[EN] Every 99 years… / [RO] La fiecare 99 de ani…

[EN] Almost every 99 (+/- a few) years, something significant has been setting the world on fire over the centuries. [RO] Aproape la fiecare 99 (+/- câţiva) ani, ceva semnificativ a aruncat lumea în flăcări de-a lungul secolelor.

.

[EN] Many suspect me of being a conspirationist and may wonder where did I get this wacky ideas from. [RO] Mulţi mă suspectează că sunt un conspiraţionist şi s-ar putea întreba de unde am aceste idei năstruşnice.

.

[EN] I just noticed this… curiosity, made some subractions and searched for historical data. [RO] Eu doar am observat această... curiozitate, am făcut nişte scăderi şi am căutat date istorice.

.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

.2013 - 99 = 1914

[EN] The beginning of the First World War (1914-1918) that would bring the end of three empires and the rise of the USSR. [RO] Începutul Primului Război Mondial (1914-1918) care va aduce sfârşitul a trei imperii şi ridicarea URSS.

1914 - 99 = 1815

[EN] The End of Napoleon Bonaparte’s adventure and the beginning of the Perfidious Albion’s supremacy known as Pax Britannica. [RO] Sfârşitul aventurii lui Napoleon Bonaparte şi începutul supremaţiei Perfidului Albion cunoscută drept Pax Britannica.

1815 - 99 = 1716

[EN] The battle of Petrovaradin, one of the first nails in Ottoman Turkey’s coffin. [RO] Bătălia de la Petrovaradin, unul dintre primele cuie în coşciugul Turciei Otomane.

1716 - 99 = 1617

[EN] The fervent counter-reformist Ferdinand II is elected King of Bohemia and The Thirty Years War begins the following year. [RO] Ferventul contra-reformist Ferdinand al II-lea este ales Rege al Boemiei şi Războiul de Treizeci de Ani începe anul următor.

1617 - 99 = 1518

[EN] The Treaty of London marks the first attempt of European Integration and building a lasting peace of the continent. [RO] Tratatul de la Londra marchează prima încercare de Integrare Europeană şi edificare a unei păci durabile pe continent.

1518 - 99 = 1419

[EN] Western Europe was caught in the Hundred Years War, and the Hussite Wars would break after Jan Hus’ execution in 1415. [RO] Europa de Vest era prinsă în Războiul de O Sută de Ani, iar Războialele husite vor izbucni după execuţia lui Jan Hus în 1415.

1419 - 99 = 1320
[EN] France is confronted with the so-called Shepherds’ Crussade, a chaotic anti-nobility and antisemitic movement. [RO] Franţa se confruntă cu aşa-zisa Cruciadă a Ciobanilor, o haotică mişcare anti-nobiliară şi antisemită.

1320 - 99 = 1221

[EN] The Mongols begin their conquest of Central Asia, killing one million people in Merv (ancient Persian city) that year. [RO] Mongolii încep cucerirea Asiei Centrale, ucigând un milion de oameni la Merv (străvechi oraş persan) în acel an.

1221 - 99 = 1122

[EN] Byzantine forces under Emperor John II Komnenos defeat the Pechenegs which would disappear from history. [RO] Forţele bizantine de sub comanda Împăratului Ioan al II-lea Comnen îi înving pe pecenegi care vor dispărea din istorie.

1122 - 99 = 1023 - 99 = 924 - 99 = 825 - 99 = 726

[EN] Byzantine Emperor Leon III Isaurus bans the worship of icons, thus the iconoclastic rage begins. [RO] Împăratul bizantin Leon al III-lea Isauricul interzice cinstirea icoanelor şi astfel începe furia iconoclastă.

726 - 99 = 627

[EN] The founder of Islam, Muhammad, creates a confederation of tribes in today’s Saudi Arabia and his beliefs spread in the area. [RO] Fondatorul islamului, Mahomed, creează o confedereaţie de triburi în Arabia Saudită de azi şi credinţele sale se răspândesc în zonă.

528 - 99 = 429 - 99 = 330

[EN] Emperor Constantin the Great moves the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople. [RO] Împăratul Constantin cel Mare mută capitala Imperiului Roman la Constantinopol.

330 - 99 = 132 - 99 = 33

[EN] Some scholars consider the year 33 AD as the year the Crucifixion, while all agree to place it sometime in the years 30-36. [RO] Unii cercetători consideră anul 33 AD drept anul Crucificării, în timp ce toţi sunt de acord să o plaseze cândva între anii 30-36.

