Claudiu Tarziu (born 1973) had a long career as a journalist, from 1992 to 2020, working in high-profile central newspapers such as Evenimentul Zilei, Day, Cotidianul and Jurnalul Naţional. In parallel, he carried out an intense civic activity, from 1995 to 2020, being the founder and leader of some NGOs and NGO alliances, of which the most known to the general public is the Coalition for Family. He entered politics in 2019, when he founded the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), alongside George Simion. He was co-chair of the AUR, 2019 – 2022, and has been president of the National Management Board since March 2022.
- După 25 de ani, Burj Al Arab intră în renovare
- De la americani vine lumina…verde! Bogdan Ivan anunță redeschiderea Rafinăriei Petrotel deținută de ruși
- Peter Magyar: Vom suspenda serviciul de știri al presei publice
- Ce ar vota românii: AUR a ajuns să cumuleze cât PNL și USR la un loc, dar a scăzut față de ianuarie
- România a avut cândva 13 mari combinate de producție a îngrășămintelor chimice…
Patriotism in Europe
Floriana Jucan: Together with the Trump administration in the White House, we can say that patriots have returned to power in America. Are they in power in Europe? In addition, in Brussels, are they at the helm of the European Union?
Claudiu Târziu: In Europe, they are here and there, as we know: Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands… Until not so long ago, they were in Poland also, but now the new neo-Marxist government is persecuting them. In Brussels, they are not by no means. The European Commission, under the renewed leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, has undertaken a frightening programme for all those who love Europe and who want to continue the European Union project.
In this programme, the President of the Commission stressed that the Green Deal would be taken “to another level” – so the European economy would suffer even more – that gender ideology would make the rule in all policies issued from Brussels – from which it follows that meritocracy and normality would not – and Ukraine would be supported in the war with Russia “until the end”, which means that still tens of billions of euros from the Union budget would be spent on arms and other kinds of aid.
In her programme, Ursula von der Leyen shows no attachment either to her country of origin, Germany, to the EU or to the entire European continent.
Ursula von der Leyen is the hardest hand of globalism.
The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly for this Commission because patriots are in minority, around 191 members out of the 720 members of the institution.
Yet, even with a previous weak term, with accusations that seem to be developed in the future even in public trials at international courts, Ursula von der Layen was re-elected President of the European Commission. Paradoxical, isn’t it?
She received 40 more votes compared to her last inauguration. That is because Ursula von der Leyen was able to negotiate with all the political groups and to provide satisfaction to many parties with different orientations. In no circumstance, what she did in the previous term would have recommended her for a new one. In addition, taking into account the criminal problems she faces, her nomination shouldn’t have been taken into consideration at all.
How difficult is the struggle of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group in the European Parliament against the other groups?
The ECR Group is numerous and compact, has 80 members now, and has established itself both as a significant part of the opposition and in relation to the parliamentary majority, composed by left-wing parties, including the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP) – which has long since ceased to be centre-right.
The ECR fight is for normality, common sense, the prosperity of all Europeans, for stopping neo-Marxist, sexo-Marxist and eco-Marxist policies.
It is therefore a policy for, not against, it is constructive, not destructive. That is why the ECR is on the same ramparts as the other patriotic and sovereignist parliamentary groups (Patriots for Europe -PfE and the Europe for Sovereign Nations Group -ESN). The three genuine right-wing groups actually make up the opposition. And we’re not fighting each other.
The European Conservatives and Reformists Group was set up in 2009 and has since been campaigning for the return of the EU to the values and principles on which it was voted and which aimed to create a European area of peace through prosperity. In this legislature, the ECR has 80 members from 21 national parties, coming from 19 EU countries, and is run by co-presidents Nicola Procaccini and Patryk Jaki.
The parties in the ECR Group are not Eurosceptic, but Eurorealistic. While left-wing and far-left parties want the EU to turn into a federal state, following the principle of “more Europe”, and right-wing, eurosceptic parties argue that the solution is not the EU, the ECR proposes a different, balanced vision. The ECR wants a reformed EU so that it becomes again a community of nations cooperating in areas where they have certain common interests that could be best promoted by working together.
