
A few citizens from Arad are wandering through Bucharest. They arrived in the morning after Călin Georgescu's candidacy was invalidated. They want to support him and are complaining on TikTok:
"We went to the Central Electoral Bureau, and there's nothing. We went to Constitution Square-nothing. We came here-isn't that the Government building? And still, no one is here."
The man is disoriented:
"Do you not care anymore?!"
Then he snaps at a colleague:
"Watch out, the light is red! Where are you going like that?!"
After a night of protests and clashes with the gendarmes, the demonstrators were left confused in the morning, awaiting a decision from Georgescu-do we continue?
At ten-thirty, a meeting was scheduled between Călin Georgescu and George Simion.
From that meeting emerged a video with the perplexing message:
"Everything in peace, everything in quiet!"
Everything?
On TikTok, exclamations erupted:
Eliminating Georgescu1 from the presidential race was actually simple-you bring the gendarmes to the Central Electoral Bureau, fire tear gas, and disperse the protest.
But what do you do with Georgescu2?
A virtualized symbol, living in the collective mind of voters, is far more resilient to any kind of attack. It cannot be suppressed by any authority and is immune to gendarmes.
Among Romania's ten fundamental problems (see "Georgescu on Top, Iohannis Below - That's How the Coin Fell" / BURSA / February 12), Călin Georgescu focused particularly on corruption, poverty and social inequality, lack of morality, deficient education, and youth emigration-addressing these issues in his public appearances.
From this perspective, Călin Georgescu's intervention in our political landscape is valuable.
The mere fact that he brought these real problems into discussion (blended with his spiritualist references-where his ignorance didn't seem to matter-and his nonsensical takes on general culture and science) ignited the public imagination.
For some, he became a Messiah. Songs were made about him.
But even intellectuals who recognize his semi-literacy have come to believe that supporting him is not a mistake-because they have felt the taste of popular solidarity.
At this point, Georgescu2, the virtual being, has become a collective asset.
For this virtual entity, for popular solidarity, for national unity, and the sense of dignity it radiates, the fight against the narrow-minded, selfish, corrupt political class has become an opportunity.
But the crucial question arises:
Can Georgescu2 survive without Georgescu1?
Can Georgescu1 pass Georgescu2 on to someone else?
Is it possible for the baton to be taken up by a mortal?
Reader's Opinion