Category Archives: Civic polity

OLGA ESSENTIAL OILS: THERAPEUTIC GRADE, Ingestable GROUNDING ESSENTIAL OILS BLEND

Dr Olga Book Presentation Video:

Visit My Channel: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT BOOK by Dr Olga Book Publication; https://youtu.be/GQQxbSqLHEM

Grounding Essential Oil Blend

Grounding Essential Oil Blend

Grounding Essential Oil Blend

Grounding Essential Oil Blend

Grounding Essential Oil Blend

Grounding Essential Oil Blend

Grounding Essential Oil Blend

Published on Dec 12, 2018

Mental health is complicated and overwhelming – but MedCircle makes your next step an easy one. Click here for INSTANT access to this full series and other in-depth interviews: http://bit.ly/2QHH7V9 We’ve talked to Dr. Ramani about narcissism before, but we’ve NEVER gone this in-depth. Welcome to the MedCircle interview series, Narcissistic Personality Disorder: The “Secondhand Smoke” of Mental Health.

Grounding Essential Oil Blend Write first review

SKU 00180 .  $19.75

Therapeutic Quality

Please choose; 0.5 fl oz / 15 ml 1 fl oz / 30 ml 2 fl oz / 60 ml 4 fl oz / 120 ml Please choose

In stock . Quantity:1

UPC: 712038402755

Brand: Biosource Naturals

Grounding Essential Oil Blend – Aromatherapy – Therapeutic Quality

Description: Grounding Essential Oil Blend combines sandalwood, frankincense, vetiver, and black pepper pure essential oils for a delicious grounding oil which has an earthy, mossy scent. Useful prior to meditation or healing work. “As above, so below.” Ground oneself for better healing results anywhere on the body, especially the lower back or root chakra area. Safety Tips:

  • Do not use if pregnant, have epilepsy, or have high blood pressure.
  • Can be a mild skin irritant for those who are allergy prone.

Instructions: Dilute 3-5 drops per teaspoon of carrier oil.

Statements made on this website have not been evaluated by the FDA, and are not intended to diagnose, treat, or prevent any disease.

Show More

Save this product for later

Favorite

Share this product with your friends

ShareTweetPin it

You May Also Like

Headache Relief Essential Oil Blend - 0.3 fl oz (9 ml) Roll On

Headache Relief Essential Oil Blend – 0.3 fl oz (9 ml) Roll On

$15.75

Sincerely, amazon.com/author/olgamagdalenalazin

Hold Governments Accountable: https://amzn.to/2wkygfJ

http://www.olgalazin.com/books.html

http://www.decentralizedglobalization.com

Dr.

Olga Essential Oils on Amazon.com/us

AND https://amzn.to/2NEmUuJ Paypal.me/olgamandrei/$

recent Book: Link: http://a.co/d/4CXW5lD

SCIENCE-BASED READING BLOG: https://drolgalazinandrei.wordpress.com/2018/10/26/steve-s-address/

https://www.acorns.com/invite/MLGYL6 Get your Acorn

PINTEREST: PROFMEX Dr Olga Book Publish

EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN CALIFORNIA, MAKE A DONATION: https://www.facebook.com/donate/301866947322266/?fundraiser_source=external_url

RECENZIE DE CARTE: Dialogul Civil, Societatea Civila, si Filantropia in SUA, Romania si Mexic – Bestseller pe Amazon

PRESS RELEASE: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT CIVIL SOCIETY AND PHILANTHROPY IN THE U.S.A, ROMANIA & MEXICO

Published by BOOK VENTURE, 740 Pages, 2018

ISBN-13: Softcover 978-1-64166-597-1

KINDLE: 978-63166-601-5

E-pub: 978-1-64166-601-5

pdf: 978-1-64166-598-8

price: $25.95 Available on Amazon.com: https://amzn.to/2MBDttI, BARNES & NOBLE, Available in all KINDLE, IPAD, IPHONE, ANDROID formats.

Rev. date: 05/12/2018

BOOK LINK: https://amzn.to/2MBDttI

https://www.amazon.com/ Engagement-Society- Philanthropy-Romanian-Mexico/ dp/1641665971/ref=sr_1_9?s= books&ie=UTF8&qid=1534809235& sr=1-9&keywords=olga+ magdalena+lazin

LINK:

Bestseller on Amazon Books: CIVIC ATTITUDE CIVIL SOCIETY LEGALLY STOPPING DICTATORSHIPS: https://wp.me/p29vEX-1sd
Why Civic Engagement, Civil Society, and Philanthropy in the U.S.A, Romanian & Mexico Count:

Link: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT CIVIL SOCIETY AND PHILANTHROPY IN THE USA, ROMANIA AND MEXICO

Civic Engagement Civil Society, and Philanthropy in the USA, Romania, And Mexico, is about anti-globalization movements: the bright and dark sides of globalization, interoperability of Blockchain and California Clean Money Campaign (Elections) in the United States of America, Romania, and Mexico.

The Introduction to this book is about the role of civic attitudes, and civil society in Romania, and the United States, especially on how to fight legally against dictatorships and via robust civic engagement and counterweight of civil society.
The strongest civic attitudes are prevalent in the United States, where movements like #CACleanMoneyCampaign, #metoo and #Occupy had started in 2015.


The Romanian test case is explained next – by exposing the new nomenclature which IS imposing the nationalistic model ON PEOPLE AGAIN, by opposing civic engagement.
This theme is taken up by the author in the Biography, where agency and civic society are counteracting effectively the statist nationalism of The social Democrat party, a socialist popular party masquerading as a democratic party.

Chapter six takes up Mexico as a case study, since 1985.
Pena Nieto, Mexican outgoing President in 2018,
has opposed investigations of his government’s corruption by independent Non-Profit organizations.

The need for transparency of expenditures is absolutely paramount in this type of operations by NPPOs (not-For -Private -Profit) organizations and Foundations.

The TEO legislation is laid out and the blueprint between U.S.-Mexico is working, and herein explained for other countries to follow.

The Romanian Minister of Finances, in 2015, has not approved this blueprint, because they are only interested in extracting money from the taxpayers, and in weakening civic polity.

The communist mentality is still there entrenched in the minds of the technocrats, and bureaucrats; they are not interested in fostering civic engagement or civil society, to the contrary, Securitate officers are still running the show, together with incompetent and corrupt Congressman and parliamentarian PSD dominated (one party system, the communists regrouped in), AKA the Social Democrats Party, teamed up with Securitate (ex-security, compromised officers.)

Things are different in Mexico.

Mexico has finally embarked on a new path for change, as the newly elected admin is eradicating the corrupt government employees, cutting down their salaries, perks and focusing on eliminating the drug kingpins from power and Police.

A new dawn seems to be emerging for Mexico with the election of a third party. It is the new presidential and Congressional power.

Is it going to be a government-funded elimination of corrupt Congressmen, and Cleansing of the Congress plus Senate, led by famous opposition leader Porfirio Munoz Ledo & AMLO; or will it be just a resuscitation of the old PRI style government that has long been destroying the country and keeping the majority of Mexicans in poverty? Will he win the battle against corruption?

What is going to happen? Will the crooked military in the street be replaced by the honest police?

And how can the police break their centuries-old habit of corruption? How can the drug-dealers cartels be broken? It will take much time to know. As it is now, civil society’s role is to deflect attacks on Scions financing civil society; can these attacks at a presidential level, on NPPOS be restored to prominence? These are the questions.

Dr Olga’s Biography is the epitome of Civic Engagement

The Conclusion is focusing on various levels of corruption in all 3 countries, and the prospects for a healthy civic polity, as the civic polity signs up to the new standards for transparency, inclusion, and equanimity.

_______________

The TEO legislation is laid out and the blueprint between U.S.-Mexico is working, and is herein explained for other countries to follow.

The Romanian Minister of Finances, in 2015, has not approved this blueprint, because they are only interested in extracting money from the taxpayers, and a weak civic polity.

Civic Engagement Civil Society, and Philanthropy in the USA, Romania, And Mexico, is about anti-globalization movements: the bright and dark sides of globalization, interoperability of Blockchain and Clean Elections in the United States of America, Romania, and Mexico.

The Introduction to this book is about the role of civic society in Romania, and the United States, especially on how to placate dictators and dictatorships via civic engagement and the counterweight of civil society. The Romanian test case is explained – the new nomenclature imposing the nationalistic model by opposing civic engagement.

This theme is taken up by the author in the Biography, where agency and civic society are counteracting effectively the statist nationalism of PSD, a socialist popular party masquerading as a democratic party.

Chapter Two takes up Mexico as a case study, since 1985.

Pena Nieto, Mexican outgoing President in 2018,

has opposed investigations of his government’s corruption by independent Non-Profit organizations.

The need for transparency of expenditures is absolutely paramount in this type of operations by NPPOs (not-For -Private -Profit) organizations and Foundations.

The TEO legislation is laid out and the blueprint between U.S.-Mexico is working, and herein explained for other countries to follow.

In the case of Romania,

The pervasive communist mentality is still there entrenched in the minds of the technocrats, and bureaucrats; they are not interested in fostering civic engagement or civil society, to the contrary, Securitate officers are still running the show, together with incompetent and corrupt Congressman and parliamentarian PSD dominated (one party system, the communists regrouped in), AKA the Social Democrats Party, Securitate (ex-security, compromised officers.)

Mexico has finally embarked on a new path for change, as the new elected admin is eradicating the corrupt government employees, cutting down their salaries, perks and focusing on eliminating the drug kingpins from power and

Police. A new dawn seems to be emerging for Mexico with the election of a third party. It is the new presidential and Congressional power.

Is it going to be a government-funded elimination of corrupt Congressmen, and Cleansing of the Congress plus Senate, led by famous opposition leader Porfirio Munoz Ledo & AMLO; or will it be just a resuscitation of the old PRI style government that has long been destroying the country and keeping the majority of Mexicans in poverty? Will he win the battle against corruption?

What is going to happen? Will the crooked military in the street be replaced by the honest police?

And how can the police break their centuries-old habit of corruption? How can the drug-dealers cartels be broken? It will take much time to know. As it is now, civil society’s role is to deflect attacks on Scions financing civil society; can these attacks at a presidential level, on NPPOS be restored to prominence? These are the questions.

