Baklava, bridges and brutality: inside Erdoğan’s Turkey

The hand of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the closet islamist – some accuse him of practising neo-Ottomanism – trying to subvert Turkey’s decades of secularism is plain to all who want to see it.

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

“ARE you a christian?” The question was trapped in the amber of the muslim call to prayer ringing out all around. It was asked by an old man as we stood across the street from the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate and in front of St George Church in the Fatih area of Istanbul upon a golden Sunday evening a few weeks ago.

I said I was free of faith. He looked bemused.

“Free of faith? Free of faith! Hmph! But without faith you cannot live.”

I did not argue the obvious: here I was, alive, well and happy. Probably, in significant part, because I was free of faith.

He didn’t pursue the issue, no doubt considering me a lost cause. Instead he unfurled priest’s vestments, all but disappeared into their billowing blackness as he donned them with a flourish, bade us farewell, and marched theatrically into the church to solemnise a wedding. Father Elvis, not his real name, had entered the building.

In a restaurant in thoroughly hipsterised Karaköy, a young woman sat among friends who had gathered to mark one of their birthdays. Only she wore hijab. But, like everyone else at the table, she smoked and swigged beer from the bottle.

Was she rebelling against her culture? Was she a subversive in disguise trying to undermine the faith that signals that culture? What would the Istanbullus who are adamant that the nation is divided strictly into those who drink alcohol and those who do not make of her? She had faith, it appeared. Would Father Elvis have approved?

Like baklava, Turkey has many layers. It is more probable than possible, in only a few of Istanbul’s teeming streets, to find cafés serving muddy Turkish coffee alongside those offering the jet fuel that is Antipodeans’ gift to espresso.

Or classy bars and restaurants showcasing some of the 61.5-million litres of wine the country producers annually — much of it of high quality, but only 5% of it exported — to a nation of more than 82-million, 99.8% of whom call themselves muslim.

Or nostalgic shrines to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk — the modernising secularist who was galvanised by leading an army to victory over the Allies, commanded by Winston Churchill, at Gallipoli in 1916 into the founding father of modern Turkey in 1923 — within sight of staunchly sacrosanct places of worship.

Or luridly pink-mouthed, wigged, tight-topped transsexual sex workers leaning out of first-floor windows and trying, loudly, to fish customers from the streaming pavements leading to a market frequented by conservative Kurdish women, identifiable by their penchant for snowy, delicately tassled, almost gossamer hijab.

Or 3.6-million Syrians, having fled the war at home, transposing their lives — complete with cardamom-laced coffee, a type of dried spinach called molokhiya, and restaurants using the same names, offering the same menu, staffed by the same chefs and waiters, serving the same customers as they did in Damascus and Aleppo — onto a city that has shape-shifted through the ages from being called Lygos, Augusta Antonina, Byzantium, Stanbulin, Constantinople, Islambol, Polin, Bolis, al-Qustantiniyya, the New Rome, the New Jerusalem, to Throne of the Romans.  

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has mastered separating the layers of the baklava just far enough — while also keeping the whole in one piece — to stay in power.

Born, on February 26, 1954 in Kasımpaşa, an ancient section of Beyoğlu on Istanbul’s European side whose hills tumble into the Golden Horn, Erdoğan grew up selling lemonade and simit, a kind of crisp, sesame-seeded bagel that is the breakfast of choice for almost every Turk, in the streets — where he also played football.

Rather than a prolific scorer he was blessed with the foresight to create goals, and played professionally for Kasımpaşa. These days the club’s stadium, immaculately appointed but small with a capacity of only 14 000, bears his name.

That doesn’t fit with rest of the Erdoğan story, because what he does he does big. Bridges swoop and gleam, one, across the Golden Horn, comes replete with a metro stop, another is the third suspension bridge across the Bosphorus. A mosque in the grand imperial manner, big enough to hold 63 000, looms lumpily in the distance. A vast new international airport is slickly efficient and almost an enjoyable place to be. A tunnel has been burrowed under the Bosphorus, all the better to apply a laxative to Istanbul’s chronically car-clogged colon.

Erdoğan holds a Trumpian perspective laced with Putinesque overtones, which never fails to quicken the patriotic pulse, particularly of Turks outside the main centres. At the Bosphorus bridge’s opening in August 2016, he presented a Turkish proverb as his own profundity: “When a donkey dies it leaves behind its saddle. When a man dies he leaves behind his works. We will be remembered for this.”

