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.





A house fallen apart in Latvia to become Latvia fallen apart.



Snow jobs afoot! The calming (putting to sleep) of the Latvian public over the recent “soft” and “democratic” coup de tad by “legal” means is in full swing. Gundars Daudze (ZZS) a suspected major collaborator in the coup (of the “53 +”) is to be the director of the new president’s (alleged) chancery. http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/articles/240957?ref=theme

Others, such as girtszeidenbergs@comcast.net zeidenbergs girtszeidenbergs@gmail.com> Date: 2011/6/15 Subject: Fw:"Zellta izdevība" To: janisatrens@gmail.com solicits votes for an action that would reveal the offshore financial holdings of Latvian oligarchs. Desirable as this may be, the soliciting of signatures for such an action—behind which is said to stand the current President Zatlers (Really? What is in it for him?)—diverts attention from the need to campaign for a 100% participation of Latvians in the upcoming Referendum that would confirm President Zatler’s directive #2 suggestins the dismissal of Latvia’s corrupt Saeima.

If the campaign to put the Latvian public to sleep (the real aim behind the so-called “Zellta Izdevība”)  and cause the Referendum vote to result in a below the majority vote required to dismiss the Saeima, Latvia is sure to become “prihvate”, no longer a sovereign nation. Read blog above and demand the resignation of Andris Berzins as President to be.


Below is the Latvian translation of the above text. The translation has been redacted and is politically more adverserial.

Atklāta vēstule par “mīksto” apvērsumu!

Liela miega pēda pārklāj Latviju. Mierinājumu (mēģinājumu iemidzināt Latvijas publiku) sakarā ar neseno “mīksto” un “demokrātisko” apvērsumu [ar “juridiski” it kā nevainīgiem likumiem] tiek pūsta ar tuvu un tālu vēju palīdzību.

Pret Prezidentu Zatleru, kas ierosināja Saeimas atlaišanu, notika apvērsums, lai viņu atvietotu ar vēl lielāku muļķi. Prezidenta Zatlera pēdēja runa Saeimā http://www.delfi.lv/news/referendums-2011/prezidents/zatlers-sola-iedot-politisko-virzibu-tautas-kustibai-par-parmainam-valsti.d?id=39115489  gandrīz vai apkampa valsts korumpantus solot mieru, mieru, un vēlreiz mieru. Skat, izgāzies Prezidents: "iedos[d] politisko virzību" tautas kustībai par labu un godīgu Latviju. Zatlera runa pierāda, ka tam pagātnē arī liela pieredze narkozes nozarē.

Gundars Daudze (ZZS), tagadējās Saeimas priekšsēdis un domājams apvērsuma sazvērnieks (ar tā saukto “53+ apvērsuma” veicinātājiem) ir paredzēts kļūt par nākošā Prezidenta kancelejas direktoru. http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/articles/240957?ref=theme Sak, viņam liela pieredze Saeimā. Tik tiešām!

Iemidzinājumā piedalās arī kāds ārzemju latviešu grupējums, kurš tieši tagad ir iedomājies, ka pienācis “Zelta moments” pierakstīties kampaņā prêt oligarhiem un parakstīt dokumentu, kura tiek pieprasīts ofšoru kontu satura atklāšana. Pēc grupējuma domām šāda parakstīšanās kampaņai ir jāiejaucās politiskā un publiskā telpā tieši tagad, kad viss svarīgākais ir aģitēt un sasaukt publiku pie 100% piedalīšanās Referendumā, kuru izsauca Prezidenta Zatlera ieteikums (Rīkojums #2) atlaist Saeimu.

Latviešu diasporas grupējums, domājams ir sakaros ar Vienotības frakciju, kura jau labu laiku skrien uz Rietumiem, jo “Rietumi palīgā nāks” tik pat forši, ka to domāja dažs labs vientiesis vairāk kā pussimts gadus atpakāļ par zviedriem. Vienotības frakcija arī zin sludināt mieru, tādu, kas ved valsti uz kapu. Tāpēc jau arī paspējuši lūgt Prezidentu Zatleri viņiem pievienoties. Cer, ka būs jauka kapraču komanda.