About Sovereignty vs Globalism
Why is Vladimir Putin condemned “for blackmailing Europe with gas”, but the European Commission is perfectly commendable, when it blackmails Viktor Orban, for not giving Hungary a billion euros if he does not accept LGBTQ policies, with which the country’s leader believes most of his voters do not resonate?
It seems that for the European Commission blackmail is reprehensible only if its target is the EU, not when it practices it. Otherwise, we know that Orban is not the only one who has been subject to EC blackmail on ideological grounds. This is exactly what happened to Greece, Bulgaria and Georgia, precisely because they opposed LGBTQ policies. Romania is the next. Some resist, some don’t.
Why is “sovereignism” being blamed in the last year, while woke policies and ideology are applauded or preferred? What political and social explanation do we have for this dichotomy?
First, let’s clarify the terms.
Sovereignty is an intrinsic part of patriotism. Patriotism is the love of the Homeland.
Anyone who cares about his country wants it to be sovereign. He has the right to decide his own destiny. In other words, to be able to say no. Therefore, meaning that neither patriotism nor any of its natural manifestations, such as sovereignism, are harmful. They are naturally opposed to globalism, which erases differences, identities, particularities, that is, everything that makes this world beautiful, and which aims to abolish the borders and the right of peoples to independence and self-government. Now globalism is on a terrible offensive, having succeeded, through persuasion and program in the academic environment, through mass media and entertainment, to modify mentalities and habits and to legislate new mentalities and habits that make normal abnormal and vice versa.
The adherence of many to globalism is artificially induced and maintained through social pressure – in turn determined by perverted education, woke or cancel culture (the culture of cancelling certain values and proposing false values) and abusive legislation, contrary to the natural.
Although globalism is not an option for most people, conformity is second nature to many.
Moreover, the minority that is the promoter of globalism, with all its “isms”, is very noisy and projects its messages through a huge network of public communication, thus giving the impression of being the majority and increasing the pressure for compliance on the normal, but silent majority.
You need to have clear marks and a strong character to resist. We, as Romanians have recently given examples of resistance. During the pandemic of 2020-2022, when we rejected the infernal propaganda, in support of the saving truth, as in 2018, when over 3 million people voted “Yes” to the referendum for the family, despite the extremely harsh and numerous attacks by supporters of globalism (which is obvious both secularist and anti-family).
THERE IS A PLACE TO BE PLACED…
In Romania there are now three parties considered pro-sovereignty: AUR, SOS and POT. Could any of these disappear? Why? How? When? Could another party with national values be born?
Of all, the most solid is AUR, which is already on its second term in Parliament, last year it also obtained representation in local structures, namely elected representatives in local public administration, and, for the first time, it is in the European Parliament, too. However, AUR is also the most exposed to the risk of being likened to the rest of the system parties and thus to have a downward evolution in the coming years, if it does not reinvent itself.
AUR received massive vote support as it rekindled hope in many Romanians who no longer felt represented by the old parties. However, the pro-AUR votes in the 2024 elections are dramatically less than its potential.
Between January 2024, when the real and unpublicized polls placed AUR at over 30% in the voting intention, and the June elections, when it obtained 8% in the local elections and 15% in the European Parliament elections, something happened. The perception of the party, which until then had been seen as the hero of Romanian fairy tales – „Făt-Frumos”, able to save the „Zâna Bună”– Romania, changed. Why? Due to the mistakes of certain public alliances, wrong selection of candidates and the ways of approaching the electoral campaign.
Unfortunately, at that time, there was no deep analysis of the causes that led to the poor results and the perception was not changed until the presidential and parliamentary elections, which also resulted in modest results compared to the potential. I do not add the fact that other errors were committed in the preparation of the electoral campaign in the autumn, which caused image damage and infightings. An analysis of the presidential and parliamentary campaigns is still being awaited.
As for SOS and POT, they became parliamentary parties because of the disappointment caused to some by AUR and by the novelty effect, which at each legislature propels a new formation into the Legislative. They have no structures in the territory and no well-articulated leadership, which is why they are extremely vulnerable and I expect to be dismantled and absorbed in other formations by 2028.
