Tuesday, 1 September 2009

[EN] Grave and unpleasant readings / [RO] Lecturi grave şi neplăcute (5)

[EN] Seventy years ago this day, the Britons (like most of the allegedly ‘civilised’ and ‘informed’ world as well) couldn’t have foreseen that Hitler’s invasion of Poland would turn into the greatest slaughters in history. [RO] În această zi acum şaptezeci de ani, britanicii (precum cea mai mare parte a lumii ‘civilizate’ şi ‘informate’ de asemenea) nu puteau să fi prevăzut că invadarea Poloniei de către Hitler va deveni cel mai mare măcel din istorie.

[EN] It always happens that the most informed make the worst mistakes, don’ t they? There was no authority better informed about the Messiah like the Jewish Sanhedrin, yet they killed the Son of God, Jesus Christ. [RO] Se întâmplă mereu că cei mai informaţi fac să cele mai mari greşeli, nu-i aşa? N-a fost autoritate mai bine informată despre Mesia decât Sinedriul evreiesc, totuşi l-au ucis pe Fiul lui Dumnezeu, Iisus Hristos.

[EN] The most informed, the brightest minds, the gods of our times (scientists, researchers, experts) of today couldn’t see (or they did not want to) that… the financial crisis would strike… [RO] Cei mai informaţi, cele mai strălucite minţi de astăzi, zeii vremurilor noastre (oameni de ştiinţă, cercetători, experţi) n-au putut să vadă (sau nu au vrut) că… criza finaciară va lovi…

[EN] Certainly, these wise people are in the same gang with those refusing to see (against their own scientific evidence, apart from the ethical imperatives which they dismiss as unscientific!) that abortion is murder, and not a question of political preference[RO] Cu siguranţă, aceşti oameni înţelepţi sunt în aceeaşi gaşcă cu cei care refuză să vadă (împotriva propriilor dovezi ştiinţifice, pe lângă imperativele etice pe care le resping ca neştiinţifice!) că avortul este ucidere, nu o problemă de preferinţă politică…

[EN] All over the so-called free world, the same gang tries to impose the same nihilistic ideology of peace and prosperity, built upon tolerance, democracy, pluralism, freedom of choice and of expression etc. [RO] De-a lungul întregii lumi aşa-zis libere, aceeaşi gaşcă încearcă să impună aceeaşi ideologie nihilistă a păcii şi prosperităţii, construite pe toleranţă, democraţie, pluralism, libertate de alegere şi de expresie etc.

[EN] But, in order for them to create the earthly paradise which they promise, they need to threat mankind into submission. And so appears… terrorism… global warming… religious fanatism… overpopulation… and, recently – a flu pandemic. [RO] Dar, pentru ca ei să poată crea paradisul pământesc pe care îl promit, trebuie să supună omenirea prin ameninţare. Şi astfel apar… terorismul… încălzirea globală… fanatismul religios… suprapopularea… şi, recent, o pandemie de gripă.

[EN] And if anyone still has doubts about SARS or bird-flu having been man-made, this swine flu is 100% man-made, not like the supposingly anthropogenic global warming! [RO] Şi dacă cineva mai are dubii despre SARS şi gripa aviară că au fost create de om, această gripă porcină este 100% făcută de om, nu precum presupusa încălzire globală antropogenă!

[EN] The image that I’m using to illustrate this post with is not an example of the famous foggy London skyline… It’s just a dirty window, as foggy as the mass media of today, which serve mankind as its mirror. [RO] Imaginea pe care o folosesc pentru a ilustra această postare nu este un exemplu al faimosului cer ceţos londonez… E doar o fereastră murdară, la fel de ceţoasă ca mass media de astăzi, care servesc omenirii drept oglindă.

[EN] We are all in self-delusion: we believe we know, we appear to be sure of what we see, we imagine that we hear. Actually, we’re no better than those to whom Christ was saying: “Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?[RO] Toţi suntem în autoînşelare: credem că ştim, părem siguri de ceea ce vedem, ne imaginăm că auzim. De fapt, nu suntem mai buni decât aceia cărora Hristos le spunea: “Ochi aveţi şi nu vedeţi, urechi aveţi şi nu auziţi şi nu vă aduceţi aminte

[EN] Out of the blue, a war as bloody as the one started in 1939 could start next year; until next month, an earthquake could swallow some of us; until tomorrow, any of those lying our eyes on this post could die. [RO] Din senin, un război la fel de sângeros precum cel început în 1939 ar putea începe anul viitor; până luna viitoare, un cutremur ne-ar putea înghiţi pe unii dintre noi; până mâine, oricare dintre cei care citim această postare ar putea muri.

[EN] Nevertheless, we are too busy with the little nothings filling up our lives. Would the next readings awake us? Oh, Lord, I wish they would… please have mercy on us! [RO] Cu toate acestea, suntem prea ocupaţi cu micile nimicuri care ne umplu vieţile. Ne vor trezi lecturile următoare? O, Doamne, aş vrea să o facă… Te rog ai milă de noi!

[EN] The proposed readings / [RO] Lecturile propuse:

1)
[EN] This blog – of a journalist who has filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization + the United Nations concerning alleged bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder – is surely one of the best sources of ‘alternative views’ about what a huge hoax this flu pandemic is.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
2) [RO] Despre cum seamănă a ‘boală creată în laborator’ pandemia aceasta, cât de periculos este aşa-zisul vaccin salvator care se pregăteşte, plus liste întregi de articole pe această temă aici, aici şi aici.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
3) [EN] About the mega-graveyards prepared for the victims of the pandemic in the UK.
4) [RO] Despre mega-cimitirele pregătite pentru victimelor pandemiei din UK.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
7) [EN] A pertinent comment about the swine flu hysteria, which is taking hold precisely (there simply can’t be a mere coincidence!) of such a Nanny State which today’s Britain has become. Other similar views that the panic has been spreading faster than the virus itself, can be found: here, here, here, or here.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
8) [RO] Companiile farmaceutice, care fac profituri din avorturi şi folosesc organele victimelor avorturilor pentru cercetare, fac acum şi mai mulţi bani din această pandemie de gripă!
9) [EN] The pharmaceutical companies, which make profits from abortions, and using abortion victims’ body parts for research, are now making even bigger money from this flu pandemic!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
10) [RO] În câteva săptămâni, toată România ar putea fi băgată în carantină, iar românii vaccinaţi cu forţa, pe când americanilor li s-ar putea impune legea marţială, căci cum altfel ai putea să-i vaccinezi pe cei care au atâtea arme la dispoziţie, încât să riposteze abuzurilor unui stat poliţienesc?

[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]

43 comments:

Gregor said...

Dear Bogdan

This is a very interesting article. However, as for the WWII reference, I do think that the most interesting thing about WWII is that which has been whitewashed from history: the astounding idiocy of Franco-British diplomacy in the run up to the war.

In my opinion (feel free to disagree) the French were blessed to have Charles De Gaulle as a wise (and incidentally, devout) ruler of France in the aftermath of the war and since then they have steered a pragmatic course, whilst Britain has been left more open to bizarre mysticism concerning their history.

One of the reasons why I am trying to write about Russia with my blog is not to say ‘everything is fine in Russia’ but that not all Brits believe the Orwellian nonsense about Eurasian forces trying to invade the West. One of the most difficult things about WWII diplomacy was that the central European nations which we idealised were utterly unstable (Poland suffered horrifically, but it must be remembered that it had a fascist government at the time) so Hungary and Poland helped to dismember Czechoslovakia. Yet Britain had made treaties with these countries that it had no capacity to uphold.

I am not convinced that Britain did the right thing getting involved in WWII; we killed far more German civilians than they killed of ours and gave half of Europe to Stalin. Worst of all, it gave rise to an odd pseudo-religion centred on Winston Churchill, democracy and capitalism.

However, we have learnt very little except how to crow. It seems that whilst the media evoked cowardly fear about swine-flu, it was a non-media event when both our political parties said that Georgia should have NATO membership after Saakashvilli bombed his own people.

To reiterate, I am no especial fan of United Russia party, but to sign a mutual defence treaty with Saakashvilli would be madness. Remember my friend that he dropped bombs on Orthodox Christians in Ossetia and people in the west supported him because he was ‘a democrat’; Saakashvilli claims to be a Christian though his real brethren are political rather than the Orthodox communion. ‘Democracy’ the new religion in the west and like all false religions it will lead to insanity and perdition. Of course it is nothing to do with real democracy, but only in people following the White House in every way.

As for the rest of your post, I am in large agreement. From the beginning, I thought that the Swine-flu thing was bullshit because their statistics from Mexico were gobbledegook. No-one knew how many Mexicans had the flu yet they said it had a vast mortality rate.

