When I left you, you were poor and stupid, when I returned I found you again, even poorer and even more stupid. - Constantin Brâncuși

Constantin Brâncuși was a Romanian artist that lived between 1876 and 1957 that left home at the age of 9 due to parental carelessness and poor conditions in order to find a better future elsewhere. Even though there are many stories that surround Brâncuși, for what it concerns this section, a case is made about mis-appropriation of prestige on the shallow grounds of origin. Mr. Brâncuși found most of his fame outside of Romania, or rather, as we would wish to imply, mainly explicitly due to leaving Romania, such that even though Romanians feel entitled to his magnus opus, Romania is simply not entitled to claim that Brâncuși ever was a Romanian sculptor.

One can use simple predicative logic to prove that Mr. Brâncuși is anything but Romanian and just making the judgment that iff. Mr. Brâncuși would not have left Romania, then none of this artworks would have come to fruition, given his condition and being at odds with the Romanian state, such by making Mr. Brâncuși Romanian, all his artworks could not have been created, which leads to a paradox. The harsh reality for Romanians is that Mr. Constantin Brâncuși, as much as Romanians would like to bask in the borrowed fame, is perhaps French, where he met an environment that allowed him to flourish, or maybe even German or American. Quite interestingly, historical records show that in multiple years, Romanian authorities attempted to destroy some of the artworks that had been made by Mr. Brâncuși, sometimes on the political grounds of the times, namely during communism, that the area hosting his sculptures had bourgeois influences and hence has betrayed the people (the incentive to drag everyone down to the same level), or otherwise even for scoring a profit out of the material that the artworks were assembled from. As an interesting parallel, if you listen to any of Mr. Ceausescu's discourse, a re-occuring theme is the longing for "specialists", with the claim that Romania is unable to produce capable individuals themselves, a theme that has bellowed for Romanians across time, from their dark past and up to modern times when the same theme re-occurs and with Romanian consistently destroying their own values.

Modernly however, Romanians have constantly tried to re-patriate his artwork, as well as being obsessed about repatriating his remains (a Romanian thing), with numerous scandals and scoffing entitled Romanian celebrities (whether political or not) making claims that Constantin Brâncuși somehow belongs to the Romanian patrimony. Most of Mr. Brâncuși work has however remained outside of Romania and it is only poetic how Romanians are running after the little bits of pieces, like his fallout scraps, trying to assemble them together, just for the sake of claiming that they have any national-identity, other than vagrants and even therefore vandalizing the memory of Constantin Brâncuși that only found solace in any place other than Romania.

Surveillance and/or espionage is wrongly deemed to be a subset of security. The concern of privacy activists has been over the years that the agencies involved (or, as Molvania would have it, "the 35 different security agencies") are granted too much power and end up being corrupt.

For instance, the case of the Romanian "Integrated Information System", spells out a worrying reality that make Romania "security" agencies seem more like moral police (or, as labeled by activists, due to profound breaches of intimacy, as "protocols of the soul"), typically what Muslim states are accused of, especially given that the concerns, as spelled out in the image above greatly exceed opposition to any real adversary but rather seem more like a way to illicitly obtain blackmail material that will undoubtedly be used against both Romanian nationals and foreign nationals.

In the context of the discussion involving Romania's membership to the Schengen area, Schengen membership will grant Romania and thereby the aforementioned Romanian security services access to technology, databases and similar devices that would allow Romania to put the collected blackmail material to use.

Ironically, "moral transgressions" seem to go hand-in-hand with Romania's very long backlog of crimes ranging from human-rights abuses and up to mass-murder (ie: the Danube-Black Sea Channel, being mostly referred to by historians as a work/extermination camp) that went unaccounted for with the Romanian justice system being either unable or deliberately avoiding the prosecution of responsible individuals (even those whose crimes are accounted for in documents and are backed by hard evidence).

The excuses for mass-surveillance, especially coming from a society that deep down refutes the contributions of the Magna Carta with a strong preference towards feudal structures, are simply moot and are unfortunately, not solely the rogue actions of some bad apples within the surveillance apparatus, but rather one of the fundamental pillars of Romanian governance (for instance, the fact that most phone-call interceptions enacted by Romanian surveillance had, in fact, judicial backing).

In the context of the international scene, the problem scales up due to Romania's membership to the European Community as well as The North Atlantic Treaty, that give the organizations that Romania is part of a bad name. For instance, while a clash of values concerning various rights spanning from free-speech to LGBTQ rights, between the west and the east can be seen as a debate, a state such as Romania not conveying the rights that they themselves have agreed to convey is not a matter of clash of value systems but rather damasks Romania as a fraudulent state.

It is even questionable whether Romanian espionage should be judged under "espionage" and illicit breaches of privacy or whether the espionage should be judged as … maybe theft, something that might be easier for Romanians to understand. Even though that seems snarky or edgy, it opens the question whether the firms, companies and/or corporations that would have been happy to do business with Romania, did not shy away on the guise that they might be spied upon. Ultimately, every company has their inner-magic and their own way to do business, which is something that a company would not want to be stolen and given the precedents and antecedents, it seems trivial that the proverbial Molvanian 34 "security" agencies would just love to take a foothold in such companies. Naturally, the industrial secrets stolen would probably end up being sold, given that Romania does not have any significant capabilities to speak of in order to not attract attention. Certainly the KFC secret would be spilled in Romania. Even in the "meager" terms of Wizardry and Steamworks, we consider both "espionage", "industrial espionage" and/or "theft" to be the accusations brought towards the Romanians (compared to other countries, as quoted, Romania contains an off-the charts membership to espionage services such that we permit ourselves to run with Romanians, in general, given the large participation of individuals).