Ja minētā kampaņā vara atkārtoti ir sekmīga un iemidzina latviešus, patiesos Latvijas soverenitātes īpašniekus, un ja Referenduma balsotāju skaitlis krīt zem majoritātes līmēņa, tad nebūs šaubu, ka Latvija ir pilnībā prihvatizēta, pēc kam patiesais vai de fakto rezultāts būs, ka vairs nepastāv soverēna Latvija—lai cik “juridiska” tā arī nebūtu. Vairs te būs tikai vienam otram kāda administratīva telpa, ko sauc par zārku.

Pieprasiet Andra Bērziņa atkāpšanos no “ievēlētā” Prezidenta goda! Apzinieties, ka Jūs (ne viņš vai viņi) kā Latvijas pilsoņi, esat Latvijas suverenitātes īpašnieki.

Paraksts: Jaņdžs, aka Antons Benjamiņš



A house fallen apart in Latvia to become Latvia fallen apart.

 

A corner of Braslava, Latvia, 2011 1

(Continued…)

In my previous blog, I gave a list of topics to be discussed at a suggested international conference convened on the invitation of outgoing President Valdis Zatlers. According to media pundits, the President is to leave office on July 7^th. Topic 11. asks

11. What happens when the people of Latvia get screwed to the wall by the oligarchs and banks and a parliamentary “democracy” elects a President widely experienced in screwing around?

The screwing around by the allegedly new President Andris Berzins concerns the President’s recognized and not recognized off springs from his apparently numerous love affairs. This topic was, of course, a rhetorical suggestion, an ad-on to other others, and expressed my anger over the Saeima’s secretive and autocratic behavior in electing such an important political figure for Latvia.

While the election of Andris Berzins is clearly a scandalous overstepping of the Latvian people’s sovereign rights to their nation—with the ever present plausible deniability clause applied to the election with a vengeance and utter cynicism—it seems that the election has an excellent chance of being nullified if the people exercise their rights to be the sovereign representatives of Latvia over and above the rights of the oligarch and bank controlled Saeima.

A corner of Braslava, Latvia, 2011 2

As Articles 48. and 49. of the Latvian Constitution (Satversme) state:

48. The President of State shall have the right to propose the dissolution of the Saeima. This shall be followed by a referendum. If in the referendum more than one-half of the votes are cast in favour of dissolution, the Saeima shall be considered as dissolved and new elections shall be proclaimed. These elections shall take place within two months after the dissolution of the Saeima.

49. Upon dissolution of the Saeima, its members shall retain their powers until the newly-elected Saeima has assembled. The former Saeima may only assemble on being convened by the President of State. The agenda for such sittings shall be determined by the President of State.

I am neither a lawyer nor an expert in constitutions, but basing my opinion on the premise that the People are the sovereign owners of any given nation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W28CQQsH9S8 , it is not—as former President Bush of the USA states in the clip—“the relationship… between sovereign entities”, but with one and only one entity—the People. It is the People and not the government who are the sovereigns of a nation, which is why they are over and above the Saeima (Senate) even it is the latter that elects the President of the Nation.

A corner of Braslava, Latvia, 2011 3

Thus, while the new president was decided upon in rooms out of sight to the Latvian People and the victor, this time around,a near utter surprise to the People), it remains true that the Latvian People may not only protest, but demand that in the Referendum (see above clauses) there is a clause that also demands that the allegedly new president resign.

The demand that the new president Andris Berzins resign is based on the premise that his election is not legitimate in a legal sense. The illegitimacy of the election can be proven by arguments coming from several directions.

A most important source of argument is that President Valdis Zatlers’ proposal to dissolve the Saeima (“to propose the dissolution of the Saeima” as Article 48. states) is not only a proposal, but constitutes an indictment http://latviansonline.com/news/article/7515/ also. The actions or inactions of the Saeima read by President Zatlers reveals the Saeima to be a body that has become a de facto foreign body of State. Therefore, contrary to the Constitution (Satversme) “…the Saeima, its members shall [not] retain their powers until the newly-elected Saeima has assembled”.

I would argue that a Saeima under a Presidential indictment cannot elect a new president. Such an election is not only arrogant; it is dictatorial by means of its corruption, and an action meant to annihilate the indicter. In other words, one may conclude that the current Latvian Saeima has presumed for itself powers that may annihilate the State of Latvia as a sovereign entity of the Latvian People.