The Conclusion is focusing on various levels of corruption in all 3 countries, and the prospects for a healthy civic polity, as the civic polity signs up to the new standards for transparency, inclusion, and equanimity.

Dr. Olga Holds Governments Accountable!

Get it here:

http://www.olgalazin.com/ books.html

Publisher: BOOKVENTURE, 740 pages

Signed by Author.

~~~~~~~~~ IN SPANISH~~~~~~~

RESENA DE LIBRO

Enlace Libro:

http://www.olgalazin.com/ books.html

“Participación ciudadana, sociedad civil y filantropía en los EE.UU., Rumania y México” por la Dr. Olga Magdalena Lazín.

El libro contiene 760 páginas, es publicado por BookVenture, EE. UU.

ISBN 978-1-64166-597-1

Bestseller sobre Rumania, Mexico y América, disponible en AMAZON.com, BARNES & NOBLE, : https://amzn.to/2OOeQZ5y en todos los formatos: con Portada, E-book, PDF, tableta, IPHONE y Android

El libro “Compromiso cívico, la Sociedad civil y la Filantropía en los EE.UU., Rumania y México, se refiere a los movimientos de anti-globalización, los lados Claro Oscuros de la globalización, la interoperabilidad del software Blockchain y las elecciones directas en los Estados Unidos, Rumania y México.

El Prefacio de este libro es un análisis del papel de la sociedad civil en Rumania y los Estados Unidos, en particular se refleja los movimientos que experimentaron los paises con respecto a los dictadores y dictaduras a través de la participación cívica de los actores de la sociedad civil, también llamados agencias en América.

El primer Capítulo se expone para Rumania como un nuevo modelo sobre las actitudes nacionalistas referente a ataques directos de la corrupción civica de las personas empleadas y categorizadas como terroristas o traidores del país “antipatriotas” como una nomenclatura adoptada.

El autor reconoce explícitamente el paradigma de la Escuela de Desinformación de Putin. Este tema es desarrollado por el autor en el capítulo 1-2-3 y 4, donde se analizan todos los aspectos de la sociedad: sector público, sector privado, sector mixto (público y privado) y lo más importante, la actitud cívica ciudadana de los actores en la sociedad civil, y su corolario, el sector filantrópico.

En el capítulo sobre Rumania, los datos estadísticos recogidos en 1989 enriquecen la información sobre la actitud cívica, o agencia, conocida como la participación ciudadana, la cual se refiere a la escasa formación de los actores civiles. Sin embargo, los organismos cívicos y la sociedad civil están relacionados entre sí, ambos contrarrestan eficazmente el nacionalismo estatista del PSD, un partido denominado populista socialista y democrático. Los ex agentes de seguridad son los líderes del Partido Socialdemócrata y continúan su actividad sin prisas; la única oposición son los actores con actitudes cívicas que exponen la corrupción de los individuos.

El PSD se opone a la investigación sobre corruptos del gobierno, y a las investigaciones de Kovesi, creando escenarios de terminación del ADN.

Quedando por lo tanto el interes en las investigaciones por la sociedad civil sin fines de lucro y por fundaciones, analizar las transgresiones del PSD y de la supervición de las acciones de la Securidad rumana que se arraiga en los escalafones de la sociedad rumana.

En el sexto capítulo se toma a México como un caso de estudio. El asalto de la sociedad campesina mexicana en 1985, después del terremoto que destruyó muchas vidas y la infraestructura en la Ciudad de México.

Así nació la actitud cívica de millones de mexicanos, que pusieron sus manos en la ayuda y reconstituyeron a la sociedad de la capital. Esta actitud luego se extendió al país.

Hasta nuestros días, los miembros del partido mayoritario PRI, encabezados por Peña Nieto, presidente de México en cargo hasta 2018, se opusieron a investigaciones de corrupción del gobierno por parte de organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro independientes.

Claudio X. González Laporte, un magnate que financió las ONG, y que atacó al presidente por el nepotismo y el clientelismo corrupto que ya opera desde 4 años.

La necesidad de transparencia de los gastos es absolutamente vital para este tipo de operaciones por las organizaciones y fundaciones ONPF (sin fines de lucro privadas). La legislación TEO (sobre organizaciones exentas de impuestos) establece y el plan de operación entre Estados Unidos y México esta ampliamente explicado en el capítulo 5, y toma un ejemplo para inspirar a otros países. Estados Unidos tiene la mayor cantidad de dinero que se puede transferir a Rumania, siempre que su legislación sea compatible con la de los Estados Unidos.

El Ministro rumano de Hacienda en 2015, no aprobó el plan, ya que sólo está interesado en la recuperación de dinero de los contribuyentes y la sociedad civil débil.

La mentalidad comunista todavía está arraigada en las mentes de los tecnócratas y burócratas; ellos no están interesados para promover la participación ciudadana y la sociedad civil, por el contrario, los agentes de la Seguridad todavía conducen el espectáculo con el congresista y el parlamento incompetente y corrupto dominado por el SDP (sistema de partidos, comunistas que se reagrupan), también conocido como la Seguridad Social Demócrata (ex- seguridad, oficiales criminales, todos los oficiales de seguridad que están en el gobierno hoy.)

México llevó a cabo finalmente una nueva manera de cambiar, ya que el nuevo presidente electo eligió empleados para eliminar la corrupción, la reducción de los salarios, beneficios y se centra en la eliminación de las drogas de la Policía y funcionarios corruptos, trabajando en conjunto con drugpins. Parece que hay una nueva esperanza para México en la reciente elección de un nuevo partido MORENA, de un tercero llamado PRD, para el poder.

Se trata de AMLO, el nuevo poder presidencial y el Congreso. En diciembre, se inaugurará el nuevo presidente, que se opone totalmente a la corrupción.

Autora OLGA MAGDALENA LAZIN

EXCERPT: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT and CIVIL SOCIETY, In The U.S.A, ROMANIA And MEXICO

By Olga Magdalena Lazín

It is well known that the United States of America is the country that has the largest pool of Not-For-Private-Profit money in the world.

My experience for 28 years with PROFMEX, the Consortium for Global Research in Los Angeles, California has shown me that the bigger picture of the civic society and philanthropic sectors is much more complicated and I decided to write about the interaction between the actors playing a big role in civil society in the USA (people like George Soros, Bill Gates, and CNN ex-owner and media mogul Ted Turner.

Zooming into the real confusion that exists in the United States, about the definition of societal sectors comes when analysts fail to take into account the role of the Mixed state/private sector, which for so many years has come to provide a “theoretical bridge” between government and the private business, especially in England and the USA, as well as to keep inefficient and corrupt statism in power, especially in Latin America and Eastern Europe.

The Non-profit -sector mislabeling process, as the third sector of the society, has its roots in Latin America: given the “third-way” ideology espoused by diverse leaders in different times (for example, Juan Domingo Perón in Argentina in the 1940s) and England’s Tony Blair (1990s), such a concept is not helpful because it is by now empty of meaning. Therefore I distinguish between actually four society sectors: Private, State Sector, the mixed State and Private sector, and finally the fourth, the Not-For-private-Sector, also known as the NGOs. The picture is suddenly much more complicated, and we analyze here how these four sectors of the society interact with one another, and how intertwined they are in reality.

I seek hereby to show in a new light the relation of the profit and not for-private-profit sectors, the latter funded by the former. Further, I develop new analysis here to help citizens everywhere to understand the roles of government, which must include the study of GONGOs (governmentally organized NGOs), QUANGOs (quasi-autonomous NGOs) as well as to understand that “non-profit organization” does not preclude such organizations from earning profits but rather require that the profits must be used for the purposes chartered and not for private gain.

With regard to the meaning of words, one final statement is in order. I do not use the word “public” per se because it has two distinct meanings. For formerly statist societies, “public” means government or government-owned. For non-statist societies such as the USA, the word’s meaning depends on context: “broad general public,” in the context of philanthropic analysis; “public utility” owned or regulated by the government, in the context of economic analysis. Hence in discussion here I discuss foundations as “broadly supported by the general public”; and I do not use “public foundation” which could give the idea of a government-owned foundation.

America operates with the advantage of being able to enact one standard law for Non-Profit Organizations (NPPOs) whereas the EU is only beginning to do so in such areas as taxation and pensions and has been unable to do so at all for NPPOs, where 25 national legal standards prevail to this day. No wonder, Britain sought to exit in 2017, and is still trying to get out from the bureaucratic quagmire that the European Union has been this past 10 years following the Brit-exit in 2018.

It is therefore possible, or much easier for the U.S. to permit and sees it as healthy, encouraging the transfer of non-profit funds to benefit desirable and needed programs in other countries, like Romania and Mexico.

The existing conceptualizations about how to define “Civic Society (which I capitalize because of its importance),” “civil society,” and the role of U.S. philanthropy. These three concepts have not been clearly analyzed in relation to each other, especially confusing Civic Society with civil society, thus misleading countries that seek to emulate the U.S. system of decentralized government.[1] Each state in the U.S. has its own set of rules and laws.

Third, to articulate for the developing world how U.S. philanthropy is defined to be the tax-deductible basis for a healthy Civic Society based on funds that are ceded by the government through tax deductions ceded to hundreds of thousands of civic-minded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).

Fourth, to how the negative heritage of statism persists, government bureaucracies resisting loss of power. The concept of “statism” is examined in the Introduction, below. If the state owns over 50% of the GDP producing enterprises, that means the country we are analyzing is a statist country.

I chose Romania and Mexico because had suffered from impostor dictatorships and poverty, caused by statism the past 50 years. My theory is that the Fast track globalization (FTG) process which begun in the 1980s with the establishment of the European Union and later on in 1994, of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement has speeded up the development of civil society.

I had been researching civic attitudes in these 3 countries for over twenty-five years at the University of California Los Angeles, including I had made numerous field trips to meet the main actors who are factors of change and do agency work to benefit civil society globally.

The distinction developed here between “Civic Society” and “civil society” is as follows: Civic Society, the activist sector of civil society, seeks democratically to initiate change for the “public good.”[2] Civic Society has in part been identified as “Civic Culture” by Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, with whom I see as having appropriately laid the basis for distinguishing between civic society and Civic Society. They identified in 1963 the idea of “Civic Culture”—which they alternatively define as “political culture.”[3]

Although they did not themselves make a distinction between Civic Culture and “civil society” (and did not even include “civil society” in their index to their work in 1963 and their revisiting of the idea in 1980), their work implicitly leads in the direction that I develop here.

That Almond and Verba did not see the connection that I see here is due perhaps to the fact that as political scientists seeking to compare political views in England, America, Germany, France, and Mexico, they were more concerned with their survey research to compare attitudes than with examining the role of persons in Civic Society as actively trying to change the civil society (including professional government) in which they lived.

My own view is that Civic Culture encompasses

1. that part of government which falls under civil law and is administered by civil service employees. Indeed, civil government ideally is based upon a professional corps of civil servants protected under “civil service” laws that permit qualified people to administer government affairs regardless of change of elected leaders;

