Dreapta politic\u0103 este perceput\u0103 \u015fi priceput\u0103 de Alexandru George ca opusul liberalismului, \u015fi nu st\u00e2nga politic\u0103 (\u00cen istorie, \u00een politic\u0103, \u00een literatur\u0103, Albatros, 1997, p. 159). La dreapta\u2026 \u00eemprejur! \u00cen regimul nedrept, comunist, dreapta r\u0103m\u00e2ne \u00eenfierat\u0103 mediatic, fie \u015fi conjunctural, nu \u015fi politic, \u00eentr-un comentariu critic, de altfel favorabil, la N. Carandino, cel din volumul lui memorialistic De la o zi la alta (1979). Al. George cite\u015fte \u015fi pare c\u0103 se sufoc\u0103 \u00een \u201eatmosfera de violen\u0163\u0103 pe care o \u00eentre\u0163inea presa de dreapta\u201c (O carte de amintiri: La sf\u00e2r\u015fitul lecturii, III, 1980, p. 234). Dreapta rom\u00e2neasc\u0103 \u00eei apare definitiv antiurban\u0103, antiliberal\u0103, antiminoritar\u0103, antieuropean\u0103, \u00een Pro libertate, Albatros, 1999, pp. 44-9, 224).
\nLegionarismul (\u00cen istorie, \u00een politic\u0103, \u00een literatur\u0103, Albatros, 1997) ar impune o evaluare prin nuan\u0163are, fiind o dreapt\u0103 cu aspecte de st\u00e2nga. La noi nu s-ar fi realizat separa\u0163ia dintre st\u00e2nga \u015fi dreapta, iar legionarismul, sus\u0163ine acest p\u0103str\u0103tor al distinc\u0163iei, este un na\u0163ionalism rom\u00e2nesc, dar \u015fi un haiducism. Lipse\u015fte o \u00een\u0163elegere strict\u0103 a acestuia din urm\u0103. Probabil autorul este convins c\u0103 un colectivism haiducist pleac\u0103 dintr-un individualism extrem? Ce se precizeaz\u0103 este c\u0103 el ar fi \u00eent\u00e2i religie, moral\u0103, apoi politic\u0103 (p. 267).
\nLegionarii-haiduci ar fi na\u0163ionali\u015fti, comuni\u015ftii fiind eliti\u015fti. Iat\u0103 o distinc\u0163ie prea ap\u0103sat\u0103. Nu mai spun c\u0103 elitismul natural, propriu, are ata\u015fament na\u0163ionalist, cel impropriu, fals, ader\u0103 la comunism. (\u00cen culegerea de articole \u015fi eseuri de peste doi ani, Pro libertate, distinc\u0163ia ajunge abandonat\u0103, legionarii sunt afla\u0163i acum egali bol\u015fevicilor: p. 198. Dar nici egalitarismul elitist nu mi se pare justificat.) Aici apare \u00eeng\u0103duitor cu Mi\u015fcarea Legionar\u0103, desigur c\u0103 nu \u015fi cu Ion Antonescu, diagnosticat \u015fi tratat de aberant, maladiv, \u015fi cu legionarii (p. 172).
\nFascismul \u00eens\u0103 ar fi, pentru istoria rom\u00e2neasc\u0103, doar abera\u0163ia unora ca Ion Iano\u015fi de a justifica prin el comunismul (\u00cen istorie, \u00een politic\u0103, \u00een literatur\u0103, pp. 256-8, 262).
\nConservatorismul (Pro libertate) apare dislocat (19) de tradi\u0163ionalismul al c\u0103rui prim sus\u0163in\u0103tor la noi este marele istoric N. Iorga. (Tradi\u0163ia este legitimatoare, notase anterior, \u00een Petreceri cu g\u00e2ndul \u015fi induc\u0163ii sentimentale, 1986, p. 221.) Conservatorismul ar fi orientalism strict (p. 36), moderat dup\u0103 1848 de boierii legali\u015fti \u015fi antireformi\u015fti. \u015ei marele scriitor Tudor Arghezi, unul dintre reperele literare pe care le-a studiat, a recunoscut rolul prim al clasei boiere\u015fti (p. 39).
