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.

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.

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).

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.

One of the heritages of Sovietism has been the reclassification of "science" or namely "scientist" as a profession to a "work occupation" with the Romanian language essentially missing a word for "scientist" in the sense of a profession (just like the Romanian language misses "privacy" as an abstract concept, which is very telling of the society itself). Speculating, the re-classification is due to Soviet influence and thereby Romania's desire to obliterate the middle-class due to such occupations being considered "bourgeois" and pretentious for the mean-average person. Alas, because actions entail consequences, the reality of the matter is that since the fall of the Iron Curtain, science in Romania is moot, the playing field being mostly lined with scam-conferences, late cold-war habits, older ties (ie: the good old guys) and sometimes even some of the more shadier stuff. People of value generally have a tendency to leave and this is not due to some anti-patriotic feelings, but rather a trivial consequence of the antithesis that free-thinking cannot be enacted within a space that does not want free-thinking in the first place. Just like accession to Schengen, the main misunderstanding of people is that Romania is not, as it would like to seem, a beggar country, but rather a country that prefers to auto-sabotage itself for the purpose of eschewing leverage to be used for other purposes, or for the purposes of the "important people" for whom normal legislation does not apply to.

In spite of citing themselves as allies, Romania is profoundly anti-American, but not in the layman's sense of "liking people" but rather in the fundamental sense in terms of baseline beliefs, held opinions, foundational values and policy.

Romania is a collectivist top-down society, turned into some sort of anarcho-oligarchy with a management similar to Soviet dynamics with the feuds at the bottom and the "leadership", an ounce of economic power in the wake of the fall of communism, at the proverbial "top" of society. Romanians will frequently opt for non-democractic or non-free measures across the board, frequently heard demanding executions, making people suffer, stronger emphasis on religion, wide-spread xenophobia as well as frequently manifesting medieval outlooks on matters of sex, education, women, etc.

The mind-bender is that historically speaking Romania does seem more-or-less aligned with the USA so the basic question is, how come you get from being admirers of the US to the actual difference of view on life between Romanians and people in the US. In reality, like many other nations, Romania enjoys the bling of the US but they will not do the actual walk to ensure the same set of conditions for themselves, whether that reflects in state policy or in terms of views on life.

The brass that grew in the wake of World War 2 and then Communism had the primordial concern of control, given that a small country cannot be self-sustaining, such that implicitly any globalism, open-borders or any sort of international-cooperation was seen to periclitate the positions of power that the governance held. This adds more to the difference between the two mindsets where the governance of a country like Romania realizes that without etho-centrism and closed-borders, Romanians, just like any other individuals, will just opt for "the competition" and would wander off to whomever can provide a better deal. In some ways, this is the continuation of closed-border communist policies, packaged as some sort of ethno-centrism or "patriotism", yet sold out to the masses in order to ensure that Romanian governance maintain their positions of power and control over the entire society. Furthermore, Romania has been governed as a Soviet state, that exchanged natural resources in exchange for coin, that would end up percolated by "people of power" down to the people very similar to Russian satescraft, such that the concept of "services" or reaching into matters such as "art", "sciences" or even "craftsmanship" was seen more or less like a bourgeois endeavor and an entitlement, which, in turn, made "democratic rights" more of an infatuation rather than a necessity. In that context, obviously, for a Romanian, not being criticized is more important than free speech and it would much rather be preferred to do away with some shame in exchange for controlled speech.

It is clear that there is always a difference between groundwork policy and the actual implementation thereof, with the US being lined with very many interests groups that could have anti-democratic tendencies, yet as it stands Romanians would not see the benefits in very many of just the fundamental groundwork of a democratic society. For instance, there are entire generations in the wake of the Romanian revolution that grew up with Western media, however their contact with said media has only been purely prophylactic, in the sense that at the time the many songs, movies and thought patterns were "trendy" or "fashionable" such that Romanians ended up adopting them for simple purposes such as "FOMO", virtue signalling and being in-line with everyone else. Given that censuses show that of young Romanians hold authoritarian views, it stands to reason that while you will find someone dancing, say, to Dire Straights, or being a fan of the band but will concomitantly hold "traditional family" or anti-LGBT views. Pointing out to one of these young people that the media or lyrics withing the songs even contain passages that would hint to completely opposed views that they hold, would actually have them surprised.

In turn, control mechanisms and the European Community hold part of the blame, for over-financing a system that did not even think about changing and that presented a front-facing or "aspectual democracy" that did not correspond to any internal mechanism that would be truly democratic. It became a culture where it was clear that no matter the failure, no matter the abuse and no matter the transgression, Romania was "developing" with the E.U. subsidies being more or less unconditional and unsanctioned such that the E.U. ended up garnering a layer of individuals, mostly former communist turncoats, that became a perpetual government. Receiving unconditional funding just encouraged a "laissez-faire" politics where just the competition to be part of this layer of "rules" became primordial. The wealth-disconnect went so far that the term "political class" was coined, even though, these ruling people in terms of numbers were an extremely small minority.