2. the broad private sector of citizens who participate in society as citizens. The concept of civil society its origins in ancient Greece where citizens invented the idea of participatory democracy to organize the city-state. Since then, the notion of civil society has been used in different ways by different groups and defined in a tremendous variety of ways.

The first to explicitly use the concept were the thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment of the 18th century. They created an important body of thought, which planted the idea of establishing a market economy with moral values.

Subsequently, the French tradition begun by Montesquieu and de Toqueville posed the idea that civil society has multiple dimensions. They emphasized the role of non-political autonomous associations among citizens. De Tocqueville’s travels led him to conclude that the new United States of America was the epitome of civil society, the USA having built upon and gone beyond the English civil law tradition.

Eventually England, too, saw its own civil society flourish by limiting the power of the monarchy under which it continued to live to this day. Beginning with the famous and historic achievements of Magna carta.

The concept Civic Society presented here involves non-governmental organizations (such as foundations and voluntary associations) as well as civic-minded citizens who donate their time and money for causes of their choice.

In my view, the concepts civil society and Civic Society both exclude the military, Church hierarchies (but not socially active lay groups), and one-party systems (such as the Communist Party[4]), if they seek to create “group-think” by preventing and/or discouraging citizens from thinking for themselves. Civic Society involves individuals and groups who seek to expand civil-rights (such as voting and access to independent courts) and human rights (such as the right to live with ethnic expression and the right not to be tortured and/or exterminated).

Both civil society and Civic Society have been stunted in much of the world by “statism,” or the situation that occurs when a nation-state comes to own more than half of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). Statism also involves governmental development of extensive laws and rules which stultify and discourage the role of citizens. Just like in Romania such is the case up to this day.

To explain the rise of statism in Romania and Brazil, Joseph Love, in his book entitled Crafting the Third World: Theorizing Underdevelopment in Romania and Brazil[5], focuses on showing how the rise of state power was justified by “nationalists,” who sought to explain the poverty of their countries by blaming the “capitalist” model and especially the “gradual globalization” of markets led by the USA. Such statism not only caused economic stagnation but set back seriously the role of civil society in Latin America and Eastern Europe, subjecting the regions to dictatorships of political as well as social poverty.

In my view, it is only since their return to globalization, this time at fast-track speed, that regions such as Latin America and Eastern Europe have begun to fight wasteful centralism, especially through the rise of new civil society. In this process of recovery, Mexico and Romania have “capitalized” on U.S. funds (both from the U.S. governmental and philanthropic sectors) as well as ideas (such as basing citizen-led activism in tax-exempt organizations such as NGOs).

As part of my analysis of globalization, I argue that the concept includes not only the flow of Profit-Making Funds (needed to finance and conduct business affairs), but also includes the flow of Non-Profit Funds (needed to build Civic Society and human capital as well as to protect human rights and the world’s physical environment.)

America operates with the advantage of being able to enact one standard law for Non-Profit Organizations (NPPOs) whereas the EU is only beginning to do so in such areas as taxation and pensions and has been unable to do so at all for NPPOs, where 15 national legal standards prevail.

My field research has revealed that countries such as Mexico and Romania have had difficulty in understanding and adopting U.S. tax law, which is the basis for standardization because of problems in analysis of how U.S. economic sectors interrelate.

U.S. analysts themselves have failed to articulate the relations among economic sectors, thus confusing the way in which policy analysts interpret U.S. law to the world. Thus, the concept “Non-Profit” has been mistranslated as “No Profit,” as we will see in this study.

Hence, I encourage here use of the term Not-For-Private Profit (NPPO) to specify that profits can be made but not diverted for private use. Such profits can be used only for the tax-exempt purposes for which any organization is founded, including the expenses of running the organization (salaries, travel, rent, etc.) as well as the re-investment of funds to increase the size of the NPPO and ensure its continued existence.

As part of my contribution to globalization studies, I hereby define U.S. societal spheres as being four:[6]

1. Government (State) Sphere (centralized and Decentralized)

2. Private Sphere

3. Mixed State/Private Sphere

4. Philanthropic Sphere (often erroneously called the “Third Sector”)

Confusion about definition of societal sectors comes when analysts fail to take into account the role of the Mixed state/private sector, which for so many years has come to provide a “theoretical bridge” between government and the private business, especially in England and the USA, as well as to keep inefficient and corrupt statism in power, especially in Latin America and Eastern Europe. Given the “third-way” ideology espoused by diverse leaders in different times (for example, Juan Domingo Perón in Argentina in the 1940s) and England’s Tony Blair (1990s), such a concept is not helpful because it is by now empty of meaning.

I seek to show in a new light the relation of the profit and not for-private-profit sectors, the latter funded by the former. Further, I develop new analysis here to help citizens everywhere to understand the roles of government, which must include the study of GONGOs (governmentally organized NGOs), QUANGOs (quasi-autonomous NGOs) as well as to understand that “non-profit organization” does not preclude such organizations from earning profits but rather require that the profits must be used for the purposes chartered and not for private gain.

With regard to meaning of words, one final statement is in order. I do not use the word “public” per se because it has two distinct meanings. For formerly statist societies, “public” means government or government-owned. For non-statist societies such as the USA, the word’s meaning depends on context: “broad general public,” in the context of philanthropic analysis; “public utility” owned or regulated by the government, in the context of economic analysis. Hence in discussion here I discuss foundations as “broadly supported by the general public”; and I do not use “public foundation” which could give the idea of government-owned foundation.

This approach provides the overarching framework for analyzing the full impact of civil society:

– In Mexico, of the findings of Margaret Carroll’s UCLA doctoral

dissertation in history entitled: “The Rockefeller Corollary—The Impact of Philanthropy and Globalization in Latin America (1999);

– the findings of James W. Wilkie in notes and oral history interviews with (a) Norman E. Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution; and (b) with the staff of the “El Paso Community Foundation” about its operations, upon which he drew to develop the framework for the U.S.-Mexican international philanthropic standard that emerged from his policy research as President of PROFMEX (Consortium for Research on Mexico).

– my findings based on field research in Mexico, Russia, and Eastern Europe on the problems especially facing Romania as it attempts to establish Civic Society; and my interviews with George Soros in New York City.

In this work, I argue that the challenge is for formerly statist countries such as Mexico and Romania are to establish Civic Society and free markets as the countervailing forces needed to Both countries need to reform their centralized legal systems. Both Mexico and Romania, which once “benefited” from Roman Law and the Napoleonic Code, find that they now suffer from the legal limits that preclude action not expressly permitted by the state. Indeed, this legal situation is the problem hampering the development of philanthropy in both countries. Until they adopt a legal system that allows companies and persons to innovate without obtaining prior authorization from the government, innovation will be stifled by fear of bureaucratic retaliation.

In my view, where Rockefeller’s model of tax-exempt organization has been centrally based in New York City, George Soros offers a fascinatingly different model of decentralization. Soros has used globalization of profit-making funds to finance his Not-For-Private Profit branches of the Soros Foundations around the world. Soros, Hungarian-born and London-educated, lives in New York City where he oversees his worldwide economic operations. His profits from currency speculation[7] in all areas of the world, however, go into his Curaçao-based Quantum Fund, which pays his salary and fees to him in New York City. From his own personal profits (Quantum Fund being one source), Soros donated and tries to donate at least half to his New York-based Soros Foundation, which is organized to take advantage of the fact that the USA has the most flexible Tax-Exempt Organization law in the world while at the same time limiting political action and requiring rigorous accounting.

The now very controversial, Soros Foundation, which does not make its decisions through a New York-based board, as do most of the world’s other major foundations such as Rockefeller and Ford, but transfers most of its tax-exempt funds to more than 30 nation-based boards. These boards are made of leading citizens who are attempting to construct Civic Society in their own country. Open Society Foundations, or OSFs, as Soros-initiated foundations are called, are now decentralized.

Local Non-Governmental Agencies (NGOs) determine their own priorities providing their input, local boards of prestigious citizens representing various professions are in charge of identifying where grants should go. This is now the reality with Romanian OSF Foundations. They no longer depend on Soros for funding.

Many nostalgic Romanians, who are missing communism’s perks truly hate the American Philanthropist. Nonetheless, he has done a great job in the country of my birth.

The Fundación Soros-Guatemala serves as a good example. Board members have been chosen as to reflect different sectors of the society and ethnic groups: a Jesuit sociologist, a Mayan economist, ex-government officials, and a local businessman. Local NGOs detain the highest legitimate information and knowledge and can provide the local links from the outset in efforts of reconstruction following the 36 years of civil war in Guatemala.

Romania is especially interesting (as also is all of Eastern Europe) for comparison to Mexico. As I argue here, Romania is following the same path of moving from statism to de-statification; and thus, it seeks to understand how Mexicans have faced with varying degrees of success the process of nationalizing (1917-1982) and then de-nationalizing (since 1982):

– industry, banking, ports, airports, toll roads, and railroads (in which nationalization meant loss of accountability and in which de-nationalization has meant establishing open accounting);

– agricultural land (in which nationalization meant creation of communal holdings and in which de-nationalization has involved disincentives to (but not prohibition of) the right of peasants to hold land communally;

– trade (in which nationalization meant integration asymmetrically into large trade blocs turning inward and in which de-nationalization has meant integrating outward into free trade markets);

– philanthropy (in which nationalization left little or no role for civil society and in which de-nationalization has required foreign philanthropy to fund Civic Society).

Civic Attitudes and Civil Society in Mexico:

To portray how in the 1990s Mexico officially sought to enhance the role of civic polity, I analyze its adoption of the U.S. model where government builds a compact with its citizens to exempt from taxation money and property that are devoted to philanthropic purposes. The Mexican government realized that by establishing the basis for instituting the U.S. philanthropic model it would be compensated for the loss of revenue because

