Stealing Latvia, Final Episode

Second part of Ragana’s story

Gate West, Temple to Black John in Memoriam of Lost Forests



The Latvian witch http://www.zemgaletourism.lv/bildes/ragana.JPG  paused and looked around to see what impression her story had made on the Latvian tourists touring Latvia.

The witch was delighted by what she saw: almost no one had been listening to her. However, all were spellbound by the bleached mask over her face, which was made of torn old cardboard weathered in the rain and sun for over a year.

“Glory be!” said the Witch. “The worms will ream your arse. Listen up, marines! If you wish to come out alive, you must kill the enemy.”

“Go tell them, mother,” someone from the audience called.

“I am only kidding,” replied the witch. “I don’t want anyone killed, but I would hang them by their balls and pussies if that would help.” The witch took a deep breath and then continued with her story to the Latvians, who she had just bewitched and blinded. Her breath still reeked of eyeballs turned into rotten eggs.

She began by reminding everyone about the need of sacrifice.



If trees let grow, in ten years it will look very different



When on May 28, President Zatlers made the speech that initiated the dismissal of the Latvian Saeima http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT6944am6IY , he used the word “sacrifice” a number of times. The President mentioned that among the sacrifices made by the Latvian people, which sacrifices had pulled Latvia out of the economic crisis were lower wages, higher taxes, and unemployment. He did not mention the 300,000 to 500,000 Latvians who had been driven out of their country by liberal economic policies of the Latvian government. Of these none were returning yet, though the President mentioned “improved economic conditions”.

Nonetheless, to mention the word “sacrifice” is a noteworthy departure for President Zatlers. He had seldom used the word before. The reason for its disuse is, of course, the liberal capitalist economy, which is presumed to be “self-regulating”. In other words, if liberal capitalist economy is self-regulating (the economists of the U.S.A. swear it is so), so is the governing of the state. There is no need for any kind of radical intervention by sacrifices such as people make in times of war or at times they are laying the foundations of their nation. In a liberal democracy self-regulation is the word. As we know, today foreign banks are regulating Latvians, which is to say, they are easing Latvian sovereignty out the door by not saying a word about it. Mum is the word; and surprisingly, Latvians are mum about their sovereignty.

The walk to the temple.

In his speech, President Zatlers mentioned the word “radical” with regard to himself. This is not to say that he is, though he may have thought so. After all, privatizing a nation is as radical a step as must be the nation’s reaction to such an effort.

That President Zatlers had turned a sceptic about liberal capitalist economy and its advertised democracy was picked up quickly by the more sensitive ears among the ruling elites. Andris Grutups, a lawyer of note among Latvians, reacted almost immediately http://www.delfi.lv/news/referendums-2011/referendums/grutups-zatlers-ar-savu-vieglpratibu-nolicis-valsti-mulkiga-stavokli.d?id=39093605 .

“With his light headedness and short sightedness, Zatlers has put the State into a foolish position. There was no reason to dismiss the parliament…. The only pleasing thing is that the parliament quickly elected Andris Berzins as the next President. What he will be like only the future knows, but as far as finances and economy are concerned, he is at least three times smarter than Valdis Zatlers,” said Grutups.

After quoting Grutups, the Latvian witch looked at all the Latvians whose eyeballs she had eaten and lowering her voice said: “When you have got no eyeballs, it is much easier to lobotomize you. All you have to do is scoop it out. Surreptitious desovereignization is the very essence of globalization.”

“Wow!” said the listening Latvians. “If your name is Yane or Zhane, we want you as our next President.”

To see one's shadow.

“Of course you know,” said the Latvian witch, “that the witch in Latvian is spelled ‘ragana’, that is to say ‘Ra-gana’ or Sun-herder. If you really would like, I would be your Sun gladly. When I am the President, our national hymn will start with the words ‘Dear Sun, bless Latvia’.”

“Go, mother, go!” yelled someone in the audience.

“I will marry Clever John, and he can succeed me as President.”

“Wot!” cried another voice, obviously that of a Populist.

The logic is quite simple, continued the witch Ragana. Latvians must take heart. The President-Elect, Andris Bērziņš must think twice before he accepts his office.

If in the Referendum vote, the Latvians vote for the dismissal of the Saeima, then surely the Saeima was in the eyes of the voters illegitimate at the time it presumed to elect the so-called next president.

