Posts mit dem Label Romania werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Posts mit dem Label Romania werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen

Mittwoch, 11. Oktober 2023

My Life

 

                                        

                                        Daniel Dragomirescu, Bucharest, Romania

 

 


                                                 My life is like anyone´s life:

                                                 happening or waiting to

                                                 happen or not happening...

                                                 inevitable entropy… like

                                                 Marlon Brando said on

                                                 his deathbed:

                                                ¨What was that?¨

                                                 Don´t look now

                                                 but your life just happened.



                                                Viața mea este ca oricare alta:

                                                întâmplare ori aşteptând

                                                să se întâmple or să nu se întâmple...

                                                inevitabilă entropie... precum

                                                Marlon Brando a spus

                                                pe patul de moarte:

                                               "Ce a fost ce?"

                                                Nu privi acum

                                                dar viaţa ta tocmai se întâmplă.


                                                   (Daniel Dragomirescu)

 

 

 

Montag, 18. November 2019

Remember November 1987


By Daniel Dragomirescu, Bucharest (Romania)


The 15th of November 1987 marked the fall of the humane mask that the Romanian communist regime had been wearing. Self-legitimated as a political regime of 'popular democracy', yet installed with the help of the Red Army tanks on the 6th of March 1945 and maintained through a combination of populism, rigged elections, state despotism and terrorism, towards the end of Ceaușescu's presidency, Romanian communism was only representative of the dictator and the party nomenclature who enjoyed unlimited privileges. Following the generalized socio-economic crisis, determined by a series of catastrophic political decisions, towards the end of the 80s Romania suffered from cold and hunger, just like during the war. Food ratios were re-introduced like at the time Bucharest was being bombed by the Allies, while the shortage of consumer goods, starting with tooth paste, toilet paper or absorbent cotton and ending with the basic necessities (sugar, oil, bread) was widespread in the country.

One waited for whole nights in fronts of the stores for the most trivial things, while the application of the long-promised principle of communist allocation of social welfare, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs", was being postponed sine die. In railway stations I could see how people rushed towards international trains in order to buy medicine (sulfamethoxazole), cigarettes (Bulgarian BT or the not so good Albanian Gent) or clothes from Polish or East-German tourists. When night fell in the cold seasons (autumn and winter) thousands of villages were left in the dark, on account of the drastic economizing that Ceaușescu's bureaucrats had imposed, whereas goods trains carrying whole grain cars meant for export hurried through railway stations. The situation was not much better in cities and the capital of the country was starting to feel the crisis that got deeper and deeper from one year to the next. The gas pressure was low in the evening, the heat from the radiators and the central heating lasted for a couple of hours in the morning and evening, hot water ran for a few hours at the end of the week (not in every city, though), and saving power meant leaving whole neighborhoods in the dark. After the winter of 1984-1985, I heard Bucharesters complaining of the freezing cold they had to put up with in their flats, converted into fridges, throughout the winter.

One freezing morning, while queuing for milk, I saw a man collapsing on the pavement, dead. He had had a heart attack – people had had to wait for a long time in the cold, starting with 6 am, until the shop opened, so that they could get a bottle or two of milk or a jar of yogurt. After the milk was quickly gone, for the rest of the day the shop turned into a kind of museum. The basic food in most shops was frozen ocean fish and Vietnamese shrimps, and instead of real coffee, people could only drink "nechezol", an indistinct mix of dubious substitutes with a brown color (which was said to have caused countless cases of pancreatic cancer). Nevertheless, the regime claimed to be extremely benevolent towards its citizens and especially towards the workers, whom they claimed to represent like no other regime in history. The cult of Ceaușescu and his illiterate wife, Elena, had become grotesque, and Romanians were forced to applaud and honor the two "beloved children of the people". Some joker launched the joke that Romanians came to resemble the penguins from the North Pole – flapping their wings and feeding on fish. Even the socialist Mitterand, back then the president of France, had to disalign from Ceausescu's regime and limits further contacts with it, in order not to compromise himself.

This was the picture of everyday life in the Socialist Republic of Romania, when, on the 15th of November 1987, the great revolt of the workers from the Red Flag truck factory broke out in Brașov, a historical and beautiful city in the heart of the country. Nobody had expected something of this kind in Ceaușescu's Romania, where the omnipresent political police (the Securitate), like Stalin's NKVD, had a large number of informants and was rigorously monitoring any hostile attitude or dissidence from the line of the communist party and the 'socialist' and 'popular democratic' regime in Bucharest. The great revolt of the workers in Brașov was repressed with an incredible brutality for a state in 20th century Europe, and Europe was unable to do anything to prevent it. However, this revolt of the workers managed to unmask the dictatorship in the country. The political regime that had declared itself 'democratic' and 'of the workers' was neither in reality. It worked only for the benefit of the communist nomenclature, whose lifestyle, through its luxury, privileges and arrogance mimicked the lifestyle of some tribal aristocracy from a third world country. The communist totalitarian regime from Ceaușescu's Romania was nothing but a horrible tyranny, through which a minority was imposing its will on the popular majority, who was forced to eat frozen ocean fish, drink cold water (when there was tap water) and repeatedly applaud Ceausescu's endless demagogic speeches, bearing in silence all imaginable deprivations.