\nNa\u0163ionalismul apare taxat dintru \u00eenceput drept miopie, limitare, inadaptare, irealism (Micromegas, \u00een Simple \u00eent\u00e2mpl\u0103ri \u00een g\u00e2nd \u015fi spa\u0163ii, 1982). \u00cei st\u0103 \u00een natur\u0103 \u015fi cultur\u0103 autorului ca s\u0103 \u00eenchid\u0103 \u00een neant na\u0163ionalismul de esen\u0163\u0103 \u201eimbecil\u0103\u201c (Pro libertate, p. 141). \u015ei tot aici, el arat\u0103 \u00eentr-un consens larg c\u0103 bol\u015fevismul \u015fi nazismul provin din socialism, iar \u00eempreun\u0103 cu na\u0163ionalismul au produs hibrizi monstruo\u015fi: na\u0163ional-socialism, na\u0163ional-comunism (p. 184).
\nNa\u0163ionalismul nu \u00eenseamn\u0103 automat na\u0163iunea sau, cu at\u00e2t mai pu\u0163in, patria.
\nAl. George nu-\u015fi denigreaz\u0103 nicidecum \u0163ara, un spa\u0163iu nici o clip\u0103 al \u00eenstr\u0103in\u0103rii. Rom\u00e2nia este pentru el ca o familie sau o gr\u0103din\u0103 proprie, cum scrie \u00een Simple \u00eent\u00e2mpl\u0103ri \u00een g\u00e2nd \u015fi spa\u0163ii: \u201eOr, e curios s\u0103 constat c\u0103 sentimentul meu de solidaritate cu \u0163ara \u00een care m-am n\u0103scut m\u0103 determin\u0103 s\u0103 dep\u0103\u015fesc orice stinghereal\u0103 pe care peisajul ne\u015ftiut mi-ar provoca-o. Nic\u0103ieri pe teritoriul Rom\u00e2niei nu m-am sim\u0163it str\u0103in, nici chiar \u00een cele mai <exotice> locuri\u201c (p. 275).
\nE interesant, \u00eenainte de a fi derutant, c\u0103-\u015fi afl\u0103 o pav\u0103z\u0103 \u00een etnicitate. \u00cen Pro libertate, afirm\u0103 c\u0103 e rom\u00e2n \u015fi de aceea f\u0103r\u0103 iluzii comuniste (p. 194). Rom\u00e2nii au fost elibera\u0163i de comunism ca de sub o mare opresiune, precum negrii \u015fi \u0163iganii (p. 6). Rom\u00e2nismul, cum \u00ee\u015fi intituleaz\u0103 un articol de aici, ini\u0163iat \u015fi continuat prin Urechia, Hasdeu, I. L. Caragiale, Costantin R\u0103dulescu-Motru, nu a condus la nimic, ignor\u00e2nd prosperitatea, prin extensie economicul socotit bazal (p. 89).
\nCitim (\u00cen istorie, \u00een politic\u0103, \u00een literatur\u0103), c\u0103 evreii, integra\u0163i la noi p\u00e2n\u0103 la Gh. Gheorghiu-Dej, au fost persecuta\u0163i nu doar de legionari, dar chiar \u015fi de liberali, \u00eenainte de sovietizarea \u0163\u0103rii. Ura este uman\u0103, etnicitatea este uman\u0103 ea \u00eens\u0103\u015fi, ca atare ajunge nefericit\u0103, dar real\u0103, egalizarea urii. Dac\u0103 Bebel crede c\u0103 \u201eAntisemitismul este marxismul imbecilor\u201c, Al. George afirm\u0103 c\u0103 \u201eMarxismul este expresia antisemitismului evreilor\u201c (p. 257).