Attorney Grūtups should know that while the law cannot be subjective, a sovereign may. And the Latvian people surely are the sovereigns of their nation. The Latvian Saeima and its parliamentary democracy is not the State’s sovereign. The Latvians are Latvia’s sovereigns, because without sovereignty, the Latvians are without a community of their own.

If President-Elect Andris Bērziņš is let stand as Latvia’s President after the Latvian people vote to dismiss the Saeima (which means that the People are also seconding the reasons that Valdis Zatlers gave for asking its dismissal), the surreptitious evolution of the undisclosed cancer continues to devour Latvia’s sovereignty. The casket may be made now.

“Wot, wot!” cried several Populists.

“I think that it is high noon for Latvia,” said the witch Ragana.

Consider the weed.

“Is your name Gary Cooper, the late American actor?” one of the blinded Latvians asked.

“No,” answered Ragana, “he’s the one sang to me “Oh my darling.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4a_1UhwgFU&feature=related .”

(To be continued.)

Stealing Latvia, Final Episode

First part of the old witch’s story



Of ducklings and grasses



Latvia was stolen with the help of a helpless Latvian President.

This is a funny story but also sad. Both little children and grown-ups who tell children this story will laugh and cry.

So, here it goes.

Once upon a time in a country called Latvia, there lived a real witch. The witch wore a black sheet over her otherwise bony and teatless body. Color black made the witch both invisible and horrible looking. The more invisible the witch was, the more horrible she became to the imagination.



A group of about a dozen came marching through the meadow,
but I had to drive on and know not whence they came or went



Many people were struck blind by the sight of the witch—even if she stood in the shadows. There may be to this day blind people alive in Latvia, who can tell what happened when they had their fateful encounter with the witch. The moment she appeared was when she wanted to eat human eyeballs. This is when she (or he?) became visible to Latvians.

The moment the witch’s victims saw the witch, their eyes turned black and teary and flowed from their sockets as rotten eggs. Even as the people screamed, and the smell of rot filled the air, the witch came over to the horrified victim, and licked its eyes right off its cheeks. Many say that the witch smacked her lips and made sounds that sounded like “Nyam, nyam”. The witch then took the opportunity to sit the shocked and blinded victims down wherever it was it all happened and tell them a story.

This is what the witch told.

Once upon a time Latvia was a country covered by great forests. The Latvians themselves were people living in the forest, where they made small clearings to build their houses. The Latvians subsisted mostly on salted mushrooms and cabbages (in the winter) and wild strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, milk, and honey (in the summer).



A midsummer heaven of daisies



The Latvians of former times ate no meat, because they did not like to kill anything alive. The one occasion when the Latvians were willing to kill was at certain high noon times, when the Sun—the goddess who represented the wonders of the universe for them—was directly above them. Trapped in the glowing moment of noon was like being trapped within the Sun herself. To make themselves feel real again, the Latvians gathered a crowd of witnesses (other Latvians), and then asked if one in their midst wanted to die.

“Hee, hee!” laughed the Latvian witch, and continued:

Quite often no one came forward and said “I”. Who in his right mind would? But then why ask the question. This was a moment of truth.

If no Latvian came forward to say that he-she loved Latvia as much as him- or herself, then there was no community of Latvians. Then all those Latvians who had come together on Johns Eve and on Midsummer Day stood at high noon on privatized Gaizinkalns were just a lot of curious tourists watching some silly ritual or other.

There came a time, however, when in fact no one came forward. The Latvian tourists did not in any way feel themselves more real than real feels at high noon at any other place, and evidence for that reality was in the lats, dollars, and euros they left behind at the inn. Oh, yes, the inn was called “Pagan”.



Clover in bloom



The tourist brouchure does not explain that “pagan” stands for pa-yan. Yan had been the name by which the original proto-Latvians designated a man and a human being. Women were included through a trick of the Latvian language: it could turn almost every word into a feminine word by adding a vowel. In this case, Yane, sometimes Zhane, stood for all women.

Thus, the word “pagan” is actually “Yan” and “Yane” demoted to being pa-yan and pa-yane, and then again to pagan. “Pa” is a prefix that diminishes the significance of who ever bears the word by half or more. While Saule stands for the Sun, pa-saule stands for the planet Earth.

When the day came that all Latvians became tourists in their own country (and many tour right out of it, say, to China or Ireland), then something needs to be done for Latvians to recover themselves as something more than tourists. If this does not happen, Latvians turn into soap bubbles and everything goes Pop! This is a great time for witches to drink blood.