(1) It is relieved of the burden of financing all activities that otherwise the state must fund; and

(2) Government does not have the “mental space” capable of identifying and attempting to resolve problems or develop new plans in thousands of places at once, as statists once believed to be possible through the use of central planning, even later including the use of computers.

Thus, I offer a new historical view of globalization to explain how the U.S. model of philanthropy has come to serve as basis for Civic Society in many countries of the world. This process is not clear to much of the world, nor has it been well articulated by the U.S. Council on Foundations, which has sought to lead such change.

Funding of the Green Revolution by the Rockefeller Foundation serves as one excellent point of departure to examine the philanthropic basis of Civic Society’s importance in the globalization process. Although such countries as Mexico and Romania have been attempting to follow the U.S. legal model to achieve de-statification, this has not been easy because even in the USA there is little clear understanding of how the U.S. model of philanthropy has come to fit into the overall economic structure of society. Hence it has been difficult for other countries such as Mexico and Romania to emulate the U.S. model.

I see U.S. philanthropy as the most important historical model for all countries because it holds the world’s largest pool of foundation funds for expenditure on world development. Its importance is that it flexibly sets one standard under U.S. law to permit private persons and corporations, be they U.S. or foreign, to incorporate in America and to give outside the USA as well as inside. Although Enrique Barón, noted member of the European Parliament, claims that the EU is the world’s largest funder of NGOs,[8] and therefore impliedly more important than America, his argument does not take into account the fact that the EU’s huge pool of funds about which he writes is more plan than reality; and in any case, it operates under 15 separate standards, one for each country, thus dissipating EU’s effect on the world.

To arrive at my goal in this work, I define in this work Civic Society in a way that can well be understood outside as well as inside the United States; and develop the argument that civil society (regardless of its limitations) has provided the basis for the health of Civic Society by both leaving it free and also cooperating with it to assure financial freedom to organize Civic Culture without government interference.

The U.S. law on Tax Exempt Organizations (TEOs) has created tax deductible incentives to help NPPOs (including NGOs) carry out their plans to establish voluntary-action programs and donations of money and time. The scope of the U.S. NPPO Law on Philanthropy (which is my name for the body of U.S. law that does not explicitly use the term “philanthropy”) does not set any limits on the types of activities that can be funded. Although the law includes some key concepts, they do not constitute a limit because the fast-changing world cannot foresee what should or should not be funded. I summarize U.S. tax law to define non-exclusively these guiding categories as involving the “HEW-SEER-PUC” factors:

1. Health,

2. Education,

Welfare (and human rights),

Science

Economy,

Environment (and ecology),

Religion

Publication (and literary societies,

3. Charity (including the facet of poverty relief).

While not limiting what can be funded, U.S. NPPO law does limit how such activities can be funded, but flexibly so.

This work is organized into 2 chapters:

Chapter 1: The Role of Civic Society

This Chapter argues that the flow of funds among For-Private-Profit Organizations (FPPOs), many of which donate a significant share of their profits to NPPOs seeking to foster change in the developing world.

Chapter 2 takes up the Rockefeller Foundation, which I portray here as representing the Centralized Model of Philanthropy wherein decisions are made in the USA and not in the country receiving the benefit of U.S. philanthropy It deals with developing a clear definition of the U.S. model for Tax Exempt Organizations (TEOs) such as foundations, NGOs, and a wide range of NPPOs). It is because a definition does not exist that there is so much confusion in the world as well as in America about how U.S. NPPOs function.

My previous book, and Doctoral Thesis analyses the rush of world countries into Free Trade Blocs which are not only opening the world to the free flow of ideas for developing civil society and Civic Society but also expanding the base of profits from which funds are donated for philanthropic purposes. Civic Society is the main beneficiary of such donations. I hereby revisit this theme and focus on two Filed Studies: Romania and Mexico.

This Chapter treats globalization of Civic Society and compares the experiences of Mexico, and Eastern Europe’s Romania, which constitute my two case studies.

The Epilogue examines two new model of U.S. philanthropy for the world:

1. The epilogue defines the Decentralized Model for Philanthropy developed by George Soros and illustrated by analyzing the rise and role of the Open Society Foundations around the world.

2. The El Paso Community Foundation with its decentralization to the local level and its cross-border Board of Directors also representing Ciudad Juárez—the part of Greater El Paso Metropolitan Area, that has the largest share of population.

The final conclusion also examines the recentralization of philanthropy in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, over which Bill Gates’ father presides. This new type of personal philanthropy eschews the development of a bureaucratically oriented foundation run by a professional staff; rather the foundation leaders use their huge new “dot.com” fortunes to personally choose huge projects that will have worldwide impact.

The purpose of this study, then, is to show how the four models of U.S. philanthropy together encourage open societies and the new role of Civic Society to combat both the negative heritage of statism as well as the Ultra-Liberal reaction to it.

Although non-governmental funding is the key to successfully developing Civic Society, each of the foundations discussed here is shown to take a different approach to the problem of using grants to “prime the pump,” thereafter finding their own continued funding and not becoming dependent upon their initial benefactor.

At the same time, theoretically foundations thus can use their funds to “prime new pumps.” by making a profit. Unfortunately, theory and practice rarely coincide, as we will see.

Finally, let me note that this work is written under the auspices of the UCLA Program in Policy History and Globalization and is my Doctoral Dissertation in History on which I had been working nonstop for the past 30 years.[9]

Where area studies used to limit their focus to one geographic part of the world, that approach makes little sense in light of the interactions of regions around the globe. And although country-specific histories remain vital, they only make sense in the ebb and flow of international influences that require a globalized policy framework, which invites the policy recommendations of historians who are familiar with long-term change and its meaning.

The spiritual axiom that runs throughout the Western civilization and has spread this century to the Eastern world is Magna Carta, or the book of rights. Historically, The Magna Carta, or the Great Charter was guaranteeing that the King John of England on June 15, 1215 to be subject to the rule of law and documenting the rights of “free men”, therefore providing the foundation for Individual rights in Anglo-American philosophy of Law.

Individuals have the right to associate, and fight for their rights and causes.

All you need is a well -informed citizenry, aware of its rights and freedoms, who act in consciousness of substantive and procedural framework of the Law.

What a great tool to exercise daily in order to preserve individual human rights, as well as the right to associate with people who feel the same way, in order to protect our inalienable rights.

It was indeed civic engagement that ended the Cold War. The good old scholars of socialism, communism, have arrived to the conclusion at the beginning of this Millennium, that:

Under communism the nations of Eastern Europe never had a ‘civil society.’

A ‘civil society’ exists when individuals and groups

are free to form organizations that function

independently of the state,

and that can mediate between citizens and the state.

Because the lack of civil society

was part of the very essence of the

all-pervasive communist state,

creating [civil] society

and supporting organizations

independent of the state-–[such as] NGOs—

have been seen by donors as

the connective tissue of democratic political culture—

an intrinsically positive objective.

–Janine R. Wedel, 1994, p. 323

[Scholars such as Chris Hann] criticize the notion put forth by some western scholars and former Central European dissidents that there was no civil society in Central Europe during the communist period . . . [because the concept of “civil society” was not even included in the Polish Political Dictionary published in New York in 1980 and London in 1985. However, [under communism] civil society itself continued to thrive at the grass-roots level, although Western intellectuals could not possibly have been aware of it. . .

[Dissidents] liked to imagine themselves as the “heroic underdogs” opposing the totalitarian state. In effect, Hann asserts, scholars were mistaken in perceiving members of communist societies as atomized and unable to form an authentic civil society. . .

[Civil society existed in the following forms:

•official associations licensed by the state (such as Village Women Housekeepers Association, Polish Student Association, Polish Scouts, and professional associations such as writers) which involved political imposition from the top but at the bottom involved the possibility of apolitical collective action against the party),

•unofficial associations (including extended kin groups •informal interest groups (including traditional village families and mutual self-help groups),

•religious organizations (usually but not fully controlled by the party), and

•social protest organizations (which began in the 1956 rebellion for “freedom and bread” and although quickly curtailed by the party, evolved by 1976 into KOR or the Workers’ Defense Committee] to help detained workers and defend those brought before the courts.

–Michael Buchowski, 1996, p. 83

Introduction to Civic Attitude and Civil Society in Romania

Indeed, since the Cold War has descended upon Romania in 1947, there were terrible hardships in the midst of Russian impositions, to gather and have meetings of “free minds,” as communists were literally dictating what was good and/or what was bad for the country.

Eastern Europe has never had a Magna Carta, like Britain had. Instead, Eastern Europe had revolutions and lots of bloodshed which was repressed and ensconced for over 45 years of communism.

COMPLEXITIES OF THE GLOBALIZATION PROCESS

This first chapter dwells on the complexities of the globalization process that further complicates the aspects of the 4 sectors of the society in the 3 test cases that we are taking up here, therefore we will concentrate mostly on the significant role of the interplay between civic engagement and civil government play in the process of balancing out the negative and positive sides of globalization of the economies of the three countries under our analytic magnifying glass.

For the sake of best practices of civic engagement, I have chosen Mexico and the USA, as well as Romania, which is a Latin speaking country in Eastern Europe, bordering with Ukraine, and Hungary. Hungary has been always looking up to the West for help.

My optic comes from a look at civic engagement and civil society and its role in balancing out the effects of abusive authoritarian governments.

Students fresh out of Ivy League Universities believes are that civil society should act as a check on executive powers in all countries, to counteract authoritarianism, nationalistic tendencies, and isolation, or to prevent another Cold War.

It is sufficient to look at Romania’s corrupt and rotten to the core leadership, as well as Hungary’s Viktor Orban, the PM, who has launched an authoritarian undemocratic regime, and has deeply damaged the country’s civil society by eliminating all refugees and dissidents from the Parliament. And pitting civil society against George Soros.

The ghosts of communism are alive and well, in Romania. Corruption has defaced the country completely. Politicians are selling off the resources of the country and people are suffering. Entire forests are being extirpated, by Austrian corporations, and the soil is being depleted.

