On Sunday evening, in his living room at Realitatea TV, served with deference by Anca Alexandrescu, Călin Georgescu felt the need to employ blackmail techniques, of a securist nature, but also with a mafia-like air, against those who raised a series of absolutely justified suspicions against his person.
And it’s not about the disclosure concerning his mother. This served him so well that it wouldn’t be out of place to suspect that it was orchestrated from his own camp.
Only for Bolsheviks and fascists does a parent's biography represent an accusation against the child. Even if Călin Georgescu's mother had been a leader of the Legion, even if Georgescu were Sima's own child, these circumstances, independent of his will, could never be attributed to him.
However, the so-called disclosure gave Mr. Georgescu the opportunity for a tearful victimization, which I have no doubt resonated with many mothers and many children, especially those whose parents have passed away.
Mr. Georgescu's extraordinary hypocrisy was revealed just a few minutes after his lamentation regarding his own mother, when he attacked Minister Burduja's father with an accusation equally irrelevant to the son, as was the one against his own mother.
A similar hypocrisy to that of the moderator who, besides repenting for Mr. Georgescu, herself, quite justifiably, makes a huge fuss over any talk about her own father, but accepts and even encourages accusations against other fathers, against other public figures.
The accusation against Mr. Burduja Sr. was not even a complete one, with a subject and predicate, with the presentation of evidence, of arguments. It was an attack of the "we know better" type, and if the son says anything more about me (Mr. Burduja's figures in response to Georgescu's nonsense regarding energy, especially wind energy, were indeed stinging), I will say more.
If Minister Burduja's father somehow represents a vulnerability for his son's mandate, it is not Mr. Georgescu's right, but his obligation to make any information in this regard public and/or to report to the relevant institutions.
However, by doing neither, Mr. Georgescu is either a charlatan who lies, or a blackmailer who uses issues of public interest for his own benefit.
In the case of the SIE chief, Georgescu's threats were even more problematic because he invoked documents received from active officers, as we understand from this service.
In what capacity does Mr. Georgescu have such documents, if indeed he does? And if he does and they show serious issues, how is it that Mr. Georgescu, who claims to be the already elected president, uses them for personal gain, as a threat in settling scores, rather than making them public or reporting them to state institutions?
Similarly, in the threats against UDMR, after Kelemen Hunor touched on an extremely sensitive point in Georgescu's biography, about which my colleague Emilian Isailă wrote last year: Călin Georgescu's affiliation with the Caraman group.
Călin Georgescu's defense relies on a, let's say, terminological confusion. Of course, being born in 1962, Călin Georgescu could not have been part of the espionage network that in the '60s stole NATO documents to deliver them to the Soviets. But Mihai Caraman didn't disappear then. He went on to lead DIE, Romania's foreign intelligence service, in the early '90s. This is the Caraman group we're talking about.
Whether Mr. Georgescu was part of it or not, via Mircea Malița, is certainly a hypothesis, based not only on Mr. Georgescu's interesting biographical trajectory but also on a whole network of retired officers who support him and who have propelled him.
Moreover, based on Mr. Georgescu's securistic discourse, interspersed with threats and blackmail through which he tries to shut down uncomfortable discussions for his reign.
Mr. Georgescu's past is extremely murky. It is not at all clear whether he worked at the UN and what he did there, but what is certain is that for a career of this kind, claimed for 17 years, his English is very poor.
The Club of Rome, of which he would have been a part, is not the same, but a kind of attached NGO, like the Friends of the Club. How the Georgescu family lived in Vienna for 10 years without any official income remains unexplained and strange. Or how the proposal of service or services for high positions, as soon as one of them became vacant.
Ultimately, except for the hypothesis of political policing, which disqualifies him legally, Mr. Georgescu's past is not necessarily guilty, even if he were in the Caraman group. Provided it is assumed. What the "elected president" avoids through blackmail, perhaps because nothing is worse for an anti-system leader than being proven and acknowledged as a pawn of the system.