Pericolul nationalismului - Reactie From: T.M.Lutas (email@example.com) Subject: Re: Pericolul nationalismului... Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian Date: 1996/09/14 In article <515l0o$dpn@epervier.CC.UMontreal.CA>, roscai@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Rosca Ioan) wrote: > Preambul: > "Ion Diaconescu said: "sub anumite conditii suntem dispusi sa > intram in coalitie cu PDSR". Great words Lutas."(Savulescu) > "Yes he did. He said those words to try to keep extremists like Funar > out of the government in order to further the national interest. This > is a completely foreign concept for you, the national interest. It does > Romania no good to have extremist parties in the government under > any circumstances." (Lutas) > > Fals ! > > Iliescu nu e preferabil lui Funar. False comparison! The choice was not Iliescu or Funar. The choice was Iliescu with Funar and Tudor or Iliescu with CDR. The PDSR chose Funar and Tudor as preferrable to CDR for partners. Which choice do you think would have better served the nation? You seem to like all your enemies under one roof, united in purpose and scope. I like my enemies divided, opposed to each other, so that the task of destroying their political viability is easier Divide et imperatum. > PDSR-ul a fost si este fatal interesului national. By their actions they have demonstrated that fact. Agreed. > Nu poate fi legitimat- in numele pericolului "extremismului". We both examine events from across the Atlantic. There is a tendency to examine things in a bloodless, detatched way from this distance, a way that does not count the human cost of a refusal to compromise, to play the game of pure opposition without any cooperation for the sake of the nation. I try very hard not to fall prey to that temptation. It seems that you have fallen. Look to the human cost that could have been avoided in the last four years! > O crima certa nu poate fi admisa ca mijloc de evitare a unei crime virtuale. > In tara se produc faradelegi concrete, abuzuri devastatoare. And those crimes have been committed hand in hand by PDSR, PUNR, and PRM! The real political disasters perpetrated on Romania by these three stooges could have been reduced, ameliorated if two of them (Funar & Tudor) would have been kept in opposition and the better influence of the CDR substituted for their noxious policies. > Nu trebuie considerate secundare, puse in umbra unor campanii ideologice. A great deal of the attacks against the CDR focus on "boogeyman tactics" that try to scare away people by claiming that CDR will do outrageous things. Such tactics are only effective if a party has never been in power. The CDR would likely be 10-15% higher in the polls if they would have spent any time at all in the government and demonstrated that they are not the caricatures that the communists are painting them to be. > O fi nationalismul periculos, dar nu el a distrus si nu el distruge Romania. > Funar s-a compromis in alianta cu Iliescu cel putin la fel de grav ca > Tovarasul sau de drum. A focaliza critica pe Funari inseamna a face jocul >de diversiune al puterii. If you have been reading my writings, I cannot believe that you could have missed my consistent criticism of that odious mafia of Iliescu & co. One of my major criticisms of Savulescu is that *he* doesn't criticize Iliescu and the PDSR enough. > Nu Procesul nationalismului e pe rol azi, ci al comunismului. I suggest that you read the "Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. National Socialism and International Socialism are two sides of the same coin. Both need to be discredited otherwise the communist will turn into the nationalist and the nationalist into the communist at convenience. The nation continues to suffer and the victory against either one is hollow. > E pacat ca modul orb (sau interesat) de a vedea lucrurile al unor > observatori exteriori este asimilat de unii simpatizanti ai opozitiei. Yes, it is a pity. But which blindness is the problem, yours or mine? Don't pretend that you too are not viewing things from the exterior. > Apreciez entuziasmul , efortul si seriozitatea cu care domnul Lutas > sustine cauza Conventiei. Uneori insa , distanta fata de realitatea > politica romanesca il duce la simplism si eroare . I thank you for your praise. I acknowledge that what you say can, and has happened. But you make a poor case in this instance that I am in the wrong. I also think that you misunderstand my position. I feel that there is little wrong with nationalism, per se. It is national socialism that is the problem. I saw a tactical advantage in the offer of entering the government for the CDR as I explain below. The PDSR saw it as well since they turned down the offer. > Asa au aparut formatiile si personalitatile "nationaliste" (PUNR, > Romania Mare, PSM). Pentru cine cunoaste realitatile romanesti, > rolul lor a fost evident, de la inceput. Aparatorii "tarisoarei" erau > aceleasi persoanaje care participasera la aducerea ei in stare de > coma. Could we agree that the neo-communists have divided their forces between the main group in the PDSR and several front organizations including PUNR, PRM and PSM? Also, let us agree that this division is a stratagem to try to lure people into the front organizations and strengthen the neo-communist group through "false flag" agents. I suggest that this division did weaken the neo-communists. The front groups take a certain amount of effort to manage and to create attractive bait for their prey (non-communist Romanians who would never join the PDSR). It is a gamble for the neo-communists that the increased strength from the dupes they attract will outweigh the costs of maintaining these front groups. If the CDR had gone into the government, the neo-communists would have been in the peculiar position of being both in and out of the government. They would have had to continually attack themselves in order to maintain the illusion of the front groups. At the same time, the CDR would have demonstrated its sanity and become immune to the wild attacks that the PDSR has used in 1990, 1992, and 1996 of "selling out the country" or "bringing back the mosieri" and other such nonsense. Such an alliance would not have been stable and ultimately the CDR would have been removed, but it would have improved the tactical position of the CDR and so, of course, the offer was rejected (the neo-communists are not stupid). I ask you, if the CDR would have lost so much by the offer they made as you make out, why didn't the PDSR accept the offer and compromise the CDR, thus removing the worst threat against them? DB -- The Romanian Political Pages http://haven.ios.com/~dbrutus Now available: The Romanian constitution in Romanian, an URL minder Coming soon: An expanded Ilascu section, and victims of communism memorial! These posts are not official PNT-cd policy unless specifically marked as such.