English version by Roxana Doncu
Editorial modification: Raymond Walden




Dienstag, 4. Dezember 2018

Romania in the Year of the Centennial


The Romanian people has existed on the territory bordered by the Danube, the Carpathians and the Black Sea ever since its formation. As a modern European people it is as old as the French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese peoples and older than the Latin peoples that surround it. Yet, unlike other Latin people, because of specific reasons, the Romanian people could not organize itself into a state in the first centuries of its existence, following the retreat of the Roman Empire from Dacia (271 AD). Once organized into a powerful kingdom, that of the Dacians, the Carpatho-Danubian-Pontic territory came out of the Roman era without kings or emperors, without a proper administrative and territorial organization, without state institutions and an army, as the old Dacian state had been destroyed by Traian and replaced with the state structures of the Roman Empire, and after the retreat of the Roman administration and army to the south of the Danube there was a generalized collapse. The Dacian state could not be rebuilt, because, more than 160 years after the disappearance of the Dacian kingdom, the traditions of the indigenous state were lost, and the people (a mixture of Dacians and Roman settlers) no longer identified with the age of Burebista (as the Galo-Romans could no longer identify with the age of Vercingetorix), while an alternative model of state organization did not exist and could not be borrowed from our geographical neighbors, which were themselves in a state of anarchy or primitivism. During one generation, all the civilization of Roman Dacia collapsed, the cities were abandoned and the Dacian-Roman population was forced to go back, in just a few years, to the primitive age. Emperor Aurelian should have left in Dacia an indigenous political leader supported by a local army, which should have ensured the organization of the abandoned territory and should have defended it. Thus, lacking the force and cohesion to form their own state, the proto-Romanians and then the Romanians were forced to accept, starting with the invasions of the Carps and the Goths, their rule and had to experience, throughout the centuries, all kinds of pre-statal organizations and put up with all kinds of Asian tribe leaders pretending to be military and political leaders over their national territory.

A phenomenon that was to leave a profound mark on the Romanian psychology started to take shape. The invasions of the migratory tribes continued, their rule succeeded one another, yet the Romanian people managed to preserve their identity. One way or another they assimilated the migratory people left in the Carpatho-Danubian space. They became neither Avars, Visigoths, Pechenegs and Cumans, nor Slavs, Turks or Fanar Greeks, to the disappointment of the great neighboring powers which, like fault lines, were colliding on the Romanian territory.

The Ottoman Empire suffered defeats as a result of these collisions between geopolitical plates and had to gradually limit its area of influence, while the Habsburg empire took over Bukovina and the Russians managed to get Bessarabia, extending their sphere of influence over these parts of our national territory. This wouldn't have probably happened if the Romanian principalities had not been ruled, back then, by princes appointed by the Ottomans. This was a situation which repeated itself, which Romanians had already gone through before, during the early Middle Ages, when they had not appeared on the Byzantine maps as a separate state, because they found themselves under the rule of strong migratory tribes. In Wallachia and Moldavia there were the Cumans and in Transilvania the Magyars that had come from Altelcuz. Being originally migratory and warfare peoples, the Cumans and the Magyars had a better political and military organization than the sedentary indigenous Romanians, who were an agrarian-pastoral people dissipated across the land and lacking a political and administrative centralization as well as an army that should have protected them.

With the endless waves of Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Gepids, Avars, Pechenegs, Bulgars and others that roamed from the east to the west over the Romanian territory, it would have been impossible to lay the foundations of a Romanian state, without it being destroyed overnight, like in the legend of the Master Manole. Helped by favorable circumstances in the early Middle Ages, the Magyars settled not just in Pannonia, but also on a vast part of the Transylvanian territory, which after a few generations they came to consider as part of their national territory. Their bad luck was that, unlike the Romanized population they found in Pannonia, the Romanian population in Transylvania could not be magyarized in a significant percentage. Less lucky, the Cumans, who were in brotherly relations with the Magyars, were violently dislocated by the Great Tatar-Mongolian invasion in 1241, and on the Byzantine maps there was no longer Cumania instead of Wallachia. On the other hand, the Magyars, although they were also dislocated by the new Asian invaders, and their kingdom was almost totally destroyed, as it is attested, among other sources, in Monk Rogerius's “Carmen miserabile”, still managed to re-establish their kingdom, which was to last for a couple of centuries, until 1521, when it fell prey to the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, a sultan whose particular ambition was to turn all Magyars into Turks, in order to extend Islam into the heart of Europe. Yet the Turks encountered, as the Magyars had done in Transylvania, a stubborn nation, which they could not convert or ethnically assimilate, thus being forced to abandon their Central-European pashalik, which could not overlap with Saint Steven's crown.

The union of the Romanian principalities (24th January 1859) was the result of a normal historical development in an international politically favorable context (the Anglo-French-Turkish policy of blocking the Russian expansion towards the Balkans, which led to the defeat of the Czarist Empire in the Crimean wars 1853-1856). Thus, Romanians managed to lay the foundations of their national state, which, starting with 1866, came to be called Romania and was recognized as such internationally. At that time roughly in the West other national states were formed, Germany and Italy, though a similar process of unification. No one can claim that Germany and Italy are recent phenomena on the map of Europe. Italians and Germans, as well as Romanians, have always existed on their national territories, where they have gone through various forms of state organization, from provinces and principalities to unitary national states in the modern period.

The first World War, dubbed by the pre-communist historiography The War for the Reunification of the Country, led, by a historical determinism, to the formation of Great Romania, by the successive union of Bessarabia (March 1918), Bukovina (November 1918), Transylvania and Banat (1 December 1918) with the Old Kingdom, which also comprised Southern Dobruja (the Cadrilater). Outside the country were left a few small territories inhabited by Romanians, such as the Serbian Banat and the northern part of Maramures. And besides its current neighbors, Great Romania had a border, in the north, with Czechoslovakia and Poland, two states that reappeared on the world map, after a long period when their national territories had been divided among neighboring empires.

Romania's entrance in the war on the side of the Entente in August 1916 proved to be a correct and responsible choice, because, although the kings of the country belonged to a German dynasty (The Hohenzollerns), everything pleaded in favor of our country's alliance with France. The whole forty-eight generation had been educated in Paris, and the Union of 1859 was accomplished with the aid of Napoleon the 3rd. The ascension of Prince Carol on the Romanian throne in 1866 had been also due to the advice of the French emperor, who wanted a powerful kingdom at the mouth of the Danube, a kingdom which would strengthen the French influence in Europe. Unfortunately, the insufficient military training with which Romania came into the war on the side of the Entente and the strategical errors that some of our military leaders had made ended the campaigns on the Danube and the Transylvanian fronts and allowed the enemy troops, led by general Mackensen to occupy, in a short time, the southern part of the country, with the capital, up until the Siret. It is true that this defeat occured as the Czarist army contributed only slightly to the war in which it had engaged, and after the Kerensky government came to power started to disband, thus turning into a real danger for the Romanian soldiers behind the front-line. Taking refuge in Jassy together with the Romanian army and government, King Ferdinand ruled for two years over only one third of the initial kingdom, as it had been when Romania had entered the war with the high hopes of seeing its territory reunited with Transilvania following a rapid and successful offensive.