Under these circumstances, there is room for a new conservative, patriotic and sovereignist party to rekindle the trust of Romanians.
If, I repeat, AUR will not turn upside down again becoming Prâslea cel Voinic or Harap – ALB.
You founded and co-chaired together with George Simion the Alliance for the Union of Romanians. Where do you look alike and where do you part? Some rumors even anticipate an official breakup, which will take place soon!
The success of AUR was due to the complementarity between the founders – the leaders, meaning George and me. We are diametrically opposed natures, coming from different backgrounds, with different education and a different style in approaching a problem. Nevertheless, we complemented each other. He is a hyperactive type, a man who feels good in the spotlight and in crowd baths, driven by a great ambition to prove to others who he is. Therefore, it takes a lot of effort for everything he accomplishes. Since, sometimes, some of his actions are meant as experiments they often fail. However, his energy and determination to pursue his admirable goals have greatly contributed to the results of AUR.
I am motivated in everything I do by a strong sense of responsibility. Maybe because I am the elder brother in my family, maybe because I had many friends who were former political prisoners, who taught me the duty to God, people and country, through the example of their own lives.
Living under responsibility, I can’t afford to rush, I weigh every action very well, I build institutions, I think on long term, I develop programs, I seek and train capable people in my actions…
For me, spontaneous reaction is an automatic mechanism, triggered by a long-practiced reason. Although I am inclined towards meditation, I am always running parallel more projects that converge in the national interest, relying on the knowledge gained through book or direct experience.
In this team, without false modesty, I am the doctrinaire, the man of vision, the guide to the ideal. George is the pioneer who cuts his way into the jungle, the head of the expeditionary corps, the commander of the guerrilla troops.
In a war, both strategists and fighters are needed. Politics is a war without blood.
For this reason, it would be desirable for our alliance to last. Therefore, it will last if the party does not depart from the cause it has pledged to serve.
It is neither easy to maintain the balance between two strong personalities, nor to maintain the direction of travel without significant deviations.
Yes, indeed. There were all sorts of contradictory discussions, even quarrels and upsets between us, but in the end we managed to continue together.
As far as I am concerned, I will remain in AUR as long as I can guarantee that it is on the right track and as long as the fight is conducted according to the rules of art, that is, I am able to exercise my function as a doctrine designer and strategist.
Ultimately, AUR is only a political vehicle; it is not an end in itself.
It is the political and parliamentary representation of the national revival movement from which it draws its sap and which is much larger and older than the party. If and when it is no longer useful to the movement, it will give birth to another.
ABOUT THE EU VS SOVEREIGN STATES
It seems that the Government in Brussels does not accept that the member states have independence or sovereignty anymore, and Călin Georgescu, supported by AUR in the canceled presidential elections of December 2024, is accused that through his program he wants to promote an autarkic policy towards the European Commission. Why does it happen to be part of a larger family, such as that of the EU, and to no longer satisfy voters in Romania, and not only… but in Germany, Italy, Spain, Georgia, France etc. too?
Călin Georgescu and his supporters attend an event organized on the occasion of the Unification of the Principalities, at the monument of military heroes in Tineretului Park, in Bucharest, January 24, 2025. Inquam Photos / Adriana Neagoe
Mr. Calin Georgescu has profiled himself as a Christian nationalist, patriot and sovereignist. From this position, his speech for regaining the vertical position of the Romanian state in relation to all other states, including EU or NATO partners, is perfectly coherent. To reproach him for wanting equal treatment for Romania and the right to say NO, when appropriate, is like finding the believer guilty of going to church, mutatis mutandis.
Francois Mitterrand once said that the most important word in politics is NO!
The European Commission wants a federal government that deprives national governments of the most important powers, so that the member states are really run centrally from Brussels. All confessed plans and all the measures taken in recent years lead slightly to the change of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and the transformation of the European Union into the United States of Europe, a formula long thought by globalists, in order to better control this part of the world and subordinate it to their interests.
However, people have a very good instinct of preservation and react to these tendencies, as a result of which nationalist, patriotic and sovereignist movements are growing everywhere.
