One piece of news some of you might have missed is that Romania is now officially a hybrid regime. Not as bad as russia (yet) but as bad as Bosnia, Armenia, Georgia, Türkiye, Ukraine, Tunisia or Morocco.

This update from The Economist surprised absolutely nobody here. Even the Regime shills aren’t trying too hard to disprove it and instead resort to attacking The Economist itself because they list Hungary as better. Now, to be fair, that’s a good point as our Magyar neighbors are also running a hybrid regime. But that doesn’t change the fact that Romania is a hybrid regime which is categorized as having a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections.

So it’s on this backdrop that the last night’s announcement came on the candidacy of Călin Georgescu having been rejected. Sure, everyone on the real and fake dissident side pretends it’s shocked. It brings great social media clicks and sweet Twitter/X dollars.

The case

On legality, the procedure is as follows: One files for candidacy with the electoral central bureau (BEC – Biroul Electoral Central) and BEC evaluates if the procedure was accomplished (have the correct signatures, have the correct general paperwork and be eligible to run). These are the grounds on which BEC can reject a candidacy.

In the case of Georgescu, they relied on the latter – eligibility to run, effectively motivating that since the Constitutional Court annulled the whole process in December 2024 due to Georgescu’s irregularities and positions and ordered a rerun from the very beginning (new signatures, new campaign, new everything) then it follows that Georgescu’s candidacy runs the risk of a new annulment. You can read the whole thing here but the most important part is this:

It’s a convoluted phrasing but it basically means: “We cancelled the election because of this guy so of course he’s ineligible for the rerun too.”

Strictly procedurally speaking, he can file an appeal to the decision but that appeal can only be filed at the Constitutional Court. That’d be the same Constitutional Court that annulled the election. So the likelihood of the Court having a change of heart is really, really, really low.

This is also due to a specific provision in the Constitution which specifies that the process for electing the President is explicitly subjected to censure only by the Constitutional Court. It’s why these kinds of shenanigans are unheard of in the general/legislative elections or the local elections – where censure is done by proper courts with a much higher standard of evidence.

To be fair to the Regime, this motivation, albeit crazy, is less crazy than the initial one – which was that some paperwork was not properly signed and some bureaucratic gobbledygook.

But then again: we all expected this. And, in many ways, it is in fact better that it happened last night rather than on March the 19th (which is the latest when the Constitutional Court can have opinions before we move to actual campaigning and printing the ballots).

Why it’s better now? Because there’s another deadline: March 15th, 11:59PM Eastern European Time (GMT+2). That’s the deadline until anyone can file for candidacy. Now that we know Georgescu is out, it leaves several options open (more on that soon).

Reactions

Of course, each according to his interest, had their reactions. The crypto scammer and Elon Musk’s pool boy, Mario Nawfal, was by far the most active in promoting the outrage. Of course, he has to since he got a decent amount of shekalim to shill for Georgescu.

Meanwhile, the Regime even pushed its own ministers (Sebastian Burduja is the minister of energy) to try to get is side of the story out – albeit with limited success. It doesn’t help when you unironically write that it is democratic to cancel elections.

The deputy prime minister of Italy, Matteo Salvini, called the decision a Soviet-style coup d’etat and argued that before considering ReArming Europe, maybe we should first re-found it to defend democracy.

The reason Matteo Salvini says this is because his party is not a big fan of the military but also because he wants to be noticed by JD Vance. There is also an electoral reason: his political party always polled poorly with Romanians (the largest minority in Italy) even though Romanians who can vote there did pull the lever for Giorgia Meloni (but also for Călin Georgescu as part of the overseas constituency vote).

There were also some skirmishes in the Old Town (where also the HQ of the electoral bureau is located). Nothing too serious, contrary to the claims on X. The most spectacular (and the most well-deserved) part was the overturning of the car from the TV station Digi24. Those fuckers absolutely deserve it by default.

Imagine CNN during Obama but far worse in terms of ass-kissing for the Regime. Nobody is worse than them in shilling for the Regime and even other media people have started to adopt the dissidents’ nicknames for them – like PNL24 or UM Digi0024 (which is a portmanteau between their name and the naming convention for military facilities and it’s meant to emphasize that they’re part of the Mukhābarāt).