It was a miracle that the King and the government managed to learn their lessons from the disaster of the year 1916 and managed to keep the Central Powers along the line of the Siret, while bringing the army to an efficient state, with the help of valuable militaries such as Alexandru Averescu, Eremia Grigorescu, Constantin Prezan and others. In the 30s, when he came back to visit Romania, Marshall Mackensen remembered the spectacular resurrection of the Romanian army, which “ seemed to have disappeared” before (during the fights in Oltenia and Wallachia). An important role in this reorganization was played by the French military mission, led by general Henri Mathias Berthelot and the combat force of the Romanian soldiers, who, in the battles at Mărăşeşti, Mărăşti and Oituz, literally put into practice the order “One should not pass this point”.

Even if these victories on the battlefield could not lead to the immediate liberation of Romania from under foreign occupation, because of the Treatise of Brest-Litovsk, where the Central Powers and Lenin's government agreed to come to a separate peace, they prevented the enemy from occupying the rest of the country and allowed the army to re-enter the war at the end of 1918, when the German and Austro-Hungarian empires collapsed, due both to the failures on the Western front, and to the resistance that the two great powers met with in Romania, which forced them to make more military and financial efforts than they had imagined they could put up with.

Far from being a miracle or an accident, the forging of the national state on the 1st December 1918 was the reward that the Romanian people deserved naturally and logically for its continuous existence and persistence on the national territory, in spite of the hardships of history.


Translated by Roxana Doncu
Editorial modification: Raymond Walden



Samstag, 22. September 2018

The Red Plague


Once again, Romania is captive in the vicious circle of a political force of communist and dictatorial extraction, which in fact, after Ceaușescu's downfall, did not lose power for one single day. The political regimes that declared themselves to be "right-wing" (CDR and DA) fell into the trap of the same backward left that had come from the Pitești experiment and the Death Channel: thus, although they had the majority in the Parliament, the government and the President, the Services, they did not make any efforts to establish a powerful, irreversible democracy. The post-Ceaușescu Romanian society was successively administered lies and repression, charades and terror. Political parties are fakes, governments are just groups of stooges, the mass media are one huge machinery for playing with the minds of the people, in order to hide the truth from them, not to reveal it. Cynicism, arrogance, boorishness and barbarism have a place of honor in this profoundly troubled and confused society, that has been repeatedly lied to and manipulated. The 2007 condemnation of communism was simply a soap bubble, without any consequences for the society: Traian Băsescu, as he himself declared, was/is a communist. Before him, Emil Constantinescu, Iliescu's strawman, had blocked from the start the enforcement of the 8th Point from the proclamation of Timișoara, by declaring it obsolete only a few years after the fall of the communist regime (which was not accompanied, however, by a change in the overall mentality or the actual control of society).

Those that always compare Dragnea's and Erdogan's regimes are either unaware of what they say, out of naivety, or they have a veiled interest in distracting the public attention from what is currently happening in Romania these days. Erdogan is an authoritarian Turkish leader, inclined towards dictatorship, yet he has nothing in common with a totalitarian communist regime, which did not exist in Turkey, a country which had feudal sultans, dictator-generals, and not too democratic party leaders. Erdogan is not under Moscow's control, the puppet of the neostalinist Putin, he is just temporarily in an alliance with him, because of some of his interests. He does not use a double language, either, like the old Eastern communist dictators, but openly states what his plans for Turkey are, that he wants to impose an authoritarian, anti-Western regime, and not a democracy. While the regime in Bucharest is turning, from one day to the next, into a new form of communist dictatorship (without Marx, without any ideology), obedient to Putin. While they talk about citizen rights and human liberties, in reality they are limiting them and even breaking them. When they talk about freeing corrupt politicians from jail, they are preparing the prisons for journalists, political adversaries, fighters for democracy and freedom, people from all the strata of society.

The Romania of the PSD-ALDE regime is the Romania of a communist camp which is being re-built, after having benefited for thirty years from the technological progress of the Western countries, a period in which the former communist nomenklatura managed to accumulate huge fortunes. This is the direction that Dragnea and his acolytes have in mind for the country. This is more than saving a few of the greatly corrupt people from prison, more than changing the laws of justice. The Red Plague will destroy Romania again, if the Romanian society is not strong and firm enough to stop it.

Traducere de Roxana Doncu

Notes

CDR – Convenţia Democră Română (Romanian Democratic Convention) was an electoral alliance of several centre-right political parties (National Peasant’s Party, National Liberal Party, Social Democratic Party of Romania) active from 1991 until 2000.

DA – Alianţa Dreptate şi Adevăr (Justice and Truth Alliance) was a political alliance comprising two political parties in Romania (centre right National Liberal Party and centre left Democratic Party) active from 2004 until 2007.

Experimentul Piteşti (The Piteşti Experience or Phenomenon) was a so-called re-education project active between 1949 – 1951 focused on the students arrested by the communist regime. About this, Metapedia notes: “Between 1949 and 1951, the destruction of society's (...) was almost complete (...) It now remained to annihilate the unpredictable social force of youth (...) For the latter, the Pitesti experiment was invented (termed "re-education" by the Securitate). A re-educated person turned in fact into a zombie, who worked ruthlessly in interest of his masters.” In his book The Piteşti Phenomenon the Romanian-French writer Virgil Lerunca wrote: “..."The most barbarous methods of psychological torture were applied to "recalcitrant" young prisoners, with the object of making them reciprocally humiliate each other, physically abuse each other and mentally torture each other. Victims were transformed into executioners; prisoners were tortured by their own friends, by their fellows in suffering.” The well-known Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn (Nobel Prize, 1970) refers to the Pitesti experiment as the "most terrible act of barbarism in the contemporary world".