Of course, I am not talking of real blood. If sometimes the blood is real, most of the time it is symbolic.

The fragrance is like that of a mild honeysuckle

For example, if Latvians do not become real, the time will be lost to rent out Riga for the next hundred years to the Chinese as their capital in Europe. Right now the Chinese are all over Europe http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china-says-it-will-bailout-insolvent-european-countries saying they are ready to save floundering economies and worthless currencies. If insolvent Riga and Latvians become real and play their cards right, China could bail the Latvians out of their debt and turn Riga into Latvia’s taxi meter for Chinese passengers.

With the tax money, the land of Latvia could be turned into a forest again, and Latvians could again be a forest people. Don’t you know that if you want a real democracy, you must live in a forest? The barons got the best of proto-Latvians when they got them to cut down their forests and their machineguns could move down anything that crossed the field.

“Hee, hee!” laughed the Latvian witch. “To this day, I hide best behind trees. When in a forest, you will never know when I jump out from behind a tree.”

There is even more to tell.



Gate West of the Temple to Black John

Not being too smart and tied into a knot known as “the oligarch”, the Latvian parliament elected a new President, one Andris Bērziņš. The reason the Latvian Saeima (Parliament, sort of) did this was because the new President had been the head of a Latvian bank, drew the highest pension of anyone in Latvia, and was an adventurer, a Don Juan who did not distinguish between women and people when it came to a chance for a tryst.

You know what I mean, said the witch. Hear this!

When President Zatlers suggested in his State Directive #2 (based on the 48^th Pants of the Latvian constitution) that the people decide through a vote in a Referendum whether to dismiss the Saeima or not, his mind was hoping he was reading the mind of the People right, that is, that the Saeima is really deserving of dismissal. President Zatlers gave a long list of potentially anti-Latvian acts of the Saeima, one of which is a surreptitious evolutionary form of privatization of Latvia, which in due course will surprise Latvians by turning Latvia into a non-State. This can be achieved if the sovereign of Latvia is not the People, but the Saeima.

Quite a witchy story, is it not? hee heed the witch. It is also high noon.



Black John on Johns Eve, Midsummer 2011



Could the man to step forward as a sacrifice at this high noon be President-Elect Andris Bērziņš?

It is not Bērziņs life anyone wants, but the Presidency he holds is wanted back in the hands of the sovereign People again. The 17^th of September vote for the new Saeima should include a vote of Latvia’s sovereigns for their next President. Of course, Andris Bērziņš can be given a place on the candidates list. So can Valdis Zatlers. So can others.

(To be continued.)

The President-Elect of Latvia, Andris Bērziņš,
must question the validity of his election!


The last knot


The most obvious thing that can be said about the outgoing President of Latvia, Valdis Zatlers, is that he is a sentimental http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentimentality man. To quote from the link: “…current usage defines it [sentimentality) as an appeal to shallow, uncomplicated emotions at the expense of reason.”

To be criticized for being sentimental does not mean that one questions the patriotism of a patriotic sentimentalist. I do not doubt that President Zatlers is patriotic. However, I do question whether the President—overcome by sentimentalism manifest as inaction—has any sense of what it takes to set the State of Latvia upright again and unify the people who constitute the body of the nation known as Latvia. In effect, I question whether he knows the reasons why for the last four years, he was the President. The public knows, he has struggled with himself with that question. There are some positives.
Indeed, Presidents Zatlers ma
de himself noteworthy when a few years ago, following a demonstration now known as “the umbrella revolution” (also “the 13^th of January demonstration”), we heard him vow to ask for the dismissal of the legislative body of Latvia, the Saeima. The President appeared to have overcome his sentimental feelings about the future of Latvia in favour of action. The People would vote on the question in a Referendum or so they were in anticipation of.

Unfortunately, the President reneged on his promise (call it an implied promise), until only a few weeks ago, near the end of his presidential term (it did not look that he would receive the necessary votes to be re-elected to the next term), on the 28^th of May, he made his promise to the demonstrators on the 13^th of January, 2008, real http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT6944am6IY and asked for the dismissal of the Saeima. If the majority of the electorate agreed with him (in a nationwide Referendum to be held on July 23), then came September 17, there could be popular elections for a new Saeima.