Given the experience of Romanians generally acting as organized crime abroad, notably becoming some of the main proponents of violent crime and/or theft in states such as the United Kingdom, reaching so far as to attract the direct hatred of politicians, one side-problem that comes up is the question whether Romanians and the Romanian state, that are mostly aware of crimes committed abroad, will not attempt to profit off the access that Schengen and an unified criminal system would granted them, in order to extort money or favors off people that have been formerly involved with various criminal aspects.

Most of this can be said in context where historically speaking Romanians have oppressed the Roma population, pushing them to becoming police informers, with the promise to look away from some of the committed crimes, or also the Romanian Securitate that has been praying on young promising students with the purpose of ensnaring them to become part of the surveillance state. Of course, there is still the larger context of mass-murder, genocide and the fact that most Romanians are still, as per country evaluations, skeptical on matter of the holocaust. Most of the younger generations are not really being taught in schools, the darker sides of their own history, or rather it is brushed over and coated in heroism and that is observably, deliberately so, or it would create a mental schism between the mainstream propaganda even fortified in schools, and the harsh realities that govern Romania to this date.

One of the most discussed cases in post-modern Romanian history is the case of Marius and Ruth Bodnariu, two individuals in Norway with Marius Bodnariu being a Romanian citizen, that had their children seized due to Mr. Bodnariu running his family along the lines of right-about any family in Romania with the notorious double-standard application of violence towards children, which is still very much acceptable today, and part of a much larger problem, in spite of dysfunctional child protection services that are only there as duds but will not take action.

The confiscation of the Bodnariu's children by the Norwegian child support services lead to funny headlines sprawled across the internet, one more hilarious than the other, as well as street protests and demonstrations held in Romania and Norway against the actions of the Norwegian authorities even though they were well within their right to seize the children due to the physical abuse. Whilst the infatuation is just casual for the Romanian people, the other problem is the religious fanatics that unfortunately seemed to have picked the wrong side to pitch for. The Bodnariu family turns out to be highly religious, even with their children following biblical names, yet it is important to understand that the case of physical violence against children is not of religious origin (and frighteningly, the so-called Christians attempted to defend the counter-point) but rather of ethnic origin with violence against children (formerly, women) being socially acceptable. In other words, the religious crowd tried to defend the case for "acceptable violence", in spite of the fact that Mr. Bodnariu is literally hiding behind a religious shield, with the normalized upbringing of labeling violence against children taking its toll. Aside from pitching for the wrong kind of people, the Bodnariu family is also part of the penticostal religion that has wreaked havoc in Romania, due to pandering to families with meager financial capabilities and then raising their children under the same obligation scheme as the mafia, deploying them as soldiers on demand later on when and if they occupy important positions. Mr. Bodnariu end up working for ROMATSA, a state-agency that would more than likely make Mr. Bodnariu at least a selection of Romania's criminal security-state.

The case is of peak hilarity, effectively allowing a neutral watcher to roll around laughing, with massive uproar even from the most "progressive" individuals that preach "democracy", "rule of law" and other peaches that they would-be wanting to hype Romania into a glorious age with the benefit of hiding its filthy dark past that had nobody sanctioned even up to this day. It was a case that exposed the "new wing" progressives as fakes and even just a cover to offer international scrutiny something to chew on, whilst in the back room, Romania continues to run "business as usual" with "the same old guys" consisting in the natural double standards, acceptable violence, acceptable racism and all the other hallmarks of a country that is attempting to euthanize its people with the hopes of clensing itself of the burden of answering to its criminal past. In reality, the statement "you will end up so bad that you will not be able to beat up your children", is pretty much a threat to Romanian hegemony where such attitudes are normal, and in many cases, a desired status that is kept in place by corrupt police, kingpins and slumlords, which is most of the corpus of Romania's political playing field. However, as far as Mr. Bodnariu and his family goes, the same deceitful and spiteful Romanian attitude that can be observed is being played between Romanians trying to appease western powers that "they have changed" but at the same time running business as usual, with Mr. Bodnariu even being part of the new "IT generation", to use a citation, and devoid of any "communist" marks that could shadow the blame with an entire political system.

It is in this sense, that all indignation aside, the case of the Bodnariu's is a case that was perceived by Romanians, against Romanians, due to its causes to be found deep within the Romanian slavish soul, with the unfortunate side-effect of "good people" attempting to defend a case that they perceived more along the lines of "keeping the family together", "reunification" as well as the mandatory adagio of the case against the big-bad government trying to turn the proverbial frogs gay. The case still shines today, as a hallmark of Romanian vanity and international misunderstanding of how Romania really works, for which we have accumulated our own impressions and doubts, such that we feel it necessary to record it here within this section dedicated to Romania, if only for the sake of countering any favorable propaganda that might mislead people to an abusive country.