Canalul Dunăre – Marea Neagră / Canalul Morţii (Danube – Black Sea Channel / The Death Channel) is a channel in Romania, which runs from Cernavodă, on the Danube, to Constanţa (southern arm, as main branch), on the Black Sea. It was notorious as the site of labor camps in early 1950s Communist Romania, when, at any given time, up to 20,000 political prisoners worked on its excavation. The total number of people used as a workforce for the entire period is unknown, with the total number of deaths estimated at several thousand.

Traian Băsescu was the president of Romania between 2004 – 2012 as a founder and exponent of The Justice and Truth Alliance (DA).

Emil Constantinescu, president of Romania between 1996 – 2000, as one of founders and an exponent of The Romanian Democratic Convention (CDR).

8th Point from the proclamation of Timișoara. Proclamaţia de la Timişoara / The Proclamation of Timișoara was a thirteen-point written document, drafted on March 11, 1990 by the Timişoara participants in Romania’s 1989 Revolution. Organized as the Timișoara Society and other bodies of students and workers, the signers expressed liberal-democratic goals, which they saw as representing the revolutionary legacy. The best-known requirement formed the document's 8th Point, calling for all former Romanian Communist Party nomenklatura and Securitate cadres to be banned from holding public office for a period of 10 years (or three consecutive legislatures), with an emphasis on the office of President (see Lustration).




Donnerstag, 23. August 2018

The Ambush in Victory Square

By Daniel Dragomirescu, Bucharest


What happened on 10 August in Victory Square in Bucharest will raise a multitude of questions and will give rise to many ongoing debates. But not only on the subject of the brutal repression of the police and the political links which go right to the top of the PSD-ALDE regime, and not only because of the sufferings inflicted on a large number of citizens, who were in the Square (including a significant number of women, old people and children) to protest in a civilised and peaceful manner against the Government, as happens in any other EU country, where democracy functions properly.


The events of 10 August also contain details which should be studied, debated, clarified and realised in the form of conclusions and directives to follow in the future. The first aspect to review is the idea, even the initiative, to organise such a demonstration. A demonstration of Romanians who work abroad has never been organised in the country before, it’s an absolute first. And as well as it being an absolute first, there’s also the question of the  time chosen for this demonstration, during the month of August, when many people are on holiday, Parliament is not in session, and many of those active in different organisations and state institutions like the magistrates, public prosecutors etc. are away. So one has to ask the question then, why were the people of the diaspora called in to this demonstration?


How much more effective is a demonstration if such a large number of people from the diaspora takes part? Up until now, Romanians living abroad who are appalled by the regressive course of the political regime which has been in place in Bucharest since last year, have participated in demonstrations, whether large or small, in the big cities of the countries where they live and work (France, UK, Germany, Italy etc). Was their presence in such a large number at the demonstration of 10 August in Bucharest considered to be more effective than their supportive presence at the demonstrations abroad; and that it could even clear the way towards a political solution for the present crisis? Difficult to say clearly.


Another oddity is the time chosen for this demonstration. Why would such a big demonstration, right in the middle of summer, here in Bucharest, be more effective than the demonstrations in winter, spring or autumn?


The demonstrators have been reproached, many times, for choosing to come out into the streets at the end of the week, marching in front of the buildings of the most important institutions of the country, which were completely empty at the time, and so gaining  minimum impact on the targeted policy of the current government, which is contrary to the rule of law. On the evening of 10 August 2018, the government building was empty, the First Minister (Dancila) and the other ministers were on holiday: who could the demonstrators have addressed and so, what was the point of making their demands? Who could they have discussed things with, to bring an objective to this great gathering?


Another very curious aspect of the affair concerns the planning and organisation of this important demonstration. The Romanian communities working in all the countries of the European Union were summoned to Bucharest for the 10 August 2018 and, as we have seen, many people responded and came there. They were convinced that things would go well, persuaded that they would be able to influence those in government to change their way of practising politics and to make them stop their attacks against the rule of law, which risks pushing Romania outside the boundary of democratic Europe.


In fact, several organisers began making approaches to Bucharest’s city hall, in order to authorize the demonstration. Sometimes the Mayor seemed to approve, sometimes, on various pretexts, not to give permission. This vacillating attitude of the General Mayor underlines several questions. Why did the Mayor’s office initially refuse its approval and why did it finally return to this decision? Difficult to give a precise reply, since we do not know all the ins and outs of the affair.


However, there are even more questions regarding the people or the entities who were placed as official organisers. After their many approaches to the Mayor General of Bucharest, shortly before 10 August, they all withdrew and refused to take on the role of organisers, a role which they had claimed up till then, by way of recommendation to the public. There is no logic to this way of procedure.


They mobilised the diaspora Romanians, preparing them to come in large numbers to Bucharest to participate in the demonstration, and suddenly they abandoned them, but they did not call off the demonstration. Quite the contrary, they gave out the message that the demonstration could still go ahead even in this highly charged context. This way of procedure, whether deliberate or through a foolish mistake, resembles guides who lead a group of people to a certain place, and for a reason known only to themselves, expose these unprotected people.


From a military point of view, this resembles a tactic consistent with drawing people into an ambush. My grandfather, during the Great War, once found himself in a similar situation. He had a guide from a village in Transylvania to show the Romanian soldiers the way; that man led them all the way to a forest where he abandoned them, and where the company immediately found themselves under intense fire, sustained by sub-machine guns. By good fortune he escaped alive but some of his soldiers were wounded or killed. Such traps may become customary practice during a war with a foreign enemy, but not in peacetime. Not when policemen, Romanians like yourself, who should be there to protect you, come out in force, fully armed, like enemy Austro-Hungarians who wanted to massacre the Romanian soldiers in 1916.


If that’s how it really was, on that black Friday of 10 August 2018 on Victory Square, then the moral to be drawn from it is that in the future, no demonstration should take place in such an improvised way. The false guides must be rejected and the groups of hooligans in the police service, identified and disempowered.


