Comoara nevăzută [The unseen treasure]

“Îl interesau comorile îngropate în România, chiar înfiinţase un departament secret care se ocupa de acest lucru. Iar despre Constantin Brâncoveanu se spunea că dăduse peste o comoară imensă…” 

“Se bănuia că sub Aşezămintele Brâncoveneşti s-ar afla tuneluri secrete care ar putea duce la legendara comoară, şi că de aceea Ceauşescu ar fi hotărât demolarea acestor clădiri”.

Aceasta este mărturia fostul său operator de film despre mult prea regretatul (pentru a i se potrivi eticheta de‘tiran’) Nicolae Ceauşescu. Până şi asasinarea dictatorului ar putea fi explicată prin faptul că demolările sale i-au atras un blestem al urmaşilor lui Brâncoveanu.

C-o fi aşa, că n-o fi… contează mai puţin. Important este că această ipoteză istorică arată cum Ceauşescu, aidoma ceauşeilor (cu păr schimbat, dar nu şi năravuri), cocoţaţi la putere în urma sa, au ratat adevărata comoară imensă a naţiunii române.

O fi fost Constantin Brâncoveanu, într-adevăr, un om nespus de bogat, un Prinţ al Aurului (cum era poreclit de turci). Poate că averea lui era comparabilă cu a unor personaje biblice precum Avraam şi Iov.

Însă comoara lui cea mai de preţ este cea din ceruri, pe care şi-a agonisit-o încă înainte de a o fi sporit şi mai mult prin moartea martirică.

Din păcate, sub lupa istoricilor seculari, ba chiar şi a unor ‘fani’ de peste veacuri, dar care să nu le împărtăşească credinţa, Sfinţii Martiri Brâncoveni rămân de nepriceput.

Cum, să fi fost chiar atât de bogaţi, însă să nu fi negociat cumva eliberarea cu nesătulul Sultan şi hrăpăreţii săi slujitori de la Istanbul?! Aşa ceva pare de neconceput în zilele noastre!

În mod tragic pentru Ceauşescu, dar şi pentru noi toţi este faptul că el nu a rezonat decât parţial cu destinul istoric al românităţii. A despărţi acest destin, al istoriei omeneşti, de miezul său ortodox este lipsit de sens.

Nici fondatorului statului numit încă România, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, nu i-a fost dragă Ortodoxia, nici prea lăudatulului său urmaş, Regele Carol I – în vremea căruia au fost dărâmate mai multe sau cel puţin tot atâtea biserici*** precum în epoca lui Ceauşescu.

Nici nefericitul rege, venit la Gurile Dunării, ca să facă de strajă intereselor Germaniei, n-a înţeles destinul naţiunii române, ci a murit de inimă rea. Acest acest popor de opincari nerecunoscători – pe care socotea că îl scosese din beznă – nu voia să lupte de partea unei cauze pierdute de la început.

Bucură-se acum, căci un alt urmaş de-al său, Traian Băsescu, va pune şi ultimele găini cu ouă de aur tot în proţapul Germaniei! Dar nu se va bucura mult...

Alergarea către comorile pământeşti ale lui Cuza (în beneficiul stăpânilor masoni din Franţa), al lui Carol I (pentru scumpa lui Germanie), ale lui Ceauşescu (de dragul unei ficţiuni personale despre poporului român) sau a lui Băsescu (pentru păpuşarii din UE şi, iarăşi, Germania) nu va ţine decât până la mormânt.

Or, comoara credinţei dreptslăvitoare ţine mai mult decât viaţa de aici şi rămâne neatinsă de prădăciunile unor satrapi vremelnici, slugoi ţinuţi în jilţ de mai marii lor, odinioară de la Istanbul, azi de la Berlin, Bruxelles, Washington DC sau de aiurea.

Poate că, nu pentru (ne)meritele nevrednicilor de noi, ci prin voia Domnului şi jertfa mucenicilor Săi, de care a dat destui şi acest neam, comoara aceasta va rămâne până la sfârşitul vremurilor!

*** NOTĂ: Ar fi vorba, doar pentru Bucureşti, de 25 demolate în vremea lui Carol I, respectiv 23 – în timpul lui Ceauşescu. Desigur, aştept alte surse mai precise, care ar putea confirma sau infirma ceea ce am găsit eu.

[Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

Înfruntând canicula… [Facing the heat…]

Unii ar prefera o bere australiană sau orice bere (într-un tren din UK, precum în poza de aici – deşi nu era caniculă :-)...