If the politicians in Brussels do not take into account the signals given by the peoples, they will radicalize and may no longer demand only sovereignty within the EU, but the exit from the EU. This would be a death blow to the EU project, as conceived by its founding fathers, as an alliance of sovereign states forming an area of peace through prosperity in Europe.
In all countries where sovereignist parties have grown and those promoting the cession of national sovereignty for a super-state construction – which could be an advantage in negotiating with other economic blocs – have declined, the usual explanation is that it is about the “success of Russian propaganda” and Russian interference in electoral processes. As a former journalist and current politician, please explain to the public how Russia can achieve such a psychological victory over European countries, ordinary and developed in democratic systems, but fails to convince the people of Ukraine, who speak the same language, with many common values, heroes and historical symbols, to side with it?
We’re dealing with a false narrative, simply like that. Russia doesn’t have that much power. It would be dramatic to have. Also, those who are running this narrative know very well that it is false. He’s escaping the truth, trying to escape responsibility. If they admitted that peoples are tired of the ideology that globalists promote, of their lack of performance at the head of states and of the corruption that characterizes them, it would be common sense to go home once and for all.
Russia, whose propaganda channels are banned on EU territory, with simple narratives, manages to convince two million voters – who allegedly could have elected Marcel Ciolacu or Mircea Geoana or Nicolae Ciucă, declared pro-European and pro-Atlantic leaders – to vote for Călin Georgescu, and the European Union with the America of the Democratic Party cannot fight it? Why do the Russians excel and the “pro-Europeans” fail?
So far, the Romanian state, with all its levers, from secret services and magistrates to politicians and the dependent press, has not been able to produce credible evidence that Russia helped Mr. Georgescu won the first round of the presidential election. From this point of view, they are either right on the substance, but incompetent to demonstrate it, or they lie and make a fool of themselves, setting themseves on fire and Romania’s allies, too.
What confidence can the EU and NATO have in a state that is on the eastern border of the two alliances and allows itself to be penetrated so much by Russia?
Now, let’s be serious, can anyone imagine having any idea what kind of world we live in that Russia is fooling around in a NATO country, on the border of this alliance? Does anyone think that something can happen in Romania without the intelligence services of the US and other NATO allies knowing?
Only the naive could imagine such a thing. That is why I believe that the coup d’état by those in power to stay in power was at least allowed by EC President Ursula von der Leyen and the Biden administration, if not even demanded.
Thierry Breton, former European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, hinted that by applying some laws, the European Commission allowed Romania to cancel the presidential elections, without any reason, and also recommended Germany to regulate the election result according to the model already experienced in Romania. In other words, Germany should also cancel the elections if it doesn’t get out of the polls who the globalists want.
ABOUT IMPOSTURE AND HONEST CRITICS
Why is a candidate who speaks of “awakening in conscience” and “the work of God” considered mystical, messianic, charlatan, madman, etc…? I also saw Marcel Ciolacu, Mircea Geoană or Nicolae Ciucă, almost weekly, present in churches, at services, alongside priests, monks and nuns and the Patriarch of Romania. All three stressed, and not only during the electoral campaign, that they are promoters of the Christian values of the Romanian people and that they have faith in God…
Again, we are dealing with double standards. What is permitted to some is reprehensible to others. Globalists who make hypocritical gestures, through which they want to gain the goodwill of the right-believing people, are considered local people, who have learned the customs or at least respect them. However, sovereignists who profess their faith are ‘unmasked’ as false believers and are accused of manipulating the faith and using the Church.
It happened that I was accused in the same way, although I am known as an ancient Orthodox apologist and a defender of the faith from the decades of civic action.
Anti-Romanian propaganda is very perverse and seeks to turn white into black and vice versa continuously. However, it turns out that the people better identify the impostors and fine them, as much as supporting the people who really represent them.
I saw that you were the only pro-sovereignty political leader who condemned the attacks on the press in an episode in Parliament. The question is not why you had this – normal – attitude, but why you were the only one.