\nCapitalismul, sus\u0163inut tot la modul general, ca tendin\u0163\u0103 uman\u0103 \u00eendr\u0103znea\u0163\u0103 \u015fi \u00een fapt creatoare, este \u00een\u0163eles ca fiind primordial politic, apoi economic, un produs englez impus coloniilor (Pro libertate, p. 244). \u201e\u00cen fond, dac\u0103 e s\u0103 ne folosim de termeni spenglerieni, capitalismul s-a n\u0103scut \u00een lumea omului <faustic>, \u00eentr-o specie de oameni agita\u0163i, nelini\u015fti\u0163i, chinui\u0163i de perspective nelimitate, dinamici \u015fi ingenio\u015fi\u201c (p. 239). Aceste trei tr\u0103s\u0103turi exist\u0103 \u00eens\u0103 la modul pervers, a\u015f spune hiper-faustic, \u015fi \u00een comunism. Conteaz\u0103 efectul implicativ, nu cauza explicativ\u0103. Omul este oricum o fiin\u0163\u0103 nelini\u015ftit\u0103, diferit \u00een transgresiunea \u2013 m\u0103car preponderent \u2013 constructiv\u0103 sau distructiv\u0103.
\nS\u0103 cunoa\u015ftem \u015fi impactul (in)direct cu religia al eseistului.
\nNesistematicul, \u00een genere, Al. George identific\u0103, \u00een cartea despre Arghezi, trei tipuri de scriitori religio\u015fi. Misticii laici: L. Bloy,
\nP. Claudel, Bernanos. Apoi, \u201emari p\u0103c\u0103to\u015fi\u201c: Baudelaire, Verlaine, Villiers de l\u2019Isle-Adam, Rilke. \u00cen sf\u00e2r\u015fit, religio\u015fii lini\u015fti\u0163i: Mauriac, Goga, Pillat (doar aici p\u0103trund \u015fi rom\u00e2nii).
\nConstat\u0103, \u00een Marele Alpha, c\u0103 lexicul religios a fost dob\u00e2ndit de Arghezi \u00een cei cinci ani de c\u0103lug\u0103rie, perioad\u0103 c\u00e2nd \u015fi-a transformat \u015fi sufletul (spiritul, g\u00e2ndirea, con\u015ftiin\u0163a, mentalul), suferind \u201eo rupere \u00een structur\u0103, \u00een ad\u00e2nc\u201c. Ceea ce ne trimite de aici (cap. 5) la premisa unui dualism.
\nReligiozitatea propriu-zis\u0103 nu exist\u0103 la Arghezi, integrat\u0103 pe deplin literar, din ratarea ei f\u0103c\u00e2nd literatur\u0103 de rar\u0103 performan\u0163\u0103. Teza va fi rareori \u00eemp\u0103rt\u0103\u015fit\u0103, o admite \u015fi
\nN. Manolescu. Al. George crede c\u0103 f\u0103r\u0103 pierderea credinciosului nu s-ar fi c\u00e2\u015ftigat, pentru sine \u015fi arta poetic\u0103, extraordinarul poet. La Arghezi, \u201eexperien\u0163a lui religioas\u0103, de\u015fi e\u015fuat\u0103, l-a l\u0103sat \u00eentr-o ame\u0163eal\u0103 metafizic\u0103 \u015fi cu o nostalgie spiritual\u0103 de care se va resim\u0163i toat\u0103 via\u0163a\u201c. Poetul tr\u0103ie\u015fte din suferin\u0163a necredinciosului, care \u00eei alimenteaz\u0103 expresia at\u00e2t de proprie.