But, as with Donald Trump, there is dodginess in the details. The running track that hugs the shore under the bridge over the Golden Horn looks like something out of user-friendly Brisbane. Alas, it peters out in less than a kilometre.  

Similarly, kiosks flutter with all manner of newspapers, 45 of them national dailies, and another 15 exclusive to Istanbul. And few will say less than a glowing word about Erdoğan, not least because 231 journalists have been jailed in the wake of a failed coup on July 15, 2016.

The hand of Erdoğan the closet islamist — some accuse him of practising neo-Ottomanism — trying to subvert Turkey’s decades of secularism is plain to all who want to see it.

Mosques are built in spaces previously dominated by churches, and like all the others in the country they are funded by the regime, which pays everything from the salaries of clerics to the cleaning bills — and controls what is preached. Every Thursday evening the sermon for the next day’s juma service, the week’s most important and best attended prayer for muslims the world over, flutters into the inbox of every imam in Turkey. That’s not to say the men of the cloth don’t have a choice: either they relay the message as is, or follow the themes outlined, helpfully, in the same document.

Lessons on evolution and Atatürk and his successor, Ismet Inönü, have been removed from the school curriculum amid promises to teach “from the perspective of a national and moral education” to “protect national values” — code for a more conservative, religious approach.

And it’s working. Turkish flags displayed prominently in the streets, and there are many, have been put there either by overt nationalists or immigrants desperate to proclaim their affection for the country. 

If you want to research why that has happened if you are in Turkey don’t bother with Wikipedia: since April 2017 the site has been banned there in the wake of articles that said the country was a state sponsor of terrorism.

“My motherland, my beautiful but bruised motherland, is not a democracy,” Turkish author Elif Shafak wrote in an article for Politico last year. For views like that she is routinely rubbished in Erdoğan’s press, and never given the right of reply.

Yet erudite, impassioned opposition to the president and his government’s policies is as easy to find in Istanbul’s streets as crisp baklava and muddy coffee.

People speak openly about their fear of where Turkey might be after Erdoğan, who has ruled since 2003, is no longer in office; when his powerful allies in the construction industry finally run out of money. But some of those same people decline to accept the fact of the genocide, perpetrated by the Ottomans, that claimed the lives of 1.5-million Armenians between 1914 and 1923. On that score they are one with Erdoğan’s regime, which protested petulantly in April when France and Portugal officially recognised this systematic mass murder for what it was.

The Kurds will know how the Armenians felt. Erdoğan has long labelled their organised structures as terrorist, and there is evidence that in their attempts to raise funds they operate more like the mafia than political groups. But Turkey’s army didn’t ask who was a member of what when they began driving the Kurds out of northern Syria on October 9 — which they were free to do after Trump withdrew a small force of strategically situated American troops. Erdoğan wanted a buffer 30 kilometres deep and 480 kilometres long on Turkey’s southern border with Syria, and by October 28 his troops had displaced an estimated 130 000 and left 400 000 without access to clean water. How many have been killed in the cause is unclear.

On October 29 the anti-Trump US congress decided, by 405 votes to 11, that the Armenians had indeed been victims of genocide. As a position of principle it came a century too late. As a backlash against their own president it was clear, and derided by the Turks.

“Circles believing that they will take revenge this way are mistaken,” foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu posted on social media. “This shameful decision of those exploiting history in politics is null and void for our government and people.”

The brutality and bloodletting has ceased, at least until Erdoğan makes good on his threat to chase the legions of Syrian refugees back from whence they came. But the damage has been done. It didn’t help the Kurds that most of them are, like Erdoğan, Sunni muslims. Not that they would have been spared had they been something else.

Because Erdoğan is, at his core, once all his artifice is stripped away and his ambition exposed, that thoroughly human thing: free of faith.

First published by New Frame.

Soccer-punched: why Marx was wrong about religion

World Cups are state-sanctioned, capitalism-controlled drug-dealing that put people in the kind of funk the powerful can use to take the attention off their actions.

STRAIGHT RED – Karl Marx was right about almost everything. Almost …

Times Select

TELFORD VICE in Lisbon

KARL Marx got it wrong. Not about the importance of the workers of the world uniting, nor recognising that they who control the means of production boss almost everything, nor on the inherent evil of capitalism.

Damn straight, comrade, on those counts and many more. So, what was Marx wrong about? God-bothering. Or, at least, about its place in modern society.

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.”

Those are 20 of the most beautifully arranged words yet translated into English.

