by the total lack of courage. For there is no need to talk about the lack of a spirit of sacrifice in a liberal society, that is flaccid, devitalized, de-masculinized, and collapsed in the sewer of hedonism and mediocrity.

Translated by Mihail Hașiu