SUVs don’t guarantee happiness, do they? [SUV-urile nu garantează fericirea, nu-i aşa?]

What I’m about to say surely isn’t noticeable exclusively in poor countries like Romania and Bulgaria or in Africa.

On the contrary, I assume that in most other parts of the world (could Denmark be an exception?), driving a SUV is the sign of an enviable social status.

The bigger the car is, the clearer the mark of prosperity, of a successful and carefree life – this is how most of us see these car owners, don’t we?

It’s silly to have any prejudice either against such vehicles or their drivers. Nevertheless, I can’t help wondering…

Why are so many of these motorists (including women) apparently unhappy, displeased with the world around and therefore driving aggressively?

Why do they very often seem unhappy about the speed of car queues, about the weather or about fellow traffic participants driving not-so-fancy cars?

I bet that they often happen to be unhappy even about the phone conversations that they have while behind the wheel.

It may be politically incorrect (sexist) to presume it, but here I say it: is because they are talking to the lewd fat guy who bought them their SUV? :-)

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

Romanians, victims of racism in Brighton [Români, victime ale rasismului în Brighton]

Some four and a half years ago, in August 2008, a Romanian “was battered with fire estinguisher” in King’s Road, a well-known seafront street of Brighton.

What an awful thing to happen in the fun-loving Brighton, often praised as a European capital of tolerance, open-mindedness, political corectness and restless partying!



The man – aged 28, father of two, and owner of a little demolition and earth-moving firm – would die after eight days in hospital.

Tragic as it was, the incident didn’t bear racial connotations. The Romanian victim, described as “a really kind-hearted guy” happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.



This excuse doesn’t seem to be valid in relation to the last violent attack to which two Romanians fell prey in Brighton a couple of weeks ago, in late January.

The two Romanians were specifically asked where they were from before being punched. Again, the beating took place in central Brighton – on a bus stop near the Royal Pavilion (pics 1 & 7).

It is the Sussex Police, not I (nor the Romanian media), that treats the crime as a “racially aggravating assault”, appealing to witnesses to come forward and say what they known.

These are places where I personally felt safe. However, this is no longer the case for many third (or even fourth!) class European citizens from Romania and Bulgaria.

Less and less welcome in Britain, Romanians and Bulgarians have been the target of a smear campaign lately.

They steal the jobs of Brits, they overburden the social security system and they generally cause a mess that Britan would be better off without.

By the beginning of next year, the restrictions on the UK job market for Romanians and Bulgarians should be lifted, and tabloids are aghast with this perspective.

But they felt the same in late 2006, before Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU. And the hordes of unwanted immigrants didn’t plunder Britain, did they?

It is not this group of underprivileged immigrants – the target of prejudice just like the Irish workers were in Victorian Britain – that would make the UK’s situation much worse.

Sadly, even for flagbearers of democracy like Great Britain it is easier to put the blame on various scapegoats, rather than uproot the true ills of society which are of a moral nature.

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

[EN] Punished smokers / [RO] Fumători pedepsiţi

[EN] I admit that sinful I sometimes can’t help enjoying when I watch the sad view of some ‘punished smokers’. [RO] Admit că păcătosul de mine uneori nu mă pot abţine a mă bucura când urmăresc trista de privelişte a unor ‘fumători pedepsiţi’.

[EN] I remember the long hours when I breathed in the sickening smoke... at school, at work, on the street, in pubs, sometimes even on beaches or in parks. [RO] Îmi amintesc lungile ore când am inspirat scârbosul fum… la şcoală, la serviciu, pe stradă, în localuri, uneori chiar şi pe plaje sau în parcuri.

[EN] Nevertheless, there’s nothing funny – neither I, nor anyone else should laugh at these enslaved people. [RO] Cu toate acestea, nu este nimic amuzant – nici eu, nici altcineva nu ar trebui să râdă de aceşti oameni înrobiţi.

[EN] None of us would look better if our power of will were diminished by nicotine and the tyranny of hedonism. [RO] Niciunul dintre noi nu ar arăta mai bine dacă puterea voinţei ne-ar fi diminuată de nicotină sau de tirania hedonismului.

[EN] This is how those once ‘cool’ smokers (like these teens drinkers) look when they grow up… pretty ‘un-cool’, I’d say… [RO] Aşa arată acei cândva ‘cool’ fumători (precum aceşti băutori adolescenţi) când cresc mari... destul de ‘ne-cool’ aş zice eu...

[EN] Sidelined: taken out of their daily routine, out of their work environment or even out of buildings. [RO] Marginalizaţi: scoşi din rutina zilnică, afară din mediu de lucru sau chiar afară din clădiri.

[EN] Smoking is no longer a comfortable experience in most of EU countries and the USA. It still is in China and Russia. [RO] Fumatul nu mai este o experienţă confortabilă în cele mai multe state UE şi în SUA. Este încă în China şi Rusia.

