The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
RO-POAST! the Romania Review
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search TextOpen All Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

romania-575

Central Bucharest, from my Airbnb apartment.

***

Romania: Impressions

Long awaited RO-POAST is finally here!

As many of you know, I was in Romania early this June. Why Romania? It was nowhere near the top of my to-go list. As with Portugal, the adventure fell into my lap – one of my friends was getting married there. Moscow-Bucharest return flight with Aeroflot was $250, and the country itself is very cheap, so why not?

The wedding itself was excellently organized, certainly the best I have ever attended, and I got to meet many interesting people during my stay there.

A considerable part of my observations draw from in-depth discussions with DT, an Alt Righter who is partly based in Romania, as well as MP, a blog reader and investment banker – as well as the scion of a Romanian boyar family who repatriated after Communism.

TLDR:

Romania is a patchwork quilt of Balkan, Slavic, Mediterranean, and Turkish influences – in approximately that order – so exploring it is endlessly fascinating (e.g. did you know that Romanian was written in Cyrillic until 1860?). The people are friendly enough, the economy is doing well, and infrastructure has been massively upgraded in the past decade. On the other hand, the country remains quite dysfunctional in many ways – rather more so than Russia, in my admittedly brief experience.

This is an observation also made by the Alt Right expat Archie Munroe in his article Is Romania Part of the West?, which perhaps overstates the case but doesn’t seem to be implausible to me.

***

The Romanians

***

romania-325

Bucharest Metro.

So I assume my readers are familiar with Le 56% Face meme that Europeans mock Americans with?

You realize that this applies to Romania more than the US as soon as you exit Arrivals at Henri Coandă Airport. Romania might well be the most phenotypically diverse nation in Europe (recent immigrants excluded). There is the stocky, brachycephalic Balkanoid type; the paler, higher cheekbone Slavic type; the swarthy, sleek Mediterranean type. There are also the Gypsies, who are furthermore not entirely discrete from the general population, since there has been interbreeding between the two groups. Consequently, you get startling throwbacks to all these ethnic archetypes, making any Romanian street or transport hub a veritable museum of European anthropology.

One amusing consequence is that I was often taken to be Romanian by other Romanians, at least before I opened my mouth. Although one might ascribe that to me being 1/4 quarter kebab, at least one acquaintance I made in our group had exactly the same experience, despite his classically North European visage. Romania: The true postracial society?

romania-236

Bucharest Northern Railway Station.

romania-338

Bucharest schoolchildren.

***

Gypsies

Although Gypsies officially account for 3.0% of the Romanian population, according to the last census in 2011, almost all Romanians with whom we had this conversation insisted that the real figure was at least 10%.

romania-19

It will hardly surprise anyone that Gypsies constitute an underclass in Romania. During my short stay in Ploiesti, I was approached by a couple of Gypsy girl-children while withdrawing cash from the ATM. Although I did not understand Romanian, it was clear they were beseeching me for money… while slowly tiptoeing me and furtively glancing at the wallet in my pocket. I completed the withdrawal and briskly strode away.

The strippers in the night club our stag party visited in Ploesti were exclusively Gypsies. To their credit, they do an honest job.

The Romanians only have bad things to say about the Gypsies; for instance, in Transylvania, the female guide at the bear sanctuary that one of our groups visited said that the local Gypsies only steal, while getting government money and the best places to live in the mountains. (Then again, is it different anywhere else? I was talking with a white American in Romania, one of those BLM-supporting boomer types. I was amused to see that when the conversation drifted from American fascist police shooting innocent blacks to the Gypsy Question he abruptly transformed into a hardcore Nazi.)

As if to confirm her point, that same group later stopped to buy a basket of raspberries from some roadside Gypsies. Honest reward for a hard day’s work? Not really. It turned out the basket was half empty.

***

Economy

***

Living Standards

Romania has done very well for itself in the past two decades, and especially the past couple of years, when GDP growth approached a Chinese-like 7%.

Consequently, it has surged well ahead of Bulgaria, converged with Croatia, and even come close to Hungary – all economies that have conversely done pretty badly in the post-socialist transition.

romania-gdp-per-capita

But to what extent do the statistics stack up to what ordinary Romanians say?

On the way back to the airport, I got to chatting with my Uber driver, as any Fat Tony ought to do.

He told me that he makes 4,000 lei ($1,000) per month. That was a doubling of his previous salary working in a factory, where he got 2,000 lei ($500).He also said that 2,000 lei is about the average Romanian salary. (This anecdote more or less matches the statistics).

He said that typical 2 bedroom rent in Bucharest is around 250 Euros, so you can see that life there would be pretty tough for non-property owners.

He was pretty skeptical about Romania’s prospects, not even so much about the low wages as social attitudes. He felt that the older generations (his generation) were ruined by Communism, having become overly dependent on the state – while treating paying taxes as something purely optional (this is a legitimate observation).

Incidentally, he struck me as a libertarian sort of fellow, as Uber drivers in my experience often are. He even supported the LGBT protest and gay marriage (“why should the state dictate what individuals want to do?”).

The Uber driver’s pessimism is one that I met rather frequently, including from an academic economist who was in our party. He claimed that the government had “destroyed education” and that the country was in a “bubble” that would collapse sooner or later.

Still, n=1 anecdotes aren’t the be all and end all. Most people love to complain, after all.

romania-66

The countryside generally struck me as having a sort of quiet prosperity, though it also seemed quite diskempt.

Since people try to avoid taxes, and the shadow economy is huge (32% of GDP according to recent IMF estimates), there is no shortage of decent looking properties in the Transylvanian countryside. These are a testament to the existence of considerable private wealth… surrounded by dirt sidewalks.

romania-146

Though I’m quite skeptical that the above property would fetch anywhere close to 150,000 Euros, unless it comes with vast tracts of land. That’s thrice the price of a centrally located studio in Bucharest.

romania-152

New church in Transylvania.

There are also plenty of churches, including new ones. I assume that this is mostly various private businessmen and rich people looking out for the long-term good of their soul (as in Russia).

romania-55

Râșnov street.

That said, there were certainly scenes of considerable poverty as well, especially in some of the smaller towns we drove through.

romania-135

romania-148

romania-149

We often saw cows and horses grazing on the country roads, even immediate outside sizable cities such as Ploiesti (population 225,000).

There were plenty of people selling food by the roadside.

romania-53

Horse-pulled carts are a popular stereotype about Romania, and a correct one at that (even if much reduced relative to the 1990s). We saw an average of one such cart everyday in our travels.

As is typical of underdeveloped economies, there is a lot of wasteful use of labor.

For instance, the train station at Ploiesti had two WC’s about 200 meters apart, both of them staffed by a couple of middle-aged women who collected 0.5 lei for using the facilities.

I need also emphasize that I only really visited three regions of Romania: The capital Bucharest; Ploiesti, the center of Romania’s former oil industry; and the touristic part of Transylvania, which has a strong German/Hungarian cultural – and economic – legacy.

map-romania-gdp

All of these regions are considerably above the Romanian average.

That said, bearing this in mind, I would make the following assessments about Romanian living standards:

  • They are far below “Western” living standards (duh).
  • Modestly (20%?) below Portuguese.
  • Approximately equal to Russian living standards. That said, Bucharest is not even in the same class as Moscow, while many of Russia’s “millioniki” are also superior.
  • Medium-sized (~100,000 people) Romanian and Russian towns seem to be about equal.
  • The Romanian – well, Transylvanian – countryside seems more prosperous than its Russian equivalent.

romania-224

My impression was that prices were around 50% lower than in the USA/UK, as in Russia (Portugal is in between). This is again confirmed by statistics.

That said, gas prices were much more expensive than in Russia or the US, and almost as high as in the UK.

romania-internet

Romania has a reputation as the country with one of the world’s highest Internet speeds, and based on my admittedly limited experience at my Airbnb residence in Bucharest, that certainly seems plausible.

***

Demographics

Ceausescu fantasized about making Romania a Great Power. But population equals power, and Romanian population growth was beginning to trail off by the 1960s as it entered a sharp fertility transition.

romania-birth-death-rates

The Communists implemented Decree 770 in October 1966, barring abortions in all but a few exceptional cases. This produced a fertility spike, if one that faded away with time; still, population growth remained firmly positive, peaking at 20.1 million by 2011.

Then the fertility rate collapsed, as in the rest of the ex-Communist world.

Decree 770 was repealed in 1989. Despite the Romanians being a religious people, MP noted that religion is “shallow” – as in Russia – and that Romanians as a people are the sort who want to be left alone by the state – so the chances of abortion becoming criminalized again are near zero. This syncs with my own thinking. After all, in Poland, access to abortion was associated with the “godless” Communist regime, and immediately banned upon its overthrow; in Romania, it was precisely the opposite. Still, it’s worth repeating that in modern times, abortion doesn’t seem to have a major effect on demographics – the current TFR of Romania is 1.7 children per woman, vs. 1.5 for Poland (up from 1.3 during 2000-2015).

The Romanian population peaked at 23.2 million in 1990, but had declined to just 20.1 million by 2011, and an estimated 19.7 million today.

Only 1.1 million of that decline can be attributed to natural decrease. The rest accrued to emigration; there are an estimated 3.4 million Romanian emigrants.

I was independently told by several Romanians, without any prompting on my part, that Romania has the world’s second highest numbers of emigrants after Syria.

This obviously means that this particular statistic – which appears to be true – has been getting a lot of play in the Romanian media.

This emigration has disproportionately affected the well-educated. For instance, half of Romania’s doctors (!) left between 2009-2015, primarily to other EU countries.

This is something that I often encountered myself. Here was the pattern amongst the wedding guests, who represented a cross-slice of the more prosperous parts of provincial Romanian society:

  • The elderly were in Romania.
  • Large percentage (well more than half) of the middle-aged were working in the EU, e.g. one of them painted and restored icons in Italy.
  • Almost all the young people worked abroad (a significant part directly for the EU).

The one thing that Romania doesn’t have a problem with is refugees. I was told that 200 Syrians were settled there under an EU directive, but before a few months were out, all but three of them had departed for greener pastures to the west.

This must also explain why Romania has been lackluster about supporting Visegrad in its struggle with the EU on immigration questions. This is simply not a problem that Romania will have for the foreseeable future… though the reasons why are hardly flattering to it.

***

Infrastructure

romania-51

Transylvanian highway.

Around Bucharest, and Transylvania, the roads are quite good, probably thanks in large part to EU funding (Romania has one of the highest rates of EU subsidies as a percentage of GDP).

The quality of the drivers is worse than in the US or Portugal (which in turn are worse than in most of Western Europe), and about equal to Russian ones. However, there are of course regional variations (I heard that both roads and drivers are worse in the relatively impoverished area bordering Moldova).

To my surprise, seatbelt enforcement is not yet universal; a couple of our taxi/Uber drivers did not wear them, whereas this is hardly ever encountered in Russia these days.

During my stay in Bucharest, I saw a sports car holding some youthful yobs blasting loud music speed down the main thoroughfare and physically nudge an old Dacia with a couple of pensioners.

romania-225

Preparing to drive from Brașov to Ploiesti.

Although it’s not any sort of automotive powerhouse, Romania does produce its own cars – more than enough to satisfy internal demand, and as many, in per capita terms, as Poland.

Automobile Dacia is its fourth largest company.

romania-1

romania-3

The (newly upgraded) Henri Coandă International Airport is functional but unremarkable. There is still no metro line there, which is inconvenient (though this will soon be remedied); there are also no rail communications to nearby Ploesti.

Admittedly, this is not such a major problem in the age of ubiquitous Uber (which is about as cheap in Romania as Yandex Taxi/Uber are in Russia).

romania-227

romania-230

Ploiesti Sud.

The rail infrastructure is old and creaky, but presumably reliable – and extremely cheap. A first-class rail ticket from Ploiesti to Bucharest (60 km) cost me 7.20 lei for first-class (less than $2).

romania-233

The double-decker train.

romania-235

Bucuresti Nord.

That said, the country’s rail arteries leave much to be desired. I was idly thinking of taking a train from Ploiesti to Budapest, but reconsidered after learning that it would take 14 hours.

As in most of the rest of Eastern Europe, there is no such thing as high-speed rail in Romania.

***

Bucharest Metro

romania-410

The Bucharest Metro seems to work well, but it’s a rather modest and uninspiring system.

Trains run about once every 5-8 minutes, at least outside rush hour; the design consists of gray concrete slabs, but without the futuristic-bunker chic of Washington D.C.’s system.

romania-327

Metro map.

romania-328

romania-412

romania-413

romania-243

***

Politics & Nationalism

The Romanian protests have conveniently been in the news of late (August 2018), so this would be of particular relevance at this time.

I owe my basic understanding of the Romanian political compass to DT (the quotes here are his).

(1) On the one side, you have the Social Democrats (PSD), who got 36% in the last elections – “vaguely conservative/welfarist/popular/welfarist”. They have a strong reputation for corruption, but “know the rhetoric and (legitimate) gibs policies that people like.”

They are also supported by the traditionalist Orthodox church.

(2) On the other side, you the “liberal elites, anti-corruption office (DNA), secret services (illegally/selectively giving evidence to DNA), EU-German-Soros-funded NGOs”.

Although the liberals may have legitimate concerns about corruption, they have also “adopted much of the worst Western snobbishness, social values, and alienation from their people.”

The alliance between the DNA and the secret services is known as “binomiul” (the binomial), which came to play a prominent part in Romanian politics during the last liberal-conservative government before the EU accession.

Here is how one French identitarian writer describes the standoff:

… The theme of a struggle between the democratically elected bodies against the “binomial” (the secret services and anti-corruption floor) – that’s to say, a sort of colonial prefecture instituted by Washington D.C. and Brussels to limit the sovereignty of the Romanian people until it “politically matures” – has also proved to be very strong.

In between these two forces, you have the ethnic Magyar minority party, which always gets into government regardless of who is in power – and gets amply rewarded for it.

Hardcore nationalism is all but dead – the only exception was in 2000, when Vadim Tudor got 33% of the vote in the second round; however, this was an artifact of the traumatic 1990s, and his party collapsed after his death in the late 2000s.

At the present time, nationalist parties are minor league.

However, DT notes that while Romania is not “terribly interesting” from a nationalist perspective, there might be a strong potential for a nationalist party to emerge, and – perhaps in an alliance with PSD – “Visegradize” the country.

That said, while formal nationalist movements are weak, it should be noted that most Romanians are implicitly nationalist.

romania-329

romania-330

Bucharest Metro.

Slogans such as “Basarabia e România” and “Antonescu erou national” can often be found graffitied on walls and sidewalks.

My impression from conversations is that opinion about Antonescu is split about 50/50, which is not bad for a dictator who led them to defeat. But it’s not that surprising. The Italians are cool with Mussolini – Berlusconi and Caesar Salvini have both quoted him. Franco’s tomb sees tens of thousands of pilgrims. It is only the Germans who are the exception to the rule; honoring the Great Leaders of yore is otherwise quite normal.

romania-85

At the museum & gift shop in Cetatea Râșnov. Crimea belongs to… Romania?

Although it’s not, of course a topic that normal people go on about, it seemed to be that there is a fairly wide consensus that Moldova is a “fake and gay” country (to use Thorfinnsson’s scientific terminology).

Pretty much everyone is okay with annexing reunifying with Moldova… so long as it doesn’t hurt the economy too much, anyway.

In all fairness, I don’t even see how they’re wrong on Moldova.

Moldova’s color revolution was called the “Twitter Revolution.” Ponder on that for a moment. Then an amount of money equivalent to one eighth of their GDP was stolen by a Jewish businessman, who promptly absconded to Israel.

It is indeed hard to imagine a country that is more fake and gay than Moldova.

Incidentally, Romanian nationalists even have a serious lobby group at Brussels shilling for the cause in the form of the European Centre for Romanian Unity.

Established in December 2017, the European Centre for Romanian Unity brings the reunification project to the heart of EU policy making. A politically independent non-profit organisation, ECRU campaigns for a peaceful and democratic reunification of Romania and the Republic of Moldova based on a shared history, language and culture, strongly anchored in EU values, democratic principles and the rule of law.

From 1947 to 1989, what is today the Republic of Moldova found itself under the illegal occupation of the Soviet Union. The history of Moldova between 1947 and 1989 is one of famine, deportations, russification, human rights breaches and communist oppression.

In Moldova, the collapse of the communist regime in 1989 started with citizens asking the authorities to acknowledge their Romanian identity.

The growing trend of reunification in Romania and Moldova is peaceful in nature and democratic in spirit and method. … ECRU does not associate itself with any extremist, revisionist or ultra-nationalist views.

Sure you don’t, buddies. (Not that there’s anything with that).

These social media savvy nationalists dress smart, hobnob with “respectable” politicians and journalists, and – critically – couch Romanian nationalism in the language of democracy and human rights.

This is a lesson that many nationalists might want to take lessons from.

romania-151

World War I monument near Predeal railway station.

World War 1 – the Great War – is central to Romanian national memory. All medium-sized Romanian towns seem to have a prominent memorial to it.

At the Sinaia Monastery near Peleș Castle, the western wall has a scene with Carol I – the first King of independent Romania – leaning against a broken column, symbolizing the “lost” territories of Transylvania, Bukovina, and Bessarabia.

Despite Romania’s trials and tribulations during the Great War, in which it lost 8% of its population – the third highest figure after Serbia and the Ottoman Empire – it ended the war by snapping victory from the jaws of defeat, restoring all three of those columns by seizing Bukovina and Transylvania from the hapless Hungarians after the war in the west came to a formal close – and later pressuring the short-lived Moldavian Democratic Republic into a union with Romania.

(Russia, of course, did the opposite, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory).

I noted that many Romanians wear the national dress. Any Russian who casually wears the kosovorotka would be considered at least slightly weird. Apparently not so much in Romania.

romania-national-state

This is because, unlike the Putlerreich, Romania is a true national state. Looking after the interests and ethnic identity of ethnic Romanians abroad is written into their Constitution.

The Communist period is viewed very negatively. I would estimate that Ceausescu has a 10% approval rating.

That said, they are not that Russophobic.

While Romanians are certainly not Bulgarians or Croats, their opinions on Russia – 47% favorable to 45% unfavorable – are comparable to those of Slovaks, Croats, and Slovenians. They are also better disposed to Russia than the Hungarians, for all the ridiculous talk of Orban as a Putin puppet. (Latvians are false friends; remove ethnic Russians, and their numbers would be comparable to those of Western Europeans. But Western Europeans dislike Russia for things like “persecuting” gays, which Latvians couldn’t care less about).

europe-russophobia

One of the latest Eurobarometer polls. Romanians are basically neutral on Russia, unlike most of Western Europe, Poland, Czechia, and the Baltics.

In another poll, some 52% of Romanians said they view “a strong Russia” as being necessary to “balance the influence of the West.” Considering Romanians have very strong pro-NATO views, which are universal across the political spectrum, these are remarkable numbers (only 49% of far more NATO-skeptical Czechs think likewise). 65% of Romanians think Russia has an obligation to protect Orthodox Christians outside its borders (equivalent to Greece), and 74% of Romanians even think it has an obligation to protect ethnic Russians outside its borders (equivalent to Russia itself, and indeed one might say – given the daily shellings of Russians in the Donbass – a shameful indictment of the Russian people themselves).

I don’t have a hard time believing these numbers. While I certainly don’t want to give away the impression that Romanians are Russophiles – they are certainly not – they’re not really Russophobes either, at least on average. I encountered approximately zero Russophobia during my stay. For comparison, I have encountered plenty of Russophobia during my (thankfully limited) experiences with Latvians, and considerable Russophobia from Poles (though in their case, this was also balanced out by considerable Russophilia).

As I have often argued, Western Russophobia has a strong ideological/religious element to it; they hate Russians not because of Communism, but because they betrayed its “ideals” (or in Double Horseshoe Theory terms: “Stalinism is not true Marxism, and that’s terrible”).

Many Balts (especially Latvians) have what might only be described as a deep racial antipathy to Russians.

Romanian Russophobia is far more… “practical” – they associate Communism with Russian occupation (although this is an association muted by Ceausescu’s independent streak), and for breaking off Moldova.

Russia can’t accommodate the West except by joining up to its GloboHomo religion, nor can Russia accommodate the Balts except by… I don’t know, ceasing to exist?

However, so far as simpler folks such as Romanians are concerned, whose grievances are easy for the Russian mind to understand, powerful deals can be worked out. For instance, more strenuous efforts to disassociate Russia from (Latvian-imposed) Communism – which Russia needs to do for its own sake, anyway; and a partition of the fake and gay country of Moldova – Romania gets historical Bessarabia, Russia gets Transnistria.

That said, although the average Romanian is an implicit nationalist, trends amongst young people – especially the highly educated, geographically mobile types – are rather concerning.

Central Bucharest is a very SWPL/yuppie sort of city, full of hipsters, Priuses, and bike rental stations. Young Romanians also have very good English language knowledge, at any rate for an East European country (probably in large part because they don’t dub foreign films). Now this would all be fine – SWPL culture is a genuinely attractive, civilized culture – if it didn’t also come packed with ideological thermite.

As DT once observed:

My experiences in that country are really very congruent: very diverse phenotypes, as much as half-Turkish, extremely corrupt, low-trust, basic health & safety problems, with all the young émigrés idealizing the West and believing all will be well if only their stupid parents would adopt in their hearts the “Soros-Kalergi agenda.” The nice parts of Romania are those which were built by the Saxons and, to a lesser extent, the Hungarians, in Transylvania. …

The nice thing about Romania’s “backwardness” is that there is no degeneracy. Apolitical people talk about race/gay/Jews like normal, non-brainwashed people do. Very refreshing. All of their celebrated intellectuals – Eminescu, Iorga, Eliade, Cioran, Tutea . . . – were reactionary and/or fascist. The youth are also very Americanized – good and bad, the average educated one thinks it is very cool to watch John Oliver.

As in the rest of Eastern Europe, sentiments that now only predominate in Bucharest’s gay pride parades will steadily be seeping their way into society at large.

***

Intellectual Life

romania-488

Whenever I am in a foreign country, I make sure to check out a couple of bookshops – especially their bestseller stacks – to get a finger on what the intelligentsia is thinking.

romania-489

romania-500

Recommended books. Some familiar titles in the second photograph.

romania-491

Viktor Suvorov really appears to be in vogue. Not surprising that this conspiracy theory enjoys popularity in Romania.

romania-493

Mircea Eliade.

romania-494

I bought this history book by Neagu Djuvara, which was recommended to me by the macro-economist.

romania-495

Mikhail Zygar’s All the Kremlin’s Men appears to have been translated.

romania-497

Ion Pacepa.

romania-498

Orlando Figes, Timothy Snyder… Anne Applebaum’s Gulag (which strenuously doesn’t notice who disproportionately ran them) was also featured. Basically, liberalism.txt on Russia.

romania-499

Cioran and Tutea.

***

romania-536

Cărturești is a landmark bookstore in Bucharest – and for good aesthetic reasons, as you can see below.

romania-545

romania-546

 

romania-547

Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules of Life is prominently featured as a bestseller. Somehow I don’t see that happening in a Western bookstore frequented by hipsters and SJWs.

***

romania-238

The Martian? Meh. I am more impressed that this relatively obscure book by Brandon Sanderson has been translated!

romania-245

Again, I don’t see Yukio Mishima being prominently featured at a bookshop’s front end in any Western capital.

romania-553

Or Karl May, for that matter.

romania-275

Street book vendor in Bucharest.

***

Society

***

Attitudes & Bureaucracy

In a number of amusing (if inconvenient) ways, Romania reminded me of Russia… approximately a decade ago.

First observation: Romanians still clap when the aircraft lands, which is common in countries where people have only recently started flying. Russians stopped doing that about a decade ago.

romania-9

City administration of Ploiesti, a city of 225,000 people. Monumental structures to the bureaucracy seems to be a universal to commie regimes.

Many apparently trivial things require passports. I was required to provide my passport for my Airbnb booking in Bucharest, to buy or sell Romanian lei (with trivial sums involved), and once to even make a small purchase at an electronics hardware store. Russia hardly has anything to write home in this department, but I don’t think you need a passport to acquire rubles, and I certainly haven’t ever had to show my passport to buy anything but alcohol. In fairness, as I have pointed out, the Anglos are pretty much the only people who manage to do bureaucracy right.