Checking it out

The immediate reaction from the public was ecstatic. Many still are to this day. Nevertheless, the anti-populist voices in the media reacted and were heard almost immediately.

Populism was derided on all fronts. The very force, the popular sovereign, to which the President had just made his appeal ti, was derided as undesirable, surely a constituency of irresponsible elements. The Latvian media breathed the wrath of liberal capitalism. It never mentioned that behind it stood the ad man in the service the so-called  ‘oligarchs’. One show (Jaunā nedēļa / The New Week), made it a point to deride “populism” by declaring itself against it more than three times in rapid fire succession, then filling the other half of the time slot for the show with a pro-nuclear video analysis of Latvia’s future energy needs.

Note that in the Latvian President’s speech (click above link), President Zatlers gives a long list of decisions by the Saeima detrimental to the future of the Latvian State. He begins the list with the Saeima refusal to confer the authority of the “Generāl-Prokurators” of the State to the man chosen by the Latvian equivalent of the Supreme Court in the U.S. (Augstākā tiesa), and ends by mentioning the Saeima acting on behalf of certain private interests and of putting the State in danger of being privatized.

Volodya and Black John

As President Valdis Zatler’s predicted, came June 2^nd, the Saeima did not reelect him, but in his place elected a flower on the wall, a complete surprise to the popular sovereign public, one Andris Bērziņš. A former banker, a pensioner drawing the highest pension of anyone in Latvia, a Don Juan of sorts, this narcissist had to yet try becoming the President of Latvia. And the Saeima gave him his wish.

One would think that the popular sovereign public and President-Elect-Out-of-Office would scream foul. What is wrong with calling for President-Elect Andris Bērziņš to refuse to accept his election as valid, and have him and President Zatlers call for an immediate popular elections of the President?

–even if the Constitution does not provide for such a course, and “there is nothing juridicially wrong” with a corrupt (and dismissed) Saeima projecting its corrupt seed onto the future through Andris Bērziņš.

The argument that the election of Andris Bērziņš to the Presidency of Latvia is a corruption of the spirit of the dismissal of the Latvian Saeima by the popular sovereign is surely valid. One may argue about the issue, but one cannot silence it. Mr. Andris Bērziņš should reflect twice about his vainglorious ambitions.

President Valdis Zatlers, on the other hand, ought to forego a farewell garden party and make an outright appeal for President-Elect Andris Bērziņš to refuse to accept the Saeima’s election of himself as Latvia’s President—the day after the public votes in said Referendum to dismiss the existing Saeima from office. To not do so and choose a garden party is choosing to be sentimental.

Johns Eve, June 23, 2011



Johns grasses



The Latvian politologues, a term suggesting political expertise, but in fact being a term applied by hosts of news shows to anyone he-she pleases to so elevate. Judging from the stuff that Latvian politologues say and opine, most of them have some education in the art of politics. However, none of them has heard (at least not in Latvia) of the word “populism” as a term that plays a significant role in the politics of just about every country but Latvia.

This matter of the “populists” and “populism” being a word beyond ken is another matter that causes Latvia to distinguish itself as an exception among nations.

If the government in North Korea is sometimes thought of in terms of being brutish and nasty, and those damn landlocked Afghanistan’s are unbeatable because of their populist notions of themselves, and add those commie populists who brought on the Soviet Revolution, and the poor and unemployed Germans following the First World War with their load of reparations to pay, and one soon comes to the Latvian notion that the word “populist” is not mentionable as having any sense of meaning, except contemptible.

Such notions concerning Populism pervade the Latvian establishment from the President down to every talking head on television. Apparently no Latvian politician when engaged in protecting his moral image through self-gratification can see in his dreams any other woman than a breasty half naked Dame Liberty with raised sword leading the rabble into battle against “talking heads” of Latvia. Populism is, in short, an unmentionable mentionable, a synonym for protecting the existing political system from politics.



Little Jane



As I suggested in several preceding blogs, the Latvian President-Elect ought to refuse to accept his election as the next President of Latvia by parliamentary Saeima (a Senate sort of), which the incumbent President (in office until July 7) has suggested be dismissed (for any number of anti-State acts) through a public Referendum to be held on July 23.