\nArghezi \u00ee\u015fi dorise credin\u0163a cre\u015ftin\u0103. Fusese interesat de catolicism \u00eenainte de c\u0103lug\u0103rirea ortodox\u0103. Tr\u0103ire, nu cunoa\u015ftere abstract\u0103, iat\u0103 ce-\u015fi dorea. Lui Ion Biberi avea s\u0103-i spun\u0103 c\u0103 la Fribourg \u201eVoiam s\u0103 tr\u0103iesc o experien\u0163\u0103, nu o dogm\u0103\u201c (Lumea de m\u00e2ine, 1946). Critic\u0103 antidogmatic\u0103 face \u00een c\u00e2teva tablete. Nu atac\u0103 \u00eens\u0103 pe simplii c\u0103lug\u0103ri. Atest\u0103 o \u201ecredin\u0163\u0103 f\u0103r\u0103 margini \u00een sufletul genuin\u201c. R\u0103fuiala lui este cu Dumnezeu-Iehova din Vechiul Testament. Recunoa\u015fte c\u0103 exist\u0103 \u015fi \u201eun Dumnezeu bonom \u015fi <vizibil>\u201c. Ereziile de la catolicism, tomismul, franciscanismul, sunt umaniste, iar \u201etoat\u0103 arta Evului Mediu este o art\u0103 fundamental uman\u0103\u201c, terestr\u0103. Dante \u00eensu\u015fi este marele poet al omului.
\nMisticul nu ar fi religiosul extrem, \u201eUn mistic e \u00een primul r\u00e2nd un om; \u00eengerii nu sunt mistici\u201c Literatura mistic\u0103 apare respins\u0103 \u015fi de teologi, \u015fi de laici. Arghezi, poetul mistic, uman, nu se afl\u0103 \u00eentre credin\u0163\u0103 \u015fi t\u0103gad\u0103, unde-l a\u015faz\u0103 Crohm\u0103lniceanu, dar \u00eentre teologie \u015fi laicitate. \u00cens\u0103 ce con\u0163ine acest interval nu ne descoper\u0103 tainicul exeget Al. George \u00een opera de \u201eascet r\u0103zvr\u0103tit \u015fi \u00eensetat de absolut\u201c (cap. 6) a celui care l-a numit pe Dumnezeu \u201eCel ce \u015ftie \u00eens\u0103 nu cunoa\u015fte\u201c (cap. 14).
\n\u00centr-o atitudine mai direct\u0103, religia p\u0103streaz\u0103 c\u00e2te un rarisim accent \u00een Simple \u00eent\u00e2mpl\u0103ri \u00een g\u00e2nd \u015fi spa\u0163ii, ceea ce \u00eenseamn\u0103 c\u0103 lui Al. George nu-i lipse\u015fte con\u015ftiin\u0163a religioas\u0103, fie \u015fi aceea elementar\u0103, primind via\u0163a ca o \u201epetrecere \u00een aceast\u0103 vale a pl\u00e2ngerii care e Terra\u201c (p. 281), sau o pasager\u0103 referin\u0163\u0103 ritual\u0103 atunci c\u00e2nd re\u0163ine \u201eun pasaj tulbur\u0103tor \u00een liturgia mor\u0163ilor\u201c (2 p. 82).
\nSub cenzur\u0103, \u00een Petreceri cu g\u00e2ndul \u015fi induc\u0163ii sentimentale, exist\u0103 m\u0103car o sugestie de lectur\u0103 a unei c\u0103r\u0163i biblice, \u00een constatarea c\u0103 Apocalipsa e terifiant\u0103 (p. 47), dar mai exist\u0103 \u015fi o singular\u0103 referin\u0163\u0103 exegetic\u0103: m\u00e2ntuirea prin exterminare admis\u0103 de L. Bloy (p. 159).
\nPersonalit\u0103\u0163i de context
\nPrincipalele repere umane, politice, interbelice (\u015fi intra-belice, dar nu numai), sunt reflectate \u00een publicistica sa postcomunist\u0103. S\u0103 le urm\u0103rim \u00eentr-un volum ca \u00cen istorie, \u00een politic\u0103, \u00een literatur\u0103.