People don’t like giving change. I had issues with sellers being unhappy at getting paid with 100 lei ($25) or even 50 lei ($12.50) notes. This sort of thing stopped being an issue in Russia around the mid-2000s. In the provinces, people also don’t like accepting credit cards – and not just for minor purchases. I was told that the inn we stayed at, which required a considerable payment for booking 50 odd people – that’s a few hundreds of dollars in addition to the individual charges – required it in cash. This goes some ways to explaining why Romania has one of the largest shadow economies and one of the lowest revenues as a share of GDP of any EU country.

romania-322

Bucharest.

There are a great deal of intrusive advertisements. Not as much as in 1990s Russia, but a lot more than in Russia today. It is rather annoying.

romania-556

romania-555

romania-557

Entrance to History Department of the University of Bucharest.

Graffiti is everywhere – including on “serious buildings”, such as the the entrance to the History Department of the University of Bucharest. I suspect this is common to all “southern” countries.

Another observation I have to make is that there seems to be quite a bit of incompetence. Speaking of that particular inn, they had assured us that each guest would have their own room, but in the end I had to share it with two other people – thankfully from our own party, but still, not exactly what we had expected. But the €30 price remained the same as if we had paid for single rooms. In terms of comfort, this basically made our room a hostel – and you can get hostel rooms in central New York for cheaper prices. Another example: I booked a car via Cronoscar, Romania’s best known car rental company, in advance via the Internet. When we came to pick it up in Ploiesti, they said they had no record of it and plainly wanted us to shove us off, before I produced the email with my booking via my cell phone. This, at least, forced them to scrounge up a replacement car, although a different (and more expensive) model. But if I hadn’t had that email on my cell phone, I assume our travel plans for that day would have been ruined.

***

Corruption

transparency-international-gcb-2016-bribery-in-europe

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2016. Bribery rates in Europe as proxied by opinion polls.

MP told me that corruption is not prevalent at lower levels – while people paid bribes to policemen in the 1990s, this is not the case today. He found it hard to imagine someone paying off prosecutors and judges for a more lenient sentence, which is something that is not exactly unheard of in Russia. The higher up politicians do get rich as a matter of course, and illegitimately, but not at the level of the Kremlin elites.

My impression syncs with the results of many opinion polls and other formal data. Romania is much more corrupt than the average EU country, but less so than Russia.

***

Religion

romania-429

romania-431

Biserica Nașterea Maicii Domnului din Suceava in Bucharest. (This version of the church was built in 1850-52)

Opinion polls consistently show that Romanians are some of the most religious Europeans (e.g. only 1% of them identified as atheists in a recent PEW survey, relative to 5% of Bulgars, 7% of Poles, 15% of Russians, and 72% of Czechs). This seems to be backed up church attendance figures. In Russia, only old women regularly attend church; in Romania, I got the impression that so, too, did middle-aged men.

However, as I mentioned above, my interlocutor MP insisted that religion in Romania is shallow, and actually seemed to have the impression that Russia was a more religious country. I certainly do not think that that is the case, but nonetheless, this did cause me to readjust my prior conceptions about Romanian religiosity. It might be very wide, but as in Russia, it is in very large part an expression of national identity, as opposed to being a genuine spiritual phenomenon, as I think is the case in the United States, the Islamic world, and (to an extent) Poland.

***

Language

As with phenotypes, cuisine, and architecture, the Romanian language is also a hybrid. It has a Latinate structure, but with considerable Slavic vocabulary borrowings (ranging from 5% in standard Romanian to 20% in Moldova).

I was amused to note that their word for war is “razboi” (e.g. Primul Război Mondial). In Russian, the term разбой denotes brigandage; bandits are разбойники. I found this linguistic false friend to be endearingly Balkan.

It seems that all the military and quasi-military terms are Slavic (e.g. voivoda, boyar).

Wikipedia has some more interesting information, e.g.:

At the arrival of the Slavs, the Romance-speaking Vlachs were rural cattle breeders… most Romanian vocabulary related to cattle and cattle-breeding is of Latin origin. In contrast, most tools and utensils related to agronomy (as well as urban life) were replaced with Slavic names.

Some last minute commitments before my trip prevented me from spending a few hours learning the Romanian language, as I had done with Portuguese.

Nonetheless, I am not sure it would have been of much use.

Despite its Slavic borrowings, even for me Romanian seems considerably harder than Spanish, Portuguese, and probably Italian (though I can’t say for sure since I haven’t spent any time learning Italian).

Reflecting Romania’s Francophile culture, most older Romanians speak French (not Russian as in most of the rest of the post-Communist bloc). Many young people speak okay English – more so than in Hungary.

***

Weddings

Romanian weddings are LARGE! Not the modest affairs more typical in the traditionally bourgeois West. The typical wedding has dozens, if not hundreds, of guests.

They also have a bride kidnapping tradition as in the Caucasus, which is recreated during weddings.

romania-17

Traditional singers.

romania-39

Belly dancer.

***

Cuisine

As in most other things, Romanian cuisine is a Med/Slavic hybrid – with a stuffing of Germanic sausage.

Central ingredients include potatoes, polenta, cornmeal, pickles of all sorts, salted cucumbers, sausage, sour cream, and – of course – KEBAB. That said, I do like their habit of presenting hot green peppers as standard sides. I hope that Russia could adopt this great innovation as the climate warms. They are not big on olives; they are all imports. Also no good dry red wines that I can tell. They prefer palinka moonshine that they make themselves.

It’s pretty simple, and you can sample most of the keynote dishes in a day or two. As with Portuguese cuisine, it is filling, but there’s nothing particularly noteworthy about it.

romania-523

The classic restaurant in Bucharest is Caru’ cu Bere, which was founded in 1879.

Like many such restaurants, it is perhaps overrated, but people go there for the decor anyway. And at 30 Euros for a three course meal with two beers, it won’t bankrupt you.

romania-515

Ciorba Radauteana – sour chicken soup with garlic and cream).

romania-516

Viennese sausages with cheese, pickled cabbage, and polenta.

romania-517

Papanasi for desert.

***

romania-345

The other restaurant I dropped into was the Casa Doina in Bucharest, which was originally intended to be a pavilion for the grand Paris Exhibition of 1890.

Unfortunately, the Romanians didn’t finish it in time, so it became a buffet for Bucharest boyars instead.

I ordered the following modest meal for about 10 Euros.

romania-344

The sausages are mititei, which are “grilled ground meat rolls made from a mixture of beef, lamb and pork with spices.”

The spirit to the left is pălincă, a Visegrad/Romanian plum brandy.

***

romania-38

Polenta and cabbage rolls with spicy green pepper at the wedding.

romania-65

Mămăligă – cornmeal porridge.

romania-205

KEBAB (salad, potatoes, etc).

romania-206

This is probably just apple pie but I don’t really remember.

romania-134

Kürtőskalács is a Hungarian pastry that is also prevalent in Transylvania.

romania-64

Some sort of sweet fruit wine poured out of an elegant 5 litre plastic bottle.

romania-204

Vișinată – cherry liqueur.

***

Romania: Ploiesti

***

From the Airport

romania-2

Henri Coandă Airport.

Having also recently been in Portugal, my initial impressions of Romania were that it was a blend of Portugal and Russia.

Even many of the roadside houses seemed to be like izbas, but with Mediterranean-style tiles and decorative patterning.

romania-5

A new church.

romania-6

A Communist era technical college conferring some useless degree.

Many new churches, malls, places with familiar names (e.g. Auchan supermarkets, Lukoil gas stations).

Ploesti

romania-226

Typical commieblock in the outskirts.

romania-13

There is a well-reviewed clock museum in Ploiesti (unfortunately I didn’t have time for it).

romania-18

Nightclub.

***

Maia

This is the ancestral village of one member of our group. Deep Romania.

romania-20

romania-30

The St. Nicholas Church where Barbu Catargiu, Romania’s first Prime Minister, is buried. He was assassinated in June 1862 after less than half a year in power. His assassin was never caught.

Barbu Catargiu was a modernizing conservative, who wanted to build railways and preserve the large boyar estates and run Romania as an aristocratic republic.

The Communist regime was naturally antipathetic to him, and most monuments to him were destroyed. However, the church itself was left alone in benign neglect.

romania-28

Local museum.

romania-22

Another reason why World War I is so central to Romanian history: Compare the number of names under each conflict.

romania-27

Book containing records maintained and updated by each successive church priest for the past two centuries.

romania-25

romania-26

Many interesting icons and old books, most written in Romanian Cyrillic.

The museum’s archives also host a drawing by a Russian POW held during WW2 (they don’t know what eventually happened to him). I suppose he was treated well to be able to engage in such pursuits.

***

Romania: Transylvania

***

Scenes of Transylvania

romania-59

Although it’s more associated with dark, foreboding forests in the popular imagination (Count Dracula), in reality it’s more of a “green and pleasant land.”

As one of my acquaintances remarked, the Shire scenes of Lord of the Rings could have been filmed here.

romania-136

romania-138

romania-141

romania-142

romania-144

romania-150

romania-139

romania-194

romania-195

romania-196

romania-197

romania-198

romania-202

***

Peleș Castle

romania-41

This Neo-Renaissance castle was constructed in 1883 for Carol I, the first King of independent Romania. Reflecting his technophilic priorities, it was the first European palace to be powered with electricity.

romania-48

romania-43

romania-45

Incidentally, I noted that about at least a quarter of the tourists were Chinese. This is something that one notices in popular tourist attractions in Russia as well.

I suppose that an Eastern European tour is a legitimate (and cheap) solution to Paris Syndrome.

romania-47

romania-46

Carol I was a Germanophile, and technically competent. His personal library was stocked with a wide range of German and English books on modern science and technology

He wanted to enter World War I on the side of the Central Powers; he had signed a secret treaty in 1883 linking Romania to the Triple Alliance, though Romania wasn’t obligated to honor it because it only applied if Russia attacked one of the signatories. However, Romanian public opinion was highly Francophile, and he was voted down at the Crown Council convened on August 3. After that, Carol I fell into decline and died on October 10.

romania-49

The Sinaia Monastery (built in 1842-46 build, restored around 1900). It was also the first electrified church in Romania (1906). The equipment was sourced from Vienna.

The western wall has various royalty scenes, including the one with Carol I and the missing columns (Transylvania, Bukovina, Bessarabia). The narthex has two icons, Saint Nicholas and Sergey of Radonezh, gifted by Nicholas II.

***

Cetatea Râșnov

romania-94

Although construction dates to Roman times, the fortress as we know was built around 1225 by the Teutonic Knights of Burzenland.

romania-92

Did I mentioned the Romanians are obsessed with World War I? The tower hosts a series of posters with a history of the Great War.

romania-74

Display on socialist Romania.

After having spent the preceding century as an abandoned ruin, the fortress was renovated in 1955-56 under Communism.

romania-81

Gift shop with the Roman soldiers, national maps, etc. (has the map with Crimea as part of Romania).

romania-79

romania-72

romania-78

romania-77

romania-90

romania-89

romania-91

***

Peștera Valea Cetății

This cave is located about 3 km from Râșnov. It’s almost 1 km long, though only the first major atrium is accessible to the general public. It was discovered in 1949, and made into a tourist attraction in 2011.

Due to the cave ecosystem’s sensitivity to fluctuations in temperature, tour groups are only allowed to stay there for no more than 20 minutes once every hour.

romania-97

romania-101

romania-102

***

Râșnov

The Romanians do love to ape that Hollywood sign everywhere. Brașov has the same thing.

romania-106

romania-105

***

Bran Castle

romania-131

Although it is known as “Dracula’s castle”, in reality Bran Castle doesn’t have anything to do with either Vlad Țepeș or vampires apart from being the likeliest location of the fortress described in Bram Stoker’s famous novel. A wooden fortress in this location was first built in 1212 by the Teutonic Knights, but it was destroyed by the Mongols. The current stone version was constructed by the local Saxons of Kronstadt (Brașov) in 1377. Vlad Țepeș had no connection to Bran Castle apart from occasionally passing through it. Dracula’s real redoubt would be Poenari Castle, a much more modest and remote fastness. And legend has it that he is buried at Snagov Monastery. I did not visit either location.

The Romanians view Dracula – the late medieval voivoda, not the vampire count – as a popular saint (though I was sorry to discover that he was not actually canonized as a saint, as one Romanian had led me to believe). Still, everyone agrees that he was a swell guy – including the Communists under Ceausescu, whose regime had good reason to play up the legacy of a man who run multiple military victories for Romania, founded Bucharest in 1459, and terrorized the “treasonous” boyars (who may have ended up murdering him).

According to the museum texts, Dracula was a Robin Hood, who was “merciless with the rich”, and a “reliable friend of the poor” – a “national hero” to the peasants of Wallachia.

The wide distribution of the so-called “German narratives” in Europe was meant to libel him and created him a bad reputation. He was described as an antichrist, a wicked criminal and a cannibal.

Indeed, this theme that he was a hero calumniated by foreigners seems to have much in common with patriotic Russian narratives on Ivan IV (the Terrible).

“At that time, in all of feudal Europe, there was a climate of cruelty, and Vlad the Impaler, characterized by his enemies as a sinister person, thirsting for human blood, did not outdo most other monarchs of the 15th and 16th centuries, starting with Louis XI and ending with Ivan the Terrible, or starting with Henry VIII and ending with Matei Corvin. Vlad the Impaler’s significance is his contribution to maintaining the existence of the Wallachian state by fighting off the Turks, let by Mohammed II, conqueror of Constantinople.”

Bran Castle was more expensive than Peleș Castle, and less remarkable, too; the display focuses around the (modern) furniture collection amassed by Queen Marie, the last Romanian queen. It is Romania’s first private museum, having been given back to descendents of the royal family thanks to a law passed by the Romanian parliament on restituting Communist-era expropriations. My impression is that they just collect the rent from its (fictitious) association with Dracula.

romania-133

romania-116

romania-123

romania-129

romania-128

The views are certainly great, the furniture is meh… but don’t come for the “authenticity”.

romania-122

***

Transylvania Hike

romania-154

We did a one day hike through Piatra Craiului National Park, which is characterized by a long limestone ridge spanning most of the area that is popular with climbers.

romania-156

romania-157

romania-160

romania-162

romania-163

romania-165

romania-166

romania-168

romania-169

Cabana Curmătura.

romania-172

“No we don’t have WiFi. Talk to each other!”

romania-170

romania-179

There are shepherds who maintain herds of cattle and sheep in these mountains.

romania-180

romania-183

romania-182

romania-185

romania-189

***

Brașov

romania-221

Brașov (again helpfully denoted by the Hollywood sign) is the historic center of the Transylvanian Saxons, and is now a prosperous 250,000 population city boosted by tourism.

romania-214

Catherine’s Gate.

romania-217

Black Church (Biserica Neagră).

There are panels recounting the church’s history inside. Constructed in the late 15 century, it got its name after being partially burned during a fire set by advancing Hapsburg forces in 1689.

The main noteworthy thing I found is that the literacy push amongst the local German community started extremely early, just a few years after the coming of Protestantism. The local bishop published an edict demanding that local German communities collect taxes for schools.

Today, it is run by the Evangelical Community of Augustan Confession. They hold Sunday services in German for their 1,000 parishioners.

romania-218

romania-213

romania-220

***

Romania: Bucharest

***

Arrival in Bucharest

romania-240

This studio apartment just a block away from the University of Bucharest, with a sweeping view of the Palace of the National Military Circle, was just 33 Euros a night on Airbnb.

My hosts said that this apartment costs around 45,000 Euros. This is pretty remarkable; a similar apartment would cost no less than 20 million rubles ($300,000) in Moscow. In London, it would be about a million.

romania-246

romania-247

The one unfortunate thing is that the front facade of the National Military Circle was covered with scaffolding, but I suppose that’s going to be temporary.

***

Keto Cafe

romania-250

I met up with MP at the Masa Casa, a newly opened ketogenic cafe (as I said above, Bucharest, like many of East Europe’s capitals, has become a strongly SWPL place).

romania-248

romania-249

***

Bucharest Streets I

romania-261

romania-251

Dacia Boulevard.

romania-252

Monument to Pilsudski at Ion Voicu park.

romania-253

romania-254

Many of these mansions used to belong to the boyars before the Communists. They are now neglected and available at knockdown prices.

Although it’s possible for some of them to get them restituted under the decommunization laws, in practice it’s an extremely bureaucratic and complex process that’s not worth the trouble in many cases.

romania-255

Romanian girl. (Eastern Europe and Latin America are known for such murals).

romania-256

romania-257

One thing you quickly notice walking in Bucharest is not just the variety of architectural styles, but how they are all intermeshed with each other. This is because the 1977 Earthquake leveled a significant part of the city. Apart from killing 1,500 people, it also haphazardly collapsed many buildings across Bucharest. The spaces left over were filled by monolithic commieblocks.

romania-258

romania-259

The British Embassy in Romania.

At this point, a policeman rushed up to me and told me to stop taking photos.

romania-260

Did I tell you there’s too many ads?

romania-265

romania-264

romania-263

The Ateneul Roman.

romania-266

Equestrian statue of Carol I.

romania-267

The Memorial of Rebirth to denote the victory over Communism in 1989.

Like most other things, it is covered in graffiti. It is in front of a gargantuan palace hosting the Ministries of Justice, Health, and the Interior.

romania-270

Was Ilya Varlamov in Bucharest recently?

romania-272

romania-271

Bucharest has a liberal attitude to gambling. Groups of Israeli businessmen, from a country where the laws are much more conservative, take weekend trips to the many casinos here.

***

Bucharest Municipal Museum

romania-276

This is a very good, introspective museum about Bucharest’s history.

General flavor of postwar Romanian history that I got from it:

  • 1947-1965: Large increases in economic output (e.g. coal, steel, etc.) and social development, but living standards remain low, rationing is in effect, and class enemies strongly repressed. Khrushchev had agreed to the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1958.
  • 1965-1980: Ceausescu comes to power. Initially more freedoms, development of tourism as Romania veers away from the USSR, and builds up relations with the West (e.g. Ceausescu condemned the crushing of the Prague Spring). There are particularly warm relations with France (where Charles de Gaulle displays a similarly defiant attitude to the US). But growing repression in the 1970s prevents the relationship from blossoming.
  • 1980-1989: Return of rationing and labor repression as Ceausescu decides to opt for a more North Korean model, large parts of Bucharest rebuilt in a monolithic totalitarian style after the 1977 earthquake.

romania-282

romania-286

romania-292

romania-294

romania-293

romania-296

***

Bucharest Streets II

romania-301

romania-302

romania-303

romania-306

romania-318

romania-320

romania-323

***

Palatul Parlamentului

romania-304

Unfortunately, I was unable to visit Bucharest’s most famous landmark – the Palace of Parliament, which is the world’s second largest administrative building by area (the Pentagon is first) and the world’s heaviest.

You need to book tours by phone, 24 hours in advance; as befits a Communist-era behemoth, there is no option to do it via Internet. The first lady told me that all tours were booked out for the next week. I tried calling again early the next day, in the hope that places had been opened up and that I could schedule it for tomorrow afternoon. They had indeed opened up, but it emerged that by “24 hours”, they meant the entire next day inclusive – and the day after tomorrow was already the day of my return flight.

romania-307

romania-319

***

Medieval Fair

romania-308

I ran into this historical recreation festival at Piața Constituției, not far from the Palace of Parliament. I suspect historic recreation is popular in Romania, as in the rest of Eastern Europe.

romania-316

I bought the Vlad Țepeș wood carving for about $30 (it actually cost $40, but I didn’t have enough change and the wood carver was kind enough to offer it at a discount).

romania-310

romania-315

romania-313

 

***

SPD Demonstration

romania-331

I emerged from Piața Victoriei (the one where the lifts were covered with “Basarabia e România” stickers) into the middle of preparations for a sanctioned protest by the Social Democrats.

See the “Politics & Nationalism” section for a background on Romanian politics.

romania-332

The journalists at the scene (who supported the opposition) said that it was a protest of the Social Democrat party “against justice,” claiming that the protesters were paid and bused in

In fairness, there were plenty of buses, and while the event seemed very well organized, I didn’t manage to get clear answers to what they were protesting about from any of the ordinary protesters. Say what you will about them, but at least the ideological “Maidanist” types are more than happy to air their complaints to any who would listen (and many who won’t).

romania-334

romania-335

romania-341

romania-348

PSD HQ.

romania-349

romania-352

romania-353

romania-354

romania-355

romania-356

The event organizers. They, at least, were able to give the most detailed explanation – that they were marching against the opposition’s attempts to “overturn” and “sell off the country”.

romania-357

Arcul de Triumf.

romania-359

romania-360

romania-361

romania-362

***

Dimitrie Gusti National Village Museum

romania-365

This is a huge park that doubles as museum devoted to detailed reconstructions of traditional Romanian dwellings.

romania-366

It just so happened that Rossotrudnichestvo was hosting a cultural event there at this time.

romania-367

romania-369

romania-387

romania-373

romania-375

romania-377

romania-379

***

Parcul Regele Mihai I al României

romania-398

Statues to the bureaucrats who made the European Union.

This park was right next to the National Village Museum. It seems like a popular vacation for picnickers.

romania-399

Taras Shevchenko.

romania-400

romania-403

romania-405

romania-406

romania-407

Charles de Gaulle statue.

In an amusing expression of Romania’s traditional Francophilia, the country developed warm ties with Charles De Gaulle’s France in the 1960s – a bond made stronger by the fact of both countries expressing an independent streak relative to their respective superpowers during that period.

***

Gay Parade at University Square

romania-416

Back from the pro-regime demonstration, onto the gay pride march! This was right in front of the (graffiti-marked) University of Bucharest.

romania-417

romania-419

LGBT + Anticapitalism + Antiracism + Anarchism + Feminism + Antifa = ♥

Queers against Capitalism.

It’s OK to be gay but not hater.

romania-420

Based Bucharest Black Woman.

romania-421

Fat acceptance movement also weighs in.

romania-422

romania-424

romania-423

***

Bucharest Streets III

romania-507

romania-487

romania-504

romania-526

Stavropoleos Monastery Church.

Originally built in 1724, little of the monastery survived apart from the actual church and a small courtyard in the back. They hold regular Orthodox services.

romania-531

romania-535

“No parking! Garage.”

***

National Museum of Romanian History

romania-434

There was a large World War I exhibit when I was there: România în Marele Război.

Interesting facts:

  • On August 1916, on Entente promises of territorial gains (that I don’t recall being mentioned in the exhibit), Romania found itself fighting on two fronts with four states: Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire.
  • Romania mobilized 15% of its population.
  • Romania had 44 planes at the outbreak of the war, which is not at all bad considering that the air forces of the principal combatants numbered in the low hundreds in 1914. However, their troops were far worse equipped than the Central Powers.
  • It managed to quickly take most of Transylvania, where it was greeted enthusiastically by Romanians who did not want to fight for the Austria-Hungarian Empire. However, it was soon pushed back, and forced to retreat to Moldova by early 1917 – where it held the line with Russian help for most of the next year.
  • Romania sent its gold reserves to Russia in December 1916 – equivalent to 10 billion lei in gold – where they were, of course, confiscated by the Bolsheviks when they came to power. (The USSR returned some items in 1935, and most of the coins, art, jewelry, and other cultural artificants in 1956).
  • The withdrawal of Russia from the war made the Romanians’ situation untenable, and they were forced to sign the Treaty of Bucharest in April 1918. This resulted in territorial losses to Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary, and they were obligated to give all its surpluses of oil, grains, cattle, and many other products to Germany. All the brass, copper, and even bells were confiscated. I assume this helped prolong the German war effort.
  • The exposition focused a lot on what it saw as the cruelty of the German occupation. There were many cases of looting; Romanians had to guess permission to use train transport; and were forbidden from sending parcels, using the telephone or the telegraph, or selling cattle. One of the panels claimed that the Germans had all the dogs in Bucharest shot, and fined their owners.
  • There were ~145,000 Romanian POWs in Germany (of whom ~45,000 died), ~61,000 in Austria-Hungary (of whom 22,000 died), ~25,000 in Bulgaria (of whom 5,00o died), and ~10,000 in Turkey (of whom ~1,800 died). Romanian prisoners had the highest mortality rate (29%) of all the prisoners in German camps during World War I. (I wonder to what extent this ill treatment was a result of the Germans feeling Romania had “betrayed” them by joining the Entente after having signed a secret alliance with the Triple Alliance in 1883).
  • However, Germany’s defeat did enable Romania to rejoin the war on its very last day and recover its three lost provinces of Transylvania, Bukovina, and Bessarabia – belatedly snapping victory from the jaws of defeat.

romania-438

romania-446

romania-447

romania-448

romania-450

romania-451

***

romania-452

They also had an exhibit on the lost territory of Bessarabia, which was of course occupied by the USSR in 1940. (As I said, some themes crop up over and over again there).

romania-453

romania-454

***

romania-459

Stephen III of Moldavia (The Great).