I have also suggested that such a refusal by the President Elect is desirable, because it is likely to have the effects of a religious revival, i.e., it will bring Latvians another step closer to the re-founding of their nation. I stated that in spite of the legitimacy of Latvia as a state, there are certain questions that refuse to go away. One of these questions (because it is being treated as if there can be no such question) is why the Latvian government—ever since the declaration of Latvia as a State in 1918—has tilted center-right?

Making the Johns crown (vainags)

What is so right about center-right and so wrong with Populism?

There is a bevy of scholars, writers and teachers, whose contributions to political theory challenge the one sidedness of Latvian politologues and politicians. Here is a quote from Chantal Mouffe, a professor at University of Westminster: “The legitimacy of modern liberal democracy is grounded on the idea of popular sovereignty, and those who believe that it can be discarded are profoundly mistaken.” http://www.cccb.org/rcs_gene/mouffe.pdf

Apparently, Latvian politicians, politologues, and the media believe that “populism” is a word that can be discarded. A Latvian right center government has constituted the government of Latvia all the years of Latvian independence, except of course during the time Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union. Moreover, the center-right—given that it has a mindset perpetually locked onto an Earth created in its image, re monopolar or a half a ball makes a ball—will always raise the question: “Hey, what about those popular sovereigns, err, those populists?”

In spite of questions, for most of Latvian politicos and ruling classes Populism remains something of a synonym for shit (sūds), which is why one may not hope that the President Elect Andris Berzins will voluntarily surrender his crown (bestowed on him by what the Populists call “oligarchs” and a partidocratic Saeima) of the Latvian presidency.

One of my unkind comments about Latvian oligarchs is that “oligarchs screw oligarchs”. Of course, oligarchs, i.e.—the system of liberal democracies in which individual rights have been secured by corporations—will likely prevail and maintain the democratic deficit in Latvia as it has for all these years. After all, it is private property over popular sovereignty, halleluiah!

In short, why should the President Elect not stick with the screws of the ship of state turning the ship in a perpetual center-right circle? Was the wheel not turned center-right from day one? Moreover, who can prove that the soft coup d’etad of “53+” was indeed a coup? It is unlikely that it can be proven in a juridical sense.

A son of Johns

However, the history of liberal democracy in Latvia tells a different story. Indeed, one may draw a parallel between de facto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto segregation in America after the Civil War (1861-1865) with regard to black people, which war allegedly freed them from slavery, but, alas, only in a de jure sense. Racial segregation in the United States de facto ended only a century later.

One has only to listen to the anti-populist, anti-popular sovereignty statements from Latvian government officials and the news media to know that the Latvian people constitute a segregated element, the Latvian democratic deficit.

Home Sweet Latvian Home

If back in 1920, a center right government in Latvia was at least partly the result of expediency necessitated by war http://helios-web.saeima.lv/Informacija_eng/likumdeveju_vesture.html , the circumstances of the election of the Constitutional Assembly is (as a hunt for information http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvijas_Satversmes_sapulce reflects) a nebulous affair. For example, who were “the registered voters” who elected it? This blogger finds no information on the matter on the internet.

While apologists of the Latvian government find reasons enough to claim legitimacy for Latvia’s founders and the Constitutional Assembly (mostly by way of its recognition by a number of foreign governments, Britain including), the centre right orientation of the Latvian government remains a matter of contention to this day.

The lack of clarity in the above matter is all the more onerous to apologists and critics alike, because official assertions of legitimacy are as quickly negated by subjective negation of democracy extending beyond parliamentary circles. One of the negations involves the notion that Populism as a legitimate element of democracy is not a legitimate notion.

A humble new pavillion in the making

The latter view is widely held from the incumbent President on down to the media, which is owned by a known to be an unknown. However, what if democracy without an element of populism is not a true democracy? http://www.jstor.org/pss/3687930 --say, as the article of the link has it, when it has us read “civic populism”.

While “civic populism” is a matter of rhetorical dissembling of “populism” pure and simple, the dissembling is acceptable in the instance of the Latvian government. It fears that it may or may not be the usurper of the sovereignty of the Latvian state—per the dissembling events at the foundation of the Latvian state. Therefore, the government in power tries to wipe away the fog by means of overshadowing it with silence or assertions of legitimacy that are not in the realm of being beyond any question.

What is the role of “civic populism” in determining who possesses Latvian sovereignty? The question is the impossible step forward that must be taken if democracy is to prevail in Latvia. If one allows a one year grace period for adjustment, in post-Soviet Latvia the silence has now lasted twenty years.