Much more interesting (and far more consequential both short term and long term) are the reactions from those who represent the future.

Older subscribers might remember Claudiu Năsui. Here’s him on the euro currency and cash payments 8 years ago on the Sofa. He remained in the westoid left party (USR) and even served as minister for the economy for a while during the Pandemic Project.

The thing is that he’s not alone in having this reaction. The president of his party, Elena Lasconi, also thinks similarly.

With very few exceptions, everyone with a voice and a modicum of influence that is younger than 50 that is not a fan of Călin Georgescu has also indicated disgust with the decision.

Heck, even the Regime’s candidate, Crin Antonescu (supported by the national liberals, the social democrats, the Hungarian minority’s party and some nominally non-governmental forces) also said he’d prefer Călin Georgescu runs and loses rather than fuel a conspiracy theory in the wider society. But, he said that 4 days ago. At the moment of this writing he hasn’t come out with a reaction. Probably because he’s sleeping (and I’m not even joking – the guy fell asleep on live TV 15 years ago and fell asleep during Parliamentary sessions routinely).

Meanwhile, George Simion (president of AUR/ECR which supports Georgescu) said that those responsible for this decision should be skinned alive in public. I agree with him, though for entirely different reasons. Like the majority of the country, idgaf about Georgescu at all, but purposefully harming bureaucrats generally speaking sounds like a good idea. Though I’m disappointed that nobody suggested the tried-and-tested Romanian method left to us as Tradition from Vlad Dracul III. To be fair, transversal impalement from Hungary also sounds pretty attractive. Okay, gore fantasy moment over.

On a more serious note, whether it takes 3 years or 7, the future does lie with PNL and PSD being replaced by (some version of) USR and AUR. At this point it’s a done deal. Just like it’s a done deal that the Constitutional Court will get reformed long before 2040. In which direction, that remains to be seen, of course.

A few words on the candidate

One thing young(er) people and most of non-systemic voices understand while the Regime doesn’t is that nearly all of the vote and support for Călin Georgescu is not for Călin Georgescu at all.

Slowly, but surely, even Regime inconspicuous shills are admitting this. Partly because they want some of the votes that may be up for grabs but also partly because damage control is the order of the day.

Ultimately though, this is too little and too late. We have a ~40% portion of the populace that thinks the whole system needs a boot in the teeth just because. And that part of the public will vote for anyone that can scare these fuckers. Georgescu scares them. It really is that simple.

On the other hand, we have to keep in mind that Georgescu really is a loon. He has a horse fetish – the guy unironically said that the horse industry could reduce unemployment to zero. Please do keep in mind that unemployment is below EU average in Romania and in several industries there is in fact a labor shortage. But such facts are not particularly important for the philosophical space in which the Georgescu campaign is existing.

Ultimately, in addition to being a grifter, this guy is 62 and his formative years as a man were under Communism and his formative years as a politician were in the tumultuous 1990s when unemployment indeed was sky high. Boomers his age routinely do have factually wrong takes on the economy based on impressions that were at least partially true in the early 1990s. All countries have a cohort of people who are simply stuck somewhere in the past, mentally speaking. And Romania is no exception.

But again, that doesn’t explain his crazy electoral numbers and polling. Most of the vote did not (and would not have) come from people who agree with him on much.

This can very easily be observed in every single poll or by simply talking to his (potential) voters on the streets. It’s not hard to find them either.

The media’s frenzy isn’t bought by almost anyone. And of course it isn’t. After you told the plebs they’re putinists if they don’t wear a mask or don’t subject themselves to a highly dangerous medical procedure, expecting them to believe you now that Georgescu is a putinist is madness. It’s the price the establishment is paying for very recent past abuses. And there’s nothing they can really do about that.

Okay, now what?

Well, until March 15th there are several scenarios that can be considered. I will run under the perfectly reasonable assumption that Călin Georgescu will lose the appeal at the Constitutional Court. So:

1. Călin Georgescu endorses George Simion
2. Călin Georgescu doesn’t endorse anyone before March 19 and then picks another less known candidate
3. Călin Georgescu endorses Victor Ponta
4. Călin Georgescu (or his minions) call for a violent uprising and succeeds in getting it
5. The sovereignists boycott the election
6. The CIA stages a coup d’etat here

The first scenario is by far the most elegant one and the most likely one too. George Simion already has the signatures raised (although you’ll not find an official from AUR admitting that) and, quite frankly, there is no other realistic candidate that can gather most of Georgescu’s votes.