The main hall of the museum is given over to the medieval origins of the Romanian/Moldovan state.

romania-457

Document issued by Stephen the Great.

romania-462

This book shows the influence of Slavonic styles on Romanian.

romania-455

I was amused to see the Ottomans casually getting called pagan. No SJWs in Romania?

***

romania-465

Plaster cast of Trajan’s column.

The ancient history part of the museum had a complete plaster cast of Trajan’s Column, which recounts the Roman Emperor’s victory over the Dacians.

There were also various stone steles, with the earliest ones dating to the ancient Greek period.

romania-466

Funerary stele of Attalos the gladiator.

romania-471

Votive dedication from the 3rd century BC.

***

romania-475

 

This part of the museum hosted Romania’s main valuables collection, which hosts the Romanian Crown Jewels.

romania-477

romania-479

The Hoard from Pietroasele, Buzău country (4-5th century).

romania-481

Princely diadem from 14th century.

romania-485

Portrait and swords of Carol I.

romania-486

George Palade was the only ethnic Romanian winner of the Nobel Prize, who did most of his scientific work in the United States.

***

Bucharest Streets IV

romania-549

romania-550

Statue of Trajan and the She-wolf.

***

Cișmigiu Park

romania-564

This is Bucharest’s most central park. Built in 1847, it is full of monuments to various historic figures.

romania-562

romania-560

romania-561

Monument to the French troops. Did I tell you Romanians are Francophiles?

***

Bucharest Streets V (Night Edition)

romania-572

romania-568

romania-567

romania-570

romania-571

All-In Poker Club.

These poker clubs are quite common in Bucharest. This one runs 24 hours a day, and services free food/non-alcoholic drinks once every few hours.

romania-574

Control Club.

***

Departure

romania-576

romania-577

romania-580

I wrote about my impressions of the Sukhoi Superjet-100 here.

***

 
Hide 225 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I was independently told by several Romanians, without any prompting on my part, that Romania has the world’s second highest numbers of emigrants after Syria.

    That explains the Romanian shop in my not-so-great city.
    Of course, we have even more Syrians.

  2. If the USSR did fall, would Hitler really have given Crimea to Romania? Also, Antonescu may have believed Romania was Latin and not Slavic, but I doubt that the likes of Himmler would have held that belief.

    • Replies: @Vendetta
    Crimea was a prize everyone wanted. Mussolini hoped that the participation of Italian forces on the Eastern Front would give him the standing to exercise a claim on the Crimea on the basis of the old Genoese colonies that had been there in medieval times.

    Germany of course had eyes on the peninsula itself due to its strategic location as well as its pleasant climate for German settlement. In the case of an Axis victory it would have probably been down to the Germans to decide who got it - and considering the German blood expended in besieging Sevastopol, I doubt they’d have given it away. If they were feeling uncharacteristically generous, I think Italy would have been first runner-up to receive it. The Germans would probably consider Odessa more than enough of a prize for the Romanians.

    Really depends on Hitler’s whims and his personal views of his allies, which vary over the course of the war. Hitler had the utmost personal respect for Mussolini right up to the day he died, though he despised the Italian people and their military forces from the beginning and only grew to do so more over the course of the war (he considered them unworthy to have such a leader as Mussolini and Mussolini above blame for Italy’s failures - in Hitler’s view he was doing the best he could given an inferior nation to lead).

    Antonescu had a good rapport with Hitler early on in the war as well. He was more adventurous and eager to fight than Miklós Horthy of Hungary, and committed a much larger share of his forces to the war in the east, and did not limit the extent to which his forces would participate to merely reclaiming the territories he had recently lost (unlike Carl Mannerheim of Finland). Romania’s army also maintained a respectable performance in the Bessarabian campaign as well as in the siege of Odessa.

    Stalingrad erased just about all regard Hitler had for the Romanians. The Germans blamed both the Sixth Army’s encirclement and the failure of their relieving force to break through to Stalingrad on the inability of the Romanians to hold their sectors of the front against superior Soviet forces, and after that disaster Antonescu became far less eager and cooperative as a German ally (Romania’s forces were kept out of any further substantial action until the Red Army arrived at Romania’s borders in 1944).

    So how much territory the Romanians would ultimately have been allowed to claim had the Germans won would depend upon the circumstances that led to that victory. If there were no disaster at Stalingrad to discredit them, Hitler might have been much more generous to Romania than if there had been.

    Incidentally some of Greece’s hyper-nationalists in the brief era of the Megali Idea also had wild ideas about claiming Crimea on the basis of ancient Hellenic colonies as well. And of course revanchist Turkish nationalists have always held out hopes of returning there one day too.

    Everyone dreams about the Crimea. No one but Russia, however, has proven powerful to make their dreams a reality.

  3. One, maybe two more modern looking buildings in all of your photos. It looks like Romania got caught in some sort of a 1960’s time warp?….

  4. Once again proving to be an amazing travel writer. Incredible post packing a huge amount of detail, from the most minute to grand sweeps.

    What I like most is that you are genuinely curious about your surroundings. Even when you admit that Romania was way down on your list, you take upon yourself to really try to understand the country you go to. Not just lazily getting on with it, or just focusing on your immediate surroundings. To the extent that you can, you geuninely try to understand the place you come to. As a reader, I appreciate that.

    There’s too much to comment on in general so I’ll just focus on one thing: I’ve heard a lot about Transylvania and if those pictures are anything to go by, then even my admittedly high expectations were exceeded. It really does seem like a magical place. Dare I say Switzerland on a budget?

    P.S. Keto isn’t SWPL, that’s veganism!

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Thanks for the compliements.

    It really does seem like a magical place. Dare I say Switzerland on a budget?
     
    I got that impression as well. You can probably spend almost a week in Transylvania for the price of a day in Switzerland.

    Keto isn’t SWPL, that’s veganism!
     
    I think keto is very SWPL, just not hipsterish. Or perhaps Gray Tribe.
  5. Fat acceptance movement also weighs in.

    I laughed way more than I should have at that one 🙂

    Also:

    J-Janusz, is that you?

  6. Moldova is an order of magnitude less fake or gay than the Ukraine. Separate Moldovan identity is centuries old, while Romanian identity is recent. With Ukrainian/Russian identities it’s the other way around.

    The modern Moldova (Bessarabia) had been unified with Romania for only ~20 years, as opposed to centuries for Ukraine and Russia.

    And then there are the special connections of Moldova to Russia. In the last 200 years, obviously; but even before that. For example, some sort of Old Slavonic/Russian was an (or perhaps even the) official language of the medieval Moldovan principality.

    • Replies: @inertial

    Old Slavonic/Russian was an (or perhaps even the) official language of the medieval Moldovan principality.
     
    Let me give an illustration: the document that first mentions Chisinau/Kishinev.

    Wikipedia explains:

    Chișinău was mentioned for the first time in 1436, when Moldavian princes Ilie and Ştefan gave several villages with the common name Cheseni near the Akbash well to one feudal lord Oancea for his good service.
     
    The Russian version of the Wiki page quotes the actual document:

    «…и близь Быку, по тои сторонѣ, на долину што падает(ь) против(ь) Акбашева Кешенева, ѹ Кръници, где ест(ь) Татарскаѧ Селища, против(ь) лѣска. (…) А пѵстынѧмъ хотаръ, колко ѹзмогуть ѡживати таѧ села, що ѡсадит(ь), досыт(ь)»
     
    I am not enough of a linguist to know if this is Old Russian or Old Slavonic but I can read this easily.
    , @AP

    Separate Moldovan identity is centuries old, while Romanian identity is recent.
     
    That's like saying separate Bavarian identity is centuries old but German is more recent.

    With Ukrainian/Russian identities it’s the other way around.
     
    Only if you think that language has magical powers, so that the old word Rus confers a (Great) Russian identity on peoples from centuries ago. On that note, did Julius Caesar have a Romanian identity, in your world?

    The modern Moldova (Bessarabia) had been unified with Romania for only ~20 years, as opposed to centuries for Ukraine and Russia.
     
    Moldova was unified with Russia only 30 years less than the western half of Ukraine was.
    , @Pilgrim007
    Moldova was established as a state around mid 14th century. It lost the southern part (Budjak) to the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century, Bukovina to the Habsburg Empire in 1785, and the territory East of Prut (Bessarabia) to the Russian Empire in 1812.
    Modern Romania was established in 1859. It recovered both Bukovina and Bessarabia in 1918. It lost North Bukovina and Bessarabia at the end of WWII. Hundreds of thousands of Romanians were subsequently deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan. (This is one of the reason Romanians historically mistrust Russia).
  7. [MORE]

    Great blog post. No doubt about that.

    On a separate note, given [[[Anatoly Karlin]]]’s liberast ,anti-Russian, depravity..the context behind him retweeting this should be explained:

  8. @inertial
    Moldova is an order of magnitude less fake or gay than the Ukraine. Separate Moldovan identity is centuries old, while Romanian identity is recent. With Ukrainian/Russian identities it's the other way around.

    The modern Moldova (Bessarabia) had been unified with Romania for only ~20 years, as opposed to centuries for Ukraine and Russia.

    And then there are the special connections of Moldova to Russia. In the last 200 years, obviously; but even before that. For example, some sort of Old Slavonic/Russian was an (or perhaps even the) official language of the medieval Moldovan principality.

    Old Slavonic/Russian was an (or perhaps even the) official language of the medieval Moldovan principality.

    Let me give an illustration: the document that first mentions Chisinau/Kishinev.

    Wikipedia explains:

    Chișinău was mentioned for the first time in 1436, when Moldavian princes Ilie and Ştefan gave several villages with the common name Cheseni near the Akbash well to one feudal lord Oancea for his good service.

    The Russian version of the Wiki page quotes the actual document:

    «…и близь Быку, по тои сторонѣ, на долину што падает(ь) против(ь) Акбашева Кешенева, ѹ Кръници, где ест(ь) Татарскаѧ Селища, против(ь) лѣска. (…) А пѵстынѧмъ хотаръ, колко ѹзмогуть ѡживати таѧ села, що ѡсадит(ь), досыт(ь)»

    I am not enough of a linguist to know if this is Old Russian or Old Slavonic but I can read this easily.

  9. Very impressive travelogue, Mr. Karlin.

    I understand the ‘Crimea is Romania’ map represents Greatest Romania, but what is with the other countries’ strange borders? Why do some of them get expanded borders?

  10. However, so far as simpler folks such as Romanians are concerned, whose grievances are easy for the Russian mind to understand, powerful deals can be worked out. For instance, more strenuous efforts to disassociate Russia from (Latvian-imposed) Communism – which Russia needs to do for its own sake, anyway; and a partition of the fake and gay country of Moldova – Romania gets historical Bessarabia, Russia gets Transnistria.

    The Romanians I’ve met online (maybe one was Moldovan) were very anti-Russia, which they indeed associated with the USSR, rather than the empire’s aid to Romanians in WWI or 1878. Maybe that’s just a vocal minority though.

    As an aside, I also had a teacher who was a Transylvanian German from a family expelled after WW2; from what I understand they are very fondly remembered as a community now. Could their expulsion be part of the reason the country struggled so badly for decades?

  11. Much better than your Portugal post, which was quite dull tbh.

    This was great.

  12. The Communist period is viewed very negatively. I would estimate that Ceausescu has a 10% approval rating.

    Selection bias (aka Pauline Kael effect.)

    From Wiki:

    Praising the crimes of totalitarian governments and denigrating their victims is forbidden by law in Romania; this includes the Ceaușescu era. Dinel Staicu was fined 25,000 lei (approx. 9,000 United States dollars) for praising Ceaușescu and displaying his pictures on his private television channel (3TV Oltenia).[62] Nevertheless, according to opinion polls held in 2010, 41% of Romanians would vote for Ceaușescu[63][64] and 63% think that their lives were better before 1989.[64][65] In 2014, the percentage of those who would vote for Ceaușescu reached 46%.[66]

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  13. Awesome post. It is so consistent with what I already knew and what Romanian friends have told me that I second the recommendation that you should be a professional travel writer.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    He’s got my vote for travel writer, too. Originally I wrote, “don’t give up the political, historical, and social topics, AK.” But actually, the travel writing dovetails well with those areas.

    PS Suggestion for Mr. Unz: fund a multinational vacation for Anatoly on the condition that his travel companion be ... Andrei Martyanov. Man, the v-logs would be awesome.

  14. Great post. Looking forward to more travels from you!

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  15. Great stuff.

    My favorite bit of Dracula trivia is that Bram Stoker (probably unintentionally) trolled Romania by making the vampire count a Székely, an ethnic Hungarian. Maybe Orbán should demand a share of the tourist money.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    You are not far from the truth. Bram Stoker intended to write a 'vampire story' inspired by the infamous 'Blood Countess' Elizabeth Bathory and was to be placed in Slovakia. Bathory was a Hungarian family of 'Magnates' with extensive properties in Transylvania and Slovakia, who gave also some Princes to Transylvania and a King to Poland. The scandal of the 'Blood Countess' was always covered up in Hungary.
    It was at the suggestion of a famous Hungarian orientalist and British spy, Arminius Vambery (Bamberger) that Stoker changed his subject and moved it to Transylvania. It was Vambery who fed Stoker with the false identity as Hungarian of the historical figure of the Valachian Voivode Vlad the Impaler. Vlad was indeed related with Hungarian nobility and some grand aristocrats in Hungary claimed to be descendants of him (Ezsterhazy). Even erh, Prince Charles who bought properties in Transylvania close to the supposed castle of Dracula in Borgo Pass. Prince Charles has been offered the honorific title of 'Prince of Transylvania' because of his promotion of Transylvania as a tourist destination and because he is "more Romanian than many Romanians."
    It is a little known fact that the 'Dracula Program' was devised in the '70s by the Tourism Authorities in Romania and the immensely profitable 'Dracula Industry' to attract British and American tourists. It had different levels, one general, visits through all places that could be related to Vlad the Impaler, true or alleged, museums, entertainment with Vampire themes, souvenirs, all the cutlery. A secret program reserved to millionaires, was organized around the Borgo Pass on the hunting reservations of the Party. It is big business in which HRH is heavily involved. Orban certainly would like to have a share in it, but it is out of his league. The Trustee of 'The Prince of Wales's Foundation' in Romania and host of the prince at his yearly visits to Transylvania, is Tibor, Count Kálnoky and Baron of Kőröspatak, descendant of the 'primores' (magnates) of the Szeklers.
  16. @neutral
    If the USSR did fall, would Hitler really have given Crimea to Romania? Also, Antonescu may have believed Romania was Latin and not Slavic, but I doubt that the likes of Himmler would have held that belief.

    Crimea was a prize everyone wanted. Mussolini hoped that the participation of Italian forces on the Eastern Front would give him the standing to exercise a claim on the Crimea on the basis of the old Genoese colonies that had been there in medieval times.

    Germany of course had eyes on the peninsula itself due to its strategic location as well as its pleasant climate for German settlement. In the case of an Axis victory it would have probably been down to the Germans to decide who got it – and considering the German blood expended in besieging Sevastopol, I doubt they’d have given it away. If they were feeling uncharacteristically generous, I think Italy would have been first runner-up to receive it. The Germans would probably consider Odessa more than enough of a prize for the Romanians.

    Really depends on Hitler’s whims and his personal views of his allies, which vary over the course of the war. Hitler had the utmost personal respect for Mussolini right up to the day he died, though he despised the Italian people and their military forces from the beginning and only grew to do so more over the course of the war (he considered them unworthy to have such a leader as Mussolini and Mussolini above blame for Italy’s failures – in Hitler’s view he was doing the best he could given an inferior nation to lead).

    Antonescu had a good rapport with Hitler early on in the war as well. He was more adventurous and eager to fight than Miklós Horthy of Hungary, and committed a much larger share of his forces to the war in the east, and did not limit the extent to which his forces would participate to merely reclaiming the territories he had recently lost (unlike Carl Mannerheim of Finland). Romania’s army also maintained a respectable performance in the Bessarabian campaign as well as in the siege of Odessa.

    Stalingrad erased just about all regard Hitler had for the Romanians. The Germans blamed both the Sixth Army’s encirclement and the failure of their relieving force to break through to Stalingrad on the inability of the Romanians to hold their sectors of the front against superior Soviet forces, and after that disaster Antonescu became far less eager and cooperative as a German ally (Romania’s forces were kept out of any further substantial action until the Red Army arrived at Romania’s borders in 1944).

    So how much territory the Romanians would ultimately have been allowed to claim had the Germans won would depend upon the circumstances that led to that victory. If there were no disaster at Stalingrad to discredit them, Hitler might have been much more generous to Romania than if there had been.

    Incidentally some of Greece’s hyper-nationalists in the brief era of the Megali Idea also had wild ideas about claiming Crimea on the basis of ancient Hellenic colonies as well. And of course revanchist Turkish nationalists have always held out hopes of returning there one day too.

    Everyone dreams about the Crimea. No one but Russia, however, has proven powerful to make their dreams a reality.

    • Replies: @Marcus

    Antonescu had a good rapport with Hitler early on in the war as well. He was more adventurous and eager to fight than Miklós Horthy of Hungary, and committed a much larger share of his forces to the war in the east, and did not limit the extent to which his forces would participate to merely reclaiming the territories he had recently lost (unlike Carl Mannerheim of Finland). Romania’s army also maintained a respectable performance in the Bessarabian campaign as well as in the siege of Odessa.

    Stalingrad erased just about all regard Hitler had for the Romanians. The Germans blamed both the Sixth Army’s encirclement and the failure of their relieving force to break through to Stalingrad on the inability of the Romanians to hold their sectors of the front against superior Soviet forces, and after that disaster Antonescu became far less eager and cooperative as a German ally (Romania’s forces were kept out of any further substantial action until the Red Army arrived at Romania’s borders in 1944).
     
    The Axis' favoritism to Hungary is weird to me, wasn't Romania a more valuable ally? Hitler seems to have personally disliked Magyars due to his memories growing up in Austria-Hungary, and he considered them the worst contingent of all his allies.
    , @DFH

    Everyone dreams about the Crimea
     
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xXfeb6g-gnM/VVpin3TkPyI/AAAAAAAABlM/baVfv74BXhw/s1600/NewEnglandMap500.jpg
    , @AP

    Stalingrad erased just about all regard Hitler had for the Romanians. The Germans blamed both the Sixth Army’s encirclement and the failure of their relieving force to break through to Stalingrad on the inability of the Romanians to hold their sectors of the front against superior Soviet forces
     
    They are related to Italians, after all...
    , @Pilgrim007
    "Stalingrad erased just about all regard Hitler had for the Romanians. The Germans blamed both the Sixth Army’s encirclement and the failure of their relieving force to break through to Stalingrad on the inability of the Romanians to hold their sectors of the front against superior Soviet forces, and after that disaster Antonescu became far less eager and cooperative as a German ally (Romania’s forces were kept out of any further substantial action until the Red Army arrived at Romania’s borders in 1944).

    Manstein had a favorable opinion about Romanian soldiers on Eastern Front. One or two Romanian Divisions took part at the siege of Sevastopol under his command (see Verlorene Siege/Lost Victories) and he praised them.
    Leon Degrelle (Waffen SS on the Eastern Front) is not so favorable, but he mentions just one episode. Same for Rudel (Stuka Pilot), but he look at them from the air.
  17. iirc the Nazis considered the Crimea to be ancient Germanic territory, supposedly some members of the Einsatzgruppen even went around there looking for Gothic antiquities when they weren’t committing massacres. Hitler wanted to rename Sevastopol to Theoderichhafen and Simferopol to Gotenburg, so I doubt the Romanians would have gotten it in case of a German victory.

    • Replies: @DFH

    iirc the Nazis considered the Crimea to be ancient Germanic territory
     
    They weren't wrong about Germanic tribes having lived there pre-Great Migrations
    , @for-the-record
    iirc the Nazis considered the Crimea to be ancient Germanic territor

    "Crimean Gothic" was apparently spoken in isolated parts of Crimea until the late 18th century.

    Pp. 162-175 of the following book has a rather detailed description of what is known about it:

    http://arturasratkus.com/sites/default/files/biblioteka/schwarz_1951_goten.pdf
  18. @Vendetta
    Crimea was a prize everyone wanted. Mussolini hoped that the participation of Italian forces on the Eastern Front would give him the standing to exercise a claim on the Crimea on the basis of the old Genoese colonies that had been there in medieval times.

    Germany of course had eyes on the peninsula itself due to its strategic location as well as its pleasant climate for German settlement. In the case of an Axis victory it would have probably been down to the Germans to decide who got it - and considering the German blood expended in besieging Sevastopol, I doubt they’d have given it away. If they were feeling uncharacteristically generous, I think Italy would have been first runner-up to receive it. The Germans would probably consider Odessa more than enough of a prize for the Romanians.

    Really depends on Hitler’s whims and his personal views of his allies, which vary over the course of the war. Hitler had the utmost personal respect for Mussolini right up to the day he died, though he despised the Italian people and their military forces from the beginning and only grew to do so more over the course of the war (he considered them unworthy to have such a leader as Mussolini and Mussolini above blame for Italy’s failures - in Hitler’s view he was doing the best he could given an inferior nation to lead).

    Antonescu had a good rapport with Hitler early on in the war as well. He was more adventurous and eager to fight than Miklós Horthy of Hungary, and committed a much larger share of his forces to the war in the east, and did not limit the extent to which his forces would participate to merely reclaiming the territories he had recently lost (unlike Carl Mannerheim of Finland). Romania’s army also maintained a respectable performance in the Bessarabian campaign as well as in the siege of Odessa.

    Stalingrad erased just about all regard Hitler had for the Romanians. The Germans blamed both the Sixth Army’s encirclement and the failure of their relieving force to break through to Stalingrad on the inability of the Romanians to hold their sectors of the front against superior Soviet forces, and after that disaster Antonescu became far less eager and cooperative as a German ally (Romania’s forces were kept out of any further substantial action until the Red Army arrived at Romania’s borders in 1944).

    So how much territory the Romanians would ultimately have been allowed to claim had the Germans won would depend upon the circumstances that led to that victory. If there were no disaster at Stalingrad to discredit them, Hitler might have been much more generous to Romania than if there had been.

    Incidentally some of Greece’s hyper-nationalists in the brief era of the Megali Idea also had wild ideas about claiming Crimea on the basis of ancient Hellenic colonies as well. And of course revanchist Turkish nationalists have always held out hopes of returning there one day too.

    Everyone dreams about the Crimea. No one but Russia, however, has proven powerful to make their dreams a reality.

    Antonescu had a good rapport with Hitler early on in the war as well. He was more adventurous and eager to fight than Miklós Horthy of Hungary, and committed a much larger share of his forces to the war in the east, and did not limit the extent to which his forces would participate to merely reclaiming the territories he had recently lost (unlike Carl Mannerheim of Finland). Romania’s army also maintained a respectable performance in the Bessarabian campaign as well as in the siege of Odessa.

    Stalingrad erased just about all regard Hitler had for the Romanians. The Germans blamed both the Sixth Army’s encirclement and the failure of their relieving force to break through to Stalingrad on the inability of the Romanians to hold their sectors of the front against superior Soviet forces, and after that disaster Antonescu became far less eager and cooperative as a German ally (Romania’s forces were kept out of any further substantial action until the Red Army arrived at Romania’s borders in 1944).

    The Axis’ favoritism to Hungary is weird to me, wasn’t Romania a more valuable ally? Hitler seems to have personally disliked Magyars due to his memories growing up in Austria-Hungary, and he considered them the worst contingent of all his allies.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    It probably was the first mistake of Hitler. He might have personally disliked the Magyars, but he despised Romanians more. Hungarians have been the most vocal and persistent callers for the revision of the Versailles system. Romanians were all for maintaining it.
    Hitler in fact resumed the 'Mitteleuropa Plan' of Wilhelmine Germany which included Hungary as a privileged ally and Romania a puppet state supplier of the essential oil, as the solid base for his second big mistake, the attack on Russia.
    Hungarians wanted Transylvania, Romanians never renounced it, albeit forced to abandon it in exchange for reintegrating Bessarabia. General Antonescu lured himself into thinking that after the victory he could reopen the Transylvania question even by going to war with Hungary. He made the mistakes to engage the army beyond the reoccupation of Bessarabia with catastrophic results and declare war on USA. He could have nevertheless extricate himself from the war by performing a Mannerheim act, but was prevented to do it in time by an ill conceived Palace coup which stopped all resistance on the Eastern front whic led to the bloodless rapid occupation of Romania. Germany lost Romanian oil and the strategic cover of her Southern flank offered by Romania in one go. But by the same token that freed Romania's hands to go for Transylvania contributing heavily to the defeat of Hungary, entering for the second time in Budapest.
  19. Thanks for the report – photos are also cool.

