At a critical point in my life, I asked myself how have I become so fair and so exceedingly honest. Being a citizen of an Eastern European state, I was in a bad situation that allowed me to think back and reanalyze all my decisions in the field of personableness and good behaviour. How did we as a state get in the situation of losing our fairness and what led to this situation? I did not change, but the others did and I missed that unfortunate change. First of all, how did I become so fair? Now that I think of it, it has to do with my previous life as a diplomat going to a reunion in Brussels. During a conversation, a senior gentleman who was seated next to me had a brief exchange of words with another gentleman and I overheard the phrase in which he mentioned that after several decades of diplomacy for the EU and its air transport policies, including Airbus strategies, it would be unfair to accept a very generous offer from Boeing. In another words, it was an offer to switch sides. I was impressed at that point and I believed that diplomat to be a professional in his field and a true gentleman. After all, he was British. And I decided that a respectable person, especially a diplomat or a lawyer (at that moment these were the two most important social categories in my country, according to my analysis) has to be fair, no matter how much money is in stake. And I said to myself that if the EU has an advocate for fairness, the EU is going to be just fine. Now I know that if one wants the money, no matter if it’s a person, a state or an organization, the first step is to get rid of the fair people. Fairness is complicated because it’s not dishonesty, the latter being the means sometimes to avoid or to solve a crisis. Being honest is about that moment, fairness is about the future. I could understand the lack of fairness in business, but not in diplomacy. A diplomat might seem one of the weirdest creatures on earth, more or less as a good PR tool, but because everybody is enchanted and jealous of this endeavor, diplomacy becomes one the most dangerous jobs in the world. Diplomats are accepted only because they don’t make a lot of money. If they have money, everybody thinks they are spies. If there is an alien attack, the planet expects the diplomats to chase them, because they are the only humans that are more similar to aliens than to the other human beings. I, personally, am curious to see what would happen if they had the money.

I did not expect fairness to leave the EU after Brexit. But it did. I kept it as a life principle even after I left diplomacy. I did not listen to the advice that one shouldn’t follow higher principles than the persons surrounding him/her. So, I became a sitting duck to all the gold diggers in my family and in my country. It is true that if you follow more principles than your competition you give more power and more tools to those who dislike you to be attacked. I, personally, find that the concept of enemy is overdue because long-term alliances are no longer possible and, as such, the classical idea of enemy does no longer exist. One’s best friend can become in an instant an adversary, if it has to do with recognizing merits. The concept of merit is very interesting nowadays. Why is that, I asked myself? Probably because the self-appraisal has been dismantled by modern technology. If you feel good about yourself, but you don’t get social recognition, you feel lost. As such, at the end of the day, it has to do with the number of followers one has. That would not be such a problem, in my view, if your “merit competition” is more intelligent than you. Unfortunately, it is not and the consequence of that is the fact that, in most situations, smart people dismiss themselves because they crave for the attention of stupid friends. I am not a fan of suggestions, but I feel that having “hungry” ambitious friends is more useful than having oversatisfied ones. Good critics are more valuable than impressive bank accounts because there is always a stake around to fight for. People tend nowadays to be more polite than 50 years ago, which means that the key word for contemporary times is delay. Everything is delayed. In a competition between a highly educated person and a technology-educated one, the latter will always win because of unlimited possibilities to act. Video games encourage violence just by the simple fact that there is not real pain when you kill your enemy or you get killed in the game. The gap of reality for the IT generation is huge. Actually, there is no reality check for technology lovers. That is the new key to achieve invulnerability. Reality and rules of behavior are limits; fairness is also a limit. The biggest vulnerability in high education is the fact that you become polite to everybody. It’s called equal treatment. But those chasing your money see it as a vulnerability that can be exploited. Especially by those claiming to be highly educated.