Sure, the terminally online dissidents as well as the most hardcore Georgescu fans won’t like this and are fuming these days. Buuuut, what Simion would lose from this side would definitely gain on the other side – namely the side that sees Georgescu as a loon but finds Simion perfectly acceptable as a catapult of Molotovs against the Regime.

Also, please do keep in mind that some of the most vocal terminally online dissidents are also anonymous and some of them are in fact paid for by russia. But then again, the same is true for some of the vocal shills of other candidates (in particular Victor Ponta and Nicușor Dan).

Very late in the night yesterday the party’s ideologue came out and warmed the audience on a possible-we-don’t-know-yet candidacy by George Simion. I’m totally surprised (not!) that the rhetoric is basically the same that we gave in a podcast weeks ago – namely that Simion will be asked to make a sacrifice even though he said he won’t run because the Party demands it and the superiour interest of the “sovereignists” are at stake.

Hey, I could still be proven wrong on this one. We’ll see in 5 days.

The second scenario would be more in-character for Călin Georgescu but the problem is that the anonymous candidates so far weren’t lucky in getting their candidacies admitted (insufficient signatures). This hinges on whether Georgescu’s handlers actually want to win at this point or not.

The third scenario is more likely to happen than it’s being given credit right now. Victor Ponta (former prime minister between 2012 and 2015 and a Regime apparatchik prior to that) is running as an independent although he’s an MP for the social democrats. Yes, this is as clownish as it sounds. He’s been trying really hard o paint himself lately as a “sovereignist” but that turned out to be harder than previously thought because, well… it turns out that the electorate isn’t that forgetful. And as prime minister he sucked more than others.

On the other hand, RTV (a TV station that could sometimes make Alex Jones blush) supported both him and Georgescu. So with Georgescu out, that part of the media ecosystem will go full steam ahead for Ponta. Georgescu’s endorsement could get the ball rolling for the (former?) social-democrat.

Context for our friends not familiar with postcommunist history: Victor Ponta and Crin Antonescu were the architects of the 2012 Social-Liberal Union which aimed to amend the constitution and oust President Băsescu. They failed at both, but they got almost a supermajority in the Parliament which didn’t deliver on most of their other promises and tainted the national-liberals for years (which mattered then because until 2020 the national liberals were nowhere near the subhuman scum of the Earth that they are now).

So, in a way, having both Ponta and Crin Antonescu on the ballot this May provides the unique opportunity to flatten both and, with them, the 2012 project and everything they (ever) represent(ed). For now, things are trending in that direction. But if Georgescu endorses Ponta, the feng shui would seriously be altered.

The fourth scenario has already been tried last night. For footage with the skirmishes, see this live text. It failed, for now.

Prediction: It will continue to fail. We will probably see more skirmishes but it’s highly unlikely to see any serious violence. Sure, the LARP-ing on the Internet sounds tough but, realistically, there simply aren’t enough people willing to be injured or die for Călin Georgescu. Most of his (potential) voters would be just fine with switching to Simion and continue to annoy the Regime that way.

The only way this changes is if the next scenario comes to fruition. Then we might see an increased appetite for chimping out. I still don’t think it’ll be a big enough for an effective revolt, but it might get messy. Or at the very least messier than what we’ve seen so far (which, really, by this region’s standards, was entirely peaceful).

The fifth scenario would be bad short term but not a big deal long term.

For the short term, in addition to prolonging a lack of representation for ~40% of the voting public, such a scenario would legitimize voter suppression propaganda just in a time when it was losing its effectiveness.

Long term, however, I doubt it will have any negative effect. Mostly because Simion has a narrower path to victory.

Also, this allows for more time to build and carefully guide the anger into a “too big to rig” victory in the next Parliament. Though, such an approach, would also require more wisdom in the “sovereignist” camp which, we have to admit, is just not there right now.

The sixth scenario is fan fiction. But it’s fun to think about it.

Realistically, it’s also the least likely scenario. Contrary to both legacy and new media panic porn, the Trump administration continued all of the military projects here and this has always been the only thing the Empire ever cared about here.