As a writer I acknowledge that readers have become more knowledgeable and can now shake off the narrow views on globalization by better studying the statistical data enclosed and the facts.

This angle then aids experts in globalism/globalization in further understanding by explaining the birth of the anti-globalization movement. It is based on the premise that globalization is here to stay, and Blockchain technology is going to help sort out a new, and safer way for direct voting on Blockchain.

Continuing the tradition of “Decentralized Globalization,” I am enclosing and citing analysis and data proving the effectiveness of all Free Trade Agreements, especially NAFTA, that is the North American Free Trade Agreement.[10] In the Statistical Abstract of Latin America, published by UCLA, the data on manufacturing, health and Education prove that NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Area)[11] has done a world of good in creating a myriad of jobs. California is perfectly intertwined with the Mexican economy; the balance struck being a perfect model for the rest of the World. The race for Free Trade agreements and elimination of tariff has started long time ago with the creation of the EU, and it works.

Civic society keeps the government honest and clamors to take into account the non-governmental interest groups. E.g. to reform Constitutions, to store land-titles. Too many countries will need to change from their judicial systems, from “guilty until proven innocent” to ” innocent until proven guilty”, which should be the norm in the twenty-first Century.

Especially Mexico with its retrograde “amparo” system, that lets criminals go free if they pay a fee. The newly elected Mexican President, AMLO should initiate changes to the civic polity laws, and the Amparo system, also known as habeas Corpus in the United States.

No one could read it without learning a great deal or without having her conception of the course of history radically challenged.”

In my briefly structured constructed thesis, I bring in a fresh perspective on the history of civic engagement, and civil society and importance of NPPO (Not-for-Private-Profit) Law.

Given the fast pace of change in the global economy it is more important than ever to have a comprehensive point of reference to allow us to understand and map the transformations around us.

A key point of view is the relationship between government, and civil society, the way in which the parts of the system are organized, so that to reach that comprehension: the need of interoperability. This dialectical process is evident in countries like Romania. They do inform each other and build on each other’s strength.

Government and Civil Society Interoperability

The key of the argument is as follows:

For decades several regions of the world such Latin America and Eastern Europe had suffered from impostor dictatorships and poverty, caused by statism. The Fast track globalization (FTG) process which begun in the 1980s with the establishment of the European Union and later on in 1994, of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Reagan and Thatcher got together to break down the barriers in the world. FTG is the main force to counteract the nationalistic dictatorships, the detrimental phenomenon of statism. It also opened up tourism. FTG is based on the rise of rapidly expanding free markets, or managed trade.

The free trade of goods, communications and services provides the context for the rise of civic society. Orban still tries to control the judges, just one monolithic government, no longer a democracy.

The fast-track globalization has facilitated the flows of funds among “for-profit organizations” many of them donating profit to NGOs seeking to foster change in the developing world. The relationship among those elements have detonated a process of rapid change in the developing world, as we have seen in the 21st Century.

With some exceptions Latin America and Eastern Europe countries have passed by the process of democratization and liberalization, missing out on reducing poverty and inequality.

It is worth to stress that the problems still persisting and the dangers to regression are explained mainly because of not going further in the direction of reforming the law according to US model on decentralization to expand civic action and philanthropy.

Romania followed the same path like former socialist countries of that region by trying to privatize state owned factories. Romania has partially succeeded in de-statification.

Mexico by contrast had faced with mix results; regrettably, the Mexican government lacked and still lack the “mental space” needed to identify and resolve the bureaucratic problems limiting civic action. The rise of the drug lords who took over five states in Mexico has further impeded the development of civil society. But Mexicans have risen against these scourge, by establishing new NGOs, and under the leadership of Mr. Malverde had fought back against corruption in the state of Morelia, Michoacán.

It is important to point out: Romanians have decided, no more dictatorship.

There is a clear need for authentication, and Blockchain can fill in that gap, and provide it for Not-For_Private-Profits, as well as for land titles, house titles, as Hernando de Soto the author of the “Mystery of capitalism: Why It Works in The West”, and why it failed elsewhere in the world.

It is worth to have that useful analysis in mind because is pivotal to understand the current social crisis afflicting Mexico, due to the drug-lords, gangs, and kingpins which control some parts of Mexico.

For today’s scholars and historians, the focus on Civic Society’s role in attempting to strengthen and actually interplay with the government seems plausible and, as we can see new movements sprung up, like Blockchain technology, which is going to change the direct voting system in the U.S.

We need to trust our voting system, especially to build up digitized security systems that we can trust, and Blockchain is one of them.

Actually, it is perfect for government and civic society interoperability.

As per eastern Europe, my argument is that (1) civil society has been able to save itself in Mexico through Civic Action (often supported by philanthropic donations from abroad); and that (2) Civic Society is attempting to build civil society in Romania (especially through the medium of the Soros Foundations), civil society that was destroyed in Eastern Europe and Russia by the Communists, who considered Civic Society as “subversive” to Statism.

Whereas Wedel, in the quote above correctly poses the issue facing Eastern Europe, Buchowski completely misunderstands what civil society means. If we follow his definition of the communist pioneers’ organization, the logical conclusion is that the brainwashed Hitler Youth were exemplary members of civil society.

In this chapter we will examine Mexico’s new NPPO and NGO legislation and its unique standing as having achieved, through harmonizing its NPPO law with the U.S. The U.S. – Mexico treaty provisions, the mutual recognition of philanthropic spheres, thus facilitating the flow of U.S. foundation funds to Mexican NPPOs. The nascent Civic Society in Romania seeks to influence the Romanian government not only to establish civil society with fair societal rules and rights of appeal but also to follow the Mexican model, which involves working closely with U.S. Treasury to facilitate the inflow of U.S. foundation funds.

Why Mexico? Because it, together with the USA, has created the only international standard that exists to ease the flow of foundation funds internationally—and from the world’s largest source largest pool of such funds, that of the USA.

It is of great interest to Romanian NGOs, as a Latin-based model, the only one in the world that corresponds to the pre-communist laws to which it has reverted after a time warp.

The years 1917 and 1989 offer the benchmarks for understanding the rise and eclipse of centralism, analyzed here in case studies for Romania in Eastern Europe and for Mexico in Latin America. World statism was generated simultaneously by the Mexican Revolution’s 1917 Constitutional Model (which still prevails) and the 1917 Russian Model of Revolutionary Terrorism, both of which encouraged the rise of state monopoly that distorted economic, political, and social systems. In Russia and Mexico one-party political and economic systems came to define the dimensions of statist corruption that became prevalent in so many countries worldwide.

With the problems of excessive centralism manifest by the 1980s, statists in Mexico and Romania took very different paths to save their power. Despite a heavily statist orientation, Mexico and Brazil were the largest and fastest growing economies in the world in the period from 1950 to 1980, reaching growth rates of GDP of over 6% per year.[12]

In the Mexico of 1983, the new President Miguel de la Madrid began to bring to a halt the expansion of state power by beginning to permit large private land holdings of production for export even as he began to close or sell some money-losing factories and service companies.

In Romania of 1983, the brutal dictator Ceausescu (1963 to 1989) attempted to deepen his control, thus accentuating the crisis in statism that within six years saw his bloody fall. Ceausescu’s drive to increase state income by expanding food exports to the world caused crisis in central government financing of local welfare as well as shortages of staple goods needed by the masses. Thus, by 1989 Ceausescu’s dictatorship of extreme state centralism of power at the national level left Romania’s thousands of communities in poverty, with civil society unable to think for itself after 40 years of failed central planning.

Meanwhile, half-way-around the world, Mexico faced the problem of statism but one in which civil society had been compromised, not destroyed as had been the case in Romania.

In Mexico the rise of statism had been gradual beginning with President Lázaro Cárdenas in 1934. Cárdenas and those who followed him steadily expanded the size of the State until it owned more than half of the country’s GDP. The statist solution seemed to work for decades and not until 1982 did Mexico’s civil society and its population at large realize that it had been left bankrupt literally and figuratively, albeit, as in Romania, with subsidies from the central government to support the country’s corrupt one-party political system.

With the 1982 collapse in demand for oil and raw materials owing to the world downturn after the Arab oil embargoes and quintupling of energy prices in the 1970s, Mexico was unable to borrow international funds, thus “bankrupting” efficient private industry as well as highly inefficient statist enterprises. Subsequent shrinkage of subsidies caused increasing crisis in the living standards for the thousands of Mexico’s communities in which the only basis for funding had been the central government. With the decline in size of state economic power, then, the state itself has barely been able to cope with the series of recurring economic collapses caused by earlier central government mismanagement of nationalized industries.

Inefficiency, and Incapacity of the statists in both Mexico and Romania to maintain their corrupt social systems and command economies, changed dramatically after the fall of the Berlin War in 1989. The unmasking of the Soviet system and its 1991 collapse revealed it to be a negative development model, not the ideal model that ideologues believed to have existed. Now free to act, anti-statists unleashed rapid change in the old Communist World.

“Anti-statism” in Mexico and Romania took different routes from 1989 to 1997. In Mexico, anti-statist leadership led by President Miguel de la Madrid began with timid care so as not to incur the wrath of the highly unionized society that always voted for the Official Party in return for relative privilege of believing that it

“owned” the state enterprises. De la Madrid and his Secretary of Planning, Carlos Salinas de Gortari could justify the first privatizations, however, because there could be no hiding that the State was literally bankrupt. Further, the two began deregulating the economy, decentralizing power to federal levels (to the 52 counties).

As President in his own right from 1994 through 1998, Carlos Salinas was aided by events in Russia. (The USSR’s implosion both dispirited and paralyzed Mexicans who favored statism—their “model” gone from the world scene.) Thus, Salinas could accelerate decentralization of state activity as well as massive sale and closure of inefficient industries. Another important aid was the rise of Civic Society dating back especially to between 1968 and 1985 when it had become increasingly clear that civil government was failing. The student strike of 1968 may have been led by some political thugs but the general movement was supported by the middle class actively demanding change in the university system. The students had been attacked and jailed after the revolt. Then came the women’s rights movement and organization of the Doctor’s Strike against the low State’s low salaries.