    There seems almost something Latin American/Spanish in photos of Bucharest. In summer you can imagine these streets developing a Spanish atmosphere (maybe one day it could happen).

    Romanian itself is similar to Spanish. Problem is immigration is in wrong direction to turn this/ into the new Latin America. 1 million Romanians immigrated recently to Spain, but I don’t think many Spanish are immigrating to Romania.

    Perhaps when Iberianized Romanians return home, they can bring some more Spanish culture with them to Romania.

    I remember something when (real) Varlamov was blogging about Bucharest, he said it could be beautiful but it’s still in the 1990s

    Other bloggers writing Bucharest is like “French built a beautiful city, but inhabited it with gypsies to look after it.”

    • Replies: @Spisarevski

    I remember something when (real) Varlamov was blogging about Bucharest, he said it could be beautiful but it’s still in the 1990s
     
    Varlamov is full of shit, I read his recent post about Sofia and it was so incredibly bad, I think he will fit in at Buzzfeed.
  20. Moldova’s color revolution was called the “Twitter Revolution.” Ponder on that for a moment. Then an amount of money equivalent to one eighth of their GDP was stolen by a Jewish businessman, who promptly absconded to Israel.

    Story if you follow it, is a lot more funny than this.

    He (Ilan Shor) is a native Israeli (he comes from Israel – not go to Israel).

    At age 24, he married singer Jasmine (Sergei Pugachev is among wedding guests). At age 27, he was convicted for stealing 12% of GDP of Moldova

    At the same time, he was running from police, he won the election to become mayor of a city in Moldova.

    Currently lives freely in Moldova. In 2017, police punish him to 7 years in jail. However, he is not going to jail (yet) with the excuse he does not speak Moldovan, and they have not translated court documents into Russian.

    There is no news they have recovered the stolen money (12% of GDP), but most recent news is that he is renting the airport of Kyrgyzstan.
    https://www.gezitter.org/economics/68897_aeroport_manas_otdan_v_arendu_ilanu_shoru/

  21. @Vendetta
    Crimea was a prize everyone wanted. Mussolini hoped that the participation of Italian forces on the Eastern Front would give him the standing to exercise a claim on the Crimea on the basis of the old Genoese colonies that had been there in medieval times.

    Germany of course had eyes on the peninsula itself due to its strategic location as well as its pleasant climate for German settlement. In the case of an Axis victory it would have probably been down to the Germans to decide who got it - and considering the German blood expended in besieging Sevastopol, I doubt they’d have given it away. If they were feeling uncharacteristically generous, I think Italy would have been first runner-up to receive it. The Germans would probably consider Odessa more than enough of a prize for the Romanians.

    Really depends on Hitler’s whims and his personal views of his allies, which vary over the course of the war. Hitler had the utmost personal respect for Mussolini right up to the day he died, though he despised the Italian people and their military forces from the beginning and only grew to do so more over the course of the war (he considered them unworthy to have such a leader as Mussolini and Mussolini above blame for Italy’s failures - in Hitler’s view he was doing the best he could given an inferior nation to lead).

    Antonescu had a good rapport with Hitler early on in the war as well. He was more adventurous and eager to fight than Miklós Horthy of Hungary, and committed a much larger share of his forces to the war in the east, and did not limit the extent to which his forces would participate to merely reclaiming the territories he had recently lost (unlike Carl Mannerheim of Finland). Romania’s army also maintained a respectable performance in the Bessarabian campaign as well as in the siege of Odessa.

    Stalingrad erased just about all regard Hitler had for the Romanians. The Germans blamed both the Sixth Army’s encirclement and the failure of their relieving force to break through to Stalingrad on the inability of the Romanians to hold their sectors of the front against superior Soviet forces, and after that disaster Antonescu became far less eager and cooperative as a German ally (Romania’s forces were kept out of any further substantial action until the Red Army arrived at Romania’s borders in 1944).

    So how much territory the Romanians would ultimately have been allowed to claim had the Germans won would depend upon the circumstances that led to that victory. If there were no disaster at Stalingrad to discredit them, Hitler might have been much more generous to Romania than if there had been.

    Incidentally some of Greece’s hyper-nationalists in the brief era of the Megali Idea also had wild ideas about claiming Crimea on the basis of ancient Hellenic colonies as well. And of course revanchist Turkish nationalists have always held out hopes of returning there one day too.

    Everyone dreams about the Crimea. No one but Russia, however, has proven powerful to make their dreams a reality.

    Everyone dreams about the Crimea

  22. @German_reader
    iirc the Nazis considered the Crimea to be ancient Germanic territory, supposedly some members of the Einsatzgruppen even went around there looking for Gothic antiquities when they weren't committing massacres. Hitler wanted to rename Sevastopol to Theoderichhafen and Simferopol to Gotenburg, so I doubt the Romanians would have gotten it in case of a German victory.

    iirc the Nazis considered the Crimea to be ancient Germanic territory

    They weren’t wrong about Germanic tribes having lived there pre-Great Migrations

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    And the eastern Ostrogoths lived there after said migrations.
  23. @DFH

    iirc the Nazis considered the Crimea to be ancient Germanic territory
     
    They weren't wrong about Germanic tribes having lived there pre-Great Migrations

    And the eastern Ostrogoths lived there after said migrations.

  24. @German_reader
    iirc the Nazis considered the Crimea to be ancient Germanic territory, supposedly some members of the Einsatzgruppen even went around there looking for Gothic antiquities when they weren't committing massacres. Hitler wanted to rename Sevastopol to Theoderichhafen and Simferopol to Gotenburg, so I doubt the Romanians would have gotten it in case of a German victory.

    iirc the Nazis considered the Crimea to be ancient Germanic territor

    “Crimean Gothic” was apparently spoken in isolated parts of Crimea until the late 18th century.

    Pp. 162-175 of the following book has a rather detailed description of what is known about it:

    http://arturasratkus.com/sites/default/files/biblioteka/schwarz_1951_goten.pdf

  25. @Dmitry
    Thanks for the report - photos are also cool.

    There seems almost something Latin American/Spanish in photos of Bucharest. In summer you can imagine these streets developing a Spanish atmosphere (maybe one day it could happen).

    Romanian itself is similar to Spanish. Problem is immigration is in wrong direction to turn this/ into the new Latin America. 1 million Romanians immigrated recently to Spain, but I don't think many Spanish are immigrating to Romania.

    Perhaps when Iberianized Romanians return home, they can bring some more Spanish culture with them to Romania.

    I remember something when (real) Varlamov was blogging about Bucharest, he said it could be beautiful but it's still in the 1990s

    Other bloggers writing Bucharest is like "French built a beautiful city, but inhabited it with gypsies to look after it."

    I remember something when (real) Varlamov was blogging about Bucharest, he said it could be beautiful but it’s still in the 1990s

    Varlamov is full of shit, I read his recent post about Sofia and it was so incredibly bad, I think he will fit in at Buzzfeed.

    • Agree: melanf
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    He criticizes a lot of little things according to his personal obsessions (or which is not either Moscow or the West), not so impressed, and says it's like our cities, but he's still going to boost tourism to Sofia - it looked pretty nice overall.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBNH4VjC1U8

  26. Again, I don’t see Yukio Mishima being prominently featured at a bookshop’s front end in any Western capital.

    Bookshop photos are very interesting.

    It seems to show they also (like us) have a lot of translations of what’s fashionable around the world.

    But quite a lot of localization for old books (e.g. these ones we did not hear of – Mircea Eliade, Mihail Sebastian, and Cioran) – authors which are unique in Romania, which could actually buy as a souvenir.

    Mishima you can see promoted in London, Madrid or Paris bookshops, I don’t think he is unusual (it’s only for Japanese where he is so controversial and unpopular).

  27. Romania sent its gold reserves to Russia in December 1916 – equivalent to 10 billion lei in gold – where they were, of course, confiscated by the Bolsheviks when they came to power.

    Romanian gold was explicitly confiscated as the compensation for Bessarabia. Soviet Russia recognized independence of Finland and the Baltic states but it never recognized Romanian takeover of Bessarabia.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Why was the Soviet Union so uptight about Bessarabia?
  28. Another reason why World War II is so central to Romanian history

    Should be “World War I” here, I believe.
    Anyway, I agree with previous commenters, you have a talent for travel writing, very interesting post.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  29. @Spisarevski

    I remember something when (real) Varlamov was blogging about Bucharest, he said it could be beautiful but it’s still in the 1990s
     
    Varlamov is full of shit, I read his recent post about Sofia and it was so incredibly bad, I think he will fit in at Buzzfeed.

    He criticizes a lot of little things according to his personal obsessions (or which is not either Moscow or the West), not so impressed, and says it’s like our cities, but he’s still going to boost tourism to Sofia – it looked pretty nice overall.

  30. I used to wonder about Ceausescu. Was he just naturally more clever and less of a toady than the other Communist puppet rulers? Or was it something particular to the local situation in Romania? Was he, for instance, just more afraid of local revolution?

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    Ceaușescu was not the only one who tried to exhibit independence in the Warsaw Pact.

    When the Red Army was first establishing a foothold in Eastern Europe there were several local Communists who possessed the desire to take independent initiative, but aside from Tito Stalin managed to sideline independent communists in favour of more subservient ones (typically ones who had lived in the USSR, particularly during the war).

    And afterwards those who did try either got replaced or tried to carry out a path of limited independence as they thought they could get away with from the USSR and Warsaw Pact.

    If I remember correctly, Ceaușescu was a 'Home Communist' who had spent the war in a Romanian prison, which may explain his especially assertive streak.

  31. Anon[157] • Disclaimer says:

    Many of the items you say in the treasure room of the History Museum are replicas. Made of gold, but replicas. When the Germans nearly conquered Romania, in 1916, the Romanian government shipped the real historical pieces, as well as a few other train cars filled with gold, to their best ally, Russia. Bolsheviks, Yeltzin, and Putin refused to return the originals.

    The other correction refers to the social democrats. There are two confusing factors at play. First, they are indeed somewhat related tom the former Communist party. Like, 90% of the “politicians” who wanted to carry on in politics joined them, rather than other parties. But subsequently, much like Blair, Clinton, Schroeder, the former Communists found themselves in government, with a budget deficit to cover, and with a focus on cutting benefits. IMHO, Clinton’s talk of “welfare queens”, around 1996, pushed most of the world’s “leftists” into mere facades.

    Second, in Portugal, all parties, left, center and right, are called socialist or social-democrat, or something like that. It was normal, coming from a right-wing dictatorship, to want to turn left. Conversely, in Romania, everyone wants to turn right. Romanian “social-democrats” have set up, or at least kept in place, enormous sales taxes (regressive as hell, in a country where people spend all they make and whatever their relatives from EU send them). They also kept a very low and flat tax on income. There is no tax on inheritance.

    Last month, “social-democrats” passed a law cutting welfare aid (100 dollars a month, lol) for the unemployed who refuse to take the first job on offer. This, on top of a requirement for mandatory work for the state.

    They are somewhat protective of elderly, but even there their zipper is showing. The grants the elderly get, when bed-ridden, is minute. It is impossible to hire someone on that money (200 dollar a month, lol).

    Most of the governments in the post-Communist era were voted in by a coalition of social-democrats and whoever was the second party. Misleadingly, most of these governments had ministers only from one side, to appear as if there is a divide.

    Social-democrats, my ass. More like two ever changing gangs.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Thanks, it's certainly very plausible that ostensibly leftist parties have many neoliberal policies in Romania - seems typical for Eastern Europe.

    Although I'm of the opinion that many of those policies, while not "nice", are in most cases defensible and sometimes necessary.

    Flat tax on income is common throughout the region and is widely associated with a reduction in tax evasion after its implementation (Italy now wants to do it too). I imagine that welfare aid to the unemployed disproportionately benefits Gypsies - countries like Sweden can afford to maintain a parasitic underclass, Romania - not so much. Low pensions are sad, but Romania seems to spend as much on pensions (8.1% of GDP) as the OECD average (8.2%). But considering that Romania has the lowest revenue as a percentage of GDP of any EU country except Ireland, the real burden must be even higher. Can Romania afford higher pensions without undercutting its current economic dynamism?
    , @Seraphim
    I can assure you that the golden pieces in the Museum Treasury room are originals. There still are items of the treasury sent to Russia in 1916 which have not been returned, but the ones exhibited are not replicas. Most of them are anyway recent archeological findings.
  32. @inertial
    Moldova is an order of magnitude less fake or gay than the Ukraine. Separate Moldovan identity is centuries old, while Romanian identity is recent. With Ukrainian/Russian identities it's the other way around.

    The modern Moldova (Bessarabia) had been unified with Romania for only ~20 years, as opposed to centuries for Ukraine and Russia.

    And then there are the special connections of Moldova to Russia. In the last 200 years, obviously; but even before that. For example, some sort of Old Slavonic/Russian was an (or perhaps even the) official language of the medieval Moldovan principality.

    Separate Moldovan identity is centuries old, while Romanian identity is recent.

    That’s like saying separate Bavarian identity is centuries old but German is more recent.

    With Ukrainian/Russian identities it’s the other way around.

    Only if you think that language has magical powers, so that the old word Rus confers a (Great) Russian identity on peoples from centuries ago. On that note, did Julius Caesar have a Romanian identity, in your world?

    The modern Moldova (Bessarabia) had been unified with Romania for only ~20 years, as opposed to centuries for Ukraine and Russia.

    Moldova was unified with Russia only 30 years less than the western half of Ukraine was.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Moldovia's Romanian identity was a gradual affair, and started off with a strong Ruthenian flavor. An interesting fact to note is that back in the late medieval/ early modern period during the reign of Stephen the Great, the great heartland of Moldavia was centered exactly in Bukovina, both Southern and Northern Bukovina (not so today!). Already by then, the northern part was populated exclusively by 'Rusyns' (that later morphed into modern Ukrainians), while the southern part was mostly populated by Romanian stock. The language used at Stephens court was Ruthenian, not Romanian, as were all of the legal and royal decrees. The Romanian language hadn't yet developed a written language. Stephen's wife was Evdochia of Kiev, a member of Kievan Rus nobility, added prestige to his house. Indeed, old Ukrainian folklore and song place Stephen III 'the Great' of Moldavia in high esteem and his Rusyn soldiers fought true and hard to uphold his honor.
    , @Lars Porsena

    That’s like saying separate Bavarian identity is centuries old but German is more recent.
     
    But that's true.

    Bavaria should be independent and Moldova should be Polish. They were a March of the Polish crown at one point or another. That's good enough. The land is Polish. They should be grateful it's not Turks.

    If Romania agrees to go along Poland will give it half.
  33. @Vendetta
    Crimea was a prize everyone wanted. Mussolini hoped that the participation of Italian forces on the Eastern Front would give him the standing to exercise a claim on the Crimea on the basis of the old Genoese colonies that had been there in medieval times.

    Germany of course had eyes on the peninsula itself due to its strategic location as well as its pleasant climate for German settlement. In the case of an Axis victory it would have probably been down to the Germans to decide who got it - and considering the German blood expended in besieging Sevastopol, I doubt they’d have given it away. If they were feeling uncharacteristically generous, I think Italy would have been first runner-up to receive it. The Germans would probably consider Odessa more than enough of a prize for the Romanians.

    Really depends on Hitler’s whims and his personal views of his allies, which vary over the course of the war. Hitler had the utmost personal respect for Mussolini right up to the day he died, though he despised the Italian people and their military forces from the beginning and only grew to do so more over the course of the war (he considered them unworthy to have such a leader as Mussolini and Mussolini above blame for Italy’s failures - in Hitler’s view he was doing the best he could given an inferior nation to lead).

    Antonescu had a good rapport with Hitler early on in the war as well. He was more adventurous and eager to fight than Miklós Horthy of Hungary, and committed a much larger share of his forces to the war in the east, and did not limit the extent to which his forces would participate to merely reclaiming the territories he had recently lost (unlike Carl Mannerheim of Finland). Romania’s army also maintained a respectable performance in the Bessarabian campaign as well as in the siege of Odessa.

    Stalingrad erased just about all regard Hitler had for the Romanians. The Germans blamed both the Sixth Army’s encirclement and the failure of their relieving force to break through to Stalingrad on the inability of the Romanians to hold their sectors of the front against superior Soviet forces, and after that disaster Antonescu became far less eager and cooperative as a German ally (Romania’s forces were kept out of any further substantial action until the Red Army arrived at Romania’s borders in 1944).

    So how much territory the Romanians would ultimately have been allowed to claim had the Germans won would depend upon the circumstances that led to that victory. If there were no disaster at Stalingrad to discredit them, Hitler might have been much more generous to Romania than if there had been.

    Incidentally some of Greece’s hyper-nationalists in the brief era of the Megali Idea also had wild ideas about claiming Crimea on the basis of ancient Hellenic colonies as well. And of course revanchist Turkish nationalists have always held out hopes of returning there one day too.

    Everyone dreams about the Crimea. No one but Russia, however, has proven powerful to make their dreams a reality.

    Stalingrad erased just about all regard Hitler had for the Romanians. The Germans blamed both the Sixth Army’s encirclement and the failure of their relieving force to break through to Stalingrad on the inability of the Romanians to hold their sectors of the front against superior Soviet forces

    They are related to Italians, after all…

  34. Great article. Can’t think of a better travel writer than AK.

    I had a Romanian roommate, from Transylvania, when I was an undergrad. His descriptions of his homeland match yours. Transylvania seems to be Romania’s Galicia (both regions even had the same per capita income under the Habsburgs).

    Approximately equal to Russian living standards. That said, Bucharest is not even in the same class as Moscow, while many of Russia’s “millioniki” are also superior.

    Correct that no part of Romania touches Moscow (nor does Warsaw, for that matter), but overall I suspect current Romanian living standards might be higher than in Russia. Currently Romania has not only higher nominal per capita GDP than Russia but also PPP according to World Bank:

    2017 per capita Nominal GDP Romania: $10,814
    2017 per capita Nominal GDP Russia: $10,743

    2017 per capita GDP PPP Romania: $25,841
    2017 per capita GDP PPP Russia: $ 25,533

    IMF reports Russia having higher GDP PPP per capita (and lower nominal) however.

    According to UN, the richest 10% in Romania make 7.5 times more than the poorest 10%; in Russia they make 12.5 more.

    Average monthly wage in Romania, adjusted for cost of living is $1,505 – compared to $1,361 in Russia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage

    (on this measure, Ukraine is closer to Russia than Russia is to Poland – and some idiots insist that Ukrainians are coming to Russia more than to Poland)

    So regular Romanians are probably a little better off than regular Russians.

    This is truly remarkable, given the fact that in 1992 Russia had a per capita GDP of $3,095 and Romania of $1,102. Without having massive amounts of oil and gas, Romania went from having 1/3 Russia’s per capita income to surpassing it!

    Most of this can be attributed to the disastrous 90s for Russia. But even after that, Russia has underperformed Romania. Putin came to power in 2000. At that time, Russia had a per capita GDP nominal of $1,771; Romania’s was $1,668. So Russia under Putin has fallen behind Romania. He has not been a terrible ruler by any means – but a mediocre one, not the genius his mostly Western fanboys claim he is.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Economic growth there is nothing surprising or miraculous.

    Romania is part of the EU since 2007. Like all poorer EU members - receive large amounts (tens of billions of dollars) of free money subsidies and grants from the wealthy EU members. Currently, the second largest. This is a boost to the economy, not any less lucky than a country receiving oil/gas revenues (but in addition, the economy is also integrated into a huge trading block of wealthy countries).


    CEE countries are the biggest beneficiaries of EU funds in the current financial exercise, with about 40% of the allotted sums. Poland is the main beneficiary in the region, with 18.7% of the total, followed by Romania, with 6.7%.
     
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Thanks for the compliments.

    Correct that no part of Romania touches Moscow (nor does Warsaw, for that matter), but overall I suspect current Romanian living standards might be higher than in Russia.
     
    If they're higher, then I doubt it's by much (perhaps 10%).

    That said, in the context of the situation c.1992, this is certainly an impressive achievement on Romania's part, and a rather lackluster performance from Russia.

    I agree with Dmitry's comment too. Additional factors to bear in mind: (1) The USSR's economy was uniquely distorted even by post-Communist standards (e.g. a country like Romania has no equivalent to the many economically impractical towns scattered across Siberia); (2) EU convergence funds as counterpart to Russia's oil wealth; (3) Undeniable positive impact of institutional improvement to satisfy EU standards, and faster spread of best practice; (4) Loss of human capital to Western Europe is bad, but compensated for by remittances and upwards pressure on wages within Romania itself (which is the greater factor? when considering short-term/long-term? I don't actually know, though there must be economic studies on this).

    Not directed at you, but I think I have long maintained that Putin is not a miracle worker, and many of the improvements in Russia are general to Eastern Europe have come regardless (or despite him) and not because of him. OTOH, it is certainly easy to imagine a Russian regime that would have been much worse than Putin for Russians. This position of course annoys all the extremists.
  35. Excellent post, Anatoly! I’ve read half of it so far and will read the rest of it later. It’s great to read about countries–such as Romania–that I haven’t personally been to. Indeed, your summary of Romania and its various aspects and cities is extremely detailed, extremely insightful, and extremely interesting and beautiful to read. 🙂

    • Replies: @AP
    I once had a Romanian roommate and AK's observations certainly match what I had heard about the place, so I can assume that his observations about things I didn't know about are highly accurate.
  36. @Mr. XYZ
    Excellent post, Anatoly! I've read half of it so far and will read the rest of it later. It's great to read about countries--such as Romania--that I haven't personally been to. Indeed, your summary of Romania and its various aspects and cities is extremely detailed, extremely insightful, and extremely interesting and beautiful to read. :)

    I once had a Romanian roommate and AK’s observations certainly match what I had heard about the place, so I can assume that his observations about things I didn’t know about are highly accurate.

  37. @AP
    Great article. Can't think of a better travel writer than AK.

    I had a Romanian roommate, from Transylvania, when I was an undergrad. His descriptions of his homeland match yours. Transylvania seems to be Romania's Galicia (both regions even had the same per capita income under the Habsburgs).

    Approximately equal to Russian living standards. That said, Bucharest is not even in the same class as Moscow, while many of Russia’s “millioniki” are also superior.
     
    Correct that no part of Romania touches Moscow (nor does Warsaw, for that matter), but overall I suspect current Romanian living standards might be higher than in Russia. Currently Romania has not only higher nominal per capita GDP than Russia but also PPP according to World Bank:

    2017 per capita Nominal GDP Romania: $10,814
    2017 per capita Nominal GDP Russia: $10,743

    2017 per capita GDP PPP Romania: $25,841
    2017 per capita GDP PPP Russia: $ 25,533

    IMF reports Russia having higher GDP PPP per capita (and lower nominal) however.

    According to UN, the richest 10% in Romania make 7.5 times more than the poorest 10%; in Russia they make 12.5 more.

    Average monthly wage in Romania, adjusted for cost of living is $1,505 - compared to $1,361 in Russia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage

    (on this measure, Ukraine is closer to Russia than Russia is to Poland - and some idiots insist that Ukrainians are coming to Russia more than to Poland)

    So regular Romanians are probably a little better off than regular Russians.

    This is truly remarkable, given the fact that in 1992 Russia had a per capita GDP of $3,095 and Romania of $1,102. Without having massive amounts of oil and gas, Romania went from having 1/3 Russia's per capita income to surpassing it!

    Most of this can be attributed to the disastrous 90s for Russia. But even after that, Russia has underperformed Romania. Putin came to power in 2000. At that time, Russia had a per capita GDP nominal of $1,771; Romania's was $1,668. So Russia under Putin has fallen behind Romania. He has not been a terrible ruler by any means - but a mediocre one, not the genius his mostly Western fanboys claim he is.

    Economic growth there is nothing surprising or miraculous.