The above may remain a matter of discussion among legal minds. On the other hand, if a Populist agitation for retaining such rights for the People were exercised with vigor and the Latvian People participate in the Referendum vote in numbers that reach above a simple majority, perhaps going as high as 75%, then the Latvian People will be declaring themselves the sovereign owners of Latvia in a manner they were not able to do at the foundation of Latvia in 1918 due to then prevailing war conditions. Indeed, the failures of the first half of the Latvian nation may be at the root of what causes the inertia affecting the State currently.

To exercise agitation in raising the sovereign self-consciousness of Latvians there is need for a popular campaign. Such a campaign can be waged only with the help of the Latvian Diaspora. The current Saeima, indicted and said (by the President Valdis Zatlers) to be deserving dismissal, will of course argue to the contrary and repress publicity to the best of its ability.

Needless to say, it should be the current President, Valdis Zatlers, who heads the campaign for remaining in office until the results of the Referendum vote are in. Whether he has the guts (aknas) to do so depends to what an extent the Latvian Diaspora perceives the political crisis in Latvia to be existential for Latvia. What do the Latvian People do for their part? Finding themselves in financially and economically existential situation, it should not be difficult to persuade them that the need of their vote, too, is existential.

A corner of Braslava, Latvia, 2011 4

Best scenario for the future: facts get faced. 

 The following link while wimpish in its plea, is both readable and moves one to think of what President Zatlers while still in office  http://www.politika.lv/temas/politikas_kvalitate/mieru_tikai_mieru/ might do to help the future of Latvia in his last days.

The dispossessing of President Zatlers from office is not acknowledged by the oligarchs. They were not in on it they say. But even as they say this, everyone knows that the majority of deputies at the Latvian Saeima did their bidding once more. President Bērziņš arrived to the Presidential office with agility, dexterity in social climbing, a knack to become a millionaire, a pension of around Ls 4500 http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/articles/239101 (vs an average of Ls 170-270), and an impressive past as a sexual butterfly.

Latvians seldom begrudge each other a number of arrays or series of mating patterns. One is not surprised that so many young Latvian women are willing mates to young men from Pakistan and countries thereabout. It is the inheritance of poverty, an adventuresomeness inherited from down to earth grandmothers, a willingness to carry a child out of it or even abandon it—all out of the sureness of spirit that comes with having a potato field in Latvia within their heads still.

A nice looking wreck of a barn and workshed

But the strange social asymmetries brought into being as a result of poverty, severe spiritual repression by Christianity as well as Secularism raised to the level of a theology, allows dancing into being even this last, specifically Latvian social phenomenon.

The dazzling occultation or choreography in the Latvian Parliament (Saeima) with regard to the voting for president resulted in placing into office of a man who through his womanizing and out of wedlock children—both recognized as such and not recognized as such—and the confidence he has gained there from has come to lie with the whole of Latvia.

A Wormeling standing on its head

The lying is done on behalf of the oligarchs, who show no more responsibility toward the Latvian people and their State than plausible deniability of “stealing the country” encourages. It is done by praising the Latvian language, but using its words to screw other words. Whether the words appear in print or are oral does not matter.

So, what is to be done?

One could do worse than suggest that President Zatlers use his last days in office as President to call for an international conference and to put on the agenda ‘Latvia as an example of a nation going under (dissolving, degenerating, losing the light, depopulating) under the social and economic pressures of modern society’.

The subject of such an “International Conference on the state of Latvia” should call for papers on a great number of subjects. The Conference would include international experts on a broad range of subjects. This writer would include among the topics discussed the following:

1.     Time to diminish the role of cities;

2.     Euthanasia, discussing the issues at greater depth than presently met by the example of Switzerland where citizens recently voted to retain its services for themselves and foreign clients;

3.     Causes for the frivolous character of modern politicians;

4.     The legalization of Johnsgrass in countryside temples for tourists;

Birth of a snowwhite Wormeling or Vurmītis

5.     Was Christianity split in two and the first half forgot when the Great Schism was declared in favor of the West? How has the death of John affected Latvians?

6.     Who are the Children of Johns (Jāņubērni) who appear on Midsummer Eve as Every Latvian, but are gone the day after?