Finally, in 1985, almost the entire population of Mexico City found itself mobilizing to combat the effects of the devastating earthquake that had hit Mexico City, killing over 12,000 persons. With civil government standing paralyzed,[13] citizens realized that they had to organize Civic Action in order to restore on their own civil society. Thus, they began to provide medical care, distribute food and clothes, and reconstruct housing—simply ignoring government officials who had not been appointed for any expertise but for their cronyism. Civic Society organized into NGOs, the number increasing dramatically each year after 1985.

In contrast to Mexico, the situation saw its great change in Romania in 1989 when “counter-revolutionary Communists” Ion Iliescu, overthrew Ceausescu and his wife (she being considered to be the power behind him) and executed them to save themselves from the revolution against Communism that swept Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In “post-Communist” Romania, the brief spurt of Civic Action that had protested against the Ceausescus to bring an end to their regime was pushed aside by the old-line Communists, capitalizing on the fact that they themselves had conducted the “execution” of the dictatorial couple. Although the old-line leaders officially called for Romania’s de-statification, they took little action against the State’s power and certainly had no interest in forming real civil society. Indeed, they were pleased to let the bureaucratic infrastructure and tangle of “red tape” remain in place, with no appeal against administrative indifference or error.

The Glimmer of Civic Society in Eastern Europe

To match the demise of statism, and often to help its demise, Civic Society has arisen in its own right to assume growing importance depending on the country, the USA providing for Eastern Europe perhaps the strongest “model.”

Ironically the USA may not be the best model because the “state” never gained the power that it came to hold in Eastern Europe and, therefore not only its law codes but also its experience are so very different.

The basic notion of Civic Society is that the people can and should prevent the civil society (including especially the government) from becoming authoritarian. Civic Society represents that part of civil society which mobilizes civic spirit to “right the wrongs” of the government when they are identified and not resolved properly by government. Some of the “wrongs” are identified spontaneously and some on an on-going basis. (The U.S. American Civil Liberties Union, for example, maintains a standing corps of attorneys that respond to complaints as well as watch vigilantly for possible wrongs.) The Rodney King beating is another example, in Los Angeles, California.

The race issue had to be addressed, and it is still unresolved, like in the case of #BLACKLIVESMATTER. The two sectors of the American society have to work together.

The stringent issue of immigration should be solved with the help of civil society, and immigrant-oriented NGOs.

The rise of civil society in Western Europe and the USA had been set back by World War I and world economic depression between 1929 and 1939. To face these emergencies, state power was seen as necessary for political and economic defense. In the USA, the New Deal’s mixed capitalism and its expansion of state activity offered an alternative to the rise in Europe of statist fascism and statist communism.

In Eastern Europe, the Western concept of civil society had only partially penetrated by the early twentieth century. There, however, it existed in widely varying degrees ranging from incipient democracy in Poland to monarchy in Romania. In the latter, the nobles and the small middle class exercised civic responsibility.

Expansion of civil society in Eastern Europe, which was disrupted by World War I and remained weak during world economic depression of the 1920s and 1930s, saw its basis for action decapitated by successive German-Russian actions. The Germans occupied Romania as its “ally” by the early 1940s and held it until Romania was caught in the crossfire of German and Soviet warfare in August 1944. In Romania, when King Michael ordered his troops to turn on the Germans, he helped the Russians to seize the country. Then, after the Russians awarded him the Soviet Order of Victory, he was forced to abdicate.[14] Russia ruthlessly suppressed whatever civil society remained and put in its place a fake civil society which it called the “peoples’ government.” Uneducated cadres were placed in key-positions of government, only because they were obedient, and followed the red party’s directions. These cadres will become the infamous Securitate (security) agents, an entire embedded layer of politicized surveillance officers ready to terrorize the Romanian civil society and put civically active actors in jail for many years.

History of Romania and Mexico prove the struggles of civic actors, and activists who are changing the landscape of civility and are demanding more transparency, and the end of interference of the executive with the judicial powers. This is why I am regressing back into the 50s to explain how opening up these repressed societies has evolved into today’s USA, Romania, and Mexico. These countries are intrinsically related.

With victory over Germany in 1945, Russia set out to break nascent civil society by Stalinizing Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria as well as Romania. Thus, Bolsheviks and some Socialists conducted a deliberately destructive and brutal campaign to liquidate associations, independent trade unions, and artisan guilds, community groups, churches, and social movements.[15] Among other values, the communists erased the notion of noblesse oblige and middle class social responsibility as they broke both the nobility and the bourgeoisie.

Because World War II had expanded the role of the state in all spheres worldwide, the post-war era in the West had to contend with reinvigorating civil society. By the second half of the 20th century, the English invented the concept of quasi-autonomous government organizations (QUANGOs), wherein the QUANGO is responsible neither to the government nor to the citizenry.

The idea of using TEOs (from now on Tax Exempt Organizations), as the basis to establish associations of active citizens as a “space” separate from government has a long history in England and America, such associations being able to mediate between the citizenry and the government as well as among different societal groups.

By the 1970s and 1980s many of these associations came to be known as NGOs. As we saw in the analysis of society’s four spheres (see Chart A in Conclusion), NGOs fall into the fourth sphere, and they may or may not depend entirely on volunteer participation and/or paid staff. NGOs usually attempt to register with the government in order to achieve a tax-free status that allows them to receive donations deductible against the income of the donors–hence the incentive to donate.

That civil society defines the sphere of activity separate from the state clearly emerges in the burgeoning literature on the role of citizens in East Central Europe. Recent books have theorized in different ways about how civil society is defined by the dynamic of and tensions between the state and non-state activity. These authors include Ernest Gellner (1994), Jean L. Cohen, (1992), Andrew Arato (1992), and Adam Seligman (1995).

In its inception, in such literature the strand of the civil society tradition that is most relevant in Eastern Europe is the one that has called for intellectuals to adopt “Civic Action”[16] or engagement to oppose the ruling intelligentsia who blindly support statist power. (Many so-called intellectuals did not want to end the state’s heavy hand because they benefited from it, monetarily.)

The majority of Eastern European political dissidents (such as, Miklós Haraszti, Kis Jánós, and Lech ValeVa of Solidarnost) argued that civil society, in its traditional forms, has been endangered by collectivism, statification of social structures, and regimentation.[17]

The so-called intelligentsia who sought simple communist solutions justified its role as serving as the “vanguard of society.” They helped the communists to construct a new class of bureaucratic apparatchik and ruling elites later defined as nomenclature.[18] In the meantime, humanist intellectuals, scientists, and academics who questioned power and opposed censorship were allowed to go on working in peripheral positions, but only so long as they did not overtly challenge the state’s authority.

In its early stages, the process of collectivization and heavy bureaucratization was justified by the intelligentsia who helped the communists preach to the workers that nationalization would benefit the masses. This type of “associatedness” resulted in the destruction of intermediary networks such as independent trade unions. Thus, the complicity of the statist-oriented intellectuals helped destroy the societal networks that promoted civic articulation between the state and society. In destroying the very interstitial “tissue” of the social construct in different degrees throughout Eastern European countries, pro-state intellectuals did so because they knew that civil society threatened the very nature of the communist ideology upon which they fed, literally and figuratively.

Well before the communists seized power in the Eastern Europe of the mid-1940’s, some intellectuals (including writers, philosophers, actors and sociologists) had theorized about the possibility of creating an ideally collective future society, so at first many supported the communist seizure of power. By the time they realized what had happened, the many disillusioned intellectuals who did not want to work for the State found that their time was spent trying only to survive by making day-to-day life livable. Working in factories was not something educated people envisioned; it was actually hell, but at least they felt people had jobs, and felt secure.

Dissidence was difficult and considered subversive if it was organized in detail. For example, the Polish dissident Adam Michnik built on the movement established originally to provide legal and material assistance to the families of workers imprisoned after the 1976 strikes.[19]

By 1978 in Poland, he was one of the founders of the Workers’ Defense Committee (KOR), and he called for a strategy of “self-organization” as part of establishing a Community for Social Self-Defense. Later, KOR became the base for a strategically coherent movement of mass organized protest that would become Solidarity. This is how it started the Spring revolution in Poland.

The emergence in Poland of several independent organizations began implicitly to challenge the state power such as the ROPCIO (the Polish acronym for its chapter of Amnesty International), the Nationalist Confederation for Independent Poland, and the incipient Free Trade Union, each with their own publications.

In Czechoslovakia, two important political dissident thinkers emerged by the late 1970s. Vacláv Havel called for people to “live within the truth,” independently of official structures, and even to ignore the official political.[20] Vacláv Benda called on population to “remobilize” within the civil society.[21] The break with the regime was implicitly contained in the rhetoric of dissidents, but it never reached maturity under the very effective repression by the state. Only later did it constitute itself into a serious challenge to the communist government.

In Hungary, philosopher György Konrad argued in his 1976 book Antipolitics that all power is antihuman, and therefore so is all politics. He called for de-statification and an antipolitical, democratic opposition in his analysis of the issues of transition in East-Central Europe. But resistance to the State did not come until the late 1970s, intellectuals began to oppose the State’s so-called “remobilization of the population to work for the good of communism.” Analysts abroad then began to observe the cleavage between the official system and an alternative “second society.”[22]

The emergence of an embryonic civil society in the 1970s and the 1980s with semi-autonomies and semi-liberties was possible mostly in the relaxed communist environment of Kadar’s Hungary and Edward Gierek’s Poland, but it never did develop into a truly autonomous alternative to the power of the state – Solidarity in Poland being the exception, but much later.