    Romania is part of the EU since 2007. Like all poorer EU members – receive large amounts (tens of billions of dollars) of free money subsidies and grants from the wealthy EU members. Currently, the second largest. This is a boost to the economy, not any less lucky than a country receiving oil/gas revenues (but in addition, the economy is also integrated into a huge trading block of wealthy countries).

    CEE countries are the biggest beneficiaries of EU funds in the current financial exercise, with about 40% of the allotted sums. Poland is the main beneficiary in the region, with 18.7% of the total, followed by Romania, with 6.7%.

    • Replies: @AP
    So joining EU was a good idea.

    In 1992 Belarus had a per capita GDP of $1,675, to Romania's $1,102. Now Romania has about double that of Belarus. Belarus should have run to the EU as soon as it could.
  38. @Dmitry
    Economic growth there is nothing surprising or miraculous.

    Romania is part of the EU since 2007. Like all poorer EU members - receive large amounts (tens of billions of dollars) of free money subsidies and grants from the wealthy EU members. Currently, the second largest. This is a boost to the economy, not any less lucky than a country receiving oil/gas revenues (but in addition, the economy is also integrated into a huge trading block of wealthy countries).


    CEE countries are the biggest beneficiaries of EU funds in the current financial exercise, with about 40% of the allotted sums. Poland is the main beneficiary in the region, with 18.7% of the total, followed by Romania, with 6.7%.
     

    So joining EU was a good idea.

    In 1992 Belarus had a per capita GDP of $1,675, to Romania’s $1,102. Now Romania has about double that of Belarus. Belarus should have run to the EU as soon as it could.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    You need to consider the negatives as well though, the massive emigration from Romania (e.g. many of Romania's doctors leaving for the EU, as AK mentioned above) can hardly be good for the country.
    And anyway, from a Western/Central European perspective Romanian and Bulgarian EU membership isn't very desirable either, I could do without tall the gypsies who have turned up in Germany in recent years.
    , @Dmitry
    EU is great for the poor countries, which join it.

    Free transfer of tens of billions of dollars, free entry to trading block of wealthy countries, and unrestricted work and travel in wealthy countries.

    But it is a disaster for taxpayers in wealthy countries (paying eternal subsidies to poor countries, and building infrastructure in countries they might never live in, and receiving immigrants from poorer countries).

    This is the reason the UK (i.e. one of the wealthy countries which was paying for the whole fiesta) is finally reached a limit of anger in giving freely billions of their own taxpayer's money each year to develop poorer foreign countries, and is leaving it.

    , @LondonBob
    Yes and leaving the EU is a fantastic idea for Britain, amd any other wealthy member of the EU. Can't wait for those infrastructure funds being spent at home, Crossrail 2 can be started.
  39. @AP
    So joining EU was a good idea.

    In 1992 Belarus had a per capita GDP of $1,675, to Romania's $1,102. Now Romania has about double that of Belarus. Belarus should have run to the EU as soon as it could.

    You need to consider the negatives as well though, the massive emigration from Romania (e.g. many of Romania’s doctors leaving for the EU, as AK mentioned above) can hardly be good for the country.
    And anyway, from a Western/Central European perspective Romanian and Bulgarian EU membership isn’t very desirable either, I could do without tall the gypsies who have turned up in Germany in recent years.

    • Replies: @AP
    So exporting many of the gypsies may in part compensate for loss of doctors?
    , @LondonBob
    Those countries are delighted to offload their gypsies.

    A lot of Romanians in Britain now, young eductaed types, but cheap strippers too. Perhaps the best strippers move west leaving the gypsies to fill the void.
  40. @German_reader
    You need to consider the negatives as well though, the massive emigration from Romania (e.g. many of Romania's doctors leaving for the EU, as AK mentioned above) can hardly be good for the country.
    And anyway, from a Western/Central European perspective Romanian and Bulgarian EU membership isn't very desirable either, I could do without tall the gypsies who have turned up in Germany in recent years.

    So exporting many of the gypsies may in part compensate for loss of doctors?

    • Replies: @German_reader
    I don't think it works that way, though I suppose many Romanians aren't sad about gypsies leaving for the west.
    I wonder if the governments in Bulgaria and Romania have some kind of deliberate programme to export the gypsies towards Western Europe, someone should do an investigation about this.
  41. @AP
    So exporting many of the gypsies may in part compensate for loss of doctors?

    I don’t think it works that way, though I suppose many Romanians aren’t sad about gypsies leaving for the west.
    I wonder if the governments in Bulgaria and Romania have some kind of deliberate programme to export the gypsies towards Western Europe, someone should do an investigation about this.

    • Replies: @AP
    Given that the Western Euros have voluntarily chosen to take in millions of people who are more troublesome than gypsies, why not send them the gypsies also?
    , @Mr. XYZ
    Don't worry! All of that Syrian and Eritrean talent which your country acquired will more than compensate for all of the Romanian and Bulgarian Gypsies that your country acquired! /s
  42. @AP
    So joining EU was a good idea.

    In 1992 Belarus had a per capita GDP of $1,675, to Romania's $1,102. Now Romania has about double that of Belarus. Belarus should have run to the EU as soon as it could.

    EU is great for the poor countries, which join it.

    Free transfer of tens of billions of dollars, free entry to trading block of wealthy countries, and unrestricted work and travel in wealthy countries.

    But it is a disaster for taxpayers in wealthy countries (paying eternal subsidies to poor countries, and building infrastructure in countries they might never live in, and receiving immigrants from poorer countries).

    This is the reason the UK (i.e. one of the wealthy countries which was paying for the whole fiesta) is finally reached a limit of anger in giving freely billions of their own taxpayer’s money each year to develop poorer foreign countries, and is leaving it.

    • Replies: @Mitleser

    EU is great for the poor countries, which join it.
     
    It is a mixed blessing.
    They get money and pay with people who migrate to the older members who fix their demographic issues at the expense of the poor countries.
  43. @German_reader
    I don't think it works that way, though I suppose many Romanians aren't sad about gypsies leaving for the west.
    I wonder if the governments in Bulgaria and Romania have some kind of deliberate programme to export the gypsies towards Western Europe, someone should do an investigation about this.

    Given that the Western Euros have voluntarily chosen to take in millions of people who are more troublesome than gypsies, why not send them the gypsies also?

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    You might as well send them Israel's African refugees while you're at it. After all, an Eritrean or Sudanese person would probably strongly prefer life in Germany or France than in Uganda or Rwanda!
  44. Here are the official numbers roughly:

    Gypsies in Romania:

    1930: 262,000 (1.5%)
    1948: 53,000 (0.3%)
    1956: 104,000 (0.5%)
    1966: 64,000 (0.3%)
    1977:277,000 (1.05%)
    1992: 401,000 (1.8%)
    2002: 535,000 (2.5%)
    2011: 622,000 (3%) (Unofficial: 10%)

    They don’t inspire me with confidence.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    Those fluctuations in the first four sets are weird. Romania wasn't really occupied by the Germans in WW2 until the very end, so I don't think they could have killed more than 200 000 gypsies in Romania, and I doubt the Antonescu regime managed that either. The differences between the 1948, 1956 and 1966 numbers are also very strange.
    , @Old Jew
    In "Republica Populara Romana" there was no entry for "Nationalitate" in "Buletinul de Identitate".
    not like "Entry 5" in the Soviet internal passport.

    Even I could claim: "Sint Roman de religie Mozaica" ( I am a Romanian of Jewish Religion). Who was there to contest? I did not go to Church; They did not go to Church.
    My Romanian vocabulary, knowledge of literature, history, scientific terminology was above the level of the average Romanian University graduate. I thought in Romanian. I dreamed in Romanian....

    Same true for sedentary Gypsies. Many did no longer speak Romani (Roma language) went to the Orthodox Church (were baptized, wed, buried, by Greek-orthodox rituals), why should they not consider themselves as Romaninans?
  45. @Dmitry
    EU is great for the poor countries, which join it.

    Free transfer of tens of billions of dollars, free entry to trading block of wealthy countries, and unrestricted work and travel in wealthy countries.

    But it is a disaster for taxpayers in wealthy countries (paying eternal subsidies to poor countries, and building infrastructure in countries they might never live in, and receiving immigrants from poorer countries).

    This is the reason the UK (i.e. one of the wealthy countries which was paying for the whole fiesta) is finally reached a limit of anger in giving freely billions of their own taxpayer's money each year to develop poorer foreign countries, and is leaving it.

    EU is great for the poor countries, which join it.

    It is a mixed blessing.
    They get money and pay with people who migrate to the older members who fix their demographic issues at the expense of the poor countries.

    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    It is a mixed blessing.
    They get money and pay with people who migrate to the older members who fix their demographic issues at the expense of the poor countries.
     
    For poor countries it's all great, they receive free vast wealth given to them from wealthy countries, and economic access to their markets (with the only problem that it might be too nice to keep best people from going to wealthier countries - but this happens even outside EU).

    But for wealthy EU countries, it's almost a reverse - almost completely negative for taxpayers in these countries to allow poor countries into the system, who they then have to give vast free money to until they converge economically with them.

    For this reason, EU project designed to be as unclear to voters in wealthy countries as possible, while at the same time also designed to be impossible to escape.

    In a miracle UK seems to be escaping it, but now the EU is demanding a $50 billion "exit bill". Despite the fact UK has given tens of billions of free money to the EU, every year, for tens of years. It's kind of comical how badly fucked the UK is being by the EU, in comparison to how much countries like Spain, Poland or Romania benefit from it. It's really "socialism" between countries. Poor EU countries receive more than they could ever dream, while wealthy EU countries more than they could ever nightmare.

    Well the final nightmare, of Turkey's membership in the EU, has at least been avoided (aside from permanent billions of dollars of annual free subsidies to Turkey, this would have resulted in millions of Turkish people immigrating to the wealthiest EU countries).

  46. @songbird
    Here are the official numbers roughly:

    Gypsies in Romania:

    1930: 262,000 (1.5%)
    1948: 53,000 (0.3%)
    1956: 104,000 (0.5%)
    1966: 64,000 (0.3%)
    1977:277,000 (1.05%)
    1992: 401,000 (1.8%)
    2002: 535,000 (2.5%)
    2011: 622,000 (3%) (Unofficial: 10%)

    They don't inspire me with confidence.

    Those fluctuations in the first four sets are weird. Romania wasn’t really occupied by the Germans in WW2 until the very end, so I don’t think they could have killed more than 200 000 gypsies in Romania, and I doubt the Antonescu regime managed that either. The differences between the 1948, 1956 and 1966 numbers are also very strange.

    • Replies: @songbird
    There were supposedly more Germans in Romania than Gypsies, at least through 1977.

    Perhaps they were more concentrated in former Habsburg areas, localized as I believe the Hungarians there are.

    But at the same time, it still seems to me somewhat odd that Gypsies are more associated with Romania than Hungarians or Germans are. I don't know if that speaks to geography, their romantic quality of being semi-nomadic, their criminality, or the numbers themselves being sketchy.
    , @cliff arroyo
    It's all guesswork. Gypsies don't cooperate with census takers (or other government agencies even ones that give them money*). They move around and are counted multiple times or not at all... they don't care and the census takers probably didn't much care either.

    In general, the bothersomeness of gypsies in Europe highly correlates with an Ottoman past.

    http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2013/06/gypsy-parasitism-as-outgrowth-of.html

    *they just loudly demand their money already
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    To expand on cliff arroyo's point, here's a further guess.

    In previous decades, many Gypsies used to assimilate, becoming Romanian [/titular nationality] in the process.

    But there may have been a "boiling off" process analogous to what Cochran/Harpending posit happened with the Amish. Current Gypsies could be Gypsier than the Gypsies of yesteryear. Firmer in their Gypsy identity, with more of a tendency to Gypsy-like behavior, such as petty criminality and high fecundity.

    If true, this would be pretty bad for Romania, Hungary, etc.
  47. @AP

    Separate Moldovan identity is centuries old, while Romanian identity is recent.
     
    That's like saying separate Bavarian identity is centuries old but German is more recent.

    With Ukrainian/Russian identities it’s the other way around.
     
    Only if you think that language has magical powers, so that the old word Rus confers a (Great) Russian identity on peoples from centuries ago. On that note, did Julius Caesar have a Romanian identity, in your world?

    The modern Moldova (Bessarabia) had been unified with Romania for only ~20 years, as opposed to centuries for Ukraine and Russia.
     
    Moldova was unified with Russia only 30 years less than the western half of Ukraine was.

    Moldovia’s Romanian identity was a gradual affair, and started off with a strong Ruthenian flavor. An interesting fact to note is that back in the late medieval/ early modern period during the reign of Stephen the Great, the great heartland of Moldavia was centered exactly in Bukovina, both Southern and Northern Bukovina (not so today!). Already by then, the northern part was populated exclusively by ‘Rusyns’ (that later morphed into modern Ukrainians), while the southern part was mostly populated by Romanian stock. The language used at Stephens court was Ruthenian, not Romanian, as were all of the legal and royal decrees. The Romanian language hadn’t yet developed a written language. Stephen’s wife was Evdochia of Kiev, a member of Kievan Rus nobility, added prestige to his house. Indeed, old Ukrainian folklore and song place Stephen III ‘the Great’ of Moldavia in high esteem and his Rusyn soldiers fought true and hard to uphold his honor.

    • Replies: @AP
    Very interesting, thanks. Khmelnytsky tried, but failed, to place his son on the Moldovan throne.
    , @Seraphim
    Stephen the Great was married three times. Evdokia died shortly and Stephen married Maria Asanina Palaiologina from the ruling class of the small Crimean Principality of Theodoro, a descendant from Bulgarian and Byzantine dynasties for the prestige. She died young too and Stephen married Maria Voichita the daughter of the Prince of Valahia Radu cel Frumos, brother of Vlad Dracula the Impaler.
    He married his daughter Elena with Evdokia to Ivan the Young , son of Ivan III Vasilyevich (Ivan the Great, Grand Prince of Moscow and Grand Prince of all Rus', for prestige also. Elena was known to the Muskovites as Olena Voloshanka, i.e. the Valah-Romanian!
    Moldova was founded by the Vlahs from Maramures. Contact and mixing with the Rusyn occurred in that area. The motive of migration from Maramures was the persecution of the Orthodox Church by the Catholic Kings of Hungary. Valahs and Rusyn were Orthodox. The time-period correspond with the increasing sliding of Galitia towards Catholicism and Poland.
    The „Voskresenskaia letopis” (chronicle from the Voskersenski Monastery) relates the history of Moldova from its founding. Maramures was settled by Romanovci, the descendants of two brothers from the city of Venetia, Roman and Vlahata, as a result of Catholic persecution. The story was considered legendary, but the precise reference to documented events, led to its reconsideration and it can be related to two waves of Catholic persecution, the first related to the mission of Cyril and Methodius in Moravia and its failure in that area.
    The language of the Church and chancery in Moldova was the Old Slavonic derived from a South Slavic dialect. But it is certain that a situation of bi-lingualism, even multilingualism obtained in the zones of Slavo-Romanian contact. The first translations of religious books in Romanian language were made to counter the Reformation which was propagandizing in Romanian. Moldovan hierarchs have been particularly active.
    All in all from its very inception Moldova orients itself towards the Byzantine-Bulgarian-Serbian South, decoupling itself from the say, proto-'Ukrainian' sphere.
    It is very interesting that leaders of a strong Romanian irredentism came from Austrian Bukovina bearing pure Ukrainian names.
  48. , i will start with a full disclaimer i am Romanian and i left the country , illegally , in 1985 at 33 years old but i have revisited my country five times since. I have always thought there was something off with you and your postings . here at Unz,Now i know what it is. You , sir ,are one of those people who do not know anything about anything and you do not , even , know it.You , sir , are NOT Tolstoi or Dostoevski or Soljenitin or Sakharov to purport at analyses of whole societies to which , by the way , you are alien to.You are , also , NOT , Tiolkovsky or Mendeleev or , even Pavlov , to think that you may have any analytical skills far far from it. You ARE basically a nonentity spewing nonsense (don’t get me starting on your “graphs” and “statistics”}.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I see Martyonov's dyslexic twin is now commenting at Unz.
  49. @German_reader
    Those fluctuations in the first four sets are weird. Romania wasn't really occupied by the Germans in WW2 until the very end, so I don't think they could have killed more than 200 000 gypsies in Romania, and I doubt the Antonescu regime managed that either. The differences between the 1948, 1956 and 1966 numbers are also very strange.

    There were supposedly more Germans in Romania than Gypsies, at least through 1977.

    Perhaps they were more concentrated in former Habsburg areas, localized as I believe the Hungarians there are.

    But at the same time, it still seems to me somewhat odd that Gypsies are more associated with Romania than Hungarians or Germans are. I don’t know if that speaks to geography, their romantic quality of being semi-nomadic, their criminality, or the numbers themselves being sketchy.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    The Germans have almost all left Romania (though oddly enough Romania's current president Klaus Johannis is one...but he doesn't have any children), their association with Romania is purely historical now...whereas Gypsies seem to be an expanding segment of the population, and also one of Romania's main exports.
  50. @Mr. Hack
    Moldovia's Romanian identity was a gradual affair, and started off with a strong Ruthenian flavor. An interesting fact to note is that back in the late medieval/ early modern period during the reign of Stephen the Great, the great heartland of Moldavia was centered exactly in Bukovina, both Southern and Northern Bukovina (not so today!). Already by then, the northern part was populated exclusively by 'Rusyns' (that later morphed into modern Ukrainians), while the southern part was mostly populated by Romanian stock. The language used at Stephens court was Ruthenian, not Romanian, as were all of the legal and royal decrees. The Romanian language hadn't yet developed a written language. Stephen's wife was Evdochia of Kiev, a member of Kievan Rus nobility, added prestige to his house. Indeed, old Ukrainian folklore and song place Stephen III 'the Great' of Moldavia in high esteem and his Rusyn soldiers fought true and hard to uphold his honor.

    Very interesting, thanks. Khmelnytsky tried, but failed, to place his son on the Moldovan throne.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    The situation is analogous to what we can see of Lithuania of that time too. In its early incarnation, the Lithuanian court too availed itself of the much more developed Ruthenian language. It wasn't until much later that the Lithuanian language surpassed the usage of old Ruthenian in official usage. Later yet, of course, even the Lithuanian language lost some prominence in favor of Polish and Latin.
  51. As with phenotypes, cuisine, and architecture, the Romanian language is also a hybrid. It has a Latinate structure, but with considerable Slavic vocabulary borrowings (ranging from 5% in standard Romanian to 20% in Moldova).

    I was amused to note that their word for war is “razboi” (e.g. Primul Război Mondial). In Russian, the term разбой denotes brigandage; bandits are разбойники. I found this linguistic false friend to be endearingly Balkan.

    It seems that all the military and quasi-military terms are Slavic (e.g. voivoda, boyar).

    Also, the Romanian word for “yes” is “da.”

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Not that it helped. I kept saying "si" instead of "da". :)

    Romanians also often use the word "okay." I daresay more than English speakers.
  52. @songbird
    There were supposedly more Germans in Romania than Gypsies, at least through 1977.

    Perhaps they were more concentrated in former Habsburg areas, localized as I believe the Hungarians there are.

    But at the same time, it still seems to me somewhat odd that Gypsies are more associated with Romania than Hungarians or Germans are. I don't know if that speaks to geography, their romantic quality of being semi-nomadic, their criminality, or the numbers themselves being sketchy.

    The Germans have almost all left Romania (though oddly enough Romania’s current president Klaus Johannis is one…but he doesn’t have any children), their association with Romania is purely historical now…whereas Gypsies seem to be an expanding segment of the population, and also one of Romania’s main exports.

    • Replies: @songbird
    That's interesting. I wonder if many of them went to West Germany during the Cold War.

    If I recall, Romania was a traditional transit route for East Germans, where they would pretend to take vacations and steal over the border. Of course, getting a travel visa may have been difficult.

    I always thought of the laxity as being like the Romanians weren't invested in the East German political apparatus, but maybe they had nationalistic reasons for letting Germans through.

    Or maybe, I'm just over-thinking it. I suppose there weren't really too many, and when you have gypsies, you probably don't spurn your local ethnic Germans.
  53. @German_reader
    The Germans have almost all left Romania (though oddly enough Romania's current president Klaus Johannis is one...but he doesn't have any children), their association with Romania is purely historical now...whereas Gypsies seem to be an expanding segment of the population, and also one of Romania's main exports.

    That’s interesting. I wonder if many of them went to West Germany during the Cold War.

    If I recall, Romania was a traditional transit route for East Germans, where they would pretend to take vacations and steal over the border. Of course, getting a travel visa may have been difficult.

    I always thought of the laxity as being like the Romanians weren’t invested in the East German political apparatus, but maybe they had nationalistic reasons for letting Germans through.

    Or maybe, I’m just over-thinking it. I suppose there weren’t really too many, and when you have gypsies, you probably don’t spurn your local ethnic Germans.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    I wonder if many of them went to West Germany during the Cold War.
     
    Quite a few already left in the 1970s, my father met some in Bavaria in the late 1970s. Most of the rest seems to have left shortly after 1989. According to Wikipedia the current president Johannis only stayed in Romania because he's married to a Romanian woman, but his parents and sister now live in Germany.
    , @Hyperborean
    A short (4000 word) review about a documentary dealing with this topic:

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/01/trading-germans/

    , @Old Jew
    Ceausescu sold us Jews to Israel, and them Sachsen (Saxons) and Schwaben (Suebians) to the Federal Republic.
  54. Anon[370] • Disclaimer says:

    I can confirm voicum is a Romania. Romanians overdo whingeing. I suspect that Jewish whining was taken, together with the Israeli anthem, from Romania.

    Re. our bright Indian immigrants, the gypsies: AFAIK their spoken language has unusually few words. For example, I think their lingo doesn’t have enough numbers. When you hear them talking, it’s a mumbo jumbo of their Hindi and Romanian. (Much like most Indians in their home country speak half-English.)

    Their written language is even worse, as in: I never saw a book, on paper, in Gypsese.

    Therefore, when they, and the majority, felt like we can do business together, there was a need for more words from Romanian. When Gypsies became plumbers or carpenters, they would be using more Romanian words, and would declare themselves Romanians.

    However, I haven’t seen a Gypsy plumber in many years.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Gypsies are historically one of the most oppressed groups & the hatred for them sheds light on the so called enlightened civility of Europe
  55. @AP
    Very interesting, thanks. Khmelnytsky tried, but failed, to place his son on the Moldovan throne.

    The situation is analogous to what we can see of Lithuania of that time too. In its early incarnation, the Lithuanian court too availed itself of the much more developed Ruthenian language. It wasn’t until much later that the Lithuanian language surpassed the usage of old Ruthenian in official usage. Later yet, of course, even the Lithuanian language lost some prominence in favor of Polish and Latin.

    • Replies: @AP
    I thought that in Lithuanian, the Ruthenian language as court language was the "bridge" to Polish, with Lithuanian not being used as a court language after Ruthenian was widely adopted.
    , @Old Jew
    That language is not "old Ruthenian" ; it is named "Church Slavonic" or Old Bulgarian
  56. @songbird
    That's interesting. I wonder if many of them went to West Germany during the Cold War.

    If I recall, Romania was a traditional transit route for East Germans, where they would pretend to take vacations and steal over the border. Of course, getting a travel visa may have been difficult.

    I always thought of the laxity as being like the Romanians weren't invested in the East German political apparatus, but maybe they had nationalistic reasons for letting Germans through.

    Or maybe, I'm just over-thinking it. I suppose there weren't really too many, and when you have gypsies, you probably don't spurn your local ethnic Germans.

    I wonder if many of them went to West Germany during the Cold War.

    Quite a few already left in the 1970s, my father met some in Bavaria in the late 1970s. Most of the rest seems to have left shortly after 1989. According to Wikipedia the current president Johannis only stayed in Romania because he’s married to a Romanian woman, but his parents and sister now live in Germany.

  57. @songbird
    That's interesting. I wonder if many of them went to West Germany during the Cold War.

    If I recall, Romania was a traditional transit route for East Germans, where they would pretend to take vacations and steal over the border. Of course, getting a travel visa may have been difficult.

    I always thought of the laxity as being like the Romanians weren't invested in the East German political apparatus, but maybe they had nationalistic reasons for letting Germans through.

    Or maybe, I'm just over-thinking it. I suppose there weren't really too many, and when you have gypsies, you probably don't spurn your local ethnic Germans.