And with abortion, I met a friend recently who gave birth to a child with spina bifida; she said that when the doctors diagnosed this, they automatically offered to kill the unborn child!!! And we are threatening the Russians because they are ‘uncivilised’?!!! (of course that evil exists in Russia as well… but thinking that we have the right to tell them how to live?)

However, I would say that scientists are like capitalists. They might not present a lovable face, but we wouldn’t want to lose them. It is creating a balance that is important. As for anthropogenic global warming, I’m fairly ambivalent. I cannot see why scientists would want to lie about it when oil companies would be displeased, but then they do not seem to be suggesting any intelligent ideas for how to change.

MunteanUK said...

@ Gregor (part one)

Dear friend,

Thank you for continuously keeping in touch with me online! Again, you've made some very interesting observations, to which I'd try my best to reply. So help me God!

1. The utter failure of British and French foreign policies before WWII was never 'whitewashed' in Eastern European accounts of that time. Irrespective of the entire 'ideological gravel' poured over all genuine works of historians, there has always been a relatively frank assessment of Britain's and France's mistakes.

From the age of 8 to 12-13 (and sporadically up until now) readings about WWII accompanied my every little vacation. I read so much on this topic that I sometimes wonder why wasn't I ever interested in 'making a profit' of all those long hours of reading... a PhD maybe?! :-)

I may be 'biased', my view may be 'truncated' and 'unilateral' (some could say), but I must make this - suprising for you maybe!!! - little confession...

... I strongly believe that PUTIN WAS 100% RIGHT in what he said yesterday in Poland!!!

You know I'm no 'fan' of his, but the current Russian PM made absolutely no 'cynical' remarks in my view. His perspective was well-balanced, and honest.

As a matter of fact, he was quite polite to his European conterparts. He could have simply accused the West that Hitler was 'their creation' - something that could have shocked, but I don't think such a remark would have been far-fetched.

***

2. You are right that Poland was by no means an 'innocent victim' like Serbia & Belgium had been at the start of WWI.

Poland had a 'mutual assistance pact' with Romania as well, but directed only against an aggression of the Soviets. When they invaded Poland, it was too late for us to intervene to save our ally.

All we could do was to host tens of thousands of refugees, and assist the evacuation of the Polish Government + remnants of its armed forces through our territory, to the Black Sea, and then to the... UK.

MunteanUK said...

@ Gregor (part two)

3. It's not worth to make scenarios of 'alternative history', but you may also be right in stating that Britain's intervention in the war did more harm than good.

By 1943, Churchill was aware that Eastern Europe was about to fall under Soviet boots, but it was too late for him to change the course of history. He favoured a landing in Greece (apart from that in Normandy), and he dreamed of rearming the remains of the German army to take the Russians out of Central Europe...

Similarly, great commanders like the American gen George Patton favoured the same idea. Yet it is most likely that he was assassinated (and did not die in a stupid road accident!) precisely because of having such views...

***

4. Indeed, turning democracy into a 'secular religion' is very dangerous. Ancient Romans crowned their emperors as gods, forcing everyone to bow to them. Today, contemporary mankind puts democracy on similar pedestals.

***

5. I'm certainly against Georgia & Ukraine ever joining NATO. It's just political bullshit, brought into discussion in London & Washington, but not in Paris, Rome or Berlin.

It's absurd to believe that any NATO members could offer security guarantees to these two former Soviet republics.

***

6. It's really sad that medics in th UK often offer 'termination' as a legitimate 'solution'. Every month or so, I come across an article about a British woman giving birth to a healthy child, in spite of 'wise' pieces of advice from murderous doctors!

God willing, I'll use the links that I stored on this subject in another episode of this series.

***

7. It looks hard to believe that scientists would lie... And it may be even harder for you - a Briton who has been raised in a social climate where SCIENCE = DIVINITY...

Why wouldn't they lie about global warming like they are lying about abortion, the flue pandemic, the HPV jab, the 'safety' of condoms, the alleged overpopulation of the planet etc?

Gregor said...

Dear Bogdan

I entirely agree with you about Patton! It was very strange that after he made a nuisance of himself he soon died.

As for carbon emissions though 1) It would be odd for opportunists to tangle with the fossil fuel lobby and 2) (for me the important point) Even if one does not believe that carbon emissions contribute to global warming, they may have environmental impact that we do not know about.

Pleased that we also agree about NATO. It is now a fairly useless organisation. Was quite surprised Sarko joined; perhaps it was precisely because America is weak at the moment? Still, you have to appreciate his pragmatism ;-)

I met my friend yesterday, and her baby is a real delight. Children are so innocent and full of joy at creation that they make me realise what an awful sinner I am. Yet according to some doctor, this infant could have been killed because she will not meet some atheist criteria of 'perfection'.

I'm sure you have many interesting insights about WWII. Did you feel in Britain there was an odd sense that this very complex conflict had somehow been turned into manichean mythology?

With prayers and best wishes
Gregor

MunteanUK said...

Dear Gregor,

Here are some other points I'd like to make to your 2nd comment:

1. The problem of carbon emissions is so 'politically charged', that it seems to be the most severe source of disagreement even between the two of us.

So be it, but I'm glad that neither of us sees this as something that could 'separate' us, as long as we are friends in Christ.

***

2. I don't think there's any significant 'fossil fuel left' apart from... Texas or Alaska. We could add China, but I wouldn't say its regime is 'making a profit' of its reserves of coal, nor is Beijing too comfortable with being dependent on oil.

As this global recession is proving once more, demand for fossil fuel depends on other factors than people having been made 'aware' of carbon emissions or not.

Alright, in the USA, researchers offering alternative views on global warming have been financed by ExxonMobile, but I don't think there's another country with such a similar 'lobby'.

3. We all know that the exhaust fumes produced by the more than 600 million (data from many years ago!) are far more dangerous than carbon emissions. In spite of this, no one is actually giving up driving, with the exception maybe of a statistically irrelevant number of 'eco-nuts.

The 'civilised' part of present-day humanity is too in love with its cars, its need for comfort & 'independence' that cars won't be scrapped.

People are not giving up cigarettes, nor eating too much meat... they are simply not giving up their egoism.

No one giving up their pleasures for the sake of their loved ones (I personally find cigarette smoke very unpleasant), thus I can't possibly imagine people changing their unhealthy habet for the sake of the planet, of the poor children in Africa, of the future generations...

MunteanUK said...

I'm not done yet, so here's more about this global warming hysteria:

4. My general mistrust of scientists favouring the idea of anthropogenic global warming comes from the following:

--- Basically, the 'scientific community' is rotten to the core, as it is centered around one false belief: that 'nothing' had a 'Big Bang', then 'matter' evolved throughout billions of years up to this day. What could be more 'logical' than that?!?!?!

--- The very idea that climate and the fate of mankind can be changed because of human actions seems to be logical enough. Only REPENTANCE can stop or reverse those processes! The Lord is in charge of His Creation, not 'impersonal' phenomena. But try telling this to 'wise' Brit scientists! They'd only say I'm narrow-minded, brainwashed by the Church, stupid etc...

--- I also mistrust these 'wise people' because of the many silly explanations they give (cows have been farting for ages, but only recently they noticed how dangerous to climate is that!), as well as because of the 'solutions' ("have fewer children!", they say!)

MunteanUK said...

...and now a bit about what I think the Brits 'inherited' from WWII.

Well, like the people of the UK see much else about the rest of the world and their own history, they also seem to be very proud of Britain 'success' in the war.

In my view, apart from the 'Battle of England' the Brits have no other things to be proud of! All other military victories where obtained in conditions of sheer technological and manpower superiority, combined with strategic mistakes of the absurd Nazi regime.

Tactically, on any given field of battle, the Krauts could have defeated you anytime, had it not been for Hitler's & Goring's stupidity. Even the great victory of El-Alamein was obtained over an exhauseted Afrika Korps, deprived of air support & vital supplies.

Britain had many trumps on its side: naval superiority, the backing of its colonies, an efficient espionage machinery, plus the moral superiority - Churchill was a lesser evil than Hitler, wasn't he?

What's really sad in my view is the fact that, after 1945, you did not only use an Empire, but also lost the 'greatness' of your nation.

For millenia, the Greeks remained Greek, but I don't if this can be said anymore about your country after WWII. Today's politically correct but morally putrid Britain is in danger of losing its 'soul'.

Ever since the assassination of Edward the Martyr in England, going through the turmoil of the Reform in both England and Scotland, centuries later, Britain grew dangerously apart from Christ. Then, WWII left you with a bigger ego than before, but with ever fewer resources of regeneration.

Anyway, to put it as shortly as I can, here are some elements of the legacy left to your country by the last world war:

- a silly disregard of the French, and a subtle envy of the Germans;
- WWII created the premises of setting up a 'welfare state', gradually turned into a 'Nanny State';
- a sick need (especially of the mass media but also of the political establishment) to have an 'archenemy' at hand after Nazi Germany collapsed;
- this sickening public discourse which you also mentioned, concerning the 'transatlantic special relationship';
- a dangerous complex of superiority, implying that Britain is always 'on the right side of history'.