Political stirrings in Eastern Europe surfaced gradually, first in rather ensconced forms such as “flying university” lectures and Samizdat publications.[23] Later came participation in informal self-educational groups. The rise of organizations that pursued independent activities and the call for establishing individual responsibility became evident in Poland only where the churches led in creating independent space for thought.[24]

Stirring of Civic Society, then, was beginning to call for rejection of communism, with KOR and Solidarity in Poland embodying full-fledged and convincing alternative to the communist regime. They provided a spark for Civic Society but could not by themselves bring about the collapse of communist ideology, which would have to wait for the communist system to implode politically and economically in 1989.[25]

Rise of alternative society beyond the reach of authorities had eroded the credibility of the ruling communists, implicitly destroying the monopoly of the state over the society and individuals. Such society had shown a glimmer of life after the 1960s, providing a basis for Civic Society, ironically in the absence of civil society.[26]

The Helsinki Human Rights Accord of 1980 gave hope to dissidents in Czechoslovakia where political activists seized upon Chapter 77 of to anticipate a new type of politics.[27] Eventually they used Chapter 77 to demand human rights, open dialogue, plurality of opinion, and alternative structures, demands that slowly began to weaken communist ideology. The famous Chapter 77 bolstered the call of some Czech intellectuals for free speech, free press, investigative journalism, freedom from arbitrary search and seizure, freedom of movement, and judicial recourse against illegal arrest by the police and military.

Dissidents were literally “vaporized” from their homes in all communist countries.

In Romania, Ceausescu’s extreme repression stunted intellectual protest. Only few individuals such as Mircea Dinescu, Paul Goma, Doina Cornea, and Radu Filipescu took the risk to openly protest against the regime in the late 1970s—but they gained no following. Nor did any organized urban socio-political activity take place in the 1980s.[28] Only very few people dared talk or protest.

Once the communists lost power in Romania, his successor Ion Iliescu promulgated Law 42 in 1990 as his “moral duty” to reward those who had helped defeat the dictatorship. The problem that arose, however, was that former communists bribed their way into the reward system, thus creating division and distrust in society and setting back the rise of consensus which needed to make a qualitative shift from collectivism to individualism.

This further eroded the trust between different segments of the Romanian society.

CHAPTER II: THE ROMANIAN CASE

The Communist republic of Romania, in the 1970s was considered the favorite kid on the Eastern European block. Until the blinding veneer wore off, and a shoemaker, Nicolae Ceausescu started terrorizing the Romanians who did not agree with the communist disaster, and one-Party rule, and the complete payment of the country’s debt to the IMF at the detriment of the famished population. Communism was in fact an utter failure in Romania, and Hungary alike.

The Ceausescu dictatorship (1965-1989) left the country in total chaos. Under the Iliescu regime (1990-1996), debate about modernization of civil society came to life, but effective results were not possible to achieve without the development of a new legal framework.[29]

From 1990-1993, civil society benefited from pent-up demand and expressed itself in an explosion of activity, which simultaneously differentiated and politicized itself during the relative vacuum of power as Iliescu sought to establish his power. This initial explosion was partly the consequence of the fact that political independence was in a sense political opposition and partly an inclination toward a populist “bottom-up” approach to democratic development.[30]

The first three years of Iliescu’s period were marked by the rise of Western-style NGOs, most hopeful that their mere existence would bring foreign grants. Romanian NGOs involved free association of autonomous persons who volunteered to help raise funds to take up the immediate decline in state social benefits. Only a few NGOs were able to gain foreign funding for their plans which called for, among other things, the teaching of democracy, the operation of orphanages, and the networking of ethnic groups.

By 1992 the profile of NGOs revealed an open separation between political advocacy groups and civic advocacy organizations. All NGOs, however, undertook qualitative changes in their activity to achieve “institutional development, capacity building, and sustainability,” the goal being to make the NGOs viable and effective.

The problems of Romania’s nascent civil society are complex. First, there are too few competent leaders to staff both government and NGOs so that Romania can compete effectively in the globalization process. Second, NGO leaders are tending to move into politics and business. Nevertheless, notes Dorel Sandor there is a chance that at least some of those who leave the NGOs will use their influence to support the nongovernmental sector.[31]

Although in Romania the pre-communist 1924 Law 21 on charities has been reinstated in the 1990s, it does not regulate in a specific manner the nongovernmental bodies. Law 21 only provides a general, vague legal framework and no categories to encompass modern institutions or communities. This permits corruption and produces misunderstanding of what civil society is meant to be.[32]

Crystallization of NGOs in post-communist Romania demonstrates the viable capacity of response to the challenges of transition from a communist country to a democratic country. Having initially appeared when the state was impotent, clusters of nonprofits and civil actors spontaneously filled the gap as government activity sputtered.

As per Freedom House reviews, the year 2016 favored reform as a caretaker, technocratic government run by Prime Minister Dacian Cioloş initiated some deep institutional changes. However, whether these policies bear tangible fruit will largely depend on the new legislature, which was elected at year’s end.

In terms of policy, the Cioloş government can be credited with several policies initiatives that ranged from improving government transparency and accountability to tackling the rampant corruption.[33]

Romania therefore, is still needs to redefine the separation of powers; especially give more freedom to judges, whom are restricted to this day from doing their jobs correctly. Interference from the pawers that be has impeded a minimum level of transparency and has thrown civil society in chaos. This is happening now in 2018. It reminds me of the days of Ceausescu dictatorship in the 60s and 90s. Regression and negative cycles of dictatorship are imminent in a country that never had a democracy to start with. It is very painful for me on a personal level to even go back there. 80 of the country’s politicians are ex Security agents, deeply entrenched in the structures of power and the judicial system.

My Participant Observer’s View at the National and

Local Levels in Romania

My role as participant-observer of social life began in 1983 as a Foreign Languages student in the Department of Maramures during my University years in Romania has continued till 1989. I was directly connected to a network of civic minded students, and together we wanted to save the Elitelore and Folklore of our superb Transylvanian region, by studying and recording songs, and customs in Maramures County, the most Northern part of Romania.

The communist party elites were proud of the diverse dance assemblies, and poetry that was blooming those years, before things turned tragic in communist Romania.

In December 1989 a handful of communists have derailed Nicolae Ceausescu, and taking advantage of the youth rising against communism, hijacked the revolution and took over the government.

The dictator and his wife, Elena Ceausescu were shot execution style, in a sham of a trial, just so another communist could seize power, Ion Iliescu, a Moscow educated apparatchik who wanted to settle scores with the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Iliescu together with his acolytes had hijacked the revolution, and by manipulating the population through the media, especially the TV, took over in an autarchic manner.

In 1992 in my subsequent travels on behalf of PROFMEX.[34] In Eastern Europe and Russia I have been able to compare the attempts to create new civil society that matches the de-statification and privatization processes.

What was striking to me, as a student of Ethnopsychiatry during the Ceausescu was to realize that the peasants of Maramures, in Northwestern Romania, were bound together in matters of common self-concern. They had developed a rudimentary civil society of their own in which they took decisions and solved problems by themselves in so called “claca.” Moreover, these peasants had survived the “chopping tactics” of the communist polity that had tried to destroy community spirit. Instead those tactics caused a reaction that reinforced local individualistic energies in most Maramures villages.

This village resistance to collectivization was so particularized in a geographically isolated area, however, that it did and does not provide a model for transition of Romania to a modern pluralistic society. Rather the Maramures experience does suggest that socially-based rural civil society is difficult to destroy because of its dispersed nature. If Buchowski,[35] who is quoted in the epigram at the outset of the chapter had wanted to find civil society in a communist country, he would have done well to visit Maramures to see true collective spirit surviving—not because of the communist dictatorship but to spite it. Thus, my observations directly contradict those of Buchowski. I had researched the following villages in Maramures: Breb, Cuhea or Bogdan Voda, Tisa (or Virismort), Calinesti, Rozavlea, and Barsana. “Claca” is definitely the nucleus for bringing civil society together and thrive in the communities of these traditional stupendous villages.

My travels after 1991 took me throughout Romania and especially to the capital and other urban areas in Transylvania, a region that accounts for 30% of the over 3, 500 NGOs founded since 1990. I realized that the NGO sector then in formation had two levels: the well-organized foreign foundations which were organizing to solve general problems at the national level (such as the Soros Foundation, with offices in the regions of Romania) and the Romanian voluntary interest organizations that were then organizing to solve immediate local issues. The latter are what the Romanians call “form without foundation” or original versions of NPPOs that not only transfer the western models, but also are mainly based on genuine social projects, according to Steven Samson vision is based on research in Albania.[36]

Although countries such as Romania need to develop legislation that permit the creation of very diverse organizations that operate with crosscutting and overlapping purposes, post-Ceausescu Romania has failed to do so repeatedly. Indeed, the country’s latest law that attempts to cover NGOs, law no. 32 of 1994, is not in accordance with the requirement of necessities of reasonable functioning of civil associations.[37]

Even with imperfect law, the concept of civil society now prevalent in Romania implies some kind of formal autonomous organization, made up of thousands of constituent associations and charities organizations that compete with the state.

Some non-governmental organizations and think-tanks do seek to provide a check on the power of the state, however, such as the Center For Political Studies and Comparative Analysis, the Romanian Helsinki Committee, the Romanian Society for Human Rights (SIRDO), the League for the Defense of Human Rights (LADO), Liga Pro-Europa, Antitotalitarian Association-Sighet, Academy for Ethnic Studies in Sighet, Civil Protection Maramures, Titulescu Foundation, Association of Lawyers in Defense of Human Rights (APADO), and Academia Civica Foundation. Others make demands on the state for it to pave the roads, extend electricity to villages, install telephones, and provide general services, but they do so without umbrella legislation that legally authorizes and protects their activities.

What is evident from my investigations in Eastern Europe is that after the initial post-1989 enthusiastic phase, the so-called revolution brought many grants from abroad, especially the U.S., British, and French grant-making NPPOs. Since the mid-1990s, however, such international assistance and donations have slowed markedly.