How does such a step forward project itself on the screen, when stated in terms of dispelling any doubts about the legitimacy of the government? This is an embarrassing question in light of Latvia’s sovereignty put in private hands and foreign banks.

The posts and struts of it

The blogger’s answer to the question was given at the end of the previous blog, which called the current Saeima’s (the one the incumbent President has suggested be dismissed) President Elect, Andris Berzins, to reject his election to the Presidency of Latvia, and call, along with the incumbent Prezident, Valdis Zatlers, for the election of the next President by a popular vote.

What if the electorate becomes aware of itself as a “civic populist”? What if populist rights have been transgressed through an invasion by government of the “internal foreign territory” of populists as Benjamin Ardidi argues in his essay “Populism as an Internal Periphery of Democratic Politics”?  What if this invasion of internal foreign territory also constitutes an invasion of human rights? Surely everyone has a right to his-her subjective evaluation.

At present, the incumbent President of Latvia apparently does not intend to question the authority of the Saeima he has called to be dismissed. One gathers from the news that he intends to do no more than have a going away party http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/articles/241549?ref=news-btn-1 , which he calls “Tas vārds, kam spēks” (trans.: the word with authority).

Without in any way questioning the legitimacy of the State (Valsts) of Latvia, the call by the incumbent Prezident Valdis Zatlers for the dismissal of the Saeima is a golden opportunity to set the record straight by inviting the civic populist electorate to think for itself.

Mr. Andris Berzins would do Latvia a great service if he came forward and refuse his election to the Presidency by a discredited Saeima and, at the same time, call, both, for a popular vote for the next President of Latvia and a Constitutional Convention to rethink, rewrite, and reconnect the Latvian Constitution to the rights of the Latvian people to be the unquestioned sovereigns of their nation.

The roof is humble pine, but the posts are of oak

Below is the translation of above text in Latvian.
Seko tulkojums latviešu valodā.

Ja 1920tā gadā Latvijas pa labi no centra valdība bija vismaz daļēji tāda kara iemeslu dēļ, Satversmes Asemblijas ievēlēšana (kā to var izprast prêt pilnībā nepieejamās informācijas http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvijas_Satversmes_sapulce ) bija visai miglaina afēra. Pa piemēram, kas bija “reģistrētie balsotāji” kuri to balsoja? Šī migla noliedz iespēju šādu informāciju atrast internetā.

Kamēr valdības attaisnotāji atrod pietiekami iemeslus, lai apstiprinātu Latvijas valsts dibinātāju un Satversmes assemblijas leģitimāti (vistiešāk ārvalstu, speciāli Lielbritānijas atzinumā), pa labi no centra valdības orientācija paliek strīdīgs jautājums līdz šai dienai.

Augšā minēto situāciju rada neērtības kā attaisnotājiem, tā kritiķiem, jo oficiālie apgalvojumi attiecībā uz leģitimāti tiek noliegti ar subjektīvu vērtējumu, kas nosaka, ka demokrātijai ir jāierobežojās ar Parlamentu un tam tuvākām aprindām. Viens no subjektīviem liegumiem ir  neaizstāvēts apgalvojums, ka populisms nav leģitīms demokrātijas elements.

The road home

Šāds uzskats par populismu pārvalda visu oficiālās varas telpu, sākot ar Prezidentu līdz ziņu mēdijiem, pēdējie kuri pieder nezināmai, kā arī neatzītai tirdzniecības varai. Bet kas notiek tad, ja demokrātija bez populisma nevar būt patiesa demokrātija? http://www.jstor.org/pss/3687930 -- kā rakstīts linkā, kurā populisms tiek mīkstināts liekot populisma priekšā vārdiņu ‘civic’,  re “civic populism” vārdkopu, kura tulkojās kā civīlais/pilsonīgais populisms.

Lai gan ‘civīlais/pilsonīgas’ populisms ir (vairāk vai mazāk) retorika, kas mīkstina populisma tiešumu, terminoloģija ir pieņemama, jo valdība baidās, ka varētu kļūt vai arī nekļūt atklāts, ka  latviešu tautas soverenitāte tika pārkāpta valsts dibināšanas laikā, jo tautas piedalīšanās nenotika visā pilnībā.

Lai tādas domas netiktu cilātas, valdība tagad mēģina segt miglu ar slēgtu muti vai autoritāniskiem apgalvojumiem, ka leģitimitāte atrodās sfērā, kur šādiem jautājumiem nav nekāda nozīme.