Where it matters, the new administration in Washington showed no discernible sign of dissatisfaction. As such, the likelihood of any visible intervention is minimal, for the time being.

With that said, if protests turn into revolts, the likelihood of an Empire intervention increases. In which direction, that remains to be seen.

A’ight so… that’s about it. That’d be the shortest summary possible from the frontline of the only hybrid regime in the European Union.

Thanks for being a subscriber and reading this 🙏

See y’all soon.

In my house live my pregnant wife and my son. Not my partner and my offspring. And no, we aren’t pregnant; my wife is.

According to the social engineers of the current year(s), we’re pregnant is cute and an expression of togetherness. That would be hilarious if it weren’t weird and dehumanizing. If I get a prostate cancer, everyone can rest assured that my wife won’t be fighting it. She can’t. And that’s okay. Just like it’s okay that I’m not pregnant because I can’t.

A few days ago, another group of social engineers published a new “study” on how to re-educate Latin Americans into accepting being called Latinx. I showed this to my Venezuelan colleague. And, before you ask, yes he is one of the Venezuelans who immigrated to Hungary allegedly in secrecy. So secretly that the media wrote about it. Anyway, suffice to say that my very well-educated Venezuelan colleague didn’t react quite well to being told by a gringo that he’s uneducated because he doesn’t accept the mutilation of his native tongue or that he’s a bad person because he doesn’t accept the inherent dehumanization that comes with so-called inclusive language.

This may not seem like an important issue, even though it’s in top 3 issues that may lose the Democrats the election in a week. But it’s important enough for those of us who, because of our work, have to stumble upon and sometimes work with these pendejos – the people who put their pronouns in their signatures (even though nobody asked), the people who write Bauarbeiter:innen unironically in German, todxs in Spanish and, of course, weird pronouns and the already known crap present in English.

Now, the good news is that those “culture warriors” (for lack of a better term) have managed to meaningfully push back at least in some corners, but it’s simply not enough. And one way to improve this is to emphasize to the normies how they’re being dehumanized by this.

One thing I’ve learned from the Sofa is that arguing logically with these extremists is pointless. What works is convincing the audience that what these loons propose is evil and deranged. And on this issue, the shortest way to do exactly that is to re-frame the whole discussion in these terms: The whole idea is dehumanizing.

Yes, it requires a bit of an appeal to emotion (like done in the first paragraph) but is it really appeal to emotion if it’s also true? That’s rhetorical, because ultimately it doesn’t matter. The real world is not the Oxford Debate Society as the boss is fond of saying.

The argument

Every time you use “inclusive language” you are purposefully minimizing and arguably dehumanizing the normal and normative Majority (capital M necessary here) without actually being inclusive at all.

My wife is certainly not more “included” when referred to as part of Lehrer*innen (teachers in “inclusive” German). And certainly the minority of male teachers aren’t more included either by being referred to as part of an awfully written concept that uses the feminine termination. And there is zero evidence that the 3 to 5 “transgender” teachers in the German-speaking world are suddenly more “included” because the way you say/write “teachers” has now been mutilated.

Peak-dehumanization happens when this ideology seeps into very concrete conversations – like those about sex. Including with confused teenagers.

A few months ago me and my wife were at a party with a truly diverse crowd – the diversity that matters, that is. And sometime late at night as a few of us were chatting and, as it always happens when it’s after 2AM and everyone has had a bit to drink, the conversation eventually drifted to politics and then to sex and sexuality. Nothing wrong with that, we’re all adults and since me and my missus are known to be sex positive, it’s no surprise (to us) that eventually such topics would be inserted into the conversation because even those who disagree with us yearn to talk with a truly sex positive couple.

But it wasn’t the disagreement that triggered my ire and the bigger ire from my wife – but the language.

At some point we were chatting about sex ed in the family as most attendees were parents of teenagers or tweens. It was already bad enough that the more lefty-inclined were using therapy language and ideologically charged terms as we were discussing whether the recent fads among the youth are really new or we’ve just become more open about discussing these things. But all hell broke loose with my missus when a British woman interjected:

Of course, it will be different for those who raise a person doing the penetration.