[EN] Lighting a cigarette has become something that must always be done outside… And not only outside the European Commission headquarters in Brussels (pic 1). [RO] Aprinderea unei ţigări a devenit ceva care trebuie făcut întotdeauna afară… Şi nu doar în afara sediului Comisiei Europene din Bruxelles (poza 1).

[EN] Smokers are compelled to go out in front of little stores in Brighton (2) or to descend 30-40-50 floors in New York City. [RO] Fumătorii sunt forţaţi să iasă afară în faţa unor mici prăvălii din Brighton ori să coboare 30-40-50 de etaje în New York City.

[EN] And that may not be the worst. They could be crammed into glass cubes like in the Airport of Munich (3)… [RO] Şi aceasta s-ar putea să nu fie cel mai rău. Ar putea fi înghesuiţi în cuburi de sticlă precum în Aeroportul din Munchen (3)...

[EN] Is it good? Is it bad? Is it discriminatory? Is it politically correct? What about the efficiency of these constraints? [RO] Este bine? Este rău? Este discriminatoriu? Este politic corect? Ce putem zice de eficienţa acestor constrângeri?

[EN] Maybe some good results will be observed over the decades, when other cause of death would seem insurmountable… [RO] Poate că unele rezultate bune vor fi observate peste decenii, când alte cauze ale morţii vor părea insurmontabile…

[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]

UK’s motor vanity fair (27) [Bâlciul deşertăciunilor cu motor din UK]

We’re all more or less familiar, from countless Hollywood productions, with how American police cars look like.

Who wouldn’t remember the TV series (especially of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s) in which ‘good guys’ were chasing the ‘bad guys’ in cars like these?

It often took incredibly many police cars – crashed into one another, blown up, thrown over bridges etc – to catch the ‘bad guys’, didn’t it?

Actually, there have been so many movies (+ video games), that I bet we could find enough fan(atic)s able to identify which car is which without ever setting foot in America.

How about British police cars? Well, these few pictures can offer a glimpse on how they look like to anyone interested.

Not that there wouldn’t exist (here’s an example), but I personally don’t remember any British film with police cars involved in chasing criminals. James Bond movies are a different matter…

Therefore, I had no particular expectations in regard to British police cars, although I had seen with my own eyes that in New York, these vehicles really do look like in movies!

To be honest, I found these Brit cars completely unspectacular and somehow incapable of conveying the same impression of authority that American police cars bear.

Maybe there’s a political correctness directive that imposes police cars to look friendlier (like a plumber’s car or an ice cream van?!), instead of looking too intimidating?!

[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]

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]

[EN] No comment / [RO] Fără comentarii (34) – St. Peter and St. Paul / Sf. Petru şi Sf. Pavel

[EN] I’ll refrain from making any reference to the politically incorrect term ‘heresy’ – let us just look at the images! [RO] Mă voi abţine să fac vreo referire la termenul incorect politic ‘erezie’ – doar să privim aceste imagini!

[EN] For Roman Catholics (little town of Cascais, Portugal), the Apostles look like fierce heroes from ancient Greece. [RO] Pentru romano-catolici (orăşelul Cascais, Portugalia), Apostolii arată ca nişte eroi fioroşi din Grecia antică.

[EN] In the Orthodox outlook (Cocoş Monastery, TL county), they are humble people (maybe hungry and recently beaten). [RO] În perspectiva ortodoxă (Mănăstirea Cocoş, jud. TL), ei sunt oameni umili (poate flămânzi şi recent bătuţi).

[EN] Needless to say which images speak better to our hearts about these saints… [RO] Inutil a spune care imagini vorbesc mai bine inimilor noastre despre aceşti sfinţi…

[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]

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]

God’s place in a humanist society (22) [Locul lui Dumnezeu într-o societate umanistă]

Has pro-islam gone too far in the UK over the past years? Aren’t Muslims granted excessively many facilities in order not to feel uncomfortable within the British society?

And isn’t it inconsistent – if not outrightly hypocritical –  to see this politically correct concern not to hurt the feelings of Muslims, while Christians are pressured not to wear crosses in public, as this might be ‘offensive’ to other people?

No matter how irreligious many Brits would consider themselves to be, what sane human being wouldn’t notice how far this madness has gone?!

If I were to offer one last (at least for now :-) example of how Muslims are pampered, here are two relevant pictures from the University of Sussex. 

In the second pic, Muslim religious items (books and a prayer rug) are publicly displayed through a window.

The first image is even more problematic, as it shows the (double!) entrance to the Muslim Student Center. Never mind the fact that Christians don’t have a center of their own.

They can also express freely in the secular campus, organize gatherings, spread leaflets, put posters etc. 

The weird thing is that, in a humanist university, with up to 70% female students attending some