    A short (4000 word) review about a documentary dealing with this topic:

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/01/trading-germans/

    • Replies: @songbird
    Thank you. That was quite interesting.

    I hadn't realized that the Romanian government sold Germans to West Germany, just as East Germany had, after a time.
    , @for-the-record
    A short (4000 word) review about a documentary dealing with this topic:

    I'm not sure it's complete but here is a link to the documentary ("Trading Germans"):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCb3GxniDfw
  58. @Hyperborean
    A short (4000 word) review about a documentary dealing with this topic:

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/01/trading-germans/

    Thank you. That was quite interesting.

    I hadn’t realized that the Romanian government sold Germans to West Germany, just as East Germany had, after a time.

  59. @Mr. Hack
    The situation is analogous to what we can see of Lithuania of that time too. In its early incarnation, the Lithuanian court too availed itself of the much more developed Ruthenian language. It wasn't until much later that the Lithuanian language surpassed the usage of old Ruthenian in official usage. Later yet, of course, even the Lithuanian language lost some prominence in favor of Polish and Latin.

    I thought that in Lithuanian, the Ruthenian language as court language was the “bridge” to Polish, with Lithuanian not being used as a court language after Ruthenian was widely adopted.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    From reading this very detailed study on the language issue within Lithuania, it appears that Lithuanian (Baltic) was only accepted as the official chancery language in 1793. Before then, it was a language used often by Lithuanian noblity alongside Polish, Ruthenian and Latin in day to day discourse . It's development was a sort of roller coaster ride with several dips and turns as can be read here:

    a part of the elite in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 15th century still tried to make sure that the Grand Duke of Lithuania could understand the language of his Baltic speaking subjects. Thanks to the Polish chronicler Jan Długosz, we know that when the newly elected Grand Duke Casimir Jagiellon arrived from Kraków to Vilnius in 1440, local nobility taught him Lithuanian
    language and customs (local law)...Casimir in Trakai according to Długosz? It seems that it was Lithuanian in the modern sense of the term, because the “Lithuanian” and “Ruthenian” (in both
    cases relating to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 15th century) was diff erentiated in Latin terminology and Polish tradition very well. Most probably, Polish was the young prince’s first language since his birth in Kraków in 1427. The election of Casimir the Grand Duke of Lithuania was possible due to participation in this political intrigue of such important families of Lithuanian origin as Kiezhajly, Gaštoldy and Radzivily5 (Ochmański, 1982: 113). But this language practice started to decline in the 16th century already. The Lithuanian language went out of use at the Grand Duke’s courtyard by the middle of this century (Dubonis, 2004: 211)

     


    the Lithuanian language made its way into offi cial institutions very slowly. A some sort of shock, change of the foundations was neccessary, so that public authorities could fi nally start to issue regulations and universals in Lithuanian. It was the Constitution of May 3, 1791 that became such event, as its text was already translated in Lithuanian in the Grand Duchy, along with some other documents of the Kościuszko Uprising (Tumelis, 1997: 11-40) (Figure 12). So, what was the reason for the Lithuanian language to become the language off official acts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania so late, only at the end of the 18th century?
     
    http://palityka.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/07_dziarnovic.pdf
  60. @inertial
    Moldova is an order of magnitude less fake or gay than the Ukraine. Separate Moldovan identity is centuries old, while Romanian identity is recent. With Ukrainian/Russian identities it's the other way around.

    The modern Moldova (Bessarabia) had been unified with Romania for only ~20 years, as opposed to centuries for Ukraine and Russia.

    And then there are the special connections of Moldova to Russia. In the last 200 years, obviously; but even before that. For example, some sort of Old Slavonic/Russian was an (or perhaps even the) official language of the medieval Moldovan principality.

    Moldova was established as a state around mid 14th century. It lost the southern part (Budjak) to the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century, Bukovina to the Habsburg Empire in 1785, and the territory East of Prut (Bessarabia) to the Russian Empire in 1812.
    Modern Romania was established in 1859. It recovered both Bukovina and Bessarabia in 1918. It lost North Bukovina and Bessarabia at the end of WWII. Hundreds of thousands of Romanians were subsequently deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan. (This is one of the reason Romanians historically mistrust Russia).

  61. “Carol I was a Germanophile”

    Carol I was a German from the family of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. His descendants were expelled from the Hohenzollern family when Romania declared war on the Central Alliance in 1916.

  62. @Vendetta
    Crimea was a prize everyone wanted. Mussolini hoped that the participation of Italian forces on the Eastern Front would give him the standing to exercise a claim on the Crimea on the basis of the old Genoese colonies that had been there in medieval times.

    Germany of course had eyes on the peninsula itself due to its strategic location as well as its pleasant climate for German settlement. In the case of an Axis victory it would have probably been down to the Germans to decide who got it - and considering the German blood expended in besieging Sevastopol, I doubt they’d have given it away. If they were feeling uncharacteristically generous, I think Italy would have been first runner-up to receive it. The Germans would probably consider Odessa more than enough of a prize for the Romanians.

    Really depends on Hitler’s whims and his personal views of his allies, which vary over the course of the war. Hitler had the utmost personal respect for Mussolini right up to the day he died, though he despised the Italian people and their military forces from the beginning and only grew to do so more over the course of the war (he considered them unworthy to have such a leader as Mussolini and Mussolini above blame for Italy’s failures - in Hitler’s view he was doing the best he could given an inferior nation to lead).

    Antonescu had a good rapport with Hitler early on in the war as well. He was more adventurous and eager to fight than Miklós Horthy of Hungary, and committed a much larger share of his forces to the war in the east, and did not limit the extent to which his forces would participate to merely reclaiming the territories he had recently lost (unlike Carl Mannerheim of Finland). Romania’s army also maintained a respectable performance in the Bessarabian campaign as well as in the siege of Odessa.

    Stalingrad erased just about all regard Hitler had for the Romanians. The Germans blamed both the Sixth Army’s encirclement and the failure of their relieving force to break through to Stalingrad on the inability of the Romanians to hold their sectors of the front against superior Soviet forces, and after that disaster Antonescu became far less eager and cooperative as a German ally (Romania’s forces were kept out of any further substantial action until the Red Army arrived at Romania’s borders in 1944).

    So how much territory the Romanians would ultimately have been allowed to claim had the Germans won would depend upon the circumstances that led to that victory. If there were no disaster at Stalingrad to discredit them, Hitler might have been much more generous to Romania than if there had been.

    Incidentally some of Greece’s hyper-nationalists in the brief era of the Megali Idea also had wild ideas about claiming Crimea on the basis of ancient Hellenic colonies as well. And of course revanchist Turkish nationalists have always held out hopes of returning there one day too.

    Everyone dreams about the Crimea. No one but Russia, however, has proven powerful to make their dreams a reality.

    “Stalingrad erased just about all regard Hitler had for the Romanians. The Germans blamed both the Sixth Army’s encirclement and the failure of their relieving force to break through to Stalingrad on the inability of the Romanians to hold their sectors of the front against superior Soviet forces, and after that disaster Antonescu became far less eager and cooperative as a German ally (Romania’s forces were kept out of any further substantial action until the Red Army arrived at Romania’s borders in 1944).

    Manstein had a favorable opinion about Romanian soldiers on Eastern Front. One or two Romanian Divisions took part at the siege of Sevastopol under his command (see Verlorene Siege/Lost Victories) and he praised them.
    Leon Degrelle (Waffen SS on the Eastern Front) is not so favorable, but he mentions just one episode. Same for Rudel (Stuka Pilot), but he look at them from the air.

  63. “me from spending a few hours learning the Romanian language …not sure it would have been of much use”

    You might be surprised (especially if you know a romance language). I learned a little before my first visit (over 10 years ago) and was surprised at how far it went. I used to be pretty fluent in Spanish and am now fluent in Polish and the combination helped immensely.
    And I’ve never had as easy an introduction to a language before. Any time I tried to use it (in the capital no less) was met with friendliness and people going out of their way to speak clearly.

    After a day or two I could pick up the gist of some simple conversations going on around me.
    I haven’t gone back again often enough to keep it up but I always had the idea I could reach proficiency pretty easily. Mastery is another issue (the biggest problem would be the vowel changes which are extensive and confusing given the spelling system).

    I’ve been to Romania four or five times (mostly just Bucharest and once to Constanta – weird place) and the transformation from post-communist dump (interesting but still… a dump) to emerging SWPL-land has been striking (seeing it only periodically is more dramatic than watching the same transformation work out in real time in Poland)

    Did you try the covrigi (large soft pretzels and ubiquitous street snack)?

    Overall great post!

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Thanks.

    I agree, the vowels are tricky, from what I could see, grammar also harder than in the standard Latin language. (OTOH, I just checked, and Monterey classifies them as a Category I language - the easiest there is).

    Yes, I tried the covrigi. Standard pretzel like thing.
  64. “Taras Shevchenko”

    There are many references to Russian culture/history in Bucharest. The Village Museum is on Kiseleff Road (named so after the General Pavel Kiselyov, who actually had it built).

    “Statue of Trajan and the She-wolf”

    It’s actually the statue of Romulus and Remus with the She-wolf. It’s a donation of the city of Roma to Bucharest from 1906. It’s called Lupa Capitolina=Statuia Lupoaicei.

  65. “Taras Shevchenko”

    There are many references to Russian culture/history in Bucharest.

    So now Taras Shevchenko is claimed as a Russian…

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Soon, Stepan Bandera will also be claimed as a Russian--specifically a renegade one.
  66. @AP
    Given that the Western Euros have voluntarily chosen to take in millions of people who are more troublesome than gypsies, why not send them the gypsies also?

    You might as well send them Israel’s African refugees while you’re at it. After all, an Eritrean or Sudanese person would probably strongly prefer life in Germany or France than in Uganda or Rwanda!

  67. @AP

    “Taras Shevchenko”

    There are many references to Russian culture/history in Bucharest.
     
    So now Taras Shevchenko is claimed as a Russian...

    Soon, Stepan Bandera will also be claimed as a Russian–specifically a renegade one.

    • Replies: @Rattus Norwegius
    According to the "Triune Russian Nation" he was exactly that.
  68. @German_reader
    I don't think it works that way, though I suppose many Romanians aren't sad about gypsies leaving for the west.
    I wonder if the governments in Bulgaria and Romania have some kind of deliberate programme to export the gypsies towards Western Europe, someone should do an investigation about this.

    Don’t worry! All of that Syrian and Eritrean talent which your country acquired will more than compensate for all of the Romanian and Bulgarian Gypsies that your country acquired! /s

  69. @inertial

    Romania sent its gold reserves to Russia in December 1916 – equivalent to 10 billion lei in gold – where they were, of course, confiscated by the Bolsheviks when they came to power.
     
    Romanian gold was explicitly confiscated as the compensation for Bessarabia. Soviet Russia recognized independence of Finland and the Baltic states but it never recognized Romanian takeover of Bessarabia.

    Why was the Soviet Union so uptight about Bessarabia?

    • Replies: @inertial
    I suppose because they considered Romanian actions to be an invasion and occupation of their territory and also a stab in the back. As Romanians themselves point out when they talk about their gold, Russia and Romania were supposed to be allies. You generally don't expect an ally to send an army across your border and grab a piece of your territory, even if they think they could get away with it. So the Russians grew a little upset.
  70. @songbird
    I used to wonder about Ceausescu. Was he just naturally more clever and less of a toady than the other Communist puppet rulers? Or was it something particular to the local situation in Romania? Was he, for instance, just more afraid of local revolution?

    Ceaușescu was not the only one who tried to exhibit independence in the Warsaw Pact.

    When the Red Army was first establishing a foothold in Eastern Europe there were several local Communists who possessed the desire to take independent initiative, but aside from Tito Stalin managed to sideline independent communists in favour of more subservient ones (typically ones who had lived in the USSR, particularly during the war).

    And afterwards those who did try either got replaced or tried to carry out a path of limited independence as they thought they could get away with from the USSR and Warsaw Pact.

    If I remember correctly, Ceaușescu was a ‘Home Communist’ who had spent the war in a Romanian prison, which may explain his especially assertive streak.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Good point about him being a "Home Communist"; I hadn't known that, and it surprises me quite a bit.

    With Tito, I always thought it was a mix of geography, "home revolution", and the fact the Soviets hadn't established supply lines into Yugoslavia, but I suppose all those things also touch directly on personality. He was not their picked man.

    There are probably modern lessons somewhere in this.
  71. @AP
    I thought that in Lithuanian, the Ruthenian language as court language was the "bridge" to Polish, with Lithuanian not being used as a court language after Ruthenian was widely adopted.

    From reading this very detailed study on the language issue within Lithuania, it appears that Lithuanian (Baltic) was only accepted as the official chancery language in 1793. Before then, it was a language used often by Lithuanian noblity alongside Polish, Ruthenian and Latin in day to day discourse . It’s development was a sort of roller coaster ride with several dips and turns as can be read here:

    a part of the elite in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 15th century still tried to make sure that the Grand Duke of Lithuania could understand the language of his Baltic speaking subjects. Thanks to the Polish chronicler Jan Długosz, we know that when the newly elected Grand Duke Casimir Jagiellon arrived from Kraków to Vilnius in 1440, local nobility taught him Lithuanian
    language and customs (local law)…Casimir in Trakai according to Długosz? It seems that it was Lithuanian in the modern sense of the term, because the “Lithuanian” and “Ruthenian” (in both
    cases relating to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 15th century) was diff erentiated in Latin terminology and Polish tradition very well. Most probably, Polish was the young prince’s first language since his birth in Kraków in 1427. The election of Casimir the Grand Duke of Lithuania was possible due to participation in this political intrigue of such important families of Lithuanian origin as Kiezhajly, Gaštoldy and Radzivily5 (Ochmański, 1982: 113). But this language practice started to decline in the 16th century already. The Lithuanian language went out of use at the Grand Duke’s courtyard by the middle of this century (Dubonis, 2004: 211)

    the Lithuanian language made its way into offi cial institutions very slowly. A some sort of shock, change of the foundations was neccessary, so that public authorities could fi nally start to issue regulations and universals in Lithuanian. It was the Constitution of May 3, 1791 that became such event, as its text was already translated in Lithuanian in the Grand Duchy, along with some other documents of the Kościuszko Uprising (Tumelis, 1997: 11-40) (Figure 12). So, what was the reason for the Lithuanian language to become the language off official acts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania so late, only at the end of the 18th century?

    http://palityka.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/07_dziarnovic.pdf

  72. @German_reader
    Those fluctuations in the first four sets are weird. Romania wasn't really occupied by the Germans in WW2 until the very end, so I don't think they could have killed more than 200 000 gypsies in Romania, and I doubt the Antonescu regime managed that either. The differences between the 1948, 1956 and 1966 numbers are also very strange.

    It’s all guesswork. Gypsies don’t cooperate with census takers (or other government agencies even ones that give them money*). They move around and are counted multiple times or not at all… they don’t care and the census takers probably didn’t much care either.

    In general, the bothersomeness of gypsies in Europe highly correlates with an Ottoman past.

    http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2013/06/gypsy-parasitism-as-outgrowth-of.html

    *they just loudly demand their money already

  73. @Hyperborean
    A short (4000 word) review about a documentary dealing with this topic:

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/01/trading-germans/

    A short (4000 word) review about a documentary dealing with this topic:

    I’m not sure it’s complete but here is a link to the documentary (“Trading Germans”):

  74. @AP
    So joining EU was a good idea.

    In 1992 Belarus had a per capita GDP of $1,675, to Romania's $1,102. Now Romania has about double that of Belarus. Belarus should have run to the EU as soon as it could.

    Yes and leaving the EU is a fantastic idea for Britain, amd any other wealthy member of the EU. Can’t wait for those infrastructure funds being spent at home, Crossrail 2 can be started.

  75. @German_reader
    You need to consider the negatives as well though, the massive emigration from Romania (e.g. many of Romania's doctors leaving for the EU, as AK mentioned above) can hardly be good for the country.
    And anyway, from a Western/Central European perspective Romanian and Bulgarian EU membership isn't very desirable either, I could do without tall the gypsies who have turned up in Germany in recent years.

    Those countries are delighted to offload their gypsies.

    A lot of Romanians in Britain now, young eductaed types, but cheap strippers too. Perhaps the best strippers move west leaving the gypsies to fill the void.

  76. A lot of the churches in Transylvania are to this day not Christian but ‘Unitarian’, and that points to a very neglected aspect of the history of Transylvania – Romania & also Hungary & Poland

    [MORE]

    In the 1500s these regions were hotbeds of Unitarianism – the idea that Jesus was not ‘god’ but entirely human tho a great Buddha-like holy man & teacher … well grounded in the fact that the ‘nice guy’ sayings of Jesus, are actually often copies of Buddhist sayings from hundreds of years earlier.

    In the 1500s these were the most intellectually advanced, free-thinking places in Europe, enacting religious freedom well in advance of the Netherlands & the UK & Western Europe, under the rule of the Transylvanian Hungarian-Polish monarchy

    That tradition of religious freedom was later significantly crushed by the Vatican and Jesuit 1600s repression in Poland and elsewhere, but the ‘Unitarian – Jesus is not god’ faith remained alive particularly in Transylvania and Hungary … whilst the Dutch and later others picked up and ran with the helpful freedom-of-religion idea of the Transylvanians

    Bram Stoker’s Victorian ‘Dracula’ novel with its slandering of Transylvania, can be seen as an attack on the noble intellectual freedom of those who tried to liberate Europe from the Judaic & other harshness of traditional Christianity

    Christianity is actually a grafting of Buddhism upon a 60% Jewish base, along with Roman-Greek bits. Jesus probably learned from South Asian Buddhist teachers, Jesus maybe having travelled to India in his youth, and then Roman Jew Paul cleverly cobbled together what we know today as the New Testament and Christian religion … the Unitarians of the 1500s, were a noble foray into emphasising the Buddhist part over the Judaic part

    Sometimes on European ethno-nationalist websites, it is argued that Europeans need to finish the job of replacing Christianity were more locally-based religiosity, because Christianity or ‘cucktianity’ with its big Jewish ‘chosen people’ fetish, is always a Trojan horse for letting Jewish power and influence hold sway over anyone still enrolled in the Christian framework

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Roman Jew Paul cleverly cobbled together what we know today as the New Testament and Christian religion …
     
    Your whole comment sounds nonsensical, but it will suffice for you to help explain only this part. Where did Paul do his 'cobbling'? He was not an author of any of the books of the New Testament. Where did he obtain the knowledge of Buddha's sayings? Don' t accounts of your type usually have Jesus going to India at some point and gain Vedic knowledge?
    , @AP
    Post-Christianity has worked so well for Europeans...
    , @DFH

    Sometimes on European ethno-nationalist websites, it is argued that Europeans need to finish the job of replacing Christianity were more locally-based religiosity, because Christianity or ‘cucktianity’ with its big Jewish ‘chosen people’ fetish, is always a Trojan horse for letting Jewish power and influence hold sway over anyone still enrolled in the Christian framework
     

    The idea that Christianity has been historically beneficial to Jews is laughable
    , @anonymous coward

    well grounded in the fact that the ‘nice guy’ sayings of Jesus, are actually often copies of Buddhist sayings from hundreds of years earlier
     
    Really? I dare you to name even one such saying.

    Protip: you can't. Two reasons:

    a) Jesus was anything but a 'nice guy'. He preached tough love, not being nice.
    b) They taught diametrically opposing doctrines. The Buddha taught that natural law is evil and salvation comes from ignoring it through inaction. Christ taught that those who don't proactively follow natural law will be destroyed.

    In any case, neither of them gave a rat's ass about 'being nice'. Only Americans and Western Europeans care about that, and that only because they're a people on track to dying out and want to go out quietly and without fuss.
    , @songbird
    There's a Unitarian church near me.

    I think of them as a mix between modern druids or wicca and the people who believe in Star Wars as a religion.

    They are probably the most cucked people imaginable. I don't think you can find a church without a rainbow flag. And you are saying it came from a diverse region of Europe 500 years ago? To champion globalist-level diversity 500 years later, like some undead creature, gaining power and evil with the years?
    , @Talha

    the fact that the ‘nice guy’ sayings of Jesus, are actually often copies of Buddhist sayings from hundreds of years earlier
     

    Christianity is actually a grafting of Buddhism
     
    Do you have a good, academic source for this theory that is relatively concise?

    Thanks in advance.

    Peace.
  77. @Brabantian
    A lot of the churches in Transylvania are to this day not Christian but 'Unitarian', and that points to a very neglected aspect of the history of Transylvania - Romania & also Hungary & Poland



    In the 1500s these regions were hotbeds of Unitarianism - the idea that Jesus was not 'god' but entirely human tho a great Buddha-like holy man & teacher ... well grounded in the fact that the 'nice guy' sayings of Jesus, are actually often copies of Buddhist sayings from hundreds of years earlier.

    In the 1500s these were the most intellectually advanced, free-thinking places in Europe, enacting religious freedom well in advance of the Netherlands & the UK & Western Europe, under the rule of the Transylvanian Hungarian-Polish monarchy

    That tradition of religious freedom was later significantly crushed by the Vatican and Jesuit 1600s repression in Poland and elsewhere, but the 'Unitarian - Jesus is not god' faith remained alive particularly in Transylvania and Hungary ... whilst the Dutch and later others picked up and ran with the helpful freedom-of-religion idea of the Transylvanians

    Bram Stoker's Victorian 'Dracula' novel with its slandering of Transylvania, can be seen as an attack on the noble intellectual freedom of those who tried to liberate Europe from the Judaic & other harshness of traditional Christianity

    Christianity is actually a grafting of Buddhism upon a 60% Jewish base, along with Roman-Greek bits. Jesus probably learned from South Asian Buddhist teachers, Jesus maybe having travelled to India in his youth, and then Roman Jew Paul cleverly cobbled together what we know today as the New Testament and Christian religion ... the Unitarians of the 1500s, were a noble foray into emphasising the Buddhist part over the Judaic part

    Sometimes on European ethno-nationalist websites, it is argued that Europeans need to finish the job of replacing Christianity were more locally-based religiosity, because Christianity or 'cucktianity' with its big Jewish 'chosen people' fetish, is always a Trojan horse for letting Jewish power and influence hold sway over anyone still enrolled in the Christian framework

    Roman Jew Paul cleverly cobbled together what we know today as the New Testament and Christian religion …

    Your whole comment sounds nonsensical, but it will suffice for you to help explain only this part. Where did Paul do his ‘cobbling’? He was not an author of any of the books of the New Testament. Where did he obtain the knowledge of Buddha’s sayings? Don’ t accounts of your type usually have Jesus going to India at some point and gain Vedic knowledge?

    • Replies: @DFH

    Where did Paul do his ‘cobbling’? He was not an author of any of the books of the New Testament.
     
    ..........................................

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles
  78. @Brabantian
    A lot of the churches in Transylvania are to this day not Christian but 'Unitarian', and that points to a very neglected aspect of the history of Transylvania - Romania & also Hungary & Poland



    In the 1500s these regions were hotbeds of Unitarianism - the idea that Jesus was not 'god' but entirely human tho a great Buddha-like holy man & teacher ... well grounded in the fact that the 'nice guy' sayings of Jesus, are actually often copies of Buddhist sayings from hundreds of years earlier.

    In the 1500s these were the most intellectually advanced, free-thinking places in Europe, enacting religious freedom well in advance of the Netherlands & the UK & Western Europe, under the rule of the Transylvanian Hungarian-Polish monarchy

    That tradition of religious freedom was later significantly crushed by the Vatican and Jesuit 1600s repression in Poland and elsewhere, but the 'Unitarian - Jesus is not god' faith remained alive particularly in Transylvania and Hungary ... whilst the Dutch and later others picked up and ran with the helpful freedom-of-religion idea of the Transylvanians

    Bram Stoker's Victorian 'Dracula' novel with its slandering of Transylvania, can be seen as an attack on the noble intellectual freedom of those who tried to liberate Europe from the Judaic & other harshness of traditional Christianity

    Christianity is actually a grafting of Buddhism upon a 60% Jewish base, along with Roman-Greek bits. Jesus probably learned from South Asian Buddhist teachers, Jesus maybe having travelled to India in his youth, and then Roman Jew Paul cleverly cobbled together what we know today as the New Testament and Christian religion ... the Unitarians of the 1500s, were a noble foray into emphasising the Buddhist part over the Judaic part

    Sometimes on European ethno-nationalist websites, it is argued that Europeans need to finish the job of replacing Christianity were more locally-based religiosity, because Christianity or 'cucktianity' with its big Jewish 'chosen people' fetish, is always a Trojan horse for letting Jewish power and influence hold sway over anyone still enrolled in the Christian framework

    Post-Christianity has worked so well for Europeans…

  79. @Hyperborean
    Ceaușescu was not the only one who tried to exhibit independence in the Warsaw Pact.