Alţii aşa-zisa ‘bere de ghimbir’, care este tot un suc carbonat (inventat în SUA)...

Sau un suc cu bucăţele de aloe şi piersică produs în Arabia Saudită (cumpărat de aici)...

O cutiuţă nu prea atrăgătoare de îngheţată comunistă nu prea dulce (la Shanghai)...

Un suc de rodii proaspăt stors, cam înecăcios faţă de cel cu chimicale care imită aşa-numitul fruct al pasiunii (la Istanbul)...

O bucăţică, prea mică pentru cât de scumpă (la € 1), de nucă de cocos (pe străzile Romei)...

Bune toate, dar eu aş zice că un suc de guava (produs de o firmă din India, probabil în Ţările de Jos) merge cel mai bine...

[Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

Coup d’état in Romania?! Or just an outburst of orange hysteria?[Lovitură de stat în România?! Sau doar o răbufnire de isterie portocalie?]

There are no tanks rolling down the streets of Bucharest, no one has been arrested or exiled, public gatherings are still taking place in the city centre. It’s Code Orange again – but not because of the political turmoil.

It’s the crazy weather once more – this time the scorching heat, not the heavy snowing and blizzards.

The ‘civilised world’ – the EU (especially Germany) + the USA & others – have expressed their concerns and preoccupation with the sad fact that their beloved orange hero of 2004 was wrongfully (so they claim) impeached a few days ago.

These high priests of democracy decry the fact that Băsescu could have been ‘executed’ by votes in the Romanian Parliament. But it’s all a hysterical reaction.

Votes are no bullets. These are the same votes that have recently installed an Islamist (albeit moderate) president in Egypt, the same that sent spirited Nicolas Sarkozy to early retirement, and the same that will probably oust Angela Merkel from power in 2013.

Happen what may – a bigger evil than Băsescu can always befall Romania; but this is no reason for not removing the current evil – I am siding with those that, on July 29, will vote YES to confirm his impeachment.

He has never been the honest fighter for democracy, the defender of an independent judiciary, the committed supporter of the rule of law, nor the reformist whom the foreign media kept portaying over the past decade.

He has been an authoritarian, abusive, antidemocratic, and arrogant president who could never put up with the imperfections of Romania’s Constitution.

As a matter of fact, back in 2004, he had promised that he wouldn’t be an neutral president, but a kind of “player-President.” And he surely kept his promise, and played aggressively.

Whether a man like him, considered to be a creation of the former Communist secret services, has already played all his trumps is difficult to say. Used to steering a 306-meter long oil tanker, Băsescu is skilled at turning adverse odds in his favour.

Exposing the plagiarism of the current Prime Minister only hastened his impeachment, although it wasn’t a decisive blow to his adversaries, that would assure the survival of his moribund orange regime.

The average voter doesn’t know what plagiarism is. But Băsescu may still have some aces left in his sleeves.

His orange supporters are enraged, desperately trying to convinge the Sublime Porte of 2012 – which is not Ottoman Istanbul anymore, but Brussels and Washington DC – that a coup d’état has taken place in Romania, thus a referendum would be illegitimate.

Some of their arguments are valid, yet so are many of those against Băsescu’s rule. He was not the enlightened reformist of democratic institutions often described by foreign fans and internal worshippers, but a rather constant saboteour of democracy.

Most of all, irrespective whether he did it constitutionally or not, he is a shameless liar – and his irresponsible lies amount to (if not even surpass) the gravity of high treason.

Out of his abundance of lies, it’s worth noting only those with catastrophical economic consequences. In the autumn of 2008, as the global economic crisis began breaking havoc elsewhere in the world, he said Romania would not be affected.

Even more so, he said the wages of teachers should be increased by 50% and accused the liberal Prime Minister of refusing to provide the funds for his irresponsible claims.

In the meantime, his orange clique (PDL) was promising a 6.5% percent economic growth for 2009. At the end of that year, the economy would contract by 7.2%.

A bit later, in January 2009, he said that Romania would not need an IMF loan. In May 2009, Romania loaned 20 billions euros from the IMF and the European Commission.

Where did the money go? In the coffers of foreign banks, in the pockets of ‘orange’ companies, but surely nowhere in the benefit of Romanians who refuse to bite the bullet.

Although prescribed as a life-or-death necessity, with obstinance and cynicism spit at the ‘lazy Romanians’, it is still arguable whether Romania was in a such desperate need of a bailout. Or was it more an experimetal medicine forced down our throats by Doctor Băsescu?