[EN] As long as, since then, we know that Christ is Risen!, there are reasons for hope, no matter what world cataclysm awaits us. [RO] Câtă vreme, de atunci încoace, ştim că Hristos a înviat!, sunt motive de speranţă, indiferent ce cataclism mondial ne aşteaptă.

[EN] As for something bad happening that year – a grave financial crisis erupted in Rome, leaving many aristocrats bankrupt. [RO] Cât despre ceva rău petrecut în acel an – o gravă criză financiară a izbucnit la Roma, lăsând faliţi mulţi aristocraţi.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

1914 + 99 (+1) = 2013/2014

[EN] What next? [RO] Ce urmează?

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Nimic nu e imposibil: Aducem Basarabia acasă! [Nothing’s impossible: Bringing Bessarabia home!]

Dacă, pe ce cale, când anume, cu ce preţ (şi plătit de cine?) va redeveni Basarabia parte a României pare la fel de imposibil de prezis precum în urmă cu 22 de ani, când devenea aşa-zis independentă Republica Moldova.

Dintre toate ipotezele, cea mai neplauzibilă este baliverna oficială a reunirii între graniţele comune ale UE şi sub umbrela NATO. De parcă românitatea are nevoie de confirmare şi de oblojire din partea vreunei entităţi suprastatale…

Mult mai important este că o armată de voluntari visează la acest ideal naţional, cu aceeaşi înflăcărare cu care, acum un secol, se visa la trecerea Carpaţilor pentru unirea cu Transilvania. Visul unui Octavian Goga şi al altora părea la fel de imposibil.

Rusia era tot uriaşă şi puternică în acest colţ de lume. Ca mereu, nimeni în Europa nu ar fi mişcat un deget pentru a repara nedreptăţile istorice suferite de alţii. Şi atunci, o bună parte din elita ţării era absorbită de bunul plac spoit sub forma unor găunoase viziuni politice.

Avem visătorii, avem atenţia stârnită (greu de crezut că or fi mulţi cei care să nu fi văzut scris, chiar şi pe la sate, “Basarabia e România” în ultimii doi ani) şi există şi o iniţiativă legislativă cetăţenească pentru care se cer semnături.

Iniţiatorii doresc o lege care să-i asimileze în bună măsură pe locuitorii Republicii Moldova cu cei ai României, să le faciliteze accesul la muncă şi studii. Pe scurt, să-i facă să se simtă cu adevărat acasă.

A dezlipi de pe aceşti oameni stigma unor cetăţeni de mâna a doua (cum erau în URSS, faţă de ruşi) sau a unor români second hand (cum sunt până azi, în România) este un pas esenţial pentru a le reda demnitatea şi libertatea de a se cunoaşte pe sine.

Astfel, le-ar fi mult mai uşor a se recunoaşte drept români (cum doar 2.2% au făcut-o la recensământul din 2004) , dar cum sunt şi ceilalţi 76.2% dintre locuitorii ţării vecine care s-au declarat moldoveni.

Nici nu e nimic greşit: n-or fi toţi românii moldoveni, dar toţi moldovenii (indiferent de care parte a Prutului, chiar şi cei de peste Nistru) sunt parte a naţiunii române!

Cu paşi mărunţi, mai întâi printr-o asemenea lege care nu pronunţă cuvântul unire – care ar isca scandal deopotrivă la Moscova, cât şi la Bruxelles sau Berlin – se va păşi către întoarcerea Basarabiei acasă.

Nici nu contează, pe termen scurt, cum se va face această unire din perspectivă politică. Peste noapte, oricând, din voia lui Dumnezeu, imperii se pot prăbuşi de parcă nici n-au fost.

Dar este vital ca românii din Republica Moldova să se simtă apreciaţi drept români, mai ales după decenii în care li s-a imprimat în mentalul colectiv tragedia părăsirii din 1940.

Aşadar, acolo unde găsiţi corturile cu inscripţiile “Semnează pentru Basarabia!” şi  “Aducem Basarabia acasă!”,  opriţi-vă şi semnaţi în favoarea legii!

Nu vă gândiţi la implicaţiile geopolitice ale gestului! Nici nu o să aţâţaţi Moscova mai tare asupra Republicii Moldova (ruşii oricum îşi urmează planurile lor), dacă semnaţi; nici nu o să-i temperaţi manevrele viclene, dacă nu veţi semna!

Nu vă bateţi capul despre cum va arăta legea sau cum, în ţara lui Vodă-Plagiatorul, chiar se va apleca cineva asupra acestei iniţiative a cetăţenilor, nici nu lăsaţi cinismul să vă roadă cu ideea “cum poate conta semnătura mea pentru unire?” sau altele!