Except for George Soros, many U.S. grant-making foundations have turned to fund world problems such as disease, as we see in the Conclusion, leaving NGOs disheartened in countries such as Romania. Without a tradition of being able to raise funds in their own country, NGOs that mushroomed in Croatia, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech, Slovak Republics, and Poland as well as Romania have in general not received funds from abroad—they had naively believed that by merely organizing an NGO to solve an important problem that foreign funding would be forthcoming. And it did not happen as it was expected by actors in the NPPO (not-for-private-profit sector).

Most Romanian extreme right elites hate George Soros for his guts, and so do Hungarians, the xenophobic segment think he is a “destabilizing” agent, also because Soros is of Jewish extraction. Hungarians had been always anti-Semitic, and anti-Gipsy. Not a novelty to expose the right wing, and the extreme left, there is a lot of literature on this topic.

This is why we have thousands of Hungarians living in the U.S. and creating fascinating movies at Hollywood.

Most of my Doctoral research was done by traveling back and forth from Europe, to Mexico, and the United States for 3 decades during 1989 TO PRESENT. Field Research has been done in Maramues County, Romanian, in the heart of Transylvania, California, USA, and Morelia, State of Michoacán, and DF, in Mexico for 26 years.

Back in Mexico City for the 1994 PROFMEX Event featuring Eastern Europeans interested in the U.S.-Mexico Model for NPPOs, we convened, July 28-29, for our meeting on “Development of Mexico as seen from the World,” This event was Co-sponsored by UCLA and Mexico’s Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología.

This Conference was held at Mexico City’s María Isabel Sheraton, with 70 participants from Mexico, Eastern Europe, Central Europe, and the United States.

Amazon LINK: https://www.amazon.com/dp/ 1641665971/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie= UTF8&linkCode=sl1&tag=olga120- 20&linkId= 8f47c699c7439cd486459e8f8f1fc6 e1&language=en_US

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT CIVIL SOCIETY AND PHILANTHROPY IN THE USA, ROMANIA AND MEXICO

Civic Engagement, Civil Society, and Philanthropy in the U.S., Romanian & Mexico
by Dr Olga Magdalena Lazin
GET IT HERE: Link: Civic Engagement, Civil Society, and Philanthropy in the U.S., Romanian & Mexico by Dr Olga Magdalena Lazin Link: http://a.co/j655Hyo

For Press release:

Civic Engagement Civil Society, and Philanthropy in the USA, Romania, And Mexico, is about anti-globalization movements: the brilliant and dark sides of globalization, interoperability of Blockchain and Clean Elections in the United States of America, Romania, and Mexico.

The Introduction of this book is about the role of civic Society in Romania, and the United States, especially how to placate dictators and dictatorships via civic engagement and strengthening civil society. The Romanian test case is explained – the new nomenclature imposing the nationalistic model by opposing civic engagement.

This theme is taken up by the author in the Biography, where agency and civic society are counteracting effectively the statist nationalism of PSD, a socialist popular party masquerading as democratic party.

That does not continence investigation of government corruption by non-profit foundations.

Chapters  3-4-5 are an in-depth analysis of the US Law on Tax Exempt Organizations, on and foundations are tackled in 4 Chapters of this book.

Chapter six takes up Mexico as a case study.

 Pena Nieto, Mexican outgoing President in 2018,

has opposed investigations of his government’s corruption by independent Non-Profit organizations.

 

The need for transparency of expenditures is absolutely paramount in this type of operations by NPPOs (not-For -Private -Profit) organizations and Foundations.

The TEO legislation is laid out and the blueprint between U.S.-Mexico is working, and herein explained for other countries to follow.

The Romanian Minister of Finances, in 2015, has not approved this blueprint, because they are only interested in extracting money from the taxpayers, and a weak civic polity.

 GET IT HERE: BESTSELLER ON AMAZON

The communist mentality is still there entrenched in the minds of the technocrats, and bureaucrats; they are not interested in fostering civic engagement or civil society, to the contrary, Securitate officers are still running the show, together with incompetent and corrupt Congressman and parliamentarian PSD dominated (one party system, the communists regrouped in), AKA the Social Democrats Party, Securitate (ex-security, compromised officers.)

 

Mexico has finally embarked on a new path for change, as the newly elected admin is eradicating the corrupt government employees, cutting down their salaries, perks and focusing on eliminating the drug kingpins from power and

 

Police. A new dawn seems to be emerging for Mexico with the election of a third party. It is the new presidential and Congressional power.

 

 Is it going to be a government-funded elimination of corrupt Congressmen, and Cleansing of the Congress plus Senate, led by famous opposition leader Porfirio Munoz Ledo & AMLO; or will it be just a resuscitation of the old PRI style government that has long been destroying the country and keeping the majority of Mexicans in poverty? Will he win the battle against corruption?

What is going to happen? Will the crooked military in the street be replaced by the honest police?

And how can the police break their centuries-old habit of corruption? How can the drug-dealers cartels be broken? It will take much time to know. As it is now, civil society’s role is to deflect attacks on Scions financing civil society; can these attacks at a presidential level, on NPPOS be restored to prominence? These are the questions.

The Conclusion is focusing on various levels of corruption in all 3 countries, and the prospects for a healthy civic polity, as the civic polity signs up to the new standards for transparency, inclusion, and equanimity.

By affixing my signature below, I hereby approve of the launching of the marketing materials for the services above.

DR OLGA MAGDALENA LAZIN                                          7/24/2018

 

Signature Over Printed Name   Date

 

Civic Engagement Civil Society, and Philanthropy in The U.S.A, ROMANIA, AND MEXICO, is about anti-globalization movements: the brilliant and dark sides of globalization, interoperability of Blockchain and Clean Elections in the United States of America, Romania, and Mexico.

The need for transparency of expenditures is paramount in this type of operations by NPPOs (not-For -Private -Profit) organizations and Foundations.

The TEO legislation is laid out and the blueprint between U.S.-Mexico is working, and herein explained in detail, for other countries to follow.

PROFMEX, the UCLA Consortium For Research has presented this Blueprint to the  Romanian Prime Minister in 2015, but he has not approved this model, because he said “we are only interested in extracting money from the {Romanian} taxpayers.

We then concluded the regime did not want a strong civic polity.

The communist mentality is still there entrenched in the minds of the technocrats, and bureaucrats; they are not interested in fostering civic engagement or civil society, to the contrary, Securitate officers are still running the show, together with incompetent and corrupt Congressman and parliamentarian PSD dominated (one party system, the communists regrouped in), AKA the Social Democrats Party, Securitate officers.

Mexico has finally embarked on a new path for change, eradicating

The corrupt government employees, cutting down their salaries and perks and focusing on eliminating the drug kingpins from power and

Police. A new dawn is emerging for Mexico; is it going to be a government-funded elimination of corrupt Congressmen, and Cleansing of the Chamber of Deputies, led by Famous Porfirio Munoz Ledo; or just a resuscitation of the old PRI style government that has long been destroying the country and keeping the majority of Mexicans in poverty?

The Conclusion is focusing on various levels of corruption in all 3 countries, and the prospects for a healthy civic polity, as it signs up to the new standards for transparency and equanimity.

Dr.

Hold Governments Accountable! http://www.olgalazin.com/books.html

GET My recent book: https://amzn.to/2NEmUuJ

 

 

MARKETING FORM:

Civic Engagement Civil Society, and Philanthropy in the USA, Romania, And Mexico, is about anti-globalization movements: the brilliant and dark sides of globalization, interoperability of Blockchain and Clean Elections in the United States of America, Romania, and Mexico.

The Introduction is about how to placate dictators and dictatorships via civic engagement and strengthening civil society.

Analysis of the USA Tax laws and foundations are tackled in 4 Chapters of this book.

The need for transparency of expenditures is absolutely paramount in this type of operations by NPPOs (not-For -Private -Profit) organizations and Foundations.

The TEO legislation is laid out and the blueprint between U.S.-Mexico is working, and herein explained for other countries to follow.

 

The Romanian Minister of Finances, in 2015, has not approved this blueprint, because they are only interested in extracting money from the taxpayers, and a weak civic polity.

The communist mentality is still there entrenched in the minds of the technocrats, and bureaucrats; they are not interested in fostering civic engagement or civil society, to the contrary, Securitate officers are still running the show, together with incompetent and corrupt Congressman and parliamentarian PSD dominated (one party system, the communists regrouped in), AKA the Social Democrats Party, Securitate officers.

 

Mexico has finally embarked on a new path for change, eradicating

The corrupt government employees, cutting down their salaries and perks, and focusing on eliminating the drug kingpins from power and

 Police. A new dawn seems to be emerging for Mexico with the election of a third party. It is the new presidential and Congressional power.

 Is it going to be a government-funded elimination of corrupt Congressmen, and Cleansing of the Congress plus Senate, led by famous opposition leader Porfirio Munoz Ledo & AMLO; or will it be just a resuscitation of the old PRI style government that has long been destroying the country and keeping the majority of Mexicans in poverty? Will he win the battle against corruption?

What is going to happen? Will the crooked military in the street be replaced by the honest police?

And how can the police break their centuries-old habit of corruption? How can the drug-dealers cartels be broken? It will take much time to know. As it is now, civil society’s role is to deflect attacks on Scions financing civil society; can these attacks at a presidential level, on NPPOS be restored to prominence? These are the questions.

The Conclusion is focusing on various levels of corruption in all 3 countries, and the prospects for a healthy civic polity, as the civic polity signs up to the new standards for transparency, inclusion, and equanimity.

 

Signed, OLGA MAGDALENA LAZIN, 7/25/17

 

 

 

 

 

 
GET HERE THE BOOK: https://drolgalazinandrei.wordpress.com/2018/07/27/why-is-it-important-to-create-change-for-the-better/

 

You must complete this form to have your Marketing Service launched by Book Venture Publishing

 

Please check all aspects of your marketing services carefully, as it will appear as it currently does after launching. If you are satisfied, please sign and return this form, authorizing Book Venture to launch your service. Once you have approved all the materials, you assume full responsibility, most specifically its content.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By affixing my signature below, I hereby approve of the launching of the marketing materials for the services above.

 

 

 

 

 

Signature Over Printed Name Date

 

Dr. Olga Lazin Channel on youtube:

PROFMEX – DIRECTOR RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT: http://www.profmex.com

BLOG: http://olgaandrassy.blogspot.com/2018/07/amazoncom-eternal-mexican-revolutions.html

http://www.olgalazin.com

http://www.decentralizedglobalization.com

AMAZON STORE: http://www.amazon.com/shops/olazin

http://dr-olga-essential-oils-blends.business.site/

Books: http://www.drolgacoaching.self-esteemfirstdrolga.com/2018/04/amazon-kindle-direct-publishing-dr-olga.html

Start investing with Acorns today! Get $5 when you use my invite link: https://www.acorns.com/invite/MLGYL6

http://www.globalsisterhood.org/circles/dr-olga-westwood-sister-circle/admin/edit-details/

My Book’s SKU: NC-767-BJO . on Amazon

RESIGNEDMarketing Order Form7:25:18.docx