I was still thinking of a witty way to reply in such a way that mocks the very thought process that led to someone uttering such a string of words but, by the time my thought process could come up with something in a language I’m not that good at, my wife had already taken the initiative, showing once again that it’s men and women not bonus holes and persons doing the penetration. I mean… nobody insults a woman better than another woman!

Again, we were all adults, so the whole interaction eventually led to a very profound discussion about ideological poisoning and possession but, even so, the fact that someone seemingly intelligent can refer to our sons as the person doing the penetration got me thinking: How many such people are there? And how many of them are in position to educate our children?

Maybe there aren’t that many (I still cling to optimism) but if someone like me, effectively apolitical until three years ago, can encounter straight-up Reddit type of ideological language out there “in the wild”, then there must be more than a few of such people.

Why it matters

A Moldovan was saying 5 years ago, referring to russian-derived calques that are mutilating the Romanian language: The person who speaks badly definitely thinks badly – and will inevitably act badly.

There are of course many more quotes (some of them mis-attributed, some outright false) that convey the same meaning: Whoever controls the language, eventually controls thought. At least in part.

And this is why it matters. Adults fooling around at a private party at 2AM in Budapest, especially adults who could afford to fly in for the event and also afford families or other arrangements so they can leave their kid(s) safely behind – that is not an issue.

However, adults fooling around perverting descriptive language around children, is an issue. And it’s quite hard to argue that it isn’t. Because children learn through imitation.

My son is never late because he sees his father always striving to never be late. My nephew is always a bit late because, just like his father, my dear brother, he is more approximate with time management.

My son speaks politely because he saw his parents always speak politely first. My son will also unleash a torrent of highly creative insults if you piss him off needlessly because that’s what he saw his parents do. My son will also effortlessly stand up for himself in most situations because that’s what his parents and most of his peers do (and we made an active effort to handpick those peers, once again contrary to the “wisdom” shared online incessantly).

Children’s minds are easily impressionable. That’s why how we act around children matters. It’s not the be all and end all in every situation, like helicopter parents would have you believe, but it’s also not inconsequential as modernity tries to convince us all, parents and childless alike.

Oh, by the way, the word childless is now bad too. Apparently, the “inclusive” way is to say childfree. Am I the only one who notices the inherent dehumanization of the word childfree? It has the same undertone as cancer-free. Maybe I’m overthinking this, but it simply is dehumanizing to describe lack of life (because that’s what childlessness is) as inherently positive.

Advocates of “inclusivity” tell us that childless carries a negative connotation. But it doesn’t. Unfruitfulness, infecundity, barenness – all these have (arguably) a negative or at least judgmental connotation. But childless does not. It’s the neutral term. But under the dehumanizing ideology of inclusivity, neutral terms are bad.

That’s why we should use the dehumanizing angle more when pushing back against inclusive language. If not for ourselves, at least for our children.

I don’t want my son to dehumanize his future wife by calling her partner. In the language of Internet kids: that’s gay af. No, seriously, it is. And not just because the pendej@s say so, but because anyone who was alive in pre-history, let’s say 2010, can remember that the word partner to refer to one’s romantic partner was nearly exclusive to homosexuals. If you ask me, even that was dehumanizing. But extending that to everyone, is even more dehumanizing.

I don’t want my son to be dehumanized in the future by having his reality erased and replaced with “people of any gender”.

And, if my wife ends up giving birth to a baby girl, I’d very much like for her to be called a woman, not a bonus hole. And preferably to become a wife not a partner. She can become a business partner if she’s smart enough, but she’ll be someone’s girlfriend and someone’s wife.

Inclusive language, at best, sows confusion. It’s dehumanizing in the rest of the time.

And hopefully more people notice that and act accordingly. It’s not even hard. Oftentimes it takes under a minute. Like this:

Someone else: My partner doesn’t feel good about the vacation.
You: Oh, there’s more to work and you can’t go on vacation?
SE: No, we both secured the free days, but there are other concerns.
You: What do you mean secured freed days? You’re both leaving the company? Who’s going to take care of business?
SE:…
You: Aren’t you talking about your business partner?

And, just like that, you made someone else re-think about using partner in the wrong context.

You don’t always have to be an edgy culture warrior. You just always have to be normal. And, if you are a man, especially a father, you also have the duty to enforce normality around you as well. If not for yourself, at least for your child(ren). They deserve not to grow up among confused people and risk ending up confused themselves.