Maybe I could think of other things to write, but I'd rather stop now, as I have so many other things to do!

On the other hand, it's better to stop, as any traces 'graphomania' (I do show signs of that, don't I?) may be frowned upon by Big Brother's 'internet police' :-)

Gregor said...

Dear Bogdan

I'm afraid my views on anthropogenic global warming are still... well, ambivalent. But I do not mind that you disagree. At any rate, I have a 'low carbon' lifestyle though it is entirely incidental (use public transport- because my eyesight is so bad I'll never drive, don't eat meat much due to fasts and dislike rich foods, don't like tourism so don't fly much).

My own view is that it is like other voluntary aspects of my life where scientists say 'it is healthy' with no evidence. For instance I enjoy doing the occasional sodoku but don't for one second think it stops Alzheimers. There are numerous other things that are supposedly 'medically good' but I think are just spiritually good.

However, we have a lot to thank scientists for: medicine, transport, computers. Yet I do not believe everything they say.

As it is from the beginning I suspected swine flu and bird flu were alarmist nonsense. Yet for me the issue of carbon emissions is not so much that I think they cause global warming as they could have an effect which we don't know about.

Entirely agree with you about WWII except one point:
- WWII created the premises of setting up a 'welfare state', gradually turned into a 'Nanny State';

The nanny state came into being after Thatcherism. As with America's nanny state, it is largely due to consumerism and litigation.

Contrary to the Hayekian ideal, Britain was freer under the post-war dirigisme than after 30 years of neo-liberalism.

Anyway, on a less argumentative note, I'd be curious for any comments on my latest post from a fellow photoholic. Do you think that rubbish can be beautiful? ;-)

With prayers
Gregor

MunteanUK said...

Well, dear Gregor,

Here are two other comments to add to your previous message:

1. Just for the record, I want to state here that I'm not an 'anti-science' bigot. Not that you'd believe that, I hope :-)

As a matter of fact, I'm trying my best to follow St Basil the Great's advice to us, that we should pick, like hard-working bees, anything good from all sciences, all spheres of human knowledge.

A little bee can pick the necessary sugars (which would become honey) even from a fruit in putrefaction. Therefore, 'rejecting science' is considered an utterly un-Christian attitude.

What I am disgusted with is the way in which the nihilistic society of our times adds a supposingly inherent moral value to science. The irreligious world surrounding us says everything is relative, but actually it makes an idol (worthy of absolute devotion) out of science.

This sick ideology induces the idea that scientists...
- could never tell lies;
- wouldn't change their views based on other reasons than 'scientific' evidence (why not for money?!);
- are mot envious of other scientists;
- wouldn't care for anything else in the world than pursuing the truth;
- if there are more scientists backing one idea (because of peer review/refeering), that idea is more likely to be true;
- if they've got high IQs, went to & now work at prestigius universities, these could be some kind of 'guarantees' about thier moral integrity.

I simply don't want to believe this crap! It doens't make sense to me!

Call me 'hyperpessimistic' or whatever, but my image of today's 'scientific community' has nothing to do with an idealized image of 'poeple with high morel satandrds'. I'm not claiming that all scientists some bad characters in SF movies, however, I wouldn't say that image is too exaggerated!

***

2. Your observation that the present day 'Nanny State' has more to do with contemporary consumerism than to the decades of post-WWII dirigisme may be 'technically' correct.

But I don't believe that history is a chain of somehow loosely interconnected events. Every historic age is the offspring of the previous epoch.

It would have been impossible for someone to believe that generous ideals like 'liberte, fraternite, egalite' would turn (into less than 300 full years!) into the catastrophic moral relativism of today... But they were the toxic seeds from which today's ideal of 'tolerance' & 'political correctness' evolved.

If you want to get an Orthodox perspective on the past centuries, I recommend you the writings of St Nicholas Velimirovich:

- a short biography:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nikolai_Velimirovic

- some of his works:
http://manybooks.net/authors/velimirovicn.html

simonaclaudiapharma13 said...

Andra are 3 ani, i-a împlinit pe 29 august 2009.
Andra mai are, în afara celor 3 ani, o tumoră abdominală. Cancer adică – rabdosarcom, în termeni medicali.
Şi pentru că are cancer, Andra are 4 operaţii, cu una mai mult decât vârsta ei. Şi urmează şi operaţia cu numărul 5, cât de curând. La care se adaugă toate curele alea groaznice de citostatice.
Ce nu are Andra?
Nu are mamă, nu are tată, nu are rude, nu mai are asistent maternal. Nu are de nici unele.
Cred că Andra se numeşte şi Pârvan, dar nu sunt sigură. A fost abandonată la naştere în spital, de acolo a ajuns la Centrul de Plasament din Alexandria.
Andra a fost preluată apoi de un asistent maternal, dar după toate drumurile astea şi statul cu luniile prin spital, cu atâtea operaţii şi tratamente, a abandonat-o şi doamna în grija căreia se afla. A lăsat-o în spital singură, cu câteva zile înainte ca Andra să împlinească 3 ani.
Pe 29 august 2009, Olga şi-a întrerupt concediul şi s-a dus la spital să sărbătorească câţiva copii bolnavi. Apoi Olga mi-a spus de situaţia Andrei, care este un pui de om singur şi suferind.
Normal că am aflat mai multe. Dintre toate lucrurile astea, unul nu îl înţeleg: când asistenta maternală s-a întors la casa ei, a luat şi toate lucrurile Andrei, inclusiv două jucării pe care copilul le primise de la Asociaţia P.A.V.E.L. Asistenta maternală a motivat că „a trebuit să le predea la orfelinat”. Ca la inventar. Cu proces verbal.
Medicul curant al copilului a anunţat-o pe Nadia, asistent medical la oncologie pediatrică, că Andra este dezbrăcată, ştiind că Nadia are o fetiţă un pic mai mare decât ea. Aşa că i-a adus Nadia câteva lucruşoare şi jucării.
Andra are nevoie de un strop de ajutor.
Andra are nevoie de câteva hăinuţe mai groase, că vine frigul: o pijămăluţă, şoseţele, papucei (botoşei), maieu şi chiloţei.
Andra are mărimea 25 la picior. Are cam un metru înălţime (măsurile ar fi 98-100 cm).
Ar mai avea nevoie şi de şerveţele umede.
La mâncare e un pic mai complicat, că e la regim. Mănâncă lapte praf.
Andra are voie banane şi mere, biscuiţi.
Cu laptele praf s-a descurcat Nadia, dintr-o sponsorizare, a spus că mă anunţă dacă rămâne fără. Andra foloseşte şi pamperşi, dar a făcut Nadia rost.
Andra este internată la I.O.B. (Fundeni).
Tot ce va primi Andra de acum încolo va fi în grija doamnelor de la asociaţie. Nu de alta, dar să nu mai apară vreo asistentă maternală cu mai multă grijă pentru inventar, decât pentru copil…
Olga Cridland, directorul Asociaţiei P.A.V.E.L. se întreabă: „Cui ar putea Andra să se plângă? Ce ar avea nevoie Andra? Cu ce să înceapă? Cine îi ia apărarea?”
Păi… Să vedem…
P.S. Eu mă duc la Fundeni joi, 10 septembrie 2009.
Later Edit. Nu mă duc singură la spital joi, mă duc cu Andreea. Iar Andreea nu vine cu mâna goală.
Andreea aduce pentru Andra un pachet mare cu şerveţele umede (80 buc), săpun, periuţă şi pastă de dinţi, beţişoare pentru urechi, prosop mare de baie din bumbac (roz, normal). Urmează să cumpere zilele următoare ceva de îmbrăcat şi botoşei pentru Andra, o păpuşică şi cărticele.
Andreea mai aduce şi jucării pentru alţi copii, hăinuţe pentru cei mai mari.
Şi da, să nu uit: Andreea se înscrie şi voluntar la Asociaţia P.A.V.E.L.
Încă un Later Edit.
Uitaţi, doamna Olga, ce spune doamna L.: „Eu am o fetiţă de vârsta Andrei – mai „mare” cu o lună. Aşa că ce cumpăr pentru copilul meu de acum încolo, cumpăr şi pentru Andra”.
L. mai spune: Joi merg şi eu la spital. Şi după ce o văd pe Andra (să îmi dau seama şi despre măsurile ei exacte) şi voi vorbi cu doamnele de la Asociaţia P.A.V.E.L. despre toate nevoile ei – am să încerc să ajung cât mai des la spital şi să îi aduc – sau să îi trimit – Andrei tot ce are nevoie.
http://isabellelorelai.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/stelutele-de-mare-andra-pui-orfan-3-ani-cancer-4-operatii/#comment-12944

MunteanUK said...