It’s a pity we tend to remember not them but the next seven words: “It is the opium of the people.”

All 27 of those words are from “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”, which Marx wrote in 1834: more than 200 years after cricket became professional and 23 years before the world’s first football club was founded, in Sheffield.

So he had no idea of the monster football would become. But he did take himself off to a cricket match, where, according to Ben Carrington’s “Marxism, cultural Studies and Sport” (2009), he decided that “if the masses could be so easily subdued by such a resolutely sedate game with its mores of bourgeois Englishness dripping from every rule and expression, then all was lost for the socialist cause”.

That explains, perhaps, why Marx didn’t see that the opium of the people wouldn’t be religion in future. Instead, it would be sport.

And that makes World Cups state-sanctioned, capitalism-controlled drug-dealing that put people in the kind of funk the powerful can use to take the attention off their actions. That’s a dark thought, but there are many more and much darker where that comes from. Here are but a few:

Russians were still celebrating their team’s 5-0 thumping of Saudi Arabia in the opening match of football’s 2018 World Cup when it emerged that the Kremlin had hiked VAT and planned to raise the retirement age.

During that match, Saudi forces launched a brutal offensive in their despicable proxy war on Yemen to isolate the main port and so sever deliveries of food and medicine to a nation already wrecked by famine and disease.

The day before a Moroccan own-goal earned victory for Iran, the latter’s authorities arrested Nasrin Sotoudeh, a prominent Iranian human rights lawyer, and told her she had been sentenced, in absentia, to five years in prison.

Hours ahead of scoring all three of Portugal’s goals against Spain, Cristiano Ronaldo agreed to pay a fine amounting to almost R300-million rather than face further prosecution on tax evasion charges.

None of those stories garnered anything like the amount of coverage devoted to the comparatively insignificant on the field in Russia.  

The masses were high on football, leaving the bold and the bad to do whatever they wanted in sickening sobriety.

That’s as much a comment on what’s wrong with media concerned with little else but their numbers of viewers, listeners and readers as it is on those viewers, listeners and readers.

Sometimes players are dragged into the mess, like Mohamed Salah was in Grozny on Sunday. Chechnya’s boorish oaf of a leader, Ramzan Kadyrov — who insists there are no gay men in his country, which may soon be true considering he has them tortured and executed — turned up at the Egypt team’s hotel and apparently insisted the sleeping Salah be woken up.

Then he posed for photographs with the player that rocketed around the world, leaving Salah to explain the how and why of his seemingly willing fraternisation with a vicious tyrant.

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s autocratic, anti-democratic president, and Donald Trump, the dangerous buffoon Americans somehow chose to lead them, must have looked on in impotent rage and envy at Kadyrov’s naked chutzpah. 

It’s not only countries governed by criminals who use the cover of sport to try and hide what they’re up to, or at least give it a respectable face.

At a fan park in Lisbon before the Portugal-Spain game, a former lawyer and journalist and the godson of Portugal’s last fascist dictator stopped traffic and gathered a crowd around him. 

Well he might have: he was Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, Portugal’s centre-left president who doesn’t need to be asked twice to pose for a selfie with his beloved compatriots, who could easily be mistaken for voters.

As a woman in Lisbon said the other day: “Ah yes. The World Cup. Our politicians always wait for it to come before they force through unpopular legislation.”

She was from Düsseldorf in Germany, which is led by the ostensibly sane, outwardly decent Angela Merkel, patron saint of refugees everywhere.

This as much a comment on what’s wrong with media concerned with little else but the numbers of the viewers, listeners and readers they attract as it is on what’s wrong with those viewers, listeners and readers.

Which would be worse, a website putting up a video of Ashwin Willemse’s pet scorpion stinging the bejaysus out of a photograph of Nick Mallett, or people clicking on that video?

And how many more hits do you think this article would earn if the names of Willemse and Mallett were in the headline, nevermind that they have bugger nothing to do with this story? 

What the hell are we thinking? How can we allow something as comparatively unimportant as the World Cup to hijack our critical attention when we need it most?

Aside from the damage the tournament aids and abets in our society, the tournament doesn’t even do what it says on the tin.

The idea that we will, after the final in Moscow on July 15, know which is the best team in international football is outdated and laughably naive.

What we will know is which squad of players, arbitrarily chosen more often than not, who represent nothing except themselves and their teammates, have been more successful than 31 other but similar squads over the course of a particular month. Nothing more, nothing less.