A year later, in May 2010, Băsescu subjected Romanians to a fierce austerity experiment – a 25% wage cut in the public sector, and a 5% VAT increase.

Some may argue that any of these are but inoffensive (to the degree they are ‘constitutional’) lies and a kind of inherent mistakes of democracy that can’t be punished in any democratic society.

What if they are not as innocent as we are told they are? Băsescu’s orange gang was one of cunning profiteers, thus most of his (and his regime’s) apparent mistakes look like sheer premeditated crimes.

A yesman of Washington DC, of Brussels, and of Berlin (where some of his most voiceful supporters are heard these days), he did nothing in favour of Romania – only in favour of the orange myriad of interests that he patronized.

He is a fake hero of democracy, an indecent patron of a corrupt regime whom most voters in Romania (hopefully – it’s risky to say anything more these days) don’t want as president anymore.

There’s no lack of easily corruptible yesmen in Romania, therefore no one in Washington DC, Brussels or Berlin should worry about Băsescu being thrown into the dustbin of history.  

Romanians should be as concerned about the democratic world’s crocodile tears for the fate of Romanian democracy as those cynics in the aforementioned capitals were worried when Băsescu was pushing this impoverished and abused nation through the steepest chasm of austerity ever seen in the EU.

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

[EN] No comment / [RO] Fără comentarii (33) – Tasteless fruits / Fructe fără gust

[EN] As perfectly rounded as wax fruits, but often tasting like moist cardboard. [RO] La fel de perfect rotunjite precum fructele de ceară, dar adesea având gust de carton umed.

[EN] Strawberries, kiwis and grapes... all with the same imprecise taste. [RO] Căpşuni, kiwi şi struguri... toate cu acelaşi gust imprecis.

[EN] Appealing colours, absent flavours, disappointing tastes. [RO] Culori atrăgătoare, arome absente, gusturi dezamăgitoare.

[EN] The same industrial fruits in London, as in Washington DC, Paris or Istanbul... [RO] Aceleaşi fructe industriale la Londra, precum în Washington DC , Paris sau Istanbul...

[EN] (A pleasant exception – the fruits I ate in Portugal’s capital, Lisbon.) [RO] (O plăcută excepţie – fructele pe care le-am mâncat în capitala Portugaliei, Lisabona.)

[EN] No wonder that today’s children don’t like fruits. [RO] Nu-i de mirare că nu le plac fructele copiilor de azi.

[EN] They are more likely to see cloned mamouths in their lifetime than the good fruits of yore. [RO] Mai probabil vor vedea mamuţi clonaţi în timpul vieţii lor decât fructele bune de odinioară.

[EN] Not knowing what they are missing, they may be happy to live in these progressive times. [RO] Neştiind ce pired, or fi fericiţi că trăiesc în aceste vremuri progresiste.

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

[EN] Grave and unpleasant readings / [RO] Lecturi grave şi neplăcute (10)

[EN] Exactly two centuries ago (on May 16, 1812), Russia snatched Bessarabia (which had not existed as distinct territory before) from Moldova. [RO] Exact acum două secole (pe 16 mai, 1812), Rusia a înşfăcat Basarabia (care nu existase ca teritoriu distinct înainte) de la Moldova.

[EN] Ottoman Turkey renounced this fringe of land between the Prut and the Dniester rivers, chopping Moldova for a second time. [RO] Turcia otomană a renunţat la această făşie de pământ dintre râurile Prut şi Nistru, ciopârţind Moldova pentru a doua oară.

[EN] Not very long before (1775), the Ottomans had ceded the north-western part of the country (Bukovina) to Austria. [RO] Nu cu foarte mult înainte (1775), otomanii cedaseră partea de nord-vest a ţării (Bucovina) Austriei.

[EN] The Russian-Ottoman Treaty was signed at Manuc’s Inn, Bucharest. Today, people have beer and Lebanese (?!) food there. [RO] Tratatul ruso-otoman a fost semnat la Hanul lui Manuc, Bucureşti. Azi, oamenii iau bere şi mâncare libaneză (?!) acolo.

[EN] A similar deal (1878) between Istanbul and London would forever change the destiny of Cyprus. [RO] O înţelegere similară (1878) între Istanbul şi Londra avea să schimbe pentru totdeauna destinul Ciprului.