@ simonaclaudiapharma13

[EN] There's no question of being upset with finding an offtopic humanitarian message on my blog. I wish that everybody ever reaching this page of mine would click on the above link to read about REAL PROBLEMS, and - with God's help - do anything in their power!

[RO] Nu se pune problema sa fiu suparat pe gasirea unui mesaj umanitar fara legatura cu subiectul pe blogul meu. As vrea ca oricine ajunge vreodata pe pagina aceasta sa dea click pe linkul de mai sus sa citeasca si - cu ajutorul lui Dumnezeu - sa faca orice îi sta in putere!

Gregor said...

Dear Bogdan

You asked me for further thoughts. I do agree up to a point with your views on scientists. My grandfather gets New Scientist, and it is often a load of crap. I wrote earlier on my blog how 'evolution' is often used as a simplistic explanation for how things happen.

However, that is not so say that we have not benefitted a lot from scientists.

Given your comment on money, I find it interesting that they honour Darwin rather than (to my knowledge) Fleming. Fleming created a theory, tested it and found some real benefits. However, there is no real way of testing Darwinism. That is not to say that he did not make a valuable contribution to ideas, but as you say, here they have made an idol of his theory.

MunteanUK said...

@ Gregor [more arguments for my 'peculiar' but not altogether 'anti-science' position - part one]

Dear Gregor,

I'm glad you don't believe I am an 'anti-science bigot' or anything like that :-), but I'm surprised to see you say that you agree with me only 'to a point'.

This post + my subsequent comments are not directed against scientists or science, nor could I claim that absolutely all scientists immoral human beings, worshipping 'god profit more' than 'god science'.

The essence of my possition has to do with my being skeptikal about the ideology which is turning science into religion. Even you felt the need to affirm here that you are not denying that mankind "has benefitted a lot from scientists", but this seems to me a bit of 'ideological bullshit'.

I am sure you are realizing now that I'm not accusing you of anything; I only want to show you how 'contaminated' with phrases like these our language has become...

We are all taught in schools to acknowledge the 'benefits' of science, to bow to 'progress' & 'reason', but allow me to offer a critical perspective upon these.

What could have 'science' (and scientists) ever done without the Lord? And which of mankind's greatest 'scientific achievements' has equal weight to the true blessings that Saints (those who truly love Christ) brought into this world?

Let us just stop a bit at Darwin's case, whom we refered to here[http://munteanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/gods-place-in-humanist-society-6-locul.html]... Not only that there is no way of testing Darwinism - which makes it equal to Intelligent Design :-) - but turning the theory into ideology unleashed a neverending chain of calamities upon humanity!

Here's a view on that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-TIsqZqaj8

MunteanUK said...

@ Gregor [more arguments for my 'peculiar' but not altogether 'anti-science' position - part two]

If we were to weigh the 'benefits' of science, on the one hand, and the 'disasters' it brought, I don't think the first outnumber the latter :-(

Here are some examples I can think of in an instant:

* It may be true that infant mortality decreased thanks to improvement in healthcare and public hygiene, but what about the millions of unborn children slaughtered? Abortive potions existed since the dawn of ages, but this mass murder became possible only as an abortion industry (backe by pro-abortion policies) developped.

* If Nobel might have had good intentions when he invented dynamite, it's silly to believe that there were any good intentions (motivated by a genuine quest of new resources of energy) in creating the atomic bomb. It was an evil intertion from the start!

* Less than 150 years of 'science' brought us a lot of useless things making our lives 'comfortable' (that is even more egoistical than our corrupted human nature is), and a lot of 'facilities', whose by-products are sedentarism, diabetis, obesity.

* Better agricultural technologies brought more meat in our diet, then more cancers. Then, there are these GMOs whose effects we won't know for sure before other decades will pass.

Of course, no one can 'blame' science itself, as craftmanship, intelligence (+ a great faith) also helped Noah build his Ark, and the ancient Hebrews build Solomon's Temple etc.

Unfortunately, the way I see it, in the past 200-300 years, science did more to encourage mankind's appetite for self destruction:

- we love to boast with our goods - and here we now have our fancy cars & countless gatgets;
- we love killing our time - so we have the internet & video games;
- we are all so vain - an entire cosmetical & beauty industry serves us;
- we are so easily drawn to a promiscuous life - here's the (murderous) 'Pill' facilitating our adulteries;
- we like to forget about ourselves, and get 'intoxicated' - there are more drugs (starting from alcohol & cigarettes to heroin & ecstasy) than ever before...

...and it makes me sick to go on, but I'm sure you could have similar examples.

My idea is that not science iitself is bad, but making an idol of it. Or, better but by a very wise man (and aslo Saint!):

"When the feeling of God’s presence became dulled and spiritual vision darkened, that is when pride entered into tradesmen and technologists, and they started to give glory exclusively to themselves for their buildings, handiwork and intellectual works, and began to misuse their work that is when the shadow of cursedness began to fall on technology."

[taken form here: http://www.sv-luka.org/library/ethics_and_technology.htm]

It's a quotation from St Nicholas Velimirovich (Nikolai Velimirovic) whom I mentioned to you in a previous comment. Some could say that I'd be 'brainwashed' by his writings, as others share a religious belif in Evolutionism, but I must say that I already had similar ideas.

And only after I read a Saint who 'certifies' these thoughts of mine I could call them 'good', knowing that they don't come from my own 'wisdom'. All good ideas come from the Lord, with no exception!

MunteanUK said...

@ Gregor [more arguments for my 'peculiar' but not altogether 'anti-science' position - part three]

Other witty phrases from the above link:

"Evil does not come from unfeeling, dead technology, but from the dead hearts of people."

"Many people who are spiritually and morally handicapped by their unbelief in Christ, create out of modern technology idols that they worship, and call upon all peoples and nations to bring sacrifices to those idols."

Therefore, my dear friend, I'm afraid I simply can't trust scientists; I can't give credit to people who have turned their own (God-given!) wisdom & knowledge into an idol.

I don't doubt the fact that there are good scientists of all races and creeds, but I'm afraid that most of them have 'dead hearts', as St Nicholas Velimirovich observes.

And if not all scientists are 'amoral', the likelihood that ABSOLUTELY ALL people who control them (though the parmaceutical industry for instance) are 'immoral' is extremely high in my view.

In the end, for anyone interested, here is more about St Nicholas Velimirovich, a man with studies in Oxford & Geneva (but also a Saint!):

- biography:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/stnikolai.aspx
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nikolai_Velimirovic

- writings:
http://www.sv-luka.org/library/index.htm
http://manybooks.net/authors/velimirovicn.html
http://www.librarything.com/author/velimirovicnikolaj
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/XnikolaZ.html

May the Lord offer the chance of accessing these links to many people, and may everybody find the works of this Saint useful!

May the Holy Trinity, for the prayers of St Nicholas Velimirovich, have mercy on us!

Gregor said...

Dear Bogdan

I would disagree with your figures. Before antibiotics, infant mortality was vast (often 70%), far greater than modern abortions. Fleming, incidentally, was a devout man as were many Scottish scientists.

Indeed we have benefitted immensely from many scientific discoveries: sadly it is the will of people to abuse the discoveries, though that is due to fallen nature. However, I would have died at fifteen if it were not for modern surgery.

Your point about food in a sense demonstrates why I think carbon reductions would be a good thing even aside from global warming. Everyone KNOWS that the increase in illness in the industrial world is due to food (indeed Fr Paisius says so).

Yet look at how the scientific community treats it? As I said before, whilst I like mental puzzles it is comically stupid to think that they will reduce alzheimers, which I am sure is prevalent in the industrial world because of pollutants.

My point is that the scientific community will ignore things. So even if you are sceptical about global warming, then surely you should be worried about what scientists are not telling us about car fumes?

Think of how many decades it was a closed secret that tobacco causes cancer?

Needless to say (I hope) that does not mean that I am advocating idiotic measures like building windmills.

And I do largely agree that in the west, idolising theories is a problem.

MunteanUK said...

@ Gregor [again, I have a lot to comment - part one]

Oh, my dear Gregor,

It seems we're sinking into some kind of 'swamp' of disagreement... but there's no reason to be 'afraid' of that...

I somehow 'sensed' that the above exchange of opinions revealed a serious 'point of contention' between us, and that's why I asked you to continue offering some replies here.

My objections (but also some things I agree with, don't worry :-) this time are:

1. I didn't particularly refer to any 'figures', but I find it naturally for a Briton (even one from Scotland :-) to invoke statistics.

This is part of the Western perspective of the world: what can't be proved by 'figures' does not exist :-) The entire education system, and the outlook on life in the Western World is 'addicted' to judging everything according to countable 'parameters', numbers, charts etc.

It may be true that 70% of children died 100 years ago, but - assuming that those children were baptised - they were going to Heaven. In the meantime, their mothers had a much better chance of salvation as well, because they gave birth to ALL their children!