Neskatoties uz autoritārismu, kāda loma ir civīlam/pilsonīgam populismam, kad runa ir par Latvijas suverenitāti? Šis jautājums ir acīmredzami vēl neiespējams solis, kurš tomēr ir jāsper, ja vēlamies, ka demokrātija Latvija ir īsta un ne tikai segvārds citai (Ai, mistērija!) varai. Pēc-Padomijas Latvijā mēmums par valsts patiesiem īpašniekiem ir ieildzis jau divdesmit gadus.



Thunder clouds



Kā nepieciešamais solis uz priekšu izskatās, ja mēs to formulējam kā nepieciešamību pārvarēt šaubas par valdības leģimitāti? Šāds jautājums ir īpaši prasīgs laikā, kad Latvijas suverenitāte tiek nodota privātās un ārvalstu banku rokās. Vai tas ir attaisnojams?

Šīs slejas rakstītājs atbildēja uz šo jautājumu kādā citā rakstā (iepriekšējā blogā), kur viņš pieprasija, ka nākošais Prezidents Andris Bērziņš noraida savu iebalsošanu Presidenta amatā, un līdzās ar Prezidentu Valdi Zatleru pieprasa, ka nākošais Latvijas presidents tiek ievēlēts ar visu balsotāju piedalīšanos.

Kas notiek, ja balsotāji sevi atpazīst kā civīlie/pilsoniskie populisti? Kas notiek, ja tiek saskatīts ka populistu tiesības ir pārkāptas, jo ir notikusi valdības invāzija tā sauktā “iekšējā ārvalsts teritorijā”? Šis termiņš ir politiskā zinātnieka Benjamiņa Ardidi arguments esejā, kuru sauc “Populisms kā iekšejā perifērija demokrātiskā politikā” (autora tulkokums). Ka ir, ja šīs iekšējās ārvalsts teritorijas invāzija ir cilvēktiesību pārkāpums no valdības puses? Vai ikvienam nav tiesības uz saviem subjektīviem ieskatiem un lēmumiem?

Dotā brīdī, Prezidents Zatlers, acīmredzot netaisās apšāubīt Saeimas autoritāti, kaut viņš ir ieteicis to atlaist kā nekompetentu. No ziņu mēdijiem nāk ziņojums, ka Prezidents rīko neko vairāk, ka atvadu ballīti http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/articles/241549?ref=news-btn-1 , kuru sauks par “Tas vārds, kam spēks”.

Lai arī rakstītājs neapšauba valsts leģimitāti, Prezidenta Zatlera aicinājums atlaist Saeimu ir zelta izdevība izmantot suverenitātes jēdzienu un pieprasīt politiķiem un mēdijiem atzīt civīlos/ pilsonīgos populistus ka nepieciešamus, ja Latvija nākotnē būtu patiesa demokrātija.

Andris Bērziņš nodarītu Latvijas valstij lielu pakalpojumu, ja viņš atteiktu sevis ievēlēšanu par Prezidentu. Jo pastāvošās Saeimas autoritāte ir apšaubāma. Kā Bērziņš, tā Zatlers var pieprasīt, ka nākošais Prezidents ir visu pilsoņu (pilsonīgo populistu) ievēlēts. Saprotams, ir vērts ieteikt Satversmes assembli, kas vēlreiz pārdomā un pārraksta Latvijas Satversmi, un ka par to balso visi Latvijas pilsoņi, kuri ar savu piedalīšanos pierāda visas pasaules priekšā sevi kā ir patiesie Latvijas suverenitātes īpašnieki.

A map of my corner of Latvia

Here is one of the nicest rejections (with regard to above blog) that I have ever received:

“Sveiki, paldies, ka atrakstījāt, diemžēl kā atklātai vēstulei teksts

publicēšanai nedaudz par īsu. Ar cieņu,” (My translation: Hello, thanks for writing, but unfortunately for an Open Letter the text is too short to publish. Sincerely, …”

The Latvian way of humour makes the case that the text should be continued. I take the suggestion and the opportunity.

First, as to the state of the world at the time of this writing: see George Papandreou’s Statement:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/george-papandreou-releases-statement-following-recent-government-reshuffle-and-finmin-scapeg (please open and read the Greek PM’s, George Papandreou’s. statement).