[EN] Greece and Cyprus never united, though they are both EU members. A similar scenario is unlikely for Romania and Moldova. [RO] Grecia şi Cipru nu s-au unit niciodată, deşi sunt ambele membre ale UE. Un scenariu similar este improbabil pentru România şi Moldova.

[EN] What is likely is for Greece to exit (or be kicked out) of the Eurozone (+ EU), and for Moldova to be left out of the EU and Romania. [RO] Ceea ce este probabil este ca Grecia să iasă (sau să fie dată afară) din Eurozonă (+ UE), iar Moldova să fie lăsată în afara UE şi a României.

[EN] Russia is ready to benefit from that, and – after 70 years of peace taken for granted by many – Europe could be on the brink of war again… [RO] Rusia este gata să beneficieze de acesta şi – după 70 de ani de pace luaţi de-a gata de mulţi – Europa s-ar putea afla în pragul războiului din nou…

[EN] The proposed readings: / [RO] Lecturile propuse:

[EN] 1) How was Moldova chopped – here, here, here, here.

[RO] 2) Cum a fost ciopârţită Moldova – aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

[EN] 3) Republic of Moldova’s indentity problem – here, here.

[RO] 4) Despre capcana încrederii în Vladimir Putin – aici.

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

A new Ottoman Turkey – an unforgivable courage [O nouă Turcie Otomană – un curaj de neiertat]

Even before WWI ended in the autumn of 1918, The Ottoman Empire had been theoretically sliced by the Perfidious Albion, and France – the two world powers which had stood by the ailing empire (dubbed “the Sickman of Europe” by its greatest rival, Tsarist Russia) for a century before.

The former empire – whose rise and decadence shaped the history of the Eastern half of Europe since 1299 to the dawn of the 20th century – was supposed to be reduced to a third of Anatolia (97% of today’s Republic of Turkey).

Still, that would have been a remarkable survival of a moribund country that had beaten all bets against it, and should have collapsed under the burden of public debth some 45 years before.

By the mid 1800s, the Ottoman Empire was probably one of the least popular countries in Europe. “The Turks are coming!” had long before been a frightened scream heard in this part of the world, especially in Greece, Romania and in other realms in the Balkans.

Even the Austrians, some of the Europeans most vigorously opposed to Turkey’s Accession to the EU these days, probably used these words in 1529 and 1683.

Seen as backward, corrupt, yet still dangerous as any ailing predator, the Ottoman Empire had nothing good to offer, many believed.

Although the Ottoman Empire did not mean exclusively repeated savage attacks on civilians, plunders, mass abductions of children, desecration of Christian churches, suppression of religious identities (mainly of Greeks, Serbs, Albanians etc), these were the sad things that people rememebred over the centuries.

The Ottomans were probably no worse than the Romans or the Crusaders, and were certainly more religiously tolerant than Catholics and Protestants proved to be among themselves and to their Orthodox brethren or to Jews.

Yet no one remembered any ‘positive shades’ from the Sublime Porte’s history; it was a relic of the past just like the Austria-Hungary, and both were seen as ‘doomed’.

Industrial progress had erupted in Britain and was spreading from Germany towards the rest of the world, democratic ideals burst in the USA and France, while Russia was offering a glimpse of hope (albeit shadowed by wariness) to the Orthodox nations still regarded as ‘Ottoman subjects’ in Istanbul.

In the meantime, ‘The Sickman’ refused to die, because he was not let to die by his ‘quacks’ (the UK and France), who even dared putting their ‘medical skills’ at risk in the Crimean War and who were also his largest creditors.

In a way, supporting the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century by the great powers of the time was similar to supporting Gaddafi’s Libya against a presumed threat al-Qaeda (in the early 2000s) or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq against theocratic Iran (in the 1980s).

But that was over 100 years ago. ‘The Sickman’ refused to bow to the last blow (Treaty of Sèvres), and reborn from the ashes (Treaty of Lausanne + Proclamation of the Republic).

Thanks to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s aggressive secular reforms, Turkey was allowed to be, and underwent massive changes.

However, economic advancement was rather slow for a few decades marked by coup d’etats, and only the past 15-20 years have allowed the rise of a ‘Turkish miracle’ (if it’s not a bubble?!) comparable to what is hailed as a ‘Chinese miracle’.

Brought into NATO (in 1952, even before West Germany), Turkey would be kept up to these days in a humiliating antechamber of the EEC/EU… just until the country no longer needs, nor truly wishes to be part of the extremely ‘dizzy’ Union of today.