Gândiţi-vă la ce mult puteţi schimba în bine viaţa unor oameni (întâmplător tot români) care vor putea călători mai simplu către România şi restul UE!

[Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

Margaret Thatcher had some kind of a faith… [Margaret Thatcher avea un soi de credinţă…]

Floods of bytes and pixels are being dedicated these moments to the death of Margaret Thatcher, undoubtedly an outstanding personality of the past century.

It would be a futile attempt from my part to write an obituary, as long as countless other political analysts and historians (as a lousy blogger, I can’t pretend to be any of these) have already published good articles about the Iron Lady who helped tear down the Iron Curtain, bring the USSR on its knees, and end the Cold War.

What I would like to do is draw attention to some of her religious beliefs. Although by no means in accordance with the Orthodox Church’s doctrine, her ideas were quite unparalleled in our secular EU and in stark contrast with the concoction of politically correct clichés that current leaders hold as paramount beliefs.

She probably was the last (or among the last) genuine political personalities of human history, which seems to have entered a decrepit phase of copycat leaders, of pathetic strawmen like Tony Bliar, Gordon Clown, David Chameleon, Barack Obama, Traian Băsescu or... Victor Ponta.

Brainwashed by nihilistic ideologies, trailing their twisted moral backbones and crippled ambitions on the world scene, these statesmen (and women – let’s not forget feminine versions, like Angela Merkel or Hillary Clinton, of the above antiheroes!) are but ethically eviscerated puppets.

Like all great historical heroes (including her favourite Winston Churchill) Margaret Thatcher remains a controversial character. However, unlike most leaders of our troubled times, she had some form of faith.

A faith as staunchly followed as probably only great characters of yore did, perhaps Oliver Cromwell or John Knox. Here are some of her beliefs about Christianity (taken from here): 

“Methodism isn’t just a religion for Sundays – no faith is only a faith for Sundays. There were a lot of things during the week which one attended. Methodism is a pretty practical faith; there were the mothers’ sewing meetings and the guilds for young people.”

“If you are faced with the real problems of poverty and ignorance and people don’t know how best to grow crops, you’ve got a pretty simple, straightforward task because you’ve got to help, and help in practical terms. 

Because while you’re teaching them religion you’ve got to recognise that they are not very likely to receive it or understand it unless it does mean something and enables them to do things for themselves.

“So you replace poverty by a better standard of living out of people’s own efforts, because everyone’s got talent and ability, and you teach them what we regard as necessary to life, and you teach them religion as well.” 

“So when you’ve relieved poverty and ignorance and disease, if you are not a Christian you think that sorts out the problems of the world. You and I know it doesn’t, because there is still the real religious problem in the choice between good and evil. Choice is the essence of ethics.

If you deny that personal responsibility you are denying the religious basis of life – that’s the difference between me and a Marxist. The values by which you and I live are not values given by the State.” 

“Christianity is about more than doing good works. It is a deep faith which expresses itself in your relationship to God. It is a sanctity, and no politician is entitled to take that away from you or to have what I call corporate State activities which only look at interests as a whole.

So, you’ve got this double thing which you must aim for in religion, to work to really know your faith and to work it out in everyday life. You can’t separate one from the other. 

Good works are not enough because it would be like trying to cut a flower from its root; the flower would soon die because there would be nothing to revive it.” 

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

What makes Russia ‘great’ and what ‘belittles’ Great Britain [Ce face Rusia ‘mare’ şi ce ‘micşorează’ Marea Britanie]

Gone are the days when Napoleon Bonaparte was fearing Russia for being “the continental sword of England,” and so are the days when Winston Churchill’s Britain had to make use of the USSR as a continental sword against Nazi Germany.

Today, a general mistrust – whether polite or sarcastic at times – reigns over the relations between London and Moscow. The reasons for that are not entirely obvious.

London is no longer backing a moribund Ottoman Turkey against Tsarist Russia, nor is it offering a safehaven to thousands of White Russians, fleeing from the onslaught of Bolshevik Communism.

Neither are Britain’s and Russia’s conflicting interests in Asia so vivid as they were in 19th century, as there are is no British, nor Russian empire left.

The British armed forces are in their 10th year of what could be called a ‘Fourth Afghan War’, while London’s and Moscow’s views on Iran differ, but there’s no Great Game being played anymore. No longer British, India is rather close to Russia.

Therefore, why are Britain  and Russia are on so irreconcible terms these days?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Of course that, beyond my above hypersimplistic geopolitical analysis, there are enough substantial differences to be found. But there are similarities even within those differences:

[1] Britain’s slow descend into a multicultural dictatorship seems incompatible with the nationalistic dictatorship of Vladimir Putin.