I distinguish between the role of the press and how some of the journalists do their job. I believe that without a free and professional press, we cannot hope for a healthy political life. On the other hand, many journalists have compromised themselves, turned from reporting voices to activists, and engaged in the dirtiest political games, leading many Romanians to distrust the media without distinction.
Americans also have record low levels of trust in the media. I published surprising figures in Q Magazine, and even Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, admitted this reality before the 2024 election campaign, when he decided not to support Kamala Harris.
Because the classical press has lost its objectivity and has become militant. Unfortunately, professionals, who follow the code of the guild ethics and perform for the benefit of all of us, are wronged. It is a fact. And, among the Romanians who have this reaction of systematic rejection of the press, there are many politicians, especially among the sovereignists, ever since their appearance on the public stage. Nebertheless, I will always support freedom of speech and all bona fide journalists will find permanent support in me. Not only because I was a press man, but also because I need honest critics, as a politician.
We are talking again about your core job as a journalist, what explanation do you find for the fact that at a time when the press was NOT ideologised, it managed to take down presidents – see the Watergate case! – and now, that it is publicly affiliated with parties or their policies, does it even fail to appoint presidents? The cases Marcel Ciolacu, Mircea Geoană and Nicoale Ciucă, massively present on all TV stations, where Călin Georgescu was not invited (except TVR) being consistent!
The press has only one capital, which, once lost, it can nolonger be restored: the trust of the public. As long as you are fair, serious, accurate, objective and you put on the consumer’s table a clean product, needed, which helps understanding the world and make decisions accordingly, you have unlimited credit. You are selling, as they say. No matter what format the press product is in, from newspaper paper to multimedia. The public cannot be fooled or cannoted be always fooled in its integrity. It will detect if you are trying to manipulate and it will turn its back.
Nowadyas, most of the press, not just from us, as you well say, but from all over the world, is more entertainment than a source of information. People refer to it as such, they no longer give it credibility. Therefore, is losing its power of manipulation.
I remember that before 1989, my maternal grandfather regularly read the main daily newspapers of that time and invariably exclaimed: ‘What liars!’ He laughed as he explained what it was all about. Once I asked him: “If they’re lying, why are you still reading?” He said to me: ‘Because I’m having fun!’. There was not so much to have fun, as the communists had confiscated all his land, dozens of hectares of arable land, vineyards, forests, meadows, and forced him to work for free, within the Agricultural Production Cooperative (CAP), on his former property. Nevertheless, if he found the strength to amuse himself, we who have not gone through such a thing, can laugh today even more.
SECULARIZATION, DIGNITY, DISCERNMENT
According to a research by CCSB, the Sociological Research and Branding Company, in February 2009, 84% of Romanians trusted the Romanian Orthodox Church, while in 2013 only 66% remained. In March 2024, according to an IRES – the Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy survey, 52% of Romanians had much and very much confidence in Church. It is clear that the phenomenon is “evolving” downwards. Why? Is the population secularized? Is the West of empty churches a universe we should aspire to? Is it better than the traditionalism of Eastern Europe, who still believes in church services, in God and the Mother of God, in saints and pilgrimages?
The phenomenon of secularization is real and advanced in our country as well. It is determined by means of reeducation and subculture. Re-education means that you are unlearned of what you know from home, from your family, from your entourage, from the church and even from school, and you are forced to adopt other norms of life and beliefs, foreign to the ethos in which you were born and formed.
I say subcultural means because everything that does not belong to tradition, be it small or capitalized, is not part of the big culture. Through the many reforms – read experiments – that have been applied to the field of education in Romania, re-education is carried out at mass level.
When the history of your country becomes an annex to the history of others, or when the Romanian language and literature is renamed “communication” and loses its significance as a fundamental identity element, it means that you are the subject of a re-education exercise. And when in movies, plays, stand-up comedies, high-profile books, music, etc., the Christian faith in which you wereborn is treated as a social stigma and all the morality that springs from it as a sign of mental retardation or savagery, it means that you are under a subcultural bombardment, which, if you are not very spiritual, hijacks you.
A world without God is impossible. Not only impossible to imagine for believers, who thus recognize the signs of the Apocalypse, but impossible to bear, through the suffering it brings.