Which is the situation of today's women? For instance, I can quote statistics from post-Communist Romania which state that, during a woman's fertile period (generally, from the age of 15 to 45) a big percentage pf them (if I don't remember the exact figure, I don't want to tell lies) have 4 (four!) abortions on average!

As long as the fertility ration in Romania is 1.3 or something like that - what does it this say? That 4 of 5-6 children that could have been born are slaughtered?

Added to this 'measurable' tragedy comes another aspect... the 'marvelous' Pill, supposed to have made women free and able to retain control of their bodies of their actually kills unborn human beings.

Most CONTRACEPTIVES ARE ABORTIVE, they don't 'prevent' the formation of life; they usually kill a human being in the first stage of life!!! As long as - according to unanimous Orthodox teachings - life starts at conception, it's impossible to count how many abortions are cause by these pills!

*** I gathered some links about the abortive effects of contraceptives in the first episodes of my series:
[EN] Grave and unpleasant readings / [RO] Lecturi grave şi neplăcute – (1), (2), (3), (4), (5)] ***

I think there's any need for me to look for statistics about how many women use the Pill in the 'civilised' EU that both Britain and Romania are part of... Are they 70%... 80%... over 90%?

The point is that the numbers are very big, and our civilisation is a murderous one!

"How could have the world coped with so many children born?" - the fanatical abortionists usually ask...

Please allow me not to give any answer to such a question! How could we ever explain to these poor people, enslaved by their own egoism & irreligiousness, that there is A LORD TAKING CARE OF EVERY LITTLE ASPECT OF HIS CREATION?

Humanity is looking for a cure for cancer, AIDS, leukemia... for a great leader capable to make lasting peace... for inventors of renewable energies...

...but how can we say if mankind didn't abort these 'saviours' it is expecting? The only 'saviour' that surely won't be aborted is the Antichrist! I'm so afraid that we aborted all other 'little brothers' of Christ who could have brought anything good into this world.

Call me 'fanatical', call me 'bigot', call me 'weirdo', whatever... but here's my belief: I strongly believe that the best inventions, and most useful scientific discoveries were not made by the scientists who lived or live now, but could have been brought by some of the millions of children whom mankind aborted!

Of course, what I say is a matter of personal belief; no one can ask me to 'prove' that...

MunteanUK said...

@ Gregor [again, I have a lot to comment - part two]

2. Please allow me also to have a different perspective upon this confession of yours: "I would have died at fifteen if it were not for modern surgery."

I think that 'modern surgery' could have done nothing for you, if it weren't for the Lord's plan to save you then! In His complete omniscience, He simply knew that one day you'll open your heart to Him, and you could bear fruits from all the gifts He endowed you with.

In other situations, children die at the age of 6, 10 or 15, most likely because that was the 'maximum' of what they could have achieved in life. They could have become robbers, murderers or whatever...

It is not for us to understand God's ways, but be sure that He saved you, not 'science'! You probably didn't know Him then, yet He surely knew you... as He knows each of us before being born.

And if He wanted to save you, He could do it without 'modern surgery'! But our Lord is so meek, always giving us the impression that the people whom He uses to save us are the 'authors' of His miracles.

Undoubtedly, being grateful to surgeons, to hospital staff, to your family members who stood by your bed makes up a good Christian attitude. It's good for us to be grateful to everyone and realize how 'dependant' on other human beings (and ultimately on the Lord) we all are.

However, even when science proclaims that there's a 99% likelihood of a certain occurence, it's up to the Lord only to decide whether everything will happen 'according to science' or the 'unthinkable' will happen instead.

Can't you see how futile all human efforts are, and all scientific calculations, predictions etc can be turned upside down in an instant if the Lord wishes so?

***

3. It seems that we do agree that industrial food production is not as 'beneficial' as the 'apostles of progress' claim. There are so many illnesses (+ 'social ills') brought upon us by the industrialization of agriculture), thus I think it's not worth offering examples here.

Why did the past generations struggle so hard to get huge crops, if farmers are now destroying food, because the prices offered to them are unfair? What was the benefit of breeding 'supercows', if rivers of milk are thrown on the fields these days, all across Western Europe?

Aside all the above, I still don't understand how carbon dioxide can be 'dangerous' to climate. It's just a God-given gas, not a pollutant.

What if these 'wise people' are blaming 'carbon', so that they could hide from us the real dangerous substances which are part of our alimantation, furniture, clothes etc?

Everyone is hysterically blaming CO2, while intoxications with mercury, lead, dioxin remain unnoticed.

***

4. Every now and then, scientists do accuse the dangers of motor vehicle exhaust fumes, yet people ingnore the warnings. Don't human beings equally ignore the dangers of smoking, and excessive drinking?

MunteanUK said...

@ Gregor [again, I have a lot to comment - part three]

5. I'm afraid that there are many more 'closed secrets' kept from the public by the scientific community and especially the pharmaceutical industry :-(

***

6. I remember that when we climbed that lovely 'mountain in your backyard' :-), you drew my attention to some windmills. So maybe you could let me know more about them!

How 'beneficial' are they? Are they able to offer electriciy all year round, in a windy area like I suppose the Scottish Highlands is? Are they having devastating effects on wild birds? Is it true thsat the constant hum they produce is dangerous to people?

As you see, I admit I rather ignorant about this subject, asnd I was wondering if you know more about it.

***

7. Making idols out of theories is a HUGE PROBLEM of the Western World, but perfectly explainable after a millenium of heresies.

I you find the time [or anyone else watching this public discussion of ours], do read St Nicholas Velimirovich perspective on the world, and - hopefully - many things will clarify in your mind!

***

It's interesting 'arguing' with you online, and let's hope that, from both our perspectives, someone could find anything useful.

May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ always be with you, my friend!

Gregor said...

Dear Bogdan

Just a very quick message because a friend is staying with me (though I hope to write longer in future)

Of course there is no 'contention' between us'; we are brothers in Christ. As I said on my website I really hate political culture; the utterly false 'friendships' that people develop because they fawn and flatter each others human opinions. I keep you in my prayers and I learn humility from speaking to people I disagree with. Of course we have disagreements on how Orthodoxy, the only truth, can best be applied to the horrific, relativistic world of political ethics, but it is important to discuss rather than to think we know.

Secondly, I am a big fan of St Nikolai (whenever I am in Edinburgh chapel I try to kiss his icon whenever I am there)an astoundingly wise man who was also a very gifted writer, though sadly some of your links did not open.

MunteanUK said...

Dear Gregor,

Like I always do, I am looking forward to reading more commments from you, but before you find the time for an 'in depth' analysis of what I wrote, I can't help giving a quick (albeit not necessarily short :-) reply. The few points I'd like to touch now are:

1. I wouldn't say it's completely impossible, but less and less likely to have true friendships in our time, outside the Light of Christ.

I'm also rather skeptical about all sorts of 'unions of interests' developped between people, which are based on such shallow values like those 'fashionable' these days.

***

2. Indeed, we have been blessed by the Lord to know Him (the TRUTH, the WAY, the LIFE), yet we are both (and most Orthodox believers in general) far from knowing how to apply the true faith we are part of to the wounds of the world around.

These (sometimes 'heated' :-) debates of ours are undoubtedly a good lesson of humility. None of us has 'ownership' over any truthful idea, we all have to learn, and be open to other views.

However, we can only maintain our psychological 'sanity' + spiritual health as long as we know which are the elements of faith (our Creed) which remain 'unegociabile'

On the other hand, we should never forget that no discussion, no exchange of opinions, nor any readings can make us 'wiser' or 'enlightened'. The essential things in life, those which are really worth understanding, will be revealed to us by the Lord, as we take the cross of our sins, and climb the spiritual ladder.

Of course that everything (a discussion, a good deed we do, a smile, a friendship) 'counts' in this process, but what really makes the difference is God's work in our lives. If only all of us opnened our hearts and let Him work in us!

***

3. I thank the Lord for everyone whom He 'pours' into my heart, and 'invites' me to pray for them! He never 'forces' us to pray (neither He forces us in any other way!), but how could I not pray for the friends He has given me?

I'm also trying my best not to forget praying for those who are special for our friends - I hope you know what I mean :-)

***

4. Too bad some links didn't open, but you can reach those pages after a perseverant Google search: St Nicholas (Nikolai) Velimirovich (Velimirovich) + writings (books)

It's interesting how our interest & appreciation of some Saints unites us... May our heart also be close to St Silouan the Athonite, whom we'll celebrate soon, on Sept 24!

Tavi said...

"cows have been farting for ages, but only recently they noticed how dangerous to climate is that"

Hi Bogdan,
I want to add here that in past ages not all people owned a cow and those who did I don't think they owned over 100!

Today, cow meat is on every daily meal of people, so there are more cows raised for meat(millions?), that's why cow's farts are dangerous!