    When the Red Army was first establishing a foothold in Eastern Europe there were several local Communists who possessed the desire to take independent initiative, but aside from Tito Stalin managed to sideline independent communists in favour of more subservient ones (typically ones who had lived in the USSR, particularly during the war).

    And afterwards those who did try either got replaced or tried to carry out a path of limited independence as they thought they could get away with from the USSR and Warsaw Pact.

    If I remember correctly, Ceaușescu was a 'Home Communist' who had spent the war in a Romanian prison, which may explain his especially assertive streak.

    Good point about him being a “Home Communist”; I hadn’t known that, and it surprises me quite a bit.

    With Tito, I always thought it was a mix of geography, “home revolution”, and the fact the Soviets hadn’t established supply lines into Yugoslavia, but I suppose all those things also touch directly on personality. He was not their picked man.

    There are probably modern lessons somewhere in this.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    I wonder what would have happened to Thorez and Togliatti, Stalinist-loyalist leaders of the French and Italian communist parties respectively, if the Red Army had advanced further west?

    Most likely they would have been replaced. But it would have created a slight image problem.

    The most fortuitous route for Stalin was probably the one played by Thälmann.

    Thälmann served as a Stalinist agent of influence during the Weimar Era, but was conveniently executed by the National Socialists during the later phase of the war, which enabled the DDR authorities to continue the cult of personality Thälmann had built around him during the Interbellum Period without fear of independentist thought being exhibited.

    Well, creating cults of personality around people who were conveniently dead was not uncommon in Communist societies.


    I found this Stalinist website praising Thälmann and, amusingly, denouncing the DDR for being a ''social fascist'' (social democratic) state.

    http://ciml.250x.com/sections/german_section/teddy/english/thalmann_english.html
  80. @Mr. Hack

    Roman Jew Paul cleverly cobbled together what we know today as the New Testament and Christian religion …
     
    Your whole comment sounds nonsensical, but it will suffice for you to help explain only this part. Where did Paul do his 'cobbling'? He was not an author of any of the books of the New Testament. Where did he obtain the knowledge of Buddha's sayings? Don' t accounts of your type usually have Jesus going to India at some point and gain Vedic knowledge?

    Where did Paul do his ‘cobbling’? He was not an author of any of the books of the New Testament.

    ……………………………………

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    You're right - I was only thinking of the four major gospels. But his theory still seems pretty suspect.
  81. @Brabantian
    A lot of the churches in Transylvania are to this day not Christian but 'Unitarian', and that points to a very neglected aspect of the history of Transylvania - Romania & also Hungary & Poland



    In the 1500s these regions were hotbeds of Unitarianism - the idea that Jesus was not 'god' but entirely human tho a great Buddha-like holy man & teacher ... well grounded in the fact that the 'nice guy' sayings of Jesus, are actually often copies of Buddhist sayings from hundreds of years earlier.

    In the 1500s these were the most intellectually advanced, free-thinking places in Europe, enacting religious freedom well in advance of the Netherlands & the UK & Western Europe, under the rule of the Transylvanian Hungarian-Polish monarchy

    That tradition of religious freedom was later significantly crushed by the Vatican and Jesuit 1600s repression in Poland and elsewhere, but the 'Unitarian - Jesus is not god' faith remained alive particularly in Transylvania and Hungary ... whilst the Dutch and later others picked up and ran with the helpful freedom-of-religion idea of the Transylvanians

    Bram Stoker's Victorian 'Dracula' novel with its slandering of Transylvania, can be seen as an attack on the noble intellectual freedom of those who tried to liberate Europe from the Judaic & other harshness of traditional Christianity

    Christianity is actually a grafting of Buddhism upon a 60% Jewish base, along with Roman-Greek bits. Jesus probably learned from South Asian Buddhist teachers, Jesus maybe having travelled to India in his youth, and then Roman Jew Paul cleverly cobbled together what we know today as the New Testament and Christian religion ... the Unitarians of the 1500s, were a noble foray into emphasising the Buddhist part over the Judaic part

    Sometimes on European ethno-nationalist websites, it is argued that Europeans need to finish the job of replacing Christianity were more locally-based religiosity, because Christianity or 'cucktianity' with its big Jewish 'chosen people' fetish, is always a Trojan horse for letting Jewish power and influence hold sway over anyone still enrolled in the Christian framework

    Sometimes on European ethno-nationalist websites, it is argued that Europeans need to finish the job of replacing Christianity were more locally-based religiosity, because Christianity or ‘cucktianity’ with its big Jewish ‘chosen people’ fetish, is always a Trojan horse for letting Jewish power and influence hold sway over anyone still enrolled in the Christian framework

    The idea that Christianity has been historically beneficial to Jews is laughable

  82. @Brabantian
    A lot of the churches in Transylvania are to this day not Christian but 'Unitarian', and that points to a very neglected aspect of the history of Transylvania - Romania & also Hungary & Poland



    In the 1500s these regions were hotbeds of Unitarianism - the idea that Jesus was not 'god' but entirely human tho a great Buddha-like holy man & teacher ... well grounded in the fact that the 'nice guy' sayings of Jesus, are actually often copies of Buddhist sayings from hundreds of years earlier.

    In the 1500s these were the most intellectually advanced, free-thinking places in Europe, enacting religious freedom well in advance of the Netherlands & the UK & Western Europe, under the rule of the Transylvanian Hungarian-Polish monarchy

    That tradition of religious freedom was later significantly crushed by the Vatican and Jesuit 1600s repression in Poland and elsewhere, but the 'Unitarian - Jesus is not god' faith remained alive particularly in Transylvania and Hungary ... whilst the Dutch and later others picked up and ran with the helpful freedom-of-religion idea of the Transylvanians

    Bram Stoker's Victorian 'Dracula' novel with its slandering of Transylvania, can be seen as an attack on the noble intellectual freedom of those who tried to liberate Europe from the Judaic & other harshness of traditional Christianity

    Christianity is actually a grafting of Buddhism upon a 60% Jewish base, along with Roman-Greek bits. Jesus probably learned from South Asian Buddhist teachers, Jesus maybe having travelled to India in his youth, and then Roman Jew Paul cleverly cobbled together what we know today as the New Testament and Christian religion ... the Unitarians of the 1500s, were a noble foray into emphasising the Buddhist part over the Judaic part

    Sometimes on European ethno-nationalist websites, it is argued that Europeans need to finish the job of replacing Christianity were more locally-based religiosity, because Christianity or 'cucktianity' with its big Jewish 'chosen people' fetish, is always a Trojan horse for letting Jewish power and influence hold sway over anyone still enrolled in the Christian framework

    well grounded in the fact that the ‘nice guy’ sayings of Jesus, are actually often copies of Buddhist sayings from hundreds of years earlier

    Really? I dare you to name even one such saying.

    Protip: you can’t. Two reasons:

    a) Jesus was anything but a ‘nice guy’. He preached tough love, not being nice.
    b) They taught diametrically opposing doctrines. The Buddha taught that natural law is evil and salvation comes from ignoring it through inaction. Christ taught that those who don’t proactively follow natural law will be destroyed.

    In any case, neither of them gave a rat’s ass about ‘being nice’. Only Americans and Western Europeans care about that, and that only because they’re a people on track to dying out and want to go out quietly and without fuss.

  83. @Mitleser

    EU is great for the poor countries, which join it.
     
    It is a mixed blessing.
    They get money and pay with people who migrate to the older members who fix their demographic issues at the expense of the poor countries.

    It is a mixed blessing.
    They get money and pay with people who migrate to the older members who fix their demographic issues at the expense of the poor countries.

    For poor countries it’s all great, they receive free vast wealth given to them from wealthy countries, and economic access to their markets (with the only problem that it might be too nice to keep best people from going to wealthier countries – but this happens even outside EU).

    But for wealthy EU countries, it’s almost a reverse – almost completely negative for taxpayers in these countries to allow poor countries into the system, who they then have to give vast free money to until they converge economically with them.

    For this reason, EU project designed to be as unclear to voters in wealthy countries as possible, while at the same time also designed to be impossible to escape.

    In a miracle UK seems to be escaping it, but now the EU is demanding a $50 billion “exit bill”. Despite the fact UK has given tens of billions of free money to the EU, every year, for tens of years. It’s kind of comical how badly fucked the UK is being by the EU, in comparison to how much countries like Spain, Poland or Romania benefit from it. It’s really “socialism” between countries. Poor EU countries receive more than they could ever dream, while wealthy EU countries more than they could ever nightmare.

    Well the final nightmare, of Turkey’s membership in the EU, has at least been avoided (aside from permanent billions of dollars of annual free subsidies to Turkey, this would have resulted in millions of Turkish people immigrating to the wealthiest EU countries).

    • Replies: @songbird
    Regarding Turkey, I would not say "avoided" so much as "delayed."

    That, I believe, is in the sense of the goals of the leadership. Many want a pan-Mediterranean Union. And if they ever once seriously considered North Africa, then there is no way they would baulk at an obviously dysfunctional Turkey.

    They are ideologues. It is a question of what they are permitted to do, rather than one of them actually changing their goals.

    If it wasn't so serious, it would almost be funny: it's called the EU, and they are trying to integrate Asia Minor. How could they possibly delude themselves into thinking that falls into their mandate?
    , @Mitleser

    For poor countries it’s all great, they receive free vast wealth given to them from wealthy countries, and economic access to their markets (with the only problem that it might be too nice to keep best people from going to wealthier countries – but this happens even outside EU).
     
    Outside of the EU, there is no such freedom of movement between rich and poor country that encourages migration.

    But for wealthy EU countries, it’s almost a reverse – almost completely negative for taxpayers in these countries to allow poor countries into the system, who they then have to give vast free money to until they converge economically with them.
     
    Depends on the taxpayers you are talking about.
    For corporate taxpayers who gain improved access to markets and cheap labor, it is a good deal.
    , @szopen
    The wealth is not really free. (1) EU got new markets to send their products (2) A lot of help is being spent to western companies (i mean imagine EU funds a highway, and German company will built it) (3) no tariffs (4) destruction of the competition (i.e. Polish suger industry was severely hurt - though some claim otherwise) (5) free educated workforce (i.e. young educated people whose education was funded by Polish taxpayer, who then emigrate to UK and start to contribute immedietely). (6) there are huge profit transfers out of Poland (banks and foreign companies sent huge amounts of money abroad, sometimes going around the regulations)

    I'd say the access to an open market and the the back transfers by Polish immigrants were more important than the EU subsidies.
  84. @DFH

    Where did Paul do his ‘cobbling’? He was not an author of any of the books of the New Testament.
     
    ..........................................

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

    You’re right – I was only thinking of the four major gospels. But his theory still seems pretty suspect.

  85. @Dmitry

    It is a mixed blessing.
    They get money and pay with people who migrate to the older members who fix their demographic issues at the expense of the poor countries.
     
    For poor countries it's all great, they receive free vast wealth given to them from wealthy countries, and economic access to their markets (with the only problem that it might be too nice to keep best people from going to wealthier countries - but this happens even outside EU).

    But for wealthy EU countries, it's almost a reverse - almost completely negative for taxpayers in these countries to allow poor countries into the system, who they then have to give vast free money to until they converge economically with them.

    For this reason, EU project designed to be as unclear to voters in wealthy countries as possible, while at the same time also designed to be impossible to escape.

    In a miracle UK seems to be escaping it, but now the EU is demanding a $50 billion "exit bill". Despite the fact UK has given tens of billions of free money to the EU, every year, for tens of years. It's kind of comical how badly fucked the UK is being by the EU, in comparison to how much countries like Spain, Poland or Romania benefit from it. It's really "socialism" between countries. Poor EU countries receive more than they could ever dream, while wealthy EU countries more than they could ever nightmare.

    Well the final nightmare, of Turkey's membership in the EU, has at least been avoided (aside from permanent billions of dollars of annual free subsidies to Turkey, this would have resulted in millions of Turkish people immigrating to the wealthiest EU countries).

    Regarding Turkey, I would not say “avoided” so much as “delayed.”

    That, I believe, is in the sense of the goals of the leadership. Many want a pan-Mediterranean Union. And if they ever once seriously considered North Africa, then there is no way they would baulk at an obviously dysfunctional Turkey.

    They are ideologues. It is a question of what they are permitted to do, rather than one of them actually changing their goals.

    If it wasn’t so serious, it would almost be funny: it’s called the EU, and they are trying to integrate Asia Minor. How could they possibly delude themselves into thinking that falls into their mandate?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    At some stage, they have to learn limits in their ambitions - Turkey is the absolute limitation point.

    You already cannot make the successful North Western European countries, swallow and fund indiscriminately, the unsuccessful countries, without damaging the successful North Western European countries.

    All that happens is North Western European countries have to fund eternally Southern European and Eastern European countries they are swallowing. Add countries like Romania to EU - and result is EU becomes more like Romania.

    EU already went insane and made the wealthy countries swallow the poor ones (well the really wealthy countries - Norway and Switzerland - avoid the entire organization).

    But there has to be absolute limit when it reaches Turkey (80 million brown Muslims), that is a bomb large enough that if they swallow it, could finally destroy the entire EU organization.

  86. @Brabantian
    A lot of the churches in Transylvania are to this day not Christian but 'Unitarian', and that points to a very neglected aspect of the history of Transylvania - Romania & also Hungary & Poland



    In the 1500s these regions were hotbeds of Unitarianism - the idea that Jesus was not 'god' but entirely human tho a great Buddha-like holy man & teacher ... well grounded in the fact that the 'nice guy' sayings of Jesus, are actually often copies of Buddhist sayings from hundreds of years earlier.

    In the 1500s these were the most intellectually advanced, free-thinking places in Europe, enacting religious freedom well in advance of the Netherlands & the UK & Western Europe, under the rule of the Transylvanian Hungarian-Polish monarchy

    That tradition of religious freedom was later significantly crushed by the Vatican and Jesuit 1600s repression in Poland and elsewhere, but the 'Unitarian - Jesus is not god' faith remained alive particularly in Transylvania and Hungary ... whilst the Dutch and later others picked up and ran with the helpful freedom-of-religion idea of the Transylvanians

    Bram Stoker's Victorian 'Dracula' novel with its slandering of Transylvania, can be seen as an attack on the noble intellectual freedom of those who tried to liberate Europe from the Judaic & other harshness of traditional Christianity

    Christianity is actually a grafting of Buddhism upon a 60% Jewish base, along with Roman-Greek bits. Jesus probably learned from South Asian Buddhist teachers, Jesus maybe having travelled to India in his youth, and then Roman Jew Paul cleverly cobbled together what we know today as the New Testament and Christian religion ... the Unitarians of the 1500s, were a noble foray into emphasising the Buddhist part over the Judaic part

    Sometimes on European ethno-nationalist websites, it is argued that Europeans need to finish the job of replacing Christianity were more locally-based religiosity, because Christianity or 'cucktianity' with its big Jewish 'chosen people' fetish, is always a Trojan horse for letting Jewish power and influence hold sway over anyone still enrolled in the Christian framework

    There’s a Unitarian church near me.

    I think of them as a mix between modern druids or wicca and the people who believe in Star Wars as a religion.

    They are probably the most cucked people imaginable. I don’t think you can find a church without a rainbow flag. And you are saying it came from a diverse region of Europe 500 years ago? To champion globalist-level diversity 500 years later, like some undead creature, gaining power and evil with the years?

  87. @songbird
    Good point about him being a "Home Communist"; I hadn't known that, and it surprises me quite a bit.

    With Tito, I always thought it was a mix of geography, "home revolution", and the fact the Soviets hadn't established supply lines into Yugoslavia, but I suppose all those things also touch directly on personality. He was not their picked man.

    There are probably modern lessons somewhere in this.

    I wonder what would have happened to Thorez and Togliatti, Stalinist-loyalist leaders of the French and Italian communist parties respectively, if the Red Army had advanced further west?

    Most likely they would have been replaced. But it would have created a slight image problem.

    The most fortuitous route for Stalin was probably the one played by Thälmann.

    Thälmann served as a Stalinist agent of influence during the Weimar Era, but was conveniently executed by the National Socialists during the later phase of the war, which enabled the DDR authorities to continue the cult of personality Thälmann had built around him during the Interbellum Period without fear of independentist thought being exhibited.

    Well, creating cults of personality around people who were conveniently dead was not uncommon in Communist societies.

    I found this Stalinist website praising Thälmann and, amusingly, denouncing the DDR for being a ”social fascist” (social democratic) state.

    http://ciml.250x.com/sections/german_section/teddy/english/thalmann_english.html

    • Replies: @songbird
    It's often fascinating to read the writings of people who are still Communists. They are like living fossils, to compare to the globalists of today.

    It's funny that they could still be arguing about dead personalities. I suppose there is the eternal romance of the Communism which was never implemented. I always thought Ulbricht had a funny and appropriate nickname for a puppet: "the Goatee."
  88. @Mr. XYZ
    Why was the Soviet Union so uptight about Bessarabia?

    I suppose because they considered Romanian actions to be an invasion and occupation of their territory and also a stab in the back. As Romanians themselves point out when they talk about their gold, Russia and Romania were supposed to be allies. You generally don’t expect an ally to send an army across your border and grab a piece of your territory, even if they think they could get away with it. So the Russians grew a little upset.

  89. @Brabantian
    A lot of the churches in Transylvania are to this day not Christian but 'Unitarian', and that points to a very neglected aspect of the history of Transylvania - Romania & also Hungary & Poland



    In the 1500s these regions were hotbeds of Unitarianism - the idea that Jesus was not 'god' but entirely human tho a great Buddha-like holy man & teacher ... well grounded in the fact that the 'nice guy' sayings of Jesus, are actually often copies of Buddhist sayings from hundreds of years earlier.

    In the 1500s these were the most intellectually advanced, free-thinking places in Europe, enacting religious freedom well in advance of the Netherlands & the UK & Western Europe, under the rule of the Transylvanian Hungarian-Polish monarchy

    That tradition of religious freedom was later significantly crushed by the Vatican and Jesuit 1600s repression in Poland and elsewhere, but the 'Unitarian - Jesus is not god' faith remained alive particularly in Transylvania and Hungary ... whilst the Dutch and later others picked up and ran with the helpful freedom-of-religion idea of the Transylvanians

    Bram Stoker's Victorian 'Dracula' novel with its slandering of Transylvania, can be seen as an attack on the noble intellectual freedom of those who tried to liberate Europe from the Judaic & other harshness of traditional Christianity

    Christianity is actually a grafting of Buddhism upon a 60% Jewish base, along with Roman-Greek bits. Jesus probably learned from South Asian Buddhist teachers, Jesus maybe having travelled to India in his youth, and then Roman Jew Paul cleverly cobbled together what we know today as the New Testament and Christian religion ... the Unitarians of the 1500s, were a noble foray into emphasising the Buddhist part over the Judaic part

    Sometimes on European ethno-nationalist websites, it is argued that Europeans need to finish the job of replacing Christianity were more locally-based religiosity, because Christianity or 'cucktianity' with its big Jewish 'chosen people' fetish, is always a Trojan horse for letting Jewish power and influence hold sway over anyone still enrolled in the Christian framework

    the fact that the ‘nice guy’ sayings of Jesus, are actually often copies of Buddhist sayings from hundreds of years earlier

    Christianity is actually a grafting of Buddhism

    Do you have a good, academic source for this theory that is relatively concise?

    Thanks in advance.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Comparisons between Jesus and Buddha were quite common in the 19th century. There were a few books written on it but not easily accessible - some on archive.org, iirc, and maybe even Amazon. I was interested in the topic and had trouble finding info on it.

    There is an amusing attempt by alt-rightists to redefine Jesus as a an aggressive, selfish, tribal God who recommended you only turn the other cheek towards members of your tribe while lay waste the tribal enemy with fire and sword.

    For modern whites, tribalism is a step away from individualism, so I don't judge it too harshly - but eventually they'll find their way to a proper universalist religion like everyone else in the world. But you have to start with baby steps.

    As for Jesus and Buddha, I think the similarities are easily explained as manifestations of the Petrenial Tradition - this wisdom shows up everywhere around the world because Truth is not limited to one people or region.

    If I remember correctly, you understand Islam as a manifestation of this primordial perennial tradition, and as in fact the most correct version of it, and as such actually older than Judaism and Christianity.
  90. @Talha

    the fact that the ‘nice guy’ sayings of Jesus, are actually often copies of Buddhist sayings from hundreds of years earlier
     

    Christianity is actually a grafting of Buddhism
     
    Do you have a good, academic source for this theory that is relatively concise?

    Thanks in advance.

    Peace.

    Comparisons between Jesus and Buddha were quite common in the 19th century. There were a few books written on it but not easily accessible – some on archive.org, iirc, and maybe even Amazon. I was interested in the topic and had trouble finding info on it.

    There is an amusing attempt by alt-rightists to redefine Jesus as a an aggressive, selfish, tribal God who recommended you only turn the other cheek towards members of your tribe while lay waste the tribal enemy with fire and sword.

    For modern whites, tribalism is a step away from individualism, so I don’t judge it too harshly – but eventually they’ll find their way to a proper universalist religion like everyone else in the world. But you have to start with baby steps.

    As for Jesus and Buddha, I think the similarities are easily explained as manifestations of the Petrenial Tradition – this wisdom shows up everywhere around the world because Truth is not limited to one people or region.

    If I remember correctly, you understand Islam as a manifestation of this primordial perennial tradition, and as in fact the most correct version of it, and as such actually older than Judaism and Christianity.

    • Replies: @DFH

    a proper universalist religion like everyone else in the world
     
    Imagine being this stupid
    , @Talha
    That's unfortunate that nothing is easily available on it. I would have loved to read at least a few pages on the specific similarities in the teachings.

    you understand Islam as a manifestation of this primordial perennial tradition, and as in fact the most correct version of it, and as such actually older than Judaism and Christianity.
     
    Correct. I referenced this fairly good article on it in just another thread:
    “From the perspective of sacred history, however, as Muslims would understand it from their reading of the Qur’anic worldview, Islam is the oldest religion even predating the creation of human beings. Muslims view Islam as the primordial religion of the universe. If this sounds too metaphysical, simply consider the meaning of Islam – willing surrender to and harmony with God’s Will, meaning divine teachings and preferences.”

    https://islamfyi.princeton.edu/islam-essentials/

    In our perspective; Islam (submission) is not just the religion of man, but it is literally the very fiber that pervades the universe. Even if men choose not to bow, their shadows do:
    "Have they not observed the things Allah has created, their shadows inclining from the right and the left prostrating themselves before Allah in humility?..." (16:48)

    “The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein, glorify Him and there is not a thing but glorifies His Praise. But you do not understand their glorification. Truly, He is Ever-Forbearing, Oft-Forgiving” (17:44)

    Thunder itself is the hymn of lighting when it strikes (from the chapter called "Thunder"):
    "Thunder glorifies His praises, as do the angels in awe of Him..." (13:13)

    Similarities between the teachings (and even exact phrases) of Jesus (pbuh) and the Buddha would essentially point to what you are mentioning; a primordial religious tradition that is differs in slight details in regional and temporal manifestation, but which has a core essence that is recognizable across all variants.


    alt-rightists to redefine Jesus
     
    Certain aspects of the alt-right remind me of Salafism; a radical departure from inherited tradition. I examine stuff like this, the way I do with claims in my religion; "Really? Well let's see what the authorities in the tradition have been saying for the last couple of thousand years..."

    Peace.

  91. @voicum
    @Anatoly Karlin , i will start with a full disclaimer i am Romanian and i left the country , illegally , in 1985 at 33 years old but i have revisited my country five times since. I have always thought there was something off with you and your postings . here at Unz,Now i know what it is. You , sir ,are one of those people who do not know anything about anything and you do not , even , know it.You , sir , are NOT Tolstoi or Dostoevski or Soljenitin or Sakharov to purport at analyses of whole societies to which , by the way , you are alien to.You are , also , NOT , Tiolkovsky or Mendeleev or , even Pavlov , to think that you may have any analytical skills far far from it. You ARE basically a nonentity spewing nonsense (don't get me starting on your "graphs" and "statistics"}.