They are both doubtful democracies. The significant difference is that one has always been a democratic pariah, while the other has still got the BBC, which is worth several thousand bayonets, if we look at it from Bonaparte’s perspective.

Maybe Oliver Cromwell was no less of a villain than Ivan the Terrible, but it seems that only the latter’s country would forevermore be labeled as ‘undemocratic’.

On the other hand, it seems utterly inconceivable to put into question the paramount British democracy. Anyone who dares do that would be quickly dismissed as insane…

[2] Britain’s willingness to sell almost anything to foreign investors is different from the fact that Russia’s economy was handed to a bunch of oligrachs that are more ore less controllable (even when they reside in London :-) by Putin.

Either the capital is multinational or national, the sad truth is that both Britons and Russians are no longer in control of their natural resources and national economies.

Both the Communist paradise promised in the USSR or the Welfare State promised in post-WW2 Britain were illusions.

[3] Britain’s Armed Forces are facing one of their toughest enemies ever, the severe budget cuts, while Russia’s Military, in spite of a poorer budget, is rearming.

It would take some time before Russia closes all the technological gaps, however, it will always enjoy an advantage in numbers and strengths.

[4] Britain is not as alone as Russia is. Shielded by NATO membership, and thanks to the English Channel, the Perfidious Albion is relatively safe.

In no possible UK-against-Russia scenario, Britain would be forced to fight alone, as in the summer of 1940. As for Moscow, it has no true friends. Even the strategic partnership with India (a rich buyer of Russian defence equipment) could hardly be considered an alliance.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Irrespective of visible differences like these, there must be a deeper explanation for the fact that former allies (against antichristic figures like Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler) are at odds with each other. Which are those?

Is there a true incompatibility between Russia and Great Britain? At a first glance, there are is a majority of atheists, hedonists, pseudo-Christians and abortionists in both countries…

UK’s population is growing thanks to immigrants (many of whom are Muslim), whilst Russia’s population is in decline because of poverty, corruption, alcohol abuse, which are just the visible effects of a dreadful moral decline.

But while Britain is sinking into a swamp of irreligiousness, at least for some Russians there is hope. There is nothing to hope for in the religion of political correctness of Britain but there’s everything a man needs for salvation in the Orthodox Church.

Just as Stalin did, when he desperately needed to halt Hitler’s panzers’ stunning advance, Putin is using the Orthodox Church as a counterweight to Western influence in his country.

However, he can only use some hierarchs and the human and corruptible side of the Church; neither Putin, nor anyone else could compromise or destroy the Lord’s true Church. None of Russia’s material and political assets are as valuable as the Orthodox faith.

Even after Russia will have lost everything (large territories, control of natural wealth, sovereignty, millions of people) – in a catastrophic world war, for instance – it will still remain one of the richest countries of the world in spiritual terms.

If only the same could be hoped for Britain! The more Britain has achieved in terms of civilisation, the more spiritually barren it is…

For generations, Russians have been accustomed with losing everything, and maybe only the bitterness of another devastating blow in historical terms will help them come to their senses and rediscover the meaningfulness of Orthodoxy.

For Britons, it is very likely that any earthly victory will inflate their delusions, while any defeat will push them into despondency. In either case, they seem doomed, as they’ve got not metaphysical lifebuoy in their inane quest for material prosperity.

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

God’s place in a humanist society (23) [Locul lui Dumnezeu într-o societate umanistă]

Not only that they are fewer, but British practicing Christians are more and more pressured to hide their faith, in order to go on enjoying the privilege of living in a democratic, progressive and prosperous country like the UK.

Wearing a cross at work, even exhibiting one in an electrician’s van have become unofficial offences that irreligious zealots are eager to punish.

More and more – of the already few! – Christians in Britain are at risk of being put in front of a stark choice: “Take off your cross or you’ll get sacked!”.

Supervisers, bosses, co-workers or any other politically correct authorities have no scruples about threatening Christians like this, whilst no one would dare asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil, a Jew to take off his kippah or a Sikh to renounce his turban.

Indeed, that would be outrageous in a country like Great Britain, wouldn’t it? But shouldn’t the same laws the same right for Christians?

It seems that the answer is definitely negative, according to the Conservative (?!) Chameleon in office at 10 Downing Street.

For the UK Government, wearing a cross is not a “generally recognised Christian practice,” thus it needn’t be supported by the State in front of the ECHR. In a country where any wacky minority can ask for protection, Christians are defenceless…

Then why is the British monarh still called Defender of the Faith? Why is the Union Jack still bearing not one but three crosses?