It is amazing how well leftists and technology work together, following the same principle that they provide universal equality between human beings. Everybody loves equality, but at the same time everybody wants as much safety (in terms of job) and as much privacy (especially digital one) as possible. The statement: IT is the new aristocracy shows that even the left needs an upper class and that the idea of universal equality is not absolute. There is more tolerance in the left side than in the right side of the political spectrum and the question is if the right will be able to survive politically. Democracy goes back a long way to the Greeks and it embraces the energy and the force of the people, but the Greeks were organized as city-states and their influence, under Alexander the Great for example, has to do a lot with the power of deciding for oneself. And that power is the highest level of achievement of a human being. The power to decide for yourself. The moment you take the decision and assume the risks by yourself and you no longer imitate others, but are influenced by others (there is a huge difference between imitation and influence, as between a directive and a ruling of the EU, even if the comparison is exaggerated) is the highest progress possible for a nation in terms of civilizational niveau of its citizens and residents. And it is the hardest to get, if you think of Newton’s rules, especially the one saying that if one wants something, an equal and even bigger force is going to try to throw one back. The current problem is the fact the violence is used to apply this rule of Newton. I can understand opposing the growth of others because of the need for competition and winners, but I do not understand the increasing acceptance of use of violence in this purpose. There is no meritocracy in violence. Violence excludes it. Violent societies stay undeveloped if there is the fear of losing your life if you try to outsmart others with the exclusion of violence because, at the end of the day everybody wants to live as long as possible, the idea of dying for a cause is just an inaccurate bedtime story. Chivalry is recommended only to aliens if they ever make the mistake of coming to earth. I personally believe the Earth is able to win any competition against any sort of alien in the Universe. I have a memory from one holiday I went to, it was in Greece. Anyway, we came back by car, which was exceptional because I do not like travelling far away by car. In front of the car there was the car of another family also coming from Greece to Romania. The peculiar thing was the fact that that specific car tried at least six times for find a quicker route to home and kept disappearing and reappearing in front of us all the time until we reached Bucharest. This is the current image of the planet according to my analysis: we all drive each other crazy all the time. No alien stands any chance of surviving because there is a constant erratic movement of human beings around the planet. It can not be explained by means of logic, but it exists. It’s not love either, unfortunately. If an alien force comes to Earth, the only suggestion they could give to their families would be to move to a further galaxy, because the Earth is too close and the alien species has no chance of survival in such a proximity. One thing is also for sure: when they leave the planet, at least one human being will try to elope and will hide inside the ship. The ambition and the willingness to conquer are also very important features of the human apparatus. The fact that we are not already present and active on other planets is to be explained by means of our incredibly powerful auto destructive approach when it comes to internal competition. The news is that at this point the competition is global and that is a premiere in human history. From the outside it seems that we’ve outgrown the planet and we’re lacking the inspiration what to do next. What if we turn off the internet? Interesting perspective, but it will be turned on at some point. Just a momentary break. As Durrenmatt said in his book, I think it was “The Physicists”: an idea that has been thought can not be taken back. So, what next?

I saw recently – The devil wears Prada – part II-. It was somehow funny, because if Andy had followed Miranda’s sayings, she would have been famous, rich and probably married with children. According to my students’ analysis, if one is a professional in his field, he has to be rich, because nowadays there is a direct link between competence and financial power. In another words: no money, no value. Andy simply wasted twenty years following her principles. Another thing that seems to be for sure at this point: if you follow instructions of the rich or powerful, it is impossible not to become like them, that means also rich and powerful. If you don’t, there is a high chance to end up broke, sick, crazy in a mental asylum or on drug prescription or simply dead. Why is that? Because there is no longer a need for principles. Technology is enough. Everything becomes relative and the only stable value is money. Nothing is global except for money.

So, what about fairness? What about high education? If one wants money and power, not recommended. If Andy had not been so well educated and respectful of others, she would have succeeded in becoming a leader of the new generation, but instead she is Miranda’s admirer. After 20 years, Miranda is more powerful than ever, so powerful that Andy is able to write any book she wants about her. Andy will never be an editor-in -chief and probably will marry a rich guy to have a comfortable life in her mature life. Probably the nice Australian who seems to be a very serious guy and doesn’t have a clue about fashion. The Australian boyfriend is so different than the boyfriend in the first film and the good-looking famous writer that it is impossible for me not to mention the fact that from the outside it looks as if she somehow lost her connection to men since she is chasing journalistic fame. Emily had a more favorable course of life, that meant working for Dior and having two kids, including the fact that she got all the Paris’ gifts in the first film and she claimed she wanted to stay connected to Andrea, but gave it up in the end because she left the fashion world.