\nCarol al II-lea, \u201eaventurierul\u201c (ghilimele \u00eei apar\u0163in lui A. G.) (p. 150), \u201eun ins cu porniri dictatoriale\u201c (p. 156), d\u0103 o \u201elovitur\u0103 de stat\u201c (p. 147) \u015fi comite eroarea asasin\u0103rii lui
\nC.Z. Codreanu (p. 154). Mihai I \u201enu a fost niciodat\u0103 un rege propriu-zis\u201c (p. 242).
\nAl. Averescu: popular, nu glorios militar (p. 103), autoritar, salvator (p. 110). Ion Antonescu, poate nu dictator, c\u00e2t autoritar \u00een vreme de r\u0103zboi (p. 158), a pl\u0103tit gre\u015felile tuturor politicienilor, prin el s-a \u00eenlocuit clasa politic\u0103 (pp. 168-174). N. Titulescu: irealism catastrofal (p. 151), falimentar (p. 153). Armand C\u0103linescu: ambi\u0163ios antilegionar (p. 153). Gh. T\u0103t\u0103r\u0103scu a condus \u201eprimul guvern din istoria Rom\u00e2niei care demisioneaz\u0103 \u00een urma unui vot \u00een alegerile parlamentare\u201c (pp. 161-162).
\n\u00cen Pro libertate, Ion Antonescu este re\u0163inut pentru ilegitimitate, minciun\u0103, procesul s\u0103u anormal ca \u015fi al lui Ceau\u015fescu (pp. 99-111). Iuliu Maniu, catolic, celib, confund\u0103 morala cu politica, poart\u0103 responsabilitatea readucerii la tron al lui Carol al II-lea \u015fi a afect\u0103rii democra\u0163iei (p. 102), r\u0103m\u00e2ne un obstruc\u0163ionist care a divizat mi\u015fcarea liberal\u0103 (pp. 112-115). \u00centr-o politic\u0103 extern\u0103 \u015fi o diploma\u0163ie marcate de erori, se afl\u0103 \u015fi Br\u0103tienii \u201edictatoriali\u201c (p. 98).
\nC\u00e2teva personalit\u0103\u0163i culturale implicate \u015fi politic sunt confruntate cu legionarismul. S\u0103 le urm\u0103rim dup\u0103 \u00cen istorie, \u00een politic\u0103, \u00een literatur\u0103. Pe N. Iorga \u00eel reprob\u0103 pe cale zvonistic\u0103, \u00eentruc\u00e2t ar fi dat cu piciorul \u00een cadavre de legionari (p. 166). \u00cel pune \u00eentr-o clas\u0103 cu Nae Ionescu, \u201eacest intelectual de structur\u0103 at\u00e2t de complex\u0103\u201c (p. 216) sau cu \u201ezestrea intelectual\u0103 at\u00e2t de complex\u0103\u201c (p. 138), acesta fiind urm\u0103rit aici mai \u00eendeaproape. \u201eNae Ionescu, dar \u015fi Iorga, naturi egolatre, orgolioase, inteligen\u0163e excep\u0163ionale, dar populiste \u015fi antiintelectualiste\u201c (p. 199). P\u0103rinte al dreptei na\u0163ionalist-legionare (p. 217), bine atins de fanatism (p. 244), Nae Ionescu salut\u0103 moartea partidelor (p. 139) \u015fi trece drept un proto-ceau\u015fist, sus\u0163in\u00e2nd \u201eO politic\u0103 net revolu\u0163ionar\u0103\u201c (Problema politicii noastre de stat, 1932) (pp. 140-141). M. Eliade ajunge \u00eenchis \u00een elucubra\u0163ii \u015fi recunoscut vinovat \u00een 1937 (pp. 140-142). E. M. Cioran r\u0103m\u00e2ne foarte exaltat (p. 160). C. Noica \u00eei apare mult mai pu\u0163in vinovat dec\u00e2t Iorga (p. 217).
\nM. Vulc\u0103nescu e validat prin cartea despre Nae Ionescu (p. 148).
\nIat\u0103-l pe publicistul de a(l)titudine \u015fi printre contemporanii cu care a traversat istoria unei Rom\u00e2nii captive.
\nDup\u0103 \u00cen istorie, \u00een politic\u0103, \u00een literatur\u0103, ca politician de tranzi\u0163ie, criticul \u015fi istoricul literar N. Manolescu r\u0103m\u00e2ne fixat de \u201edezastrosul\u201c s\u0103u PAC (Partidul Alian\u0163ei Civice) (p. 192).
\nAl. George nu trece de ne\u015ftiin\u0163a lui G. Liiceanu \u015fi a \u00eentregului G. D. S. (p. 249).
\nDup\u0103 Pro libertate, istoricul Florin Constantiniu, pe care Al. George \u00eel cite\u015fte \u00eentr-un loc \u201erevoltat\u201c (p. 57), \u201eun antiliberal carabinat \u015fi un pro\u0163\u0103r\u0103nizant cu regretabile aderen\u0163e sentimentale\u201c, crede \u00eentr-un mod fantezist c\u0103 \u0163\u0103ranii au dus greul r\u0103zboiului (pp. 52-53). Sorin Alexandrescu, certat direct \u00eentr-o O ciudat\u0103 r\u0103t\u0103cire pentru cartea sa Paradoxul rom\u00e2n, este \u015fi \u00eentr-un fel involuntar, f\u0103r\u0103 a mai fi acum nenumit, respins \u00eentr-o analiz\u0103 de limbaj: \u201eDin punct de vedere al exegezei stilistice, documentele r\u0103mase de la el (Ion Antonescu) constituie o comoar\u0103 inestimabil\u0103\u201c (p. 209). Pe Andrei Marga \u00eel corecteaz\u0103 drastic pentru c\u0103 admite denigrarea clasei politice liberale, reformatoare, unioniste, independentiste etc. (pp. 9-11). Dan H\u0103ulic\u0103 apare, ori mai bine zis dispare, fiind \u00eenchis \u00eentr-un \u201ezero pompos\u201c (p. 16). Iordan Chimet iese l\u0103udat pentru cartea-anchet\u0103 Momentul adev\u0103rului (p. 74). Vl. Tism\u0103neanu, citit favorabil, se vede corectat la nuan\u0163\u0103: el \u201e\u00ee\u015fi \u00eendreapt\u0103 microscopul electronic asupra unor realit\u0103\u0163i pe care eu le-a\u015f vedea mai simple \u015fi mai meschine, dar \u015fi mai variate\u201c (p. 200).
\nPentru toate aceste reglement\u0103ri, el are (in)discutabil argumente.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Dreapta politic\u0103 este perceput\u0103 \u015fi priceput\u0103 de Alexandru George ca opusul liberalismului, \u015fi nu st\u00e2nga politic\u0103 (\u00cen istorie, \u00een politic\u0103, \u00een literatur\u0103, Albatros, 1997, p. 159). La dreapta\u2026 \u00eemprejur! \u00cen regimul nedrept, comunist, dreapta r\u0103m\u00e2ne \u00eenfierat\u0103 mediatic, fie \u015fi conjunctural, nu \u015fi politic, \u00eentr-un comentariu critic, de altfel favorabil, la N. Carandino, cel din volumul… Cite\u0219te mai mult »La dreapta\u2026 \u00eemprejur!<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[17],"tags":[8344,12536,12537],"class_list":["post-20968","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cultura-ideilor","tag-alexandru-george","tag-dreapta-politica","tag-opusul-liberalismului"],"views":2524,"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistacultura.ro\/nou\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20968","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistacultura.ro\/nou\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistacultura.ro\/nou\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistacultura.ro\/nou\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistacultura.ro\/nou\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20968"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/revistacultura.ro\/nou\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20968\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistacultura.ro\/nou\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20968"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistacultura.ro\/nou\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20968"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistacultura.ro\/nou\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20968"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}