And what kind of faith is that which the Monarch defends? The faith that Christianity is a relic of history whose demise should be hastened?!

There’s no doubt that being a Christian has become a deficiency for one’s employability in the UK. Unless you’re a New man, you can hardly integrate in a society obsessed with material wealth and with loathing its Christian heritage.

Just like in the USSR, when politically correct bolsheviks in Britain can’t snatch crosses from people’s hearts by brainwashing, they forcibly take them off chests.

They are probably relying on the fact that those of churches will fall by themselves. If not, one day they will take the cross down even from St. Paul’s Cathedral in the City of London…

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Chains for a former Prime Minister of Romania [Lanţuri pentru un fost premier al României]

Former Romanian Prime Minister, Adrian Năstase, has just been sentenced to two years of imprisonment, by a definitive decision of the highest court in Romania (ÎCCJ).

He was found guilty for illegally obtaining electoral campaign funds, although he has been repeatedly claiming his innocence.

Not since the late 1940s and 1950s, when under USSR’s boots, or since Nicolae Ceauşescu’s execution in 1989, has Romania witnessed such a controversial decision.

Neither Năstase, nor his political allies would accept the decision, unless the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ever confirms it.

By that time, he will have most probably spend his two years in prison, while most of the world will be sure of his guilt.

The length of the trial (8 years!) serves as enough ‘evidence’ for most people, either his political enemies, voters or onlookers from the EU.  

Just like an imprisoned former PM in Ukraine has done nothing to improve the country’s image in Europe’s eyes, Năstase’s chains won’t bring dividends for Romania on the long term.

Symbolically, the sentence has huge significance. Chaining a demigod like Năstase appeared to be in the early 2000s is a huge blow to the perceived omnipotence of political leaders.

It’s long since the defendand’s arrogance has deprived him of any presumption of innocence, and not few would be those opening champagne bottles tonight.

One of these would surely be Năstase’s archenemy of 2004, Traian Băsescu – another character who lives under the spell of a presumption of guilt.

Irrespective of how many praises of the ‘independent Romanian judiciary’ we read in foreign media for the next days,  it would be foolish to believe Băsescu has nothing to do with the decision.

In less than a year, Băsescu could be suspended by a hostile parliament, and later even put on trial just like Năstase.

Unless he manages to pulverize the former opposition – USL (= PSD + PNL + PC), already in power, before the next election (another Romanian bizarrery!).

Let us not forget that the now condemned Năstase was the PhD coordinating professor of Romania’s current Prime Minister, Victor Ponta.

Ponta had been accused of plagiarism two days before Năstase was sentenced. The court’s decison comes two days before Năstase’s 62nd birthday.

Rather than destiny’s irony, it’s a masterstoke of Băsescu.

Will Băsescu be the one who laughs last, thus laugh better?! Too bad that there’s nothing to laugh at for most Romanians...

The ruling class is as unprepared for the cataclysmic times ahead of the world as those in power in the late 1930s.

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Witty bits from what I learned in the UK (1) [Vorbe de duh din ce am învăţat în UK]

I guess it's high time I started a series of blog posts exclusively in English about what I am learning here, hoping that both my colleagues, and our lovely SEI hosts would enjoy reading them. Obviously, it would be pointless to reproduce here lecture notes.

Moreover (to be completely honest to everyone :-), even if I learned by heart all the theories that we're being familiarized with these days, I'll probably forget them sooner or later. But I'll definitely not forget quite a few memorable phrases or ideas.

For the beginning, here's why (put in a nutshell) Communism and planned economy were doomed to fail. As they applied 20th century technologies to a 19th century economy (whose main assets were the hordes of cheap, unskilled labourers), those governments increased productivity up to a point, and even launched the first satellite (1957).

Only that in 20 years from then, much of the technology used to take Yuri Gagarin into space would be available in toy stores, and the Communist regimes simply couldn't make that essential swift from the age of electro-mechanics to the age of electronics.

Basically, many industrial secrets that Soviet spies were stealing from the West remained locked in archives. Information was useless in the absence of people trained to know what to do with it!

An infinity of other (political, economical, social, moral, and so forth) reasons would explain the collapse of Communism, but to put it simply - even to those born after 1989-1991 - here is a brilliant (and unacademic :-) explanation from our Course Director.

His words seem to be as carefully distilled as Scotch whisky: "You find it hard to believe that a Soviet planner could come up with the idea of an iPod." It really is as simple as that...

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]