What about the EU? Well, the EU is rich, richer than ever. And inside Europe, Western Europe is so desired by all the continents on the planet that it is impossible not to become snug and indifferent. After throwing away the British fairness, there’s no limit to the money. Besides two outfits (Dior and probably Valentino), the clothes in the film were scary to wear. I decided to continue to strive for the Chanel boots. I made quite a progress in terms of Prada and I am very happy with that. I have the Prada jacket, but not the Chanel boots. No, no, no for the cerulean blue polyester sweater at the end of part II. I, personally, would not have allowed it to be a part of the film. It ruins the Chanel boots and everything that Chanel, Dior, Valentino, YSL, Galliano have made for fashion. If Andy still uses that sweater, there is no hope for progress in fashion because she could have stayed at home with her parents during her entire life and wear such items. It annuls any sort of progress in her life.  The only remedy is to have as soon as possible part III with a return of the Chanel boots. At the end of the day, haute couture is not about healthy or growing economies, it is about personal ambition. We are (again) in desperate need for Chanel, as Nigel says in part I. The good news is that until Chanel arrives, there are other ways of progress, like the example of Maison Margiela in the film, in other words some unexpected gifts from God when one is able to buy expensive stuff for a reasonable price.

Going back to the EU, one of the things I heard when I was in diplomacy was that the EU diplomats wore a bigger size of their clothes at the reunions because they did not want to look rich, even if they were. If fairness is gone, how is it possible to put together on one continent bureaucracy with unflattering looks (EU institutions) with high fashion? What is the EU promoting? A mid-class casual uniform with sneakers or the ambition to upgrade to higher fashion if you have the money? Is the EU better than national bureaucracy? Europe is a rich continent and all its member states have increased their financial power. Does that mean that one is able to wear to work high-fashion brands, even a Brussels functionary? Does it work to have on the streets richness without fairness or is there only one effect and that is to have two social classes, the poor and the rich, each in their own home and the streets flooded with tourists.  EU functionaries are actually rich, but they try to look reasonable and to give the impression that they are part of the middle class. In Romania, it is very hard to grow and empower the private sector, because all the good jobs are in the administration. Likewise, at European level, as far as I heard, the dream job is to work for the EU. The problem with the EU dream jobs is that really valuable people who could boost the private sector and the economy are afraid to leave institutional jobs at national level or regional level because everybody considers those jobs to be too good to be left behind for risky attempts. And the social pressure not to leave such a job, even if you are a lot more gifted at trade, for example, is huge, because most of the time your family will offer you immense praise for your current position. In most of the families, stable jobs are a gift from God and are not to be abandoned for uncertain perspectives. And this is why people don’t change their professional life. Social appraisal for jobs in the administration in Romania and EU jobs in Europe is overwhelming. And if the competition is to get a good job in the administration, there is no challenge in the private sector. Actually, there is no social glory for the private sector unless you are very rich.

I guess the US is just waiting for the EU to become so rich and lazy that it will act like a fallen empire.

I sometimes ask myself what would happen if the UK were to return to the EU and I would go back to being a diplomat? I would have difficulties because I could not behave differently to the UK than to the other EU member states. Not possible.

In order to see the film, I went to a mall wearing my Louboutin shoes, not alone, I assure you, but the person next to me left the room after 45 minutes and stated that the movie was terrible. It was quite a challenge. My heels got stuck several times in all the small holes at the entrance, on the escalator and I almost fell on the marble, it was very slippery. No chance for high fashion heels in malls. In New York I got stuck once, in the mall it was a fashion challenge not to break my neck. I guess nobody wants to wear high fashion shoes in big department stores or malls or on the street. It’s sneakers’ world. I assume a lot of people laughed at the sight of my red soles. I have to admit that the policewoman in Athens steering the crossroad in central Athens and wearing Louboutin shoes was an inspiration, alongside Melania Trump in her recent documentary film.