    I see Martyonov’s dyslexic twin is now commenting at Unz.

    • Replies: @voicum
    Only when one passes a certain level of narcissistic 'confidence' in himself.
  92. @AaronB
    Comparisons between Jesus and Buddha were quite common in the 19th century. There were a few books written on it but not easily accessible - some on archive.org, iirc, and maybe even Amazon. I was interested in the topic and had trouble finding info on it.

    There is an amusing attempt by alt-rightists to redefine Jesus as a an aggressive, selfish, tribal God who recommended you only turn the other cheek towards members of your tribe while lay waste the tribal enemy with fire and sword.

    For modern whites, tribalism is a step away from individualism, so I don't judge it too harshly - but eventually they'll find their way to a proper universalist religion like everyone else in the world. But you have to start with baby steps.

    As for Jesus and Buddha, I think the similarities are easily explained as manifestations of the Petrenial Tradition - this wisdom shows up everywhere around the world because Truth is not limited to one people or region.

    If I remember correctly, you understand Islam as a manifestation of this primordial perennial tradition, and as in fact the most correct version of it, and as such actually older than Judaism and Christianity.

    a proper universalist religion like everyone else in the world

    Imagine being this stupid

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I know - but I think you guys will improve.
  93. @AaronB
    Comparisons between Jesus and Buddha were quite common in the 19th century. There were a few books written on it but not easily accessible - some on archive.org, iirc, and maybe even Amazon. I was interested in the topic and had trouble finding info on it.

    There is an amusing attempt by alt-rightists to redefine Jesus as a an aggressive, selfish, tribal God who recommended you only turn the other cheek towards members of your tribe while lay waste the tribal enemy with fire and sword.

    For modern whites, tribalism is a step away from individualism, so I don't judge it too harshly - but eventually they'll find their way to a proper universalist religion like everyone else in the world. But you have to start with baby steps.

    As for Jesus and Buddha, I think the similarities are easily explained as manifestations of the Petrenial Tradition - this wisdom shows up everywhere around the world because Truth is not limited to one people or region.

    If I remember correctly, you understand Islam as a manifestation of this primordial perennial tradition, and as in fact the most correct version of it, and as such actually older than Judaism and Christianity.

    That’s unfortunate that nothing is easily available on it. I would have loved to read at least a few pages on the specific similarities in the teachings.

    you understand Islam as a manifestation of this primordial perennial tradition, and as in fact the most correct version of it, and as such actually older than Judaism and Christianity.

    Correct. I referenced this fairly good article on it in just another thread:
    “From the perspective of sacred history, however, as Muslims would understand it from their reading of the Qur’anic worldview, Islam is the oldest religion even predating the creation of human beings. Muslims view Islam as the primordial religion of the universe. If this sounds too metaphysical, simply consider the meaning of Islam – willing surrender to and harmony with God’s Will, meaning divine teachings and preferences.”

    https://islamfyi.princeton.edu/islam-essentials/

    In our perspective; Islam (submission) is not just the religion of man, but it is literally the very fiber that pervades the universe. Even if men choose not to bow, their shadows do:
    “Have they not observed the things Allah has created, their shadows inclining from the right and the left prostrating themselves before Allah in humility?…” (16:48)

    “The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein, glorify Him and there is not a thing but glorifies His Praise. But you do not understand their glorification. Truly, He is Ever-Forbearing, Oft-Forgiving” (17:44)

    Thunder itself is the hymn of lighting when it strikes (from the chapter called “Thunder”):
    “Thunder glorifies His praises, as do the angels in awe of Him…” (13:13)

    Similarities between the teachings (and even exact phrases) of Jesus (pbuh) and the Buddha would essentially point to what you are mentioning; a primordial religious tradition that is differs in slight details in regional and temporal manifestation, but which has a core essence that is recognizable across all variants.

    alt-rightists to redefine Jesus

    Certain aspects of the alt-right remind me of Salafism; a radical departure from inherited tradition. I examine stuff like this, the way I do with claims in my religion; “Really? Well let’s see what the authorities in the tradition have been saying for the last couple of thousand years…”

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I know, it was frustrating for me too, it's a fascinating topic. There ARE some good books on it, just not easily accessed. Schopenhauer also wrote on the similarities between the two in his essays.

    From my perspective, Jesus and Buddha are kindred spirits, but then so are the Sufis.

    An interesting comparison would be reading the Sermon On The Mount alongside the Dhammapada - I think much similarity will be found there.

    Edward Conze wrote a little essay easily found onlinek on the stark similarities between Buddhism and Christian mysticism.

    Underneath the outward forms, really it's all the same, but outward forms matter to different kinds of people.

    Western Europeans in particular seem to have a hard time seeing beyond surfaces - they think surfaces are solid and eternal. So I think they need a spirituality adapted to them.

    Bruce Charlton on his blog is working out a spirituality that may be well adapted to the Western European mind.
  94. @Hyperborean
    I wonder what would have happened to Thorez and Togliatti, Stalinist-loyalist leaders of the French and Italian communist parties respectively, if the Red Army had advanced further west?

    Most likely they would have been replaced. But it would have created a slight image problem.

    The most fortuitous route for Stalin was probably the one played by Thälmann.

    Thälmann served as a Stalinist agent of influence during the Weimar Era, but was conveniently executed by the National Socialists during the later phase of the war, which enabled the DDR authorities to continue the cult of personality Thälmann had built around him during the Interbellum Period without fear of independentist thought being exhibited.

    Well, creating cults of personality around people who were conveniently dead was not uncommon in Communist societies.


    I found this Stalinist website praising Thälmann and, amusingly, denouncing the DDR for being a ''social fascist'' (social democratic) state.

    http://ciml.250x.com/sections/german_section/teddy/english/thalmann_english.html

    It’s often fascinating to read the writings of people who are still Communists. They are like living fossils, to compare to the globalists of today.

    It’s funny that they could still be arguing about dead personalities. I suppose there is the eternal romance of the Communism which was never implemented. I always thought Ulbricht had a funny and appropriate nickname for a puppet: “the Goatee.”

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It's a stupid idea, but as a reaction to even stupider ideas, still it has some positive aspects.

    When you see religious people like Talha and AaronB above, still talking in primitive religious ways in the 21st century, then for a moment you will feel more kindly for the Soviet Union, which at least forced people to live in a real world and to study science.

    Problem of communism - even in theory (in practice more serious other problems), was herd or collectivist/mass mentality, idealization of the state, idealization equality of income, and lack of respect for private property.

    Deepest spiritual problem above, is veneration of collective or herd, - which is expression of fundamentally weak people, but one existent in many other ideologies and religions beside communism.
  95. @Talha
    That's unfortunate that nothing is easily available on it. I would have loved to read at least a few pages on the specific similarities in the teachings.

    you understand Islam as a manifestation of this primordial perennial tradition, and as in fact the most correct version of it, and as such actually older than Judaism and Christianity.
     
    Correct. I referenced this fairly good article on it in just another thread:
    “From the perspective of sacred history, however, as Muslims would understand it from their reading of the Qur’anic worldview, Islam is the oldest religion even predating the creation of human beings. Muslims view Islam as the primordial religion of the universe. If this sounds too metaphysical, simply consider the meaning of Islam – willing surrender to and harmony with God’s Will, meaning divine teachings and preferences.”

    https://islamfyi.princeton.edu/islam-essentials/

    In our perspective; Islam (submission) is not just the religion of man, but it is literally the very fiber that pervades the universe. Even if men choose not to bow, their shadows do:
    "Have they not observed the things Allah has created, their shadows inclining from the right and the left prostrating themselves before Allah in humility?..." (16:48)

    “The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein, glorify Him and there is not a thing but glorifies His Praise. But you do not understand their glorification. Truly, He is Ever-Forbearing, Oft-Forgiving” (17:44)

    Thunder itself is the hymn of lighting when it strikes (from the chapter called "Thunder"):
    "Thunder glorifies His praises, as do the angels in awe of Him..." (13:13)

    Similarities between the teachings (and even exact phrases) of Jesus (pbuh) and the Buddha would essentially point to what you are mentioning; a primordial religious tradition that is differs in slight details in regional and temporal manifestation, but which has a core essence that is recognizable across all variants.


    alt-rightists to redefine Jesus
     
    Certain aspects of the alt-right remind me of Salafism; a radical departure from inherited tradition. I examine stuff like this, the way I do with claims in my religion; "Really? Well let's see what the authorities in the tradition have been saying for the last couple of thousand years..."

    Peace.

    I know, it was frustrating for me too, it’s a fascinating topic. There ARE some good books on it, just not easily accessed. Schopenhauer also wrote on the similarities between the two in his essays.

    From my perspective, Jesus and Buddha are kindred spirits, but then so are the Sufis.

    An interesting comparison would be reading the Sermon On The Mount alongside the Dhammapada – I think much similarity will be found there.

    Edward Conze wrote a little essay easily found onlinek on the stark similarities between Buddhism and Christian mysticism.

    Underneath the outward forms, really it’s all the same, but outward forms matter to different kinds of people.

    Western Europeans in particular seem to have a hard time seeing beyond surfaces – they think surfaces are solid and eternal. So I think they need a spirituality adapted to them.

    Bruce Charlton on his blog is working out a spirituality that may be well adapted to the Western European mind.

    • Replies: @Talha
    I did some searching around and came across this:
    https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Buddha-Parallel-Sayings-Seastone/dp/1569751692

    Though I don't know how reliable it is.

    Edward Conze wrote a little essay easily found online
     
    I'll check it out.

    Christian mysticism
     
    Some early Christian mystics deeply impressed the early Muslims. I can't remember which famous Sufi shaykh it was, but he acknowledged a great deal of his spirituality to his companionship with a Christian monk.

    Bruce Charlton on his blog is working out a spirituality that may be well adapted to the Western European mind.
     
    This one?
    http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/

    Peace.
  96. @DFH

    a proper universalist religion like everyone else in the world
     
    Imagine being this stupid

    I know – but I think you guys will improve.

  97. @Dmitry

    It is a mixed blessing.
    They get money and pay with people who migrate to the older members who fix their demographic issues at the expense of the poor countries.
     
    For poor countries it's all great, they receive free vast wealth given to them from wealthy countries, and economic access to their markets (with the only problem that it might be too nice to keep best people from going to wealthier countries - but this happens even outside EU).

    But for wealthy EU countries, it's almost a reverse - almost completely negative for taxpayers in these countries to allow poor countries into the system, who they then have to give vast free money to until they converge economically with them.

    For this reason, EU project designed to be as unclear to voters in wealthy countries as possible, while at the same time also designed to be impossible to escape.

    In a miracle UK seems to be escaping it, but now the EU is demanding a $50 billion "exit bill". Despite the fact UK has given tens of billions of free money to the EU, every year, for tens of years. It's kind of comical how badly fucked the UK is being by the EU, in comparison to how much countries like Spain, Poland or Romania benefit from it. It's really "socialism" between countries. Poor EU countries receive more than they could ever dream, while wealthy EU countries more than they could ever nightmare.

    Well the final nightmare, of Turkey's membership in the EU, has at least been avoided (aside from permanent billions of dollars of annual free subsidies to Turkey, this would have resulted in millions of Turkish people immigrating to the wealthiest EU countries).

    For poor countries it’s all great, they receive free vast wealth given to them from wealthy countries, and economic access to their markets (with the only problem that it might be too nice to keep best people from going to wealthier countries – but this happens even outside EU).

    Outside of the EU, there is no such freedom of movement between rich and poor country that encourages migration.

    But for wealthy EU countries, it’s almost a reverse – almost completely negative for taxpayers in these countries to allow poor countries into the system, who they then have to give vast free money to until they converge economically with them.

    Depends on the taxpayers you are talking about.
    For corporate taxpayers who gain improved access to markets and cheap labor, it is a good deal.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Well since in EU, no harmonious policy - it depends on what country you are talking about. In Ireland - great to be a corporate taxpayer. In France, not so much.

    Fortunately, the corporation can move, and there is no yet a harmonious policy. So there is something still positive in the inharmony of current EU. That the corporation does not have to be incorporated in the same country, but can easily move to another one which has lower taxation, while still having access to all same markets (and even, with some movement of residence, you can take employees with you - and they don't need visas).

  98. Biserica is an interesting word. It looks like a result of phonetic evolution of Latin “basilica”, but Romanian also has a phonetically unchanged version of that (used to describe a type of Catholic church.)
    https://ro.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazilic%C4%83_patriarhal%C4%83
    Is bazilica a recent loan word, and biserica an ancient one?

    And what is a keto cheeseburger?

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Biserica is an interesting word. It looks like a result of phonetic evolution of Latin “basilica”

    You're right, it is. It is a "popular" form which underwent Romanian "rhotacism" whereby [l] & [n] → [r] between vowels. Other examples are cer ("heaven") from Latin CAELUM, fericire ("happiness") from FELICITAS, and fereastră ("window") from FENESTRA.

    In contrast, bazilica is a "learned" form which would have been adopted at a later date.

    All of the Romance languages have similar "popular" - "learned" doublets, e.g., French (and hence English) loyal - légal (from Latin LEGALIS).
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    And what is a keto cheeseburger?
     
    No carb burger (alternately called a "fitness" burger or "hipster" burger, at least in Russia). Basic version has two lettuce leafs serving as the buns; fancier versions use nut-based breads.
  99. @Toronto Russian
    Biserica is an interesting word. It looks like a result of phonetic evolution of Latin "basilica", but Romanian also has a phonetically unchanged version of that (used to describe a type of Catholic church.)
    https://ro.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazilic%C4%83_patriarhal%C4%83
    Is bazilica a recent loan word, and biserica an ancient one?

    And what is a keto cheeseburger?

    Biserica is an interesting word. It looks like a result of phonetic evolution of Latin “basilica”

    You’re right, it is. It is a “popular” form which underwent Romanian “rhotacism” whereby [l] & [n] → [r] between vowels. Other examples are cer (“heaven”) from Latin CAELUM, fericire (“happiness”) from FELICITAS, and fereastră (“window”) from FENESTRA.

    In contrast, bazilica is a “learned” form which would have been adopted at a later date.

    All of the Romance languages have similar “popular” – “learned” doublets, e.g., French (and hence English) loyal – légal (from Latin LEGALIS).

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian
    Thanks!
    , @Seraphim
    Bazilica is indeed a 'learned' scholarly term and is applied only when talking about the ancient Roman buildings. A technical term rather.
  100. @AaronB
    I know, it was frustrating for me too, it's a fascinating topic. There ARE some good books on it, just not easily accessed. Schopenhauer also wrote on the similarities between the two in his essays.

    From my perspective, Jesus and Buddha are kindred spirits, but then so are the Sufis.

    An interesting comparison would be reading the Sermon On The Mount alongside the Dhammapada - I think much similarity will be found there.

    Edward Conze wrote a little essay easily found onlinek on the stark similarities between Buddhism and Christian mysticism.

    Underneath the outward forms, really it's all the same, but outward forms matter to different kinds of people.

    Western Europeans in particular seem to have a hard time seeing beyond surfaces - they think surfaces are solid and eternal. So I think they need a spirituality adapted to them.

    Bruce Charlton on his blog is working out a spirituality that may be well adapted to the Western European mind.

    I did some searching around and came across this:

    Though I don’t know how reliable it is.

    Edward Conze wrote a little essay easily found online

    I’ll check it out.

    Christian mysticism

    Some early Christian mystics deeply impressed the early Muslims. I can’t remember which famous Sufi shaykh it was, but he acknowledged a great deal of his spirituality to his companionship with a Christian monk.

    Bruce Charlton on his blog is working out a spirituality that may be well adapted to the Western European mind.

    This one?
    http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Yep, that Bruce Charlton.

    I am not a fan of his particular brand of spirituality, but he often says some remarkably good things - only to follow it up with a bunch of posts that cancel it out and return us to the modern mindset. So he's very mixed, but worth reading.

    He himself says he is trying to fuse aspects of the modern mentality - which he thinks was part of a necessary stage of development (like all moderns, he believes in "progress")- with traditional spirituality.

    Sometimes when he offers his mature vision, it is hardly distinguishable from traditional spirituality - which is where he will probably end up after his lengthy spiritual peregrinations.

    But I think he may be very helpful to modern Westerners as having crafted a transitional spirituality well adapted to modern Westerners - one cannot simply leap from hard materialism, logic, and science into traditional spirituality.
  101. @songbird
    It's often fascinating to read the writings of people who are still Communists. They are like living fossils, to compare to the globalists of today.

    It's funny that they could still be arguing about dead personalities. I suppose there is the eternal romance of the Communism which was never implemented. I always thought Ulbricht had a funny and appropriate nickname for a puppet: "the Goatee."

    It’s a stupid idea, but as a reaction to even stupider ideas, still it has some positive aspects.

    When you see religious people like Talha and AaronB above, still talking in primitive religious ways in the 21st century, then for a moment you will feel more kindly for the Soviet Union, which at least forced people to live in a real world and to study science.

    Problem of communism – even in theory (in practice more serious other problems), was herd or collectivist/mass mentality, idealization of the state, idealization equality of income, and lack of respect for private property.

    Deepest spiritual problem above, is veneration of collective or herd, – which is expression of fundamentally weak people, but one existent in many other ideologies and religions beside communism.

    • Replies: @Mitleser

    When you see religious people like Talha and AaronB above, still talking in primitive religious ways in the 21st century, then for a moment you will feel more kindly for the Soviet Union, which at least forced people to live in a real world and to study science.
     
    And worship their prophet Lenin.
    I would respect the anti-religious stance of the Commies more if it was not used to replace established religion with their own pseudo-religion.
    In the end, it proved that religion has a place in the real world.
    , @Talha

    When you see religious people like Talha and AaronB above, still talking in primitive religious ways in the 21st century, then for a moment you will feel more kindly for the Soviet Union, which at least forced people to live in a real world and to study science.
     
    Yes, let's talk real world...

    https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/05/fertility.png

    At this pace, what AaronB and I are bantering about is far more likely going to be the discussion well into the 25th century.

    Peace.
    , @DFH

    When you see religious people like Talha and AaronB above, still talking in primitive religious ways in the 21st century
     
    Don't use them to tar all religion. AaronB believes in meaningless deracinated new age crap, Talha's religion was invented by savages for savages.
    , @AaronB
    The real world?

    I shall quote myself here.


    Western Europeans in particular seem to have a hard time seeing beyond surfaces – they think surfaces are solid and eternal. So I think they need a spirituality adapted to them.
     
    We just have to find the right spirituality for you, D. I think you should check out http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/

    He tries to retains large parts of the modern materialistic mindset - so he will probably appeal to you.

  102. @Talha
    I did some searching around and came across this:
    https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Buddha-Parallel-Sayings-Seastone/dp/1569751692

    Though I don't know how reliable it is.

    Edward Conze wrote a little essay easily found online
     
    I'll check it out.

    Christian mysticism
     
    Some early Christian mystics deeply impressed the early Muslims. I can't remember which famous Sufi shaykh it was, but he acknowledged a great deal of his spirituality to his companionship with a Christian monk.

    Bruce Charlton on his blog is working out a spirituality that may be well adapted to the Western European mind.
     
    This one?
    http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/

    Peace.

    Yep, that Bruce Charlton.

    I am not a fan of his particular brand of spirituality, but he often says some remarkably good things – only to follow it up with a bunch of posts that cancel it out and return us to the modern mindset. So he’s very mixed, but worth reading.

    He himself says he is trying to fuse aspects of the modern mentality – which he thinks was part of a necessary stage of development (like all moderns, he believes in “progress”)- with traditional spirituality.

    Sometimes when he offers his mature vision, it is hardly distinguishable from traditional spirituality – which is where he will probably end up after his lengthy spiritual peregrinations.

    But I think he may be very helpful to modern Westerners as having crafted a transitional spirituality well adapted to modern Westerners – one cannot simply leap from hard materialism, logic, and science into traditional spirituality.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Definitely sounds interesting.

    one cannot simply leap from hard materialism, logic, and science into traditional spirituality.
     
    Usually not, unless one has a "road to Damascus" or other visceral life-changing experience.

    Peace.
  103. @Mitleser

    For poor countries it’s all great, they receive free vast wealth given to them from wealthy countries, and economic access to their markets (with the only problem that it might be too nice to keep best people from going to wealthier countries – but this happens even outside EU).
     
    Outside of the EU, there is no such freedom of movement between rich and poor country that encourages migration.

    But for wealthy EU countries, it’s almost a reverse – almost completely negative for taxpayers in these countries to allow poor countries into the system, who they then have to give vast free money to until they converge economically with them.
     
    Depends on the taxpayers you are talking about.
    For corporate taxpayers who gain improved access to markets and cheap labor, it is a good deal.

    Well since in EU, no harmonious policy – it depends on what country you are talking about. In Ireland – great to be a corporate taxpayer. In France, not so much.

    Fortunately, the corporation can move, and there is no yet a harmonious policy. So there is something still positive in the inharmony of current EU. That the corporation does not have to be incorporated in the same country, but can easily move to another one which has lower taxation, while still having access to all same markets (and even, with some movement of residence, you can take employees with you – and they don’t need visas).

  104. @Dmitry
    It's a stupid idea, but as a reaction to even stupider ideas, still it has some positive aspects.

    When you see religious people like Talha and AaronB above, still talking in primitive religious ways in the 21st century, then for a moment you will feel more kindly for the Soviet Union, which at least forced people to live in a real world and to study science.

    Problem of communism - even in theory (in practice more serious other problems), was herd or collectivist/mass mentality, idealization of the state, idealization equality of income, and lack of respect for private property.

    Deepest spiritual problem above, is veneration of collective or herd, - which is expression of fundamentally weak people, but one existent in many other ideologies and religions beside communism.

    When you see religious people like Talha and AaronB above, still talking in primitive religious ways in the 21st century, then for a moment you will feel more kindly for the Soviet Union, which at least forced people to live in a real world and to study science.

    And worship their prophet Lenin.
    I would respect the anti-religious stance of the Commies more if it was not used to replace established religion with their own pseudo-religion.
    In the end, it proved that religion has a place in the real world.

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Cult of the Machine God also has highly sophisticated technology.
    , @inertial
    Hey, wait a second. Lenin was not literally worshiped. You are using a word in a metaphorical sense. No one prayed to Lenin, or sacrificed animals, or whatever. He was not expected to help you from beyond the grave or smite your enemies. That would be weird.
  105. @songbird
    Regarding Turkey, I would not say "avoided" so much as "delayed."

    That, I believe, is in the sense of the goals of the leadership. Many want a pan-Mediterranean Union. And if they ever once seriously considered North Africa, then there is no way they would baulk at an obviously dysfunctional Turkey.

    They are ideologues. It is a question of what they are permitted to do, rather than one of them actually changing their goals.

    If it wasn't so serious, it would almost be funny: it's called the EU, and they are trying to integrate Asia Minor. How could they possibly delude themselves into thinking that falls into their mandate?

    At some stage, they have to learn limits in their ambitions – Turkey is the absolute limitation point.

    You already cannot make the successful North Western European countries, swallow and fund indiscriminately, the unsuccessful countries, without damaging the successful North Western European countries.

    All that happens is North Western European countries have to fund eternally Southern European and Eastern European countries they are swallowing. Add countries like Romania to EU – and result is EU becomes more like Romania.

    EU already went insane and made the wealthy countries swallow the poor ones (well the really wealthy countries – Norway and Switzerland – avoid the entire organization).

    But there has to be absolute limit when it reaches Turkey (80 million brown Muslims), that is a bomb large enough that if they swallow it, could finally destroy the entire EU organization.

  106. @Dmitry
    It's a stupid idea, but as a reaction to even stupider ideas, still it has some positive aspects.

    When you see religious people like Talha and AaronB above, still talking in primitive religious ways in the 21st century, then for a moment you will feel more kindly for the Soviet Union, which at least forced people to live in a real world and to study science.

    Problem of communism - even in theory (in practice more serious other problems), was herd or collectivist/mass mentality, idealization of the state, idealization equality of income, and lack of respect for private property.

    Deepest spiritual problem above, is veneration of collective or herd, - which is expression of fundamentally weak people, but one existent in many other ideologies and religions beside communism.

    When you see religious people like Talha and AaronB above, still talking in primitive religious ways in the 21st century, then for a moment you will feel more kindly for the Soviet Union, which at least forced people to live in a real world and to study science.

    Yes, let’s talk real world…

    At this pace, what AaronB and I are bantering about is far more likely going to be the discussion well into the 25th century.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @DFH