The mood of the statement no longer simply evokes foreboding, but announces forebodings arrival. It brings the virtual world down to Earth and back to reality.

Zāļu kunkuļi / Grass mounds in a field at the edge of a river

While George Papandreou speaks for and to Greece, the importance of his release is in that it speaks also of the state of our world. This includes Latvia. While the blondes still celebrate Blond’s Day in Riga, the majority of Latvians neither in Riga nor Latvia’s countryside are anywhere near a celebratory mood.

Though I generally speak only for myself, on this occasion I presume to speak also on behalf of the proto-Balts, as well as the proto-Slavs. I am not speaking for the Latvian or Slav of today, but of when neither was as differentiated as some historians on either side say they are today.

In that long-ago, one thing among others that Latvians men were concerned about was their women.

As Professor Rene Girard writes in his book “Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World”: “Animals never renounce the satisfaction of their alimentary or sexual needs within their own group…. they never turn away from the most available object. An extraordinary force would have been required to make such a renunciation the general condition for humanity, but the force cannot be the Freudian desire for incest….”

The text continues: “It could only have been fear, the fear of mimetic rivalry and of a return to interminable violence.” In other words, the fear of violence, though it is universal, is greatest among men who presume to have sex with their closest. As Burton Mack—in a preface to “Violent Origins”, a book that has several authors as contributors—notes: “[According to Rene Girard] Humans have no braking mechanism for intra-species aggression. This means that rivalries and conflicts once unleashed cannot stop short of manslaughter. Violence, therefore, is endemic.”



When I drive by this group of green monsters gathering at the river's edge, I always  wonder what is the plan they are hashing.



Therefore, the renunciation of incest among humans is not based on sexual mores (does and don’ts as such). Instead, it is in order to avoid violent confrontations and fears arising within a given group aware of the state and shape it is in. The humans most threatened by the situation and the likelihood of its eruption into violence are the human males.

In an effort to avoid intra-species violence, society developed a mind meme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme or virtual genome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome that decrees a social ritual that pushes the possibility of incest far enough away from the centre of the group to no longer threaten it with a violent eruption, i.e., a fight between Abel and Cain.

The barn, perhaps once a house now that was.

Society forbade sexual relationships between parents and their children and siblings with one another. Of course, the taboos may include other practices. Sometimes a group or society may become so moribund by prohibitions that in the event of incipient violence, it may seek the victim from beyond its boundaries. If There gives forth no victim, because it sees no justification for it and can back up its stand, then there develops what Professor Girard calls “a sacrificial crisis”.

In the event of a sacrificial crisis, the original sacrifice—the one that instituted the taboos or prohibition rituals—must be repeated. Whether we call the original sacrifice a slaughter, a murder, or self-defense, a victim must be discovered if the group is not to dissolve.

What does this have to do with Andris Berzins, the President-to-be, just elected to that office by the Latvian Saeima?

By quick manipulation of wit and resources, the so-called oligarchs let five deputies from the Valmiera region, home base for the so-called Valmieras Grupa of incestuous economics (nepotism), nominate to the Presidency a near unknown.  

What with the incumbent president ust having requested that the Saeima be dismissed and this was not a deep secret from the Saeima and known days ahead, gave opportunity for the “53+ ” coup to organize itself to the extent we see its effect. Surprise, surprise! No surprise at all. The mysterious (because secret vote) “53+” Saeima deputies oust the incumbent and put an oligarch (the one who is buggered by the others) forward as the next President (see previous blog) of Latvia.

If someone thinks that I use uncommon language, it is because the government soon to be installed will be the offspring of economic incest (oligarchs screwing oligarchs). This is government as a plum on the doorstep of the people. Just the goose is missing.  

If President-elect Andris Berzins does not have the sense to refuse his “election” and join the incumbent in a call for a new election, moreover one in which the whole nation participates, he is about to become Latvia’s Oedipus.

The “soft” coup d’etat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d'%C3%A9tat  that I wrote of in the preceding blog, has the liberal Latvian parliament,

Saeima bring the Latvian public face to face with a bold faced attempt to screw it. Latvia’s ever so liberally oriented center right parliament is giving Latvians not just a screw, but a Phillips screw.

Might not the People, the populace, the populist alliance of Latvia, want to kick a bop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bop ?




I am real sorry, Jāni Ancestor, that this had to happen. Sorry, guy.