When I came home, after the film, I had to fix the heels. Steel technology had bitten fiercely into them. And I said to myself that I had to see again the initial film because I really liked the dynamics of the relations between the characters. Being at the top means a continuous battle to defeat the other challengers. As a woman, it means having several life partners. Andy had more friends in part I and it seems as if following her principles has pushed her into a certain solitude. It looks as if there is a lot of loneliness in a life full of principles.

My next step was to imagine Andy’s life in the last 20 years, according to what I had wanted for her. I wanted her to keep the Chanel boots and to wear them. Just the boots, to keep the progress going on. I wanted at the end of part two for her to bring out the boots and to put a piece of the cerulean sweater in a frame. And I also wanted to see her wear one Tribal earring from Dior, just one, as a good start for her next adventures. In my opinion, Chanel and Dior go together, even if they were fierce rivals when both fashion designers were alive. The fashion dynamics is very often about Dior and Chanel and their rivalry. If Andy does no longer have the Chanel boots, she needs a symbol of Dior’s new looking working woman. It would also be a lot of fun to see her wear a Birkin bag that she doesn’t like and that, most of the time, overshadows her. One can fight human competition, but the question is who comes first: the Birkin bag or the person wearing it? You have to work hard for people to notice you first, not your fancy bag. Once I was at a presentation and in the audience, there was a lady wearing a beautiful Chanel bag that was “seated” on the chair next to her. The bag attracted a lot of attention, and it kind of stole the spotlight. I, personally, found it scary because the bag became almost like a human partner. We buy expensive items to replace the values that are absent in our lives.

What also amazes me is the fact that old bags are very thief proof; they have special systems to avoid theft, keys to have them locked, which means that the unsafety of a bag has been very high almost always in history. The irony is that the Birkin bag, which is a travel bag with a very serious closing system is being worn almost wide open. Its meaning was to be a carrier bag to be used while traveling and having as its main feature its safety system. You close the bag and use the key to protect everything that is inside, not to keep looking inside all the time. I personally would love to have such a bag, but I would act against fashion and create a bandoulière for her, similar to the original one. I want to have what Jane Birkin had, the original bag made for her. The colour would be orange, like the one that Sandra Bullock wore when she was editor-in-chief – I think the film was “The proposal” with Ryan Gosling. She kept it so close to her to show everybody that she owned a symbol of high social status. I guess I am afraid, just like Barbie, of not being able to wear high heels and of cellulite.

Now the only thing I can think about is the Seinfeld episodes in Curb your enthusiasm, which made me laugh a lot because I really enjoyed George’s transformation since Seinfeld’s finale. It was extraordinary that he, the most routine-addicted person ever was able to change so much in that amount of time: he got married, he became rich due to a useful app, then he divorced and split the money with his wife, later he lost his part of the fortune due to fiscal irresponsibility, according to the words of Kramer, and he wanted to remarry his former wife, who wanted a prenup agreement, to keep George away from his own money, according to Elaine. And I said to myself that George was the winner, because so much interesting stuff had happened to him in those years that it’s impossible not to love him. The others were funny, too, but there was little change in comparison to George. I asked myself why. And the answer was that they did not need to change, their lives were already funny enough. So, after Curb your enthusiasm I changed my favourite character in George’s favour. It’s amazing how much the episodes from Curb made me reanalyze the characters of the sitcom. Without them, my choice would have been completely different when it comes to which character I loved. I would never have married George in the initial series, but after so many adventures I couldn’t have refused a marriage proposal from him. Elaine looked stunning and the idea of her and Jerry having a baby was interesting, but at a closer look one might say that it was a desperate approach to create a family because nobody else wanted them as partners. Kramer behave in the manner in which initial George would have behaved. He stayed with Jerry and Elaine. George ran away with huge success and the rest of the Seinfeld family stayed in NY and raised the baby. Like a normal family. I guess Larry had the final laughter, because he is the inspiration for George. The series is called Seinfeld but the ending is for George and, implicitly, for him. Smart move. Too smart, if you ask me, if that exists/ is possible. I believe that the most dangerous thing in the world is to be very very smart. It can become deadly, not in the sense of being dangerous to others, but in the sense of being in serious danger because of others…

Sofia Fodor