Why is homosexuality or changing the sex of a 10-year-old girl, who is given drugs to block her female hormonal growth, more dignified to be supported to become the boy of tomorrow, than a 70-year-old mother who waits 24 hours, day and night, in a row, to worship the relics of Saint Parascheva? Who decides what’s more dignified?
It is famous that statement of Petre Ţuţea: “An old woman praying in front of the icon of the Mother of God crossed by the Absolute is a Human Being, while the atheist Nobel Prize winner is a ferret…”. I totally agree with him. The old woman you mentioned is not opposed by any scientist, but by a guardian of ‘political correctness’ or by a trumpet of a criminal ideology, such as neo-Marxism. However, under no circumstances, those who put this ideology above the faith in God do not have the moral position to speak of dignity. Dignity means verticality, and the bipedal position is acquired only by those with aspirations towards the high heavens.
Why can 16-year-olds have the discernment to vote – a topic that Mircea Geoana showed himself ready to discuss publicly in his electoral campaign, in the sense of lowering the age from which you have the right to vote, being 18 now – but the two million people who voted for Călin Georgescu are presumed incapable of deciding according to their own will and victims of the Russian propaganda on Tik Tok? How do we scientifically evaluate who has the ability or not, so as not to offend anyone?
Universal suffrage is based on the premise that everyone has the ability to vote in full knowledge of the facts, with the exceptions provided for by law. So no one should question anyone, but respect this principle, if we want democracy. Yet, even those who most bitterly advertise adverse propaganda try to cast public reproach on one or the other voting option. As a consequence, trying to minimize his defeat and wither the winner. It happens on the Romanian meridian, as it does in the US. We have seen how the supporters of President Donald Trump have been slandered. So we are no longer surprised by this behavior on the shore of the Dâmbovița. It is not changing reality, it is only trying to hide it. The truth is that people are always right, whether we like it or not. At least politicians shouldn’t dispute that.
As Simion Barnuţiu would say, in Blaj: ‘Keep with the people, so that you won’t get lost…’ The other day I was in Greece and a university professor, who was in his 60s, told me that after Andreas Papandreou ‘there was nothing else’! Why does the world no longer have great leaders? What eviscerated from the political class, wherever it is, those qualities, those characters that made a politician a great statesman ?
Well-trained and well-characterized politicians, who could change the face of politics both in our country and elsewhere, as you and I know, they still are. The problem is that they don’t always get the necessary visibility to be propelled on the first stage or to lead parties. For two main reasons. First, because everyone is more attracted by spectacular approaches, no matter how superficial, than by serious, programmatic, doctrinally sound approaches, values-oriented and result-oriented. Consequently, they rely on spectacular political actors, it does not matter that they are also fatally hollow. In other words, if we want a new, better political class, we need a new class of voters who know their power and exercise it over the elected daily, forcing them not only to do their job well, but to become better every day.
Second, according to the saying that ‘politics is about votes and football is about goals’, so it does not matter how you get the votes, only to get them, the parties that have been practicing, for a long time, a counter-selection of cadres, which leads to a continuous decline in the quality of leadership and from it down the damage …
Because the votes are no longer obtained today through the consistency and viability of the programs, but through numbers of political acrobatics and comedy, provided by cheeky people who have no other quality than the lack of shame, and also through electoral fraud, to which all those who have no reluctance to embarrass themselves or risk their freedom give themselves up.
ABOUT THE LEGIONARY MOVEMENT
Mr. Târziu, are you a Legionnaire or a Pro-Legionnaire? Do you see a danger in revitalizing this trend in Romania?
Not one, not the other. It would also be impossible, because the Legionary Movement no longer exists. It was outlawed as early as 1941 and subsequently disbanded as an organization, even though it survived as a state of mind and in scattered anti-communist resistance groups in the country or in the Exile. An attempt to revitalize it, in several civic and party forms, in the 90s, failed, because, obviously, its message and stylistics belonged to another era and no longer suited the Romanians of today and the entire national and international context of today.