7.     Discussing the potential of rejuvenating the Latvian animation industry by redirecting a notable segment of it to exporting school materials on disks that replace books;

8.     Creating laws with doors wide enough to allow for new developments in DNA research, cloning including;

9.     Re-forestation of Latvia. With the present 1.9 million Latvians shrinking further to 1.1 million by the year 2021, should not all of Latvia seek to become a people of the forest as their ancestors had been? Might not a declaration of Latvia as a biosphere help preserve Latvian identity by helping restrict immigration?

10.  Riga as a capital city of a future United European Union or UEU. When Europe becomes a true union of its extensive territories, Latvia is not only geographically centered therein, but unites its citizens because it has overcome its inner antagonisms;

11.  What happens when the people of Latvia get screwed to the wall by the oligarchs and banks and a parliamentary “democracy” elects a President widely experienced in screwing around?

12.  Why politicians are unable to speak of the future?

13.  ………………………………..

 (To be continued.)

(…continued from previous…found at 

http://latviansonline.com/forum/viewthread/34439/P45/ )

The unipolar (a north without a south pole) politics of Latvia, has very likely reached its mountain top in the entirely legal, yet fraudulent parliamentary elections held at the Latvian Saeima for Latvia's President.

The just elected President Andris Berzins, a former bank president and an in man of the Valmiera Group http://www.pietiek.com/raksti/andra_berzina_pagatne__ari_aktiva_daliba_kampeju_braliba , flew one over the coockoo’s nest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG1QPYCfaBQ&feature=related .

The cookoo’s nest is, in this instance, Latvia, the Juicy Fruit gum in the chief’s mouth (see link to coockoo’s nest). Jack Nicholson is playing the role of the future Latvian President. If we count the juicy fruit in the mouth of Chief Bromden, the clip illustrates a tridem at the moment it is taking possession of the future of Latvia’s history.

The sixth broken stick of Latvians (see previous blog for explanation @ http://latviansonline.com/forum/viewthread/34439/P45/ ) as a self-aware people hangs to the branch by the skin of its teeth. The seventh stick is yet the handle of the whip if the hand can find its way back to the tip of the first stick, and it being broken has a purpose like the scorpion’s tail has.

The first stick is the crisis of 1209 when the Children of Johns (Jāņubērni) fled into the forests of Latvia for protection as their forebears had done. However, the Christian barons cut down the forests around them (as the Romans, following their defeat at Teutoburg Forest http://adrianmurdoch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b62269e2010536c44bf1970c-800wi had done to the German tribesmen), the consequence of which was to turn the Children of Johns into pa-yans, today better known as pagans. It ought not to be surprising to discover that the Children of Johns turned into pa-yans and pagans-peasants know not better than elect a servant of the oligarchs as President of Latvia.

With the deforestation of Latvia proceeding at a full clip to pay for the import of a liberal economy, even the identity-less pagans turn in their graves. One good reason for the turning is that even the lands under the graves are becoming the private property of foreign banks. President Andris Bērziņš, having been a banker, knows well enough the arts of a banker and, therefore, ought to have disqualified himself in order to avoid the risk of compromising the Latvian people and sending them to the permafreeze regions http://2pep.com/funny%20pics/crazy%20fun%20pics/crazy_images_weird_laugh_pictures_Ice-Fishing-Festival-in-South-Korea-006.jpeg of Antarctica. However, he did not disqualify himself.

Given that trust in speech along with the loss of the oral tradition is subject to endless legalisms among today’s politicians, the President of Latvia has no credibility however many times he disclaims his connection with oligarchs, banks, shoes, ships, or sealing wax.

The handle of the whip of a broken branch known as Latvia is not in the hands of its President today, but its populists. The latter, all too often is identified by the political establishment with the presumably synonymous word “tauta”. Tauta, however, links “populism” to the imaginary of ethnicity, which opposes “tauta” to other forms of populism. This is the sleight of hand that links the present government in Latvia to liberal fascism or what I prefer to call zionationalist ziodocracy.

Before ziodocracy had Zionism at hand to change its name, it was known as colonialism. Some of the recent forms of colonialism-ziodocracy-liberal fascism take after the governments in South Africa, Israel, and Parliamentary Latvia. In all of the cases governments give liberal democracy a bad name no matter how much governments advertise themselves as true democracies.

It is an almost sure bet that the new Latvian President, Andris Bērziņš, will piss on the Liberty Tree, offer no sacrifice, but say it is a blessing.

(to be continued.)