About the global warming... hmmm, I'm still searching for infos that deny it, or proves that it's only an alarmist agenda.
Until then... the hole in the ozone is still there.

In rest, I agree with you about science and I like the way you argue :)

God help!

MunteanUK said...

@ Tavi

My dear (new?!) reader,

I thank you for your comment, and here is my reply:

1. Ever since I gave that example with cows, I knew it could be easily 'challenged' by anyone, as long as - undoubtedly - there are more cows on Earth today than ever before. Thus, I used this remark more to illustrate the madness of anthropogenic global warming ideologues.

There are more cows, because we, those who are proud to be part of the 'civilised world' are eating more burgers, more pizzas with cheese, more icecream & chocolate which are made with milk...

Anyway, the fact that there are more cows, and they are producing methane is no proof that this gas or the CO2 produced throughout the process of breeding cattle is 'causing' global warming.

I could never believe in the honesty of this 'scientific community' which claims that 'so many cows are a danger to climate', often equalling the danger of cows with the one of bringing more children into the world.

Some true problems posed by growing more and more cows (not that their methane endangers the climate! - that's... bullshit in my opinion!) are:

- more meat & diary products consumption, bringing more case of heart disease, cancer, obesity;
- growing cattle drains resources of water, and agricultural plots with fertile soil which could feed millions of starving Africans, not just a few couch potatoes eating at McDonalds.

***

2. God willing, one day I'll post another episode of this series loaded with links about what a big hoax this global warming is.

I'm really not the only 'madman' left online to claim that, and - at least until a global Big Brother would start censoring the internet! - I'm gonna try my best to open up people's eyes.

What keeps surprising me is how 'contaminated' with the ideologies of the day my readers are, even those who are Orthodox believers.

Aren't these 'wise' scientists saying that many completely sinful and harmful things are good, so how come I'd believe their position on global warming?

Many scientists of today (and especially Satan's ideologues who control the scientific community) hold the following as 'articles of faith':

- man and apes developed*** from a common 'ancestor';
- homosexuality and masturbation are 'normal';
- contraceptives can be good for a woman health and they can only 'prevent' pregnancies, don't kill babies (what a HUGE LIE!);
- assisted-suicide should be permitted;
- children should get sexual education by the age of 4-5, when there are is clear evidence that this policy failed everywhere (especially in the UK);
- etc... etc... etc...

...so how could I trust the 'wisdom' of the same scientific community claiming that the climate is 'threatened' by cows' farts?

...or by someone like me who wants to bring into the world all the children that God would give to my wife, and not 'object' to His will throught contraceptives and/or abortion?

***

3. Latest news (from last week) claim that the ozone hole is 'reducing', 'shrinking', 'getting smaller':

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/09/21/tech-environment-ozone-depletion.html
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

*** NOTE: I must apologise for having 'brutalized' the English language with adding a 'p' to 'developed' many times on this blog. Thanks the Lord, this time I realized it's a mistake, and I stopped (the double 'p' is correct here :-) now.

Tavi said...

Hey, not very new reader but not an often visitor :D (I'm a littel shy and I prefer to stay in the dark and read what other say, rather than to comment :D, but now I try to change this just a little)

I'll visit you for that article about global warming, I'm very interested :)

But, I still have a wonder, what would be the benefit for people, in science men eyes, if there's no global warming but they want to determine the population to eat less meat? Ok, there will be less cases of all kinds of illnesses, people will live longer, maybe the grain fields will be used to feed people in Africa (but that's not profitable so I don't think it will happen) and then what? What is the interest in population eating less meat to avoid global warming?
(I think that 0.0001% are vegetarians because of global warming anyway :)), so if there is a strategy behind, is not working )

Tavi said...

ah, and another point I forgot to say in my previous post was that the pharmaceutical companies will not make profit if people are getting better :D

MunteanUK said...

@ Tavi (part one)

Dear old (but 'hidden' :-) reader,

It's nice witnessing that you (after how long?) chose to make your presence 'felt'; it's always better later than never :-)

Hopefully (or am I just fooling myself?!), I've got a few readers left, and even one 'fan' of mine (whom I met in real life) reads but never posts comments.

I thank you for prefering to practice your English, although it is not 'compulsory' - this is a bilingual series. You could have chosen any language. As long as most previous comments were written in English, I hope we could continue in English.

As for being 'an often visitor', I'm afraid you couldn't be one even if you wanted to :-), since I haven't been publishing more than five posts per month lately.

Although I have ideas + pictures for at least 130 more episodes of the current series (+ some ideas of unique posts), posting more frequently depends on how much 'interaction' I get from my readers. It's really not worth bothering if people are not interested :-(

I really want to post interesting stuff, using UK realities as a pretext for broader various discussions, not to turn into the 'usual' dull blogger, writing crap just for killing his time...

This http://www.statcounter.com/ can often deceive people. Indeed, I may get a fairly decent number of unique readers per day (between 15 and 50), however, it would be a big lie, if I told you that more than a third of those spend more than 90 seconds here.

Anyway, you're welcome to get 'out of the dark', and it's a privilege for me that you find my blog worth writing on!

MunteanUK said...

@ Tavi (part two)

Now let us come back to the main topic of brought into discussion:

1. I'm afraid I haven't read enough, so that I could be able to point out precisely the 'profit' which drives the whole global warming hysteria. Probably it will be the main concern of another episode.

Nevertheless, it's obvious that there's a big business being steadily bult around the idea that CO2 triggers a warmer climate, therefore a rise of the sea level, as well as drought & other peculiar meteorological phenomena.

Here's a bit about this 'industry' based on 'nothig' (like the financial industry which cause the current global crisis!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

***

2. Then, global warming is a scarmongering tool used by people who favour a New World Order (NWO), a World Government:

http://antinewworldorder.blogspot.com/2008/07/global-warming-movement-turns-cool.html

http://euro-med.dk/?p=9956

***

3. There are lots of websites (which are often dimissed as 'conspirationist' by mainstream mass media) writing about the NWO, and it's very difficult to make a clear image about what these people are up to.

It's very likely that some of these blogs, stirring confusion, are only apparently 'anti-' NWO, actually being controlled by these 'people from the dark'. You know the old saying 'divide et impera', don't you?

In spite of the 'risk' of not offering you the best possible links, here are two where you could understand more about this NWO:

[EN]http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

[RO]http://saccsiv.wordpress.com/

***

4. Honest scientists have often reached the same conclusions as the Orthodox Church - that an excess of animal products in human alimantation is disatrous. But if you talk to contemporary 'wise people' or 'free thinkers' about fasting, they will label you 'bigot' :-(

How bad meat is for the human organism is well-known, but there's no global campaign focused on that, because farmers (+ fast food restaurants, meat processing factories etc) would go bankrupt...

Nodoby truly cares of this; all efforts are put into convincing us that CO2 is dangerous to climate!

***

5. Of course that, as you say, pharmaceutical companies have no interest in making people healthier. The sicker we become, and the more complex our diseases get, the better for them!

MunteanUK said...

@ Tavi (part three)

6. The clearest evidence that these scientists are not honest is given, like I said before, by the fact that one of the most-intensely publicized 'solutions' for global warming and other 'dangers' to manking is POPULATION CONTROL.

All these 'experts' are no more than puppets in the hands of their NWO 'masters' to me, as long as they can name abortions and contraceptives among their 'solutions' to mankind's problems!!!

No one truly wants to eradicate the famine in Africa... What is actually desired is to force people to have fewer children, and to kill (by starvation) those who have already been born!

No one is really interested in establishing 'reproductive health', as this means nothing else than free and cheap abortions!

Who - if not Satan himself - is inspiring such solutions for assuring a 'comfortable' future for the 'civilised world' of ours, which was once Christian?

And how come we, the 'civilised ones' who have renounced Christ feel 'entitled' to control the billions of Asians and Africans, whose only guilt is that they are born?

If they are born, it is by the Lord's will. But this is a detail of no importance for the irreligious 'civilised world'. We have killed ourselves through heresies and apostasy, therefore any other mass murder is but a reasonable 'solution' to us :-(

I'm not making up these sad realities, I'm not a hysterical 'conspirationist', and I'm hoping the following links could prove that I am right:

http://www.radioliberty.com/pca.htm

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/populationcontrolagenda2.htm

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3503

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control

May the Lord help us all understand that it's really not worth putting our faith into this 'murderous' scientists!

MunteanUK said...

@ Tavi + all my (mainly English speaking) readers

When I'm 'inflamed' by the issue in discussion, I tend to make a lot of spelling mistakes, but I hope to be forgiven by my readers!

If this 'comforts' anyone whose mother tongue is English, I also make mistakes when I'm writing extremely quickly in Romanian :-)

Here are a few mistakes that I noticed...

