Gheorghe Ursu: Romania fails, where the victims become the tormentors.

For a few days, I’ve been thinking about the fact that the dissident Gheorghe Ursu was killed in the second beating. In the sentence that paid the security officers accused of torturing and killing him in November 1985, it was missing that the judges would call him a turner, subjective and preached, and the cruel disappointment that shook us at the news would have turned into a depression. How do we get out of this soul cataclysm caused by an injustice more relentless than taxes and excessive taxation that threatens private companies and, on the contrary, all the owners? A phrase of many that make you feel that the judges got the film wrong keeps in mind the danger of extorting it: “It is, however, difficult to consider that the victim was a true political dissident.” … Well, this one also tried to convince the security. Have we gone back in time? Have we fallen into a dystopian temporary line in a parallel universe where concrete pours from the bottom up? In the same logic, is it supposed to be that in the Mineral File, the instigators should be congratulated, and those who protested in the University Square should be sought and sent to court? In the File of the Revolution, we will witness the reversal of causality, and a criminal file will be filed for those who booed Nicolae Ceausescu on December 21, 1989. Will the 1,000 Romanians who died after the dictator’s escape be considered inventions? In the File of August 10, will the people who were gassed and beaten just because they were courting to protest be handcuffed?

Read for motivation, and cross yourself: Ursu “was not an opponent of the communist regime and was not in hostile relations with state security authorities, as long as his opinions and disagreements with politics and state leadership were not made public, they have not come to the knowledge of the general public in some other way, and they have produced no consequence in the outside reality (they were not in the nature to propagate hostile ideas and concepts or to incite action against socialist order). So the letters sent by Gheorghe Ursu to “Radio Europe Liberă”, in which Ceausescu was accused of murder, his pamphlets, and the opinions about the XIII Congress of the PCR did not exist? The interrogations from the security guard, who asked for the names of his contacts, did not exist either. Was there no security interest in his friendship with Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca, accused of “hostile concepts”? How his tracking file was ignored, which blatantly contradicts the High Court’s motive? The general prosecutor of Romania is obliged to attack in an extraordinary way the payment of the torturers of the dissident Gheorghe Ursu. Any other attitude will legitimize a historical injustice that has transformed, in deeds, a man who resisted the communist regime, which was murderous and devastating for the genetics of a people, into a dubious guy. Gheorghe Ursu deserves it, as do those who resisted in the mountains, went to political prison, and died standing in communist prisons. It deserves the hearts of former political prisoners—even fewer, who do not have special pensions but some filthy allowances. All those who have not sold their conscience and who continue to resist, in their souls, an increasingly desolate world, always praying for their country, deserve it.