With the second armed forces in NATO, with an economy growing by 9% per year, having earned its place among the strongest economies of the world (G-20), with the fastest expanding population in Europe, Turkey has been showing signs that it is becoming a world actor to be reckoned with.

Nevertheless, almost no world power of our age would have considered Turkey’s growth a ‘threat’. At least not openly, as it would be ridiculous to believe that Moscow’s GRU and SVR didn’t assess the risk posed by the rebirth of a former archenemy.

Even the fact that Ankara befriended Teheran didn’t appear to be excessively worrisome, as long as Turkey was regarded as a staunch ally of the Western World.

But that’s no longer the case, and what has been a bewildering success story is rapidly turning into a geopolitical nightmare.

Turkey is now at odds with Israel (therefore with the USA), with the EU, while vigourously claiming back its influence over parts of the world that had been snatched from the Sublime Porte by its ‘friends’ almost a century ago: Cyprus (1878) and Egypt (1882) by the Perfidious Albion, Libya  (1912, by Italy) and Palestine (1917), by the UK again.

And let no wise leaders of today excuse themselves that they haven’t been warned! Let’s remember what Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said on the night when he won the third consecutive elections, this time by a landslide:

“Believe me, Sarajevo won today as much as Istanbul, Beirut won as much as Izmir, Damascus won as much as Ankara, Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, the West Bank, Jerusalem won as much as Diyarbakir.”

He enumerated places that were once part of the Ottoman Empire. Obviously, Erdogan made no territorial claims, but a symbolic claim – that any change occuring in Turkey could only be for the better of the above mentioned places.

Aren’t all empires claiming that? Doesn’t Uncle Sam say that his democracy and his solutions are the best for the world? Wasn’t Adolf Hitler promising his peace for a thousand years?

Anyway, before Erdoğan’s words that can be (mis)interpreted as ‘imperialistic’, his Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, set the stage for the ‘New Ottoman Turkey’ shortly before the historic elections of June 2011 in a different tone.

At the United Nations’ 4th Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), held in Istanbul (9-13 May 2011), Davutoğlu launched a bold diatribe against the current world order:

“We don’t want to have political hierarchy in the world, where certain countries, certain nations, have more to say on the future of political order in the coming decades and centuries,” the minister said.

“There are permanent members in the U.N. Security Council, and permanent [means] they will decide what will be happening in the world [in the future], it means they have the right of veto,” Davutoğlu the explained, calling this system unjust and in need of change, according to Hurryiet newspaper.

This sounds like the position of a country whose leaders wish to lead a new ‘Non-Aligned Movement’ and to speak on the behalf of the opressed.

Or could they have in mind some kind of moderately secularised Ottoman Caliphate, as Davutoğlu’s book Alternative Paradigms theoretizes that a mix of Western-style democracy and Islam is perfectly feasible?

As an admirer of Turkey – I dare assuming that few Romanians who visited the country or made friends with ordinary Turks wouldn’t agree with my admiration – I can only say that this new Ottoman courage shall not be forgiven.

Irrespective whether it is morally right for Turkey to support Turkish Cypriots, irrespective of the fact that those sickened with Uncle Sam’s unilateralism need to have their voices heard in the world, no matter how logical is to break free from EU’s hypocrisy, Erdogan is not putting Turkey on a path to a better future.

On the contrary, he may be taking a huge gamble just like Hitler did in September 1939, when the Führer foolishly imagined that the UK and France wouldn’t react to his invasion of Poland.

Rather sooner than later, the current world order – just or unjust as it it, that can be debated but unchanged! – will punish Turkey.

Up until now, Erdoğan, Davutoğlu along with President Abdulah Gül have proved to be incomparably wiser than the former Austrian corporal of the Bavarian Army.

But we cannot cast aside the sad hypothesis that –  just like Muslims all over the world, irrespective of nationality, wisdom, wealth etc – they may have fallen into a tragic and implacable trap.

This trap is the reckeless assumption that ‘their Allah’ would eventually grant victory to those standing up against Israel.

I may not be offering an earthly (political, military, economic) argument but a religious one, yet here I say it – no human beings could ever beat a nation whose’s name is Israel, the one who wrestles with God.

Only the Lord will vanquish Israel, only when and how He finds it right. And that defeat may be only quantified in metaphysical terms, having nothing to do with ‘wiping Israel off the map’ as some of the newest friends of Turkey (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) imagine.

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]