- 'alimantation';
- forgetting to erase an 'of';
- 'this' instead of 'these';
- 'doens't' instead of 'doesn't';
- 'asnd' instead of 'and';
- 'aslo' instead of 'also'
- consonants mistakenly doubled...

...and I'm sure that the full list would be much longer.

Tavi said...

@Bogdan - part one

I found your blog some months ago (can't remember when) and now after I found your comment on another blog I said "hey, this is that guy that lives in UK and writes very well-balanced about life in UK and people? ".So I visited you again to see what new :)

I'm not that good in English but maybe the English speakers would be curios about what we're talking here.

- part two
Wow, a lot to read, the Romanian site I've already visited.

--------------
About the UK now: sometimes, after some news I read from UK like these:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5208527/Daughter-considers-legal-action-after-social-services-force-mother-into-care-home.html
or http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/4365171/Social-services-remove-young-children-from-grandparents-and-arrange-adoption-by-gay-couple.html

or http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/real_story/4757959.stm

or http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=torn-apart-for-christmas-by-social-workers&method=full&objectid=20276102&siteid=93463-name_page.html

or http://www.cynthiajanak.com/20081220UKgirlparalysed.html

and many others.
Sometimes I wonder what is going on in UK? Are the people so alienated? So brain-washed and distracted?

You live there, you can talk with them and you can "feel" them.

MunteanUK said...

@ Tavi

Well, dear Tavi,

I'm not in the UK anymore, however, I keep on writing, using little stories about this country as 'background' and 'main theme' for this 'project' of mine - MunteanUK.

It may not be a typical blog, neither a journalistic project, nor could I tell with maximum precision what it is... It has just become a 'part of myself'.

I just love blogging, and I'm trying my best to bring something 'useful' to any posssible reader, so that my blog is a bit different from the countless dull blogs which can be found online.

Actually, I don't wnat to be hypocritical and claim that I 'care' so much about my readers. What matters is not to be bored with keeping it myself :-)

If you want to read some kind of 'blogger's manifesto', click here:

http://munteanuk.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-i-want-this-blog-to-be-about.html

If you want to have a broader picture of what this blog is about, click on the link bellow (which can be found at the end of every post):

http://munteanuk.blogspot.com/2008/03/en-contents-ro-cuprins.html

I'm looking forward from any other ideas you'd like to express on the theme of this post, replies to my answers given to you or to any comments to other posts.

God bless you!

PS 1) Don't worry about your English; it's not that bad at all, honestly!

Writing here would make a wonderful occasion for you to practice your English!

PS 2) Sadly, there are many Brits alienated & brainwashed, but let us never forget that there are also wonderful people, some of whom you could read about on this blog!

MunteanUK said...

@ Tavi [answer to your concerns about vaccinations expressed here: http://munteanuk.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-i-want-this-blog-to-be-about.html]

Your worry about 'compulsory vaccination' is by no means exaggerated. As you can see in the next links, those who consider themselves 'masters' of the world are really up to that:

[RO] http://www.razbointrucuvant.ro/recomandari/2009/09/23/teroarea-gripei-porcine/

The above linked article deals a lot with this swine flu hysteria in France, and I personally hope that the French will oppose compulsory vaccinations more vigourously than the Brits or
Romanians would.

A 'good sign' so far: one in two health workers in France is not willing to take this very dangerous vaccin. The same percentage in the UK:

[FR] http://www.syndicat-infirmier.com/Vaccination-H1N1-refusee-par-1.html

[EN] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine-flu-vaccine-testing-fears.html

Additionally, one link in my current post shows that Americans could hardly be convinced to 'volunteer' for taking this jab, unless martial law were imposed on them. I'm expecting some strong 'pockets of resistance' against vaccination in many parts of the USA.

Obviously, the 'NWO masters' appear to have a meticulously drawn plan, but putting it into practice depends on many things, the first and foremost being the Lord's will.

Only God knows how this A(H1N1) will actually spread, and how resistant to it human immune system is. Obviously, the virus is already present everywhere on the planet, but it proved to have a much lower mortality rate than the one which could have been 'convenient' for 'NWO masters'.

From latest data, only 40% of the deaths caused by this 'new flu' occured in people who didn't have a previous medical condition. The percentage is still very low.

Anyway, even official statistics can be easily falsified, can't they?

As for how profitable this swine flu hysteria is for pharmaceutical companies, my friend Gregor has recently sent me a relevant link:

[EN] http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55993/

Tavi said...

Domnul sa ne pazeasca!

Tavi said...

check out this film about global warming :)
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/UsTF3KX-The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

MunteanUK said...

@ Tavi

Thank you for your very interesting link!

It's a great documentary which I hadn't seen before, and now I can reccommend it to anyone!

Tavi said...

Hi, I'm back :)
I've an idea about reasons for global warming hysteria: population control.

Read in the 9th number of "Presa ortodoxa".

Also read this article: http://www.ne-cenzurat.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4911:uniunea-europeana-va-finanta-organizatiile-care-promoveaza-avortul-fortat-in-afara-ue&catid=29:sntate&Itemid=35

I don't like that in the future, maybe my taxes will sponsor these actions!

MunteanUK said...

@ Tavi

Welcome back!

It's good to greet you seeing that you come on my blog with your 'homework done' - that is you are more aware of the population control agenda.

What is 'not so good' is the fact that it may be a bit too late for your worries. For every bread you buy, you also pay VAT to the State, which in its turn pays Romania's contribution to the EU budget.

From this perspective, you are already contributing to many EU policies, whether you agree with them or not!

We shouldn't get paranoid, and imagine that the Lord will judge us for that (for having paid our taxes honestly). We all have many other mistakes, sins, bad deeds, inequities & complacencies for which we shall be judged!

Anonymous said...

oamenii de stiinta se contrazic...singuri.
afirma sus si tare ca omul se trage din maimuta, dar tot ei recunosc faptul ca inca n-au gasit veriga ce face acest "salt".
adica azi ce le-ar opri pe maimute sa devina oameni?
sustin ca bietele vaci contribuie la incalzirea globala. dar doar vacile "have been farting" de ani de zile? celelalte animale ce fac? sunt si ele in numar foarte mare si fac...acelasi "lucru" (si animale domestice si salbatice)
intr-o logica ciudata numarul vacilor ar trebui sa fie constant, adica se taie tot mai multe vaci, se cresc mai multe si tot asa, deci cumva proportional (si cum spuneam in logica ciudata) numarul ar fi constant.
oamenii de stiinta afirma ca periodic, la cca 1000 de ani este prezenta...incalzire globala. dar daca acum incalzirea globala este produsa de poluare, de vaci, etc, stau si ma intreb CE a produs incalzirea globala acum 1000 de ani cand erau mult mai putine vaci si oameni si totul, absolut, era "eco"?

Anonymous said...

afirma ca trebuie sa ne alimentam "organic", totul sa fie "eco", dar legifereaza codexul alimentar, agricultura este distrusa, etc.
copiii mici nu trebuie sa bea lapte de vaca (in caz ca lipseste laptele matern) cel putin pana la un an ("ca doar nu sunt vitei" cum a scris un dr.). doar este laptele praf, care ...are atatea ingrdiente, inclusiv taurina care este si in energizante de ex...
oare cum de au reusit, in trecut, sa creasca sanatosi atatea milioane de bebelusi cu...lapte de vaca (diluat cu ceai sau cum era preparat atunci)?
oamenii de stiinta au demonstrat ca prea multa carne poate favoriza aparitia cancerului, etc. nu neg acest lucru, dar tot ei au demonstrat si ca faina de grau este toxica de fapt.
si tot asa exemplele pot continua.

Anonymous said...

nu mai vorbesc despre vestita gripa porcina. ar fi fost bine daca ar fi fost doar o "pacaleala"si ar fi ramas doar la nivelul asta, de vorbe. dar...
nu cred ca a fost un virus scapat intentionat sau neintentionat din vreun laborator, ci intentionat pus spre testare. asa cum a fost si cu vaccinurile din 1988-89 (cu HIV) si cele de prin anii 70 (cu hepatita)
acum au trebuit testate iar pe un "lot", inregistrati cu nume , CNP, etc (dupa cum s-a vazut), care din nefericire l-au gasit (rapid)la noi.
mi s-a parut manipulare pe fata ce s-a intamplat. nu doar cu diversele stiri date la inceput. pe unele programe chiar faceau campanie anti vaccin, dar apoi brusc au prezentat stirea falsa si au creat intentionat isteria. chiar si aceeasi care cu o zi in urma erau anti. si nu doar atat. prezentau multe imegini cu oameni in varsta care stateau la cozile alea imense si interviuri, etc. stiu mai multe persoane in varsta, foarte bine informate ce si cum cu acest vaccin si dupa o zi doua parca erau trasi cu un magnet sa se vaccineze. semnale de acest gen am avut de la mai multe cunostine. era socant si evident ce fel de manipulare ...tot se plangeau ca sunt prea multi pensionari. intrebam: stiti din surse diferite care-i adevarul? ce-i cu voi? parca sunteti teleghidati? si spuneau atat: pai daca spune la tv... din fericire unii n-au facut vaccinul, si-au ...revenit, dar altii, destui, peste 1 milion... :-(
iti imaginezi?
sistemul...rotitele si planurile merg conform graficului.
altfel cum de brusc s-a "terminat" cu aceasta gripa porcina?