Moreover, as we know, any attempt at a legionary political organization was again banned by law in 2015.
In my opinion, the Legionary Movement is a historical phenomenon that ended eight decades ago and forever.
From this perspective, I am interested in recovering historical truth, because the Legionary Movement is also part of our history and we need to know well our past in order to know what we assume for the future.
I would like to make one more remark: The Legionary Movement did not have a monopoly on Christian nationalism even in the interwar period, let alone today. Therefore, it is false, unjust and counterproductive to say that any Romanian who speaks in the same sentence of God and his nation should be considered a legionary. We risk going back to the communist-type trial, which put thousands of people in prisons under the label of legionnaire, without those having any connection with the Legionary Movement. This is not an opinion, it is a fact documented by me, as by others, in the CNSAS archives, to which I have been accredited for a very long time.
In this context, I would ask you, inviting you to read only two of the articles published in the New York Times in 2010 and in the Times of Israel in 2022, in which a Nazi leader such as Stephan Bandera is paid homage and considered a hero of Ukraine, even marches are held in his honour, and which do not make Ukraine less frequentable for the West, on the contrary, is considered a more democratic nation than Russia, by far. Why is Bandera’s cult in Ukraine preferable to the West?
I do not think that the West prefers the Bandera cult, but it ignores it under the word that it is of little importance in comparison with the Russian danger and that, to a certain extent, any force, even Nazi, that opposes Russia with a gun in hand can be allowed until after the war. We will see how the West will relate to the Nazi-type manifestations after the end of hostilities.
By the way, few people know that the West, under US leadership, trained legionnaires in exile in the 1950s and parachuted them into Romania to support the anti-communist armed resistance. In the middle of the Cold War, the Legionary Movement was considered an ally of the West, today it is the boogeyman in the service of the “pro-Europeans” from the Romanian meridian, who, to be clear, are the descendants of the old-rite communists (materialist-dialectic Marxists) and the promoters of the new-rite communism (neo-Marxists or sexo-Marxists).
Also from the field of comparisons, please explain to me from the level of the European Parliament why businessman George Soros is decorated by US President Joe Biden for special merits, being one of those who finances certain political movements, and another businessman, Elon Musk, is blamed only for expressing an opinion that considers the AfD to be “the only force capable of saving Germany”, is considered a danger that interferes in the German elections. Please explain to the readers of Q Magazine, as well as to any other potential reader, the logic!
Former President Joe Biden is an exponent of globalism, as is George Soros. If they don’t congratulate each other, then who will ? In addition, the political efforts made to achieve the goals of globalism need funding, and Soros has acquitted himself here on the measure. Because the mass media are mostly in the hands of globalists, they will be praised, awarded, decorated and imposed as role models in society to make others follow them. Elon Musk prefers patriots, so it’s automatically undesirable. Any opinion expressed by a person of his or her notoriety and influence will be taxed if it is not consistent with globalist ‘political correctness’. Moreover, such a personality is a real political risk for the plans of the globalists. Relating to one or the other is not in the logic of common sense, but in the logic of political interest.
Finally, please tell us how you see 2025, politically, economically and socially, in Romania and in Europe.
For Romania, it will be a difficult year, full of conflicts and social upheavals, with privations and austerity measures, a year that will put us all on alert. A year of uncertainty, from which we can emerge only if we have skilful leaders determined to serve the national interest. From that point of view, we’re not good. We do not have a legitimately elected president, but an illegal extension of the presidential mandate of a character who has done nothing for the country and a government he has also illegitimately put in place. I hope that this situation, which makes the Romanian state vulnerable and endangers us all, will end as soon as possible with free presidential elections and the installation of a new government that really represents the will of the people.
In Europe, let us hope that things will not evolve further towards a federal superstate EU, which interferes in the free elections in the member countries, as it seems to have done in the case of Romania and as it threatens to do in the case of Germany.
Personally, I want to do everything I can with my colleagues in the ECR to reinvigorate the EU economy and stop the war in Ukraine – the two top priorities we should all have.
May God bless Romania and protect Europe!
Thank you!
Articole Similare
Leave a Reply
Acest site folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.