This kind of large scale gathering for peaceful protest, in which Romanians have been involved for more than one and a half years, needs a structured organisation and much more effective measures so that the lives and safety of the participants are not in any way exposed to unacceptable dangers. In order that Romania benefits, like all civilised countries, from a functioning democracy, there is absolutely no need either for new victims or new martyrs. The victims of the communist dictatorship, the ‘terrorists’ of December 1989 and the ‘minors’ of June 1990 are already more than enough, already too unbearable.


English version by Morelle Smith




Montag, 25. Juni 2018

A Remarkable View out of Romania

As the US President Donald Trump who is the malicious product of former US politics since World War II has begun to change the post war world order rapidly there are coming up more and more voices of sympathy for Russian activities and the – in fact – dictator Vladimir Putin.
In my Cosmonomic understanding of the present world situation both leaders, Trump and Putin, are no friends of democracy or humanity and they are far away from enlightenment!
Like others as well, they are nationalistic warmongers and excessive dangers to mankind.

Especially for all western dreamers about Russia and the “true democrat” Putin (former German Chancellor and Putin-friend Gerhard Schröder) the following essay from the Romanian Magazine Contemporary Literary Horizon is republished here:



Between Democracy and Tyranny

During the Second World War, the United States and Great Britain made a fundamental mistake. They should not have allied themselves with the Soviet Union to win the war. The cause of the crises that the contemporary world has been suffering repeatedly lies here. The totalitarian soviet system should have been left to collapse, while subsequently the United States and Great Britain, together with the rest of the world should have defeated Hitler's Germany by a full economic embargo, which would have ended with the reformation and then the annihilation of the national socialist regime. Yet, instead of following this course of action, Churchill and Roosevelt chose to support the totalitarian soviet regime so that it would survive and extend throughout all Eastern Europe. They severely weakened Europe in front of the soviet colossus, with clay feet, true, yet having the atomic bomb attached to them. The two leaders of the Western world, who enjoyed discretionary power during the war gave Stalin – and the Soviet Union – much more global power than they had before.

It is a well-known fact today, proven by documents, that after the war the United States were undermined at all levels by crypto-communists that received their orders from Stalin's office in Kremlin. One could find them among atomic physicists (Robert Oppenheimer), in Hollywood (among the great studio owners), in the artistic world, in the trade unions, and even higher. From the exploitation of the defeated and occupied countries, Moscow could afford to invest huge sums of money everywhere in the world. The activity that senator McCarthy undertook at the beginning of the 50s in order to reveal and eliminate the crypto-communists on Moscow's payroll from all America's power structures, which was dubbed by the press of the time “a witch hunt”, was totally justified and it prevented America's fall under the domination of the Soviet totalitarianism then embodied by Stalin. The much maligned McCarthy, even though he may not have been America's brightest politician, really did a service to the American people, for which he got no reward, on the contrary.

On the other hand, in Warsaw as well as in Strasbourg or Brussels no one wants to talk openly about the more and more obvious fact that Russia is undergoing a full restoration of the USSR, trying to reconstruct the socialist camp and even extend its dominion to areas that in the past were out of its sphere of influence (like, for example, Syria and less obviously, Cyprus or Greece). And yet a lot was written in the press about the staged death of the USSR, after the opera coup in august 1991, with the aim of reviving it in a better shape, without any serious debate on the subject being organized, at least in order to be fought with good arguments.

In Romania the leader from the Parliament Hill, Liviu Dragnea, spoke many times, not by chance, about the “historical mission” that the PSD (Social Democratic Party in Romania) would have under his leadership. I have not heard/read any comment or question that explained the statement of the PSD leader, but it was probably thought that everybody got the message. This “historical mission”, as one can clearly see, is the Restoration that some more naive or shy authors insist on calling “illiberal democracy”. Illiberal democracy, indeed! In reality there has never been and will never be for any society but one clear option between democracy and tyranny, regardless of the deceiving masks that tyranny is putting on.


Note
The renowned British writer George Orwell drafted at the end of the 1940s a list with all the cultural Anglo-American personalities enrolled among the crypto-communists. There is no surprise that on Orwell's list there are such names as Charlie Chaplin, Michael Redgrave, George Bernard Shaw, Orson Welles and others like them. (according to Wikipedia, “Orwell's list”).

English translation by Roxana Doncu




Samstag, 3. März 2018

Men and Puppets


Book Review
OAMENI ŞI MARIONETE/ MEN & PUPPETS 

by DANIEL DRAGOMIRESCU.
 Orizant Literar Contemporan, Bibliotheca Universalis, 2017


This is a dual-language publication, produced by the excellent and indefatiguable Contemporary and Literary Horizon, of Romania. For their background, see:

Every so often a book comes along that makes you feel good to be alive. This is one of those.
The best books broaden and deepen our sense and understanding of the world. I was going to go on and write ‘and add destinations to our bucket list.’ But no, these best books have already taken us there; we feel we know the places, the people, with our hearts. The place? North-eastern and central Romania.
I feel privileged to have a copy of Men and Puppets, by Daniel Dragomirescu. The book is a collection of reminiscences, autobiographical snippets, and is well worth the time and effort in getting hold of. Elegantly presented, and on the whole, well translated, this is part of a series of books by Orizant Contemporan Literar. All are dual-language, and by writers from many countries.
Daniel Dragomirescu grew up in the north-eastern Vaslui region of Romania, in the 1950s and 60s. He writes of life from the inside; the autobiographical angle gives a necessarily limited view of the times, limited to one’s interests, activities, and to the villages and small towns of the time.
Big Politics, the State, the Eastern Bloc, are not words or concepts of everyday life. He does come up against them (A Meeting with Cerebrus); they are also, on another level, a basic part of that life. Yet they are everywhere, especially for the generations from before the War, his parents’ and grandparent’s generations. It is they who have to watch what they say. We see the unquestioned fate of pre-War bourgeois families, in their disgrace (Sandals). All is accepted as a part of life. The State restrictions have their circumnavigations, but they can be suddenly enforced due to the arbitrariness and fickleness of officials (At the Nadovari Camp). But they are not ‘officials’, they are people one’s father might know from school, from ‘before’ - their fickleness is the fickleness of everybody, everywhere.
We read also a first-hand account of a devastating earthquake hitting Bucharest. People at their most vulnerable; we read also the hidden threats by people.
One of my favourite stories, Marilena, has its own ways of handling the hopes, passions and lost opportunities that are always with us. And this is one of the heartening aspects of the stories: how love, hope of love, arranged love that could grow into itself, are always a part of our lives, our world. These things are instantly recognisable, and they go to the core of who we are.
In the new Romania religion once again plays a major role. This may surprise us, and yet, as Fish Borscht makes clear (to my mind the only story that doesn’t gel), religion never really went away. Even this story is full of the riches of the lived life, the times, the mind-set of the period. The role of religion is a curious one; there are many expostulations to God, in the stories. These are post-Communist.
I wonder do they read as a little self-consciously apparent? Are the stories part of the new movement to re-establish a continuous Romanian identity, that had just been interrupted for a time?
What becomes clear through the reading is the seamless identity we all wear and are part of: here we all are, with all our hopes, woes and lapses of understanding. The details may differ, but the responses are so very recognisable. And because we can identify, our hearts are also in these stories, as we respond to the same things they did.
The last chapter, Typewriter, brings the whole book into focus. I had begun to wonder at the book's title, Men and Puppets. Well, here it was, spelled out. I wrote, above, how the fickleness of officials is the fickleness of man; there is the fickleness of officials themselves, though. I also wrote of the State being just the background to people's lives. So it was, but as they took on more responsibility, became adults, the State became a major interference in their lives. Take Ceausescu's decree that all typewriters should be officially registered.
It smacks of a Nazi-era dictat, and it is little surprise we find a militia chief admiring Nazi-era tactics.
After the Fall of Ceausescu, the militia excuse themselves as puppets of the regime. Officials, militia, puppets, anything rather than just ordinary people.
Daniel Dragomirescu has a masterful technique. The use of the motif of his meeting with a stray dog in a cemetery, in A Meeting with Cerebrus,becomes the key for opening up the whole part of his life at that period. It is this mastery that is the secret, it works behind the scenes to bring the chapters to life.
A most enjoyable book, full of the fears, hopes, loves and doubts of our lives.


Michael Murray, UK




Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017

The Obsessive Decade - A Revised Version

By Daniel Dragomirescu, Bucharest

Philosopher Gabriel Liiceanu recently commented, on a TV channel, on the pardon law, promulgated by the Parliament: „… There was some talk, in an interview, about dignity…their dignity is hurt, it went too far, dignity is not respected in prison” and then asked himself rhetorically: „Is it respected in hospitals, in schools, where children sit in freezing cold classrooms, in the Romanian trains or on the highways?”

This question asked by the well-know philosopher is justified. In the 50s, in the prisons of the communist regime, people like Mircea Vulcănescu, Petre Țuțea and Alexandru Paleologu were kept in conditions which resembled those of the extermination camps. Many of them did not come out alive from behind bars. No public voice, no organization, no institution dared to speak out back then in Romania (RPR/RSR)* in order to demand that they be freed on account on the inhuman conditions they were being kept in. The deputies from MAN** and the governing class did not move a finger for those imprisoned in a discretionary manner, which disregarded elementary human rights. It was an upside-down world. The West only sometimes protested, not very audibly, while Western public opinion was made to believe that in the Eastern communist camp a better and more just world was being created.

And now this upside-down world is coming back after decades, in an equally flagrant and illegitimate manner. Now deputies and governing people give pardon laws and free the vicious, bandits, criminals, and no doubt, the huge names of corruption, who are responsible for the misery of today’s Romania. If it was possible for the Romanian elite to be kept in communist prisons in inhuman conditions, the elite of petty thieves, criminals and mafia is given their freedom back, in the name of human rights. A man like Mircea Vulcănescu, after writing his work for the country, had to die in prison, while a man like Dan Voiculescu, after looting the country, had to be released 7 years earlier so that he could freely indulge in luxury for the rest of his life. The current political regime, the result of a combination that wants to be socialist-liberal, is in reality just a new version of the obsessive decade.

*
RPR and later RSR is as DDR, a name of the country during the communist regime.
RPR - Popular Republic of Romania
RSR - Socialist Republic of Romania

**
MAN is a name of the communist parliament
MAN = The Great National Assembly


Translation Romanian/English: Roxana Doncu 


 

Sonntag, 10. September 2017

At the Năvodari Camp



For Irina, who went to the Năvodari camp


One of the dreams I had cherished for a long time when I was a child was to go the mountains or the seaside, since in the places I had visited with my family I had not seen and was not going to see anything more worthwhile than the hills in Gostinari, across the river Argeș, and the large Pustnicu lake near the Pasărea Monastery. Yet my father did not possess the means to make this dream become reality. Neither he nor my mother had been able to afford, not for as long as they had been married, to go to the mountains or the seaside. When she was in a good mood, my mother would dream romantically of a hiking trip in the mountains with ONT Carpați and sometimes she used to speak about it with dad, while he was listening and nodding continuously, without saying either yes or no. The only one who had somehow managed to go on a trip to the mountains (on a cart to Vidra, and from there by taking a few local trains) in order to go to Herculane for a treatment against lumbago had been Granddad, probably after he had managed to get a discounted ticket from the Pensioners’ Fund.
My father could not afford a vacation to the seaside, yet by using his influence as head of the financial office in Vidra, he miraculously managed to get a place for me in the Năvodari camp, where I was going to be sent in July together with a group of district students from the primary school. And also miraculously (for this never happened again afterwards) he managed to arrange that my little brother should be sent to the preventorium in Țigănești, even if this did not mean either the mountains or the seaside. My brother had caught a severe lung disease and had been hospitalized for months until he managed to recover, yet he had some sequelae, which still required medical care. It was a great success! Neither my stay at the seaside, nor my brother’s would have cost my dad a fortune, it was a bargain for his poor man’s budget, who dreamt of being able to buy a motor bicycle in the distant future.
I have no idea if my brother was enjoying the prospect of being sent to that preventorium, where he was going to be given shots and pills for almost three weeks, but for myself, with the image of the Năvodari camp in my mind day and night, I was ecstatic. My father shared my enthusiasm, as he was content that at least I would be going to see the sea, which he had never seen. With an almost childish enthusiasm, he described the anticipated journey on the train and used to say, delightedly, that I was going to cross Anghel Saligny’s bridge at Cernavodă and see from above, from the carriage window, the blue-waved Danube flowing under the mighty bridge. He did not tell me anything about the Sea, since he did not know what it looked like in reality. He had seen the Danube once, in his youth, when he had gone to Silistra for the conscription and it had left an indelible impression on him.
My mum was happy for me, too. As soon as she found out from Dad that I was going on a journey, she started, thoroughly and thriftily, to prepare everything she thought I would need for the Năvodari camp. I don’t think that she ever again showed so much energy, devotion and resourcefulness as she did during that summer, in order to prepare me for a trip or a camp, for the simple reason that there was never again any opportunity to send me on a trip or camp at the end of school. That was the astral hour of her maternal vocation. A few weeks before my departure she was ready with a whole travelling wardrobe, made up of a thousand little things that I could not miss for the world: pairs of socks, undershirts, panties, handkerchiefs, T-shirts, sandals, flip-flops, and what not. To protect my head against sunstroke: a jockey cap with a straight visor and a dark blue beret with a huge lightning rod. To wash my teeth (although I did not use to do it): a brand new “Cristal” tube of pink-coloured toothpaste, and a toothbrush made of pig bristles. To wash my hands and my face (although, again, I was not quite a fan of doing that): a blue bar of soap shaped like a goose egg, nice-smelling, the “Azur” brand, which my father had declared the best from the RPR. It cost a bit more than the Cheia soap, but it was worth it. I was also endowed with a round tin box of Nivea cream, which I could hardly find a use for, a telescopic glass made of plastic rings, which could fit into a pocket, and even a transparent ball-point pen which my father had brought from the Sample Fair in Bucharest and a notebook, for when I was going to get bored. During the few weeks of intense preparations, my trousseau was completed by my mum, who had taken to sewing since my grandma had made her a present of her own Gritzner sewing machine, with other useful clothes, among which a pair of flannelette pajamas and one of dark coloured shorts made of a new material that had just appeared on the market and was called ‘anti-dirt’, which was, of course, useful for somebody like myself, who enjoyed bathing in the street dust and used to like to pour it on my head, with an evil pleasure. She also sewed for me a couple of handkerchiefs with undulating margins, and on all these things, made by herself or bought before, she took care to embroider the initials of my name and surname. I can still see her in my mind’s eye, kneeling by the bed each night, sewing my initials again and again with a blue, brown or black thread on shirts, panties, socks, handkerchiefs, pajamas and what not, under the light of a gas lamp, while I was sitting behind her, watching her sewing. As for my dad, who did not use to sew at the sewing machine, he did not forget to mention my future trip to Năvodari on every occasion, whose double climax was represented, profoundly, by the crossing of the Danube and Anghel Saligny’s bridge.
The more I wished to go on that journey, the longer the waiting seemed. My father’s stories about seeing the Danube, Saligny’s bridge and everything else were not enough and I was burning with anticipation. I wanted to see myself on that train once and for all.
The day I had waited for so long eventually came. The train for Năvodari did not, of course, leave from the Vidra station, which was close to us. It was, I think, at that time, a special train for students, which left from the North Station early in the morning. In order to get to the North Station in time, I don’t remember whether we left home at daybreak, with the bus that took the commuters and the vegetable-sellers to the city or if we left on the evening of the previous night and spent the night at the place of one of our relatives in the city, yet this is not very important. What is important is that on the morning of the Z day, my mum, my dad and I, loaded with luggage and emotion, were scurrying through the wide hall of the station, beautifully paved with small square coffee-coloured slabs and with a stained glass roof that made up a celestial mosaic, very impressive in the eyes of the provincials that came and left the capital of the country. We were not late, on the contrary. We even had time for other things: I ate a Eugenia biscuit from a stall, my dad smoked a cigarette and my mum cooled herself with a glass of lemonade. So that I should not be thirsty on the train, my mum took care to buy and stuff into my pockets a few packets of mints, while my dad announced me that the moment of my meeting with Anghel Saligny’s bridge was getting closer. I started running on the platform, thinking that the only train there would be the Cernavodă one, waiting for us, yet when I was faced with the tens of engines belonging to the tens of trains stationed on different platforms and I saw the bustling passengers who were coming and leaving, I stopped, disoriented. My mum could not fare better, either, yet my dad had received exact directions and was able to see us without any hesitation towards platform one, to the left, where our special train was indeed stationed. Some groups of students had already got in and were looking for their seats in the compartments, other groups of children in pioneer uniforms were getting in or waiting to get into the carriages, under the care of some supervisors with an authoritarian air, all dressed up in dark blue tailored suits and wearing pins in their lapels. Neither I, not my mother had any idea what our supervisor, the one that promised to take me with her group to the seaside, looked like. My father knew her, of course, and after seeing her at the door of a carriage, not far from where we were, left us at the end of the platform and went to let her know that we had arrived.
A deep emotion overwhelmed me then and I could see myself in the train carriage crossing the Danube on Anghel Saligny’s bridge as in a heroic apotheosis. A great dream, which had become even greater, was about to come true. My father, smiling courteously, greeted the supervisor and started telling her something. Things had been arranged a long time before my departure for the camp, and I was waiting for my father to hand me over to the supervisor, wishing me a pleasant journey and a nice stay in Năvodari. What else was there to wait for?
However, fate willed it otherwise. The supervisor, who had promised to take me in her group to the Năvodari camp, refused to keep her promise, on the grounds that I was not of school age yet, although she had known it well before. All my mum’s thorough preparations and my hopes of seeing the sea were ruined that very morning, but not because of nature’s blind forces. Only we can be more dangerous than these, those who possess reason and empathy.
                                                                  Translation by Roxana Doncu

The author at the Black Sea, 2017                                        

                                           Foto: D. Dragomirescu




Sonntag, 13. August 2017

“Contemporary Literary Horizon”, No 60

What a title for a literary magazine which is now edited for the 60th time and, further more, is raising the claim: “ALL THE WORLD IN A JOURNAL”!
The claim is program because, started as a bilingual journal, long since a multilingualism resulted by the steadily growing number of authors which, from many countries of all continents, contribute to the success of this unique bimonthly periodical.

Poets, editors, essayists, philosophers, journalists, social critics, nature lovers and philanthropists are creating , in liberal independence, an exemplary project of cultural, international-global collaboration as it hardly turns out in world politics, unfortunately.

Initiator and spiritus rector is in Bucharest the Romanian writer, translator, editor and journalist, Daniel Dragomirescu. His untiring commitment, his publishing qualification and his overwhelming sociability, combined with his sharp analyses of political and historical circumstances, are motivation for many authors to look above the own horizon, not at least for their own confirmation.

This beacon “Orizont Literar Contemporan (Contemporary Literary Horizon , CLH) is coming from a Romania that Daniel Dragomirescu describes as follows:
Dominated by political forces for whom real democracy did not matter at all, Romania remained at the periphery of the civilized world, with corrupt politicians, an economic development under its potential, a multitude of plagiarists that turned into ministers overnight … with palaces of hundreds of thousands euro and tens of thousands of socially assisted, with millions of people that are leaving or have already left the country in search of a better life.”

A shameful balance for a country that belongs to the European Union, but is let down by it.
This, for me personally, is also a reason to participate again and again as an author.
On the occasion of the anniversary edition No 60 I congratulate us all, writers as readers and especially Daniel Dragomirescu to whom I feel attached by friendly relationship and philosophically similar views.
He and “his” magazine give honor to liberal ethos, give the pleasure of independent art and they convey also sense to literary work for the benefit of nonviolence and peace in a world of painful turmoil.



Montag, 13. Februar 2017

LEFTOCRACY

by Daniel Dragomirescu

The country is at stake again and there is a real risk now in being pushed, historically speaking, with a generation or two backwards. This thing must not become a reality.
What is happening in the present is a revolution of the middle class against the abusive powers of a totalitarian-communist kind („the Red Plaque”), which wants to govern the Romania of the 21th century by using 1950s ways of control without taking into consideration the fact that the Romanian society has changed in all these 27 years after the official abolishment of the totalitarian communist regime. We hope that, no matter how many sums of money they dispose of and no matter how much numbing power upon millions of people they have, which surely are easy to bribe and to manipulate, this time it won’t work.

Leftocracy is a disease of the modern world, much greater than any other diverse political malformations of a totalitarian kind, which our ancestors have known all too well in the past age. Leftocracy is a power of a so-called political elite who claim themselves belonging to the Left; however, in reality they are not supporting the pauper masses, they use them instead, in order to identify their pretensions of political, economical and social hegemony. Marx is the rightful moral responsible for the foundation of leftocracy on a global scale, whereas Lenin and Stalin are responsible for implementing leftocracy in the biggest country of the world, with the price of the lives of millions of Russians exterminated in thousands of Auschwitz-es more infernal than those built by the Nazi, because they exterminated people from more than one generation. It is well-known the fact that the first extermination camps from Germany were founded by the Soviet Union and by the „specialized” Soviets in human slaughter.

The middle class is the only apt class, by its own nature, to guarantee a real democracy in society, because the rich (no matter if they are aristocrats or intangible bigwigs from the communist nomenclature or from within it) have always desired to discreetly govern the society, and the pauper masses, without any serious school education, are extremely easy to corrupt and to manipulate, to legitimize their dictatorial aspirations. As such, look at how these barons from the south side of the country carry those poor elders and simple-minded activists in making such a lame circus, like hysterical monkeys, in front of the Cotroceni Palace. Only the middle class remains the one and only class that is not bribed by anyone and they don’t let themselves be fooled, because they are capable, by education, to convey themselves through principles, and not by immediate and low-down interests – and that is why they have always been the prime aim of those that do not love democracy, but who speak about it with grand words completely empty of any real meaning. This has happened also in the United States, in the last twenty years, where the middle class has been reduced progressively and dramatically from 60% to 40%. These days, I saw early in the morning on a website a poster on which an American citizen obsessively repeated this question: „How many liberties would they take away from us now?”

I think that what is happening now in Romania is the first revolution in the world against leftocracy, this cancer which has disrupted so gravely the European states in the last twenty years, establishing everywhere a kind of a totalitarian pseudo-democracy. But to come up to this immense success there should be many other parties than those from the Parliament, which at first they play the scenery of democracy, but which in reality they contribute into the maintenance or consolidation of the desired ruling of those that have taken away the national wealth. We need a socialist party, an authentic one, based on values and principles stated not only in theory, but also rigorously and with good faith applied in exercise. SDP (Social Democratic Party) in its actual form needs to be abandoned, because it is obsolete and wicked for democracy. The Liberal Party needs also to be reconstructed; it has been compromised long since by individuals such as Tăriceanu, Patriciu, Mihalache and others. If tomorrow there were running another legislative elections, millions of Romanian citizens again would not know to whom they should credit their vote to, because nobody deserves anything. And without any serious offer by means of parties and candidates, then if the elections are due to take place, democracy will be just the same old mill that mills in vain. It's a form without any real destination, which will become useful for a certain individual’s interest, rather than for a general public one.

The demonstrators from Bucharest and those from all over the country need to think of this element as well, not only to the abolition of bills (those will be likely to be replaced by others worse than this current one), not only to the government’s demise (which can always be replaced by an even worse one) or not only in discharging from the political life those figures that are more or less compromised, such as Florin Iordache, Şerban Nicolae, Eugen Nicolicea, Liviu Dragnea, Sorin Grindeanu, etc. That „Now or never” from Mureşanu’s anthem is more actual than never. Evil should be cut off from the roots, because it will overwhelm us. The problem is that sufficient energy and purposefulness should exist in ending up in nice terms what has happened on the first of February, after the famous issuance of Edict 13, which wanted to impose in urgent matters what today the Romanian society does not accept.

11 February 2017

Translation: Elena Ţăpean, (Raymond Walden)