Anonymous said...

ai dreptul sa refuzi vaccinurile din materna, le refuzi si copilul e bine mersi, sanatos. si vine o zi cand copilul merge in clasa I. dar la inscriere iti trebuie...avizul epidemiologic, pe care nu-l ai si fara de care cica nu poate...
in ce priveste gaura din stratul de ozon, imi imaginez un dialog intre o mamica si copilutul ei,de vreo 4 ani, cel curios si fara net:
copilul: mami, ce este ozonul?
mama: este asa, ca o paturica transparenta care pluteste peste pamant si-l apara de soare.
c: cum adica il apala de soale? soalele face lau?
m: nu face rau, dar daca n-ar fi paturica asta, soarele ar arde prea tare si ar face rau, asa ca langa aragaz, cand te arde.
c: mami? da patulica asta poate avea si gaula?
m: (zambind) da puiule, asa zic unii oameni?
c: si unde este gaula asta?
m: ....la polul sud?
c: inseamna ca ii alde pe oamenii de acolo?
m: nu pui mic, acolo nu sunt oameni
c: da ce este acolo?
m: gheata multa ...(mirata de ce spun oamenii de stiinta)...tot mai multa gheata in unele locuri.
c: mami! ai zis ca nu-i flumos sa minti! de ce minti?
m:eu mint?
c: pai daca soalele alde mai tale plin gaula aia, cum e mai multa gheata, ca la noi daca e soale se topste omul de zapada....
m:....????
c: mami, da ce e dincolo de patulica?
m:...universul...cum zic acei oameni...
c: mami,mami, stiu!
m: ce stii mai copile?
c:(poznas) pai...daca ne uitam plin gaulica aia... o sa-L vedem pe Doamne Doamne...
m: da de ce vrei tu sa-L vezi?
c: sa-l log sa nu mai minta oamenii mari...
m: (tachinandu-l)da ce faci daca acea gaurica se lipeste inapoi?
c: cu "botic"...eu tot am sa-L log...
cam asta e cu gaura din ozon, foarte convenabil plasata la poli, unde, tot acei oameni de stiinta spun (dupa cum am citit) ca surprinzator, in multe locuri e mai multa gheata ca inainte.....
pai arde sau nu soarele mai tare?
conform demonstratiilor lor gen "ba da, ba nu", ma intreb, firesc: oare chiar o fi o gaura in ozon?
cred ca ar fi timpul sa se mai hotarasca si ei care din varinate le accepta/ sustin.
nici eu nu sunt impotriva stiintei, din contra, dar nu cu ...chestii de genul asta, ba e, ba nu e...
iar problema avorturilor... e foarte mult de discutat aici.
a fost un caz cu un copil nascut fara maini si picioare, desi mama stia de la ecograf. n-a putut sa faca avort, dar copilul a ramas in spital.
stiu o femeie care are 20 de copii. din pacate nu sunt toti cu ea, nu a putut avea grija de toti.
acum ceva timp in urma (cred ca vreu an doi, nu stiu exact) am prins o bucatica dintr-o emisiune in care era vorba si despre avorturi si era un doctor care spunea ca si el a fost socat cand la el a venit o femeie sa faca avort. era al 51-lea avort al acelei femei. nu mai tin minte ce a mai zis apoi dr. ca nu-mi reveneam din soc. nu judec pe nimeni ("nu judeca pe nimeni, ca tu ii stii pacatul, dar nu ii stii pocainta"), dar cum de s-a ajuns la 51? nu a fost refuzata de doctori?
foarte multa vreme, in special in trecut femeilor li se spunea, cu convingere ca puteau face avort pana in 3 luni, ca nu e viata acolo. mult mai tarziu au aflat adevarul...
sunt atatea mame care isi doresc enorm un copil si orice ar face nu pot duce sarcina si au avort spontan. si durere imensa...
ar fi multe de spus, dar exceptand ultimul exmplu, tot ce se poate spune despre avort se poate reduce la un cuvant: avort=crima.
si inseminarea artificiala tot asta inseamna. nu are rost sa se pacaleasca cineva ca a dat nastere unui copil prin inseminare artificiala (cu chestia asta probabil voi supara persoane), dar cati embrioni is omorati ca sa ramana unul? sau daca se "prind" mai multi embrioni, pe ce criterii faci selectia sa ...ramana unul iar ceilalti "trebuie" eliminati?
n-am spus asta spre a judeca pe cineva , ci spre a atrage (si eu) atentia.
"nu exista om pe care sa-l paraseasca Dumnezeu, ci exista numai oameni care l-au parasit pe Dumnezeu"
"va veni vremea cand oamenii vor innebuni si cand vor vedea pe cineva ca nu innebuneste se vor ridica asupra lui zicand:"
C.L.

MunteanUK said...

@ C.L.

ce te-ai mai dezlantuit impotriva miturilor stiintifice care ne sunt varate pe gat drept adevaruri, de parca ai fi eu! :-)

"vremea cand oamenii vor innebuni si cand vor vedea pe cineva ca nu innebuneste se vor ridica asupra lui zicand (...)[spui tu, poate s-a pierdut continuarea dar adaug eu] esti nebun".

ei bine, vremea aceea A VENIT DEJA. pt ei - majoritatea, intemeiata in iluziile ei pe adevaruri stiintifice - eu, cel care pun la indoiala minciunile asa-zis stiintifice + cititorii mei care ma aproba suntem nebuni.

suntem habotnici, retrograzi, inapoiati, dusmani ai progresului, incorecti politici, niste fanatici dusmani ai 'binelui' pe care stiinta l-a adus si il va mai aduce lumii!

acesta este verdictul, am fost judecati deja! ti-o spun sigur, exista 'ochi' care au citit cu rabdare acest blog tocmai pentru a-l eticheta ca 'incorect politic'.

si de ce? pentru ca adevarul supara, iar oamenii intunericului nu pot suferi lumina. nu lumina 'mea', nu ca ar depinde lumina cumva de mine. eu doar scriu adevarul, iar destui nu-l pot suferi!

nu acuz pe nimeni, nu dau niciodata nume de 'vinovati', ci doar descriu probleme, situatii triste din lumea din jur, dar (nadajduiesc eu) o fac suficient de bine, astfel incat sa-i supar pe unul sau pe altul.

***

eu nu numesc 'pacatosi', ci vreau sa descriu 'pacate', iar pe cei care se regasesc in acele situatii descrise drept pacate si cauze ale raului din jur nu poate decat sa-i supere treaba aceasta!

iata cateva din adevarurile regasite in postarile mele care pot fi 'neconvenabile' multora:

- omul este om din clipa zamislirii si avortul este ucidere;

- anticonceptioanalele sunt avortive si daunatoare femeilor;

- in spatele oricarui 'pericol' pentru umanitate (global warming, swine flu) sta o masinarie de propaganda a celor care castiga din terorizarea oamenilor;

- avorturile sunt o mult mai mare 'nenorocire' pt omenire decat tot ceea ce lumea stiintifica declara a fi 'pericole';

- se minte cu nerusinare, de cateva decenii, ca oamenii se inmultesc 'incontrolabil' cand, de fapt, in curand ne vom confrunta cu un deficit demografic;

- se decreteaza fanatic ca tot ce zic 'zeii stiintei' este 'bun', iar ce a lasat Dumnezeu, "ale Carui cuvinte nu vor trece in veac" (Sf Scriptura si Sf Traditie) ar fi doar un mit;

+ lista ramane deschisa: unele le-am amintit pe blog, dar mi-au scapat la trecerea in revista de aici; altele le poate adauga orice cititor!

Anonymous said...

nu stiu de ce n-a aparut si finalul, ca doar am scris. probabil ca era prea lung textul.
subscriu, asa cum am zis si mai devreme in comentarii.
cat priveste deficitul demografic: "baby-boom-ul"/decreteii, cei nascuti in anii 66-67 au acum 40 si de ani....acum ei sustin, ca salariati pensionarii, dar foarte putin mai tarziu...nu va fi cine sa-i sustina pe ai.
in medie mor cu 50% mai multi oameni decat se nasc (de boli, alimentatie, saracie, poluare, etc...)
"suntem habotnici, retrograzi, inapoiati, dusmani ai progresului, incorecti politici, niste fanatici dusmani ai 'binelui' pe care stiinta l-a adus si il va mai aduce lumii!" si e bine asa.
Doamne ajuta!
C.L.