How do we keep our eye on the real ball while the World Cup is here to distract us with fakery? By turning to Marx.

“I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set I go into the other room and read a book.”

Yes, that’s Marx. Groucho Marx.

What it means to be Portuguese in Ronaldo’s country

“Football is an opera injected straight into the vein.” – Carlos do Carmo, fado singer

IMG_0957

Lisboetas saddle up to get a better view of the big screen.

Times Select

TELFORD VICE in Lisbon

THE airport in his hometown has been named after him. The president himself has dubbed him a “Grand Officer of the Order of Prince Henry”. Astronomers use his initials and shirt number to refer to a galaxy some 12.9-billion light years from earth.

And yet, the locals aren’t so sure about Cristiano Ronaldo.

A friend from Porto, who know lives in Lisbon, tells the story of watching a game in a bar in Madeira when Ronaldo — a son of Funchal, the capital of Madeira — scored for Portugal.

My friend catapulted upright in joy, which erupted from him in whoops and applause. But after a second or three he got the feeling that all was not as it should be, and it wasn’t: around him his fellow Portuguese, to a man and woman from the same Funchal where Ronaldo was born and raised before going to bigger, brighter places, sat almost as stoic as if CR7 had put the ball into his own net.

“They’re unhappy with him for not helping them more after the 2008 financial crisis,” my friend explained. “He did help them, but they say it wasn’t enough; he didn’t give every person on Madeira a lot of money.”

Ronaldo, who grew up poor as the fourth child of a gardener and a cook, is among the richest sport stars in the world with an estimated net worth of R5.24-billion.

He has made something of a second career out of giving away significant chunks of his fortune, and in August 2015 he was named “the most charitable athlete in the world” by the website athletesgonegood.com. 

Ronaldo can, of course, afford it and more. But his sense of duty extends further than throwing money at problems: in 2016 his video message to children in Syria was that they were “the true heroes” and “don’t lose hope”.

That, it seems, isn’t good enough for some people in Madeira, where — according to me friend — “they say, ‘Does he think he’s better than us just because he’s rich and famous?’”.

That view isn’t overtly noticeable in Lisbon, where Ronald’s likeness and jersey are ubiquitous. In one tiny shop, not a lot bigger than a phone booth, Superman looms large: for sale are his Portugal shirt and his home as well as his away Real Madrid jerseys along with two versions of Ronaldo pennants.

The Portuguese see themselves as a small nation peering out at a world of giants, and Ronaldo as their prime ambassador to that world. So they are resigned to him going off to make his fortune and build his legend with clubs like Real Madrid. But that doesn’t mean they have to like him.   

Portugal’s complicated relationship with their best ever player — Eusébio doesn’t count since he was Mozambican and didn’t move to Lisbon to play for Benfica until he was 18 — is among the most intriguing aspects for a South African who is in the capital during the World Cup.

You might think that relationship was uncomplicated forever on Friday, when Ronaldo delivered a shimmering performance to score all his team’s goals in a 3-3 thriller against Spain, the ancient enemy itself, in the teams’ World Cup opener in Sochi.

At a fan park in the Praça do Comércio, just metres from the Rio Tejo, the crowd swelled to several thousand in the hours before the game.

Scores of them improved their chances of a good view of the giant screen by clambering onto the statue of King José I on his horse, crushing snakes in his path, that towers over the square.

A public address announcer introducing Portugal’s team as the minutes to kick-off dwindled to single figures had three words when it came to Ronaldo: “Cristiano! Cristiano! Cristiano!” 

A fourth-minute penalty, banged hard, a weak 44-minute shot that somehow eluded David de Gea in Spain’s goal, and a vicious, hooking free kick from what would have been too close to goal for mere mortal players to level matters with two minutes on the clock fulfilled the announcer’s oblique prophesy. And more.

Every goal was cheered as if Ronaldo had singlehandedly won the 11th war between the countries. That’s right: they’ve fought 10 in the past.

But, if anything, Portugal’s relationship with their golden child is suddenly more complex than ever. Now they have to like the preening, rich, famous, charitable, brilliant bastard, whether they really like him or not.

And that in the throes of a World Cup in which Portugal hope to go at least as far as the third place they earned in 1966, when Eusébio scored nine goals in six games. Not that that hope is expressed above a whisper, if at all.

Nobody brags in this country (about anything, much less beating the world’s best at the world’s own game), nobody seems nervous (why would you be when you’re expecting your dream to be dashed), and nobody is under any illusion that the World Cup isn’t a trophy too far (“Yes, we won Euro in 2016, but this is much bigger,” is a commonly heard view).

In a film at a museum in the most Lisboa of Lisbon’s neighbourhoods, Alfama, that seeks to preserves the legacy of fado, the peculiarly Portuguese bluesy folk music, a maestro of the art, singer Carlos do Carmo, says: “Football? Football is an opera injected straight into the vein.”

That sounds like a compliment to the game, but Do Carmo smirks as he says it and motions like a heroin addict shooting up.

It’s gloomy but it’s real. It’s what the people here call saudade, a quality that Portuguese intellectual Aubrey Bell described in his 1912 book “In Portugal” as “a vague and constant desire for something that does not and probably cannot exist, for something other than the present”. Saudade, he wrote, is “not an active discontent or poignant sadness but an indolent dreaming wistfulness”.

The closest this reporter has come to understanding it hangs in a shop window in downtown Lisbon, where a Portugal jersey will set you back €84.90. A Spain version? €89.50. That’s €4.6 in degrees of separation, or about R71.

It doesn’t sound like much if you don’t consider the who, what and where of it all. That, in prosaic terms, is what it means to be Portuguese: proud but not smug; hopeful but not expectant; in love with Ronaldo but also a little in hate with him.

Saudade. Feel it; it is here.

Portugal begrudges Spain every damned thing – even superiority

“Ronaldo is … Ronaldo is Ronaldo.” – Elsa Rodrigues, Portugal and Benfica supporter

Sunday Times

TELFORD VICE in Lisbon

THEY’VE been at each others’ throats in 10 armed conflicts spread over 424 years; three of them across the Atlantic in South America and one that never caught fire: the “Fantastic War”, so called because it involved no major battles.

Happily, Spain and Portugal haven’t tried to kill each other on an industrial scale for the past 210 years. But whatever else the Iberian neighbours do in their World Cup opener in Sochi on Friday, they won’t be borrowing cups of sugar.

Asked, foolishly, if Spain was Portugal’s big brother, Elsa Rodrigues, a forty-something Lisboeta in mom jeans and no-nonsense hair, flashed the kind of withering eye she might level at a fishmonger trying to overcharge her for bacalhau.

“Spain is big but they are not a brother,” she said, and left her words to twist in the wicked little wind that bounced off the black-and-white mosaic paving stones as it swept up the hill from the Rio Tejo.

Would Friday’s game be Portugal’s most difficult of the opening round? Another stupid question, it seems.

“If we think Spain are the most difficult to beat, it’s no good,” she said. “All three are very tough.”

The Portuguese begrudge granting Spain a damned thing. Not even superiority.

Portugal are ranked fourth and Spain 10th. Iran and Morocco, the other teams in Group B, are 37th and 41st.

If Spain aren’t Portugal’s highest hurdle then there is no cult of Cristiano Ronaldo in Lisbon.

And there isn’t. At least not at Benfica’s official shop, where you can — for the equivalent of R14 000 — buy a replica of the inaugural European Golden Boot that Eusebio won in 1968.

Some R17 000 will get you No. 74 in a limited edition of 100 SJ Dupont pens, along with matching cufflinks.

Everything is Benfica branded: golf tees, Monopoly sets, jars of honey, padlocks, bottles of wine, port and ginja — the cherry liqueur Lisboetas swear offers medicinal benefits. As long as you stick to the recommended dose: seven shots for women, 14 for men. Daily.

About the only floggable commodity that can’t be seen in the double-storey shop is anything relating to Ronaldo.

Of course not. He cut his professional teeth playing for Sporting Lisbon, Benfica’s bitter rivals.

That he now plays for the most Spanish club of all, Real Madrid, only adds to the brotherly unlove. 

Rui Almeida, a salesman in the shop, looks at me hard from below a tilted forehead and arched eyebrows when the player who shall not be named here is indeed named.

Almeida is a strong-shouldered young man. For a moment the smell of latent violence itself is Benfica branded. But his focus softens, or maybe it shifts to the bigger picture.

“We cannot disapprove of him,” Almeida says. “He came up through Sporting but he takes Portugal to the world. That makes us feel good, so we need to be proud of him.”

Ronaldo is an important part of Almeida’s reasoning why “the Spanish need to look up to us, not us look up to them — they have the best league in the world but we have the best player in the world”.

Almeida has yet to see Ronaldo play live. I tell him I have: in a warm-up against Mozambique at the Wanderers before the 2010 World Cup.

Ronaldo mostly went through the motions, but for a few seconds he tore upfield exponentially faster, beating opponents left, right and centre, tilting like a spinning top as he went, razzling, frazzling, dazzling, a glittering jewel on the hoof. He didn’t bother taking a shot at goal, but the shock of what he could do at will is forever lodged in the memory.

Suddenly it’s Almeida who’s doing the interviewing: “It came from nowhere? You think, this guy, he’s not human?”

Rodrigues, too, is conflicted over Ronaldo: “I’d prefer that he plays for Benfica; that’s my team. But in Portugal we know he is too big for our clubs.”

Does she like Ronaldo as a player? She shrugs the shrug of the choiceless: “He is Portuguese, so I like him.

“Ronaldo is …” she pauses to try and match what she’s thinking in Portuguese to what she can say in English. She gives up not because she can’t find the word but because it doesn’t exist.

“Ronaldo is Ronaldo.”

Accidental tourist: Pastéis will never be the same

A pastél rested in my hand, heavy with promise. Perky pastry covered like lingerie what lay within, waiting.

Sunday Times Lifestyle

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

The queue to No. 84 Rua de Belém loomed as long as the ooze of a Lisbon summer’s day into evening and was as thick as custard with tourists and locals alike.

All squinted and sweated in the 30-whatever-degree heat. None complained, not with our minds’ eyes on this particular prize.

You could call Fábrica Pastéis de Belém — which is at No. 84 — a bakery. You could call the pastéis de nata they’ve been making, in ever increasing numbers but of utterly consistent quality since 1837, custard tarts.

You could also be stupid. Or, at best, tongue deaf.

Religious orders fell on hard times after the Liberal Revolution of 1820, and to raise funds pastéis de nata were baked by monks in the nearby Mosteiro dos Jerónimos and sold at a handily close sugar refinery. The monks were French, and thus knew only too well the wonder that was the custard tart. The Portuguese version was set apart by the addition of egg yolks that were left over after the whites had been used to starch nuns’ habits and the like.

In 1834 the mosteiro was shuttered and the inmates driven out. Happily, the secret recipe survived because those mercenary monks sold it to the sugar refinery, who established the fábrica, and the fruits of all that history awaited us at the end of this damn queue.

It moved quickly in random squirts, and 12 minutes after we joined the line we had, in our hot little hands, a box in which nestled four of the gooey gorgeousnesses.

Others scoffed theirs in the unspeakable squalor of a neighbouring Starbucks. We, of course, did not. Instead, we walked purposefully to the Jardim Vasco da Gama and settled under an olive tree.

With a sprinkling of cinnamon and a dusting of icing sugar, we were good to go. Which was when a blasphemous blip hit at least one of us: would they live up to the hype?

A pastél rested in my hand, heavy with promise. Perky pastry covered like lingerie what lay within, waiting. Partly covered, that is. From the centre peeped a circle, concave like a sacral dimple, of yellow freckled with black.

The whole quivered in anticipation. Or was that my hand? Either way, there was no slip twixt pastél and lip. And teeth … And tongue … And mouth …

And?

Comes a point in these things when you want to leave the rest of the thinking to Lester Bangs or Hunter S. Thompson or Rian Malan and soak up, wordlessly, the bliss of it all. But Bangs and Thompson are dead, and if Malan is alive he has far more existentially important stuff to agonise over than the quality of a pastél de nata. Even if the pastél de nata concerned is the original and the finest yet baked on God’s earth. Sorry, Mr Malan — the finest yet baked on this cursed, crisis-crippled excuse for a planet that doesn’t deserve the benevolent attentions of any self-respecting god. My traitor’s tart, indeed.

Yes, it was that good. Good enough to make you want to sue other bakeries on Fábrica Pastéis de Belém’s behalf for passing their stodgy, sickly sweet offerings off as something that deserve to be called pastéis de nata.

A cloud perfectly balanced between sweetness, richness and molten irresistibility filled my mouth. It was like eating satisfaction itself.

Thing is, there are at best two decent bites to be had from a pastél. Too soon, it was over.

Thoughts of re-joining the queue were quelled by the fact that we had to get the metro back to Alfama in the city centre for an already booked and paid for fado show.

We walked to the station with the angelic alchemy of egg yolks, sugar and milk still aswirl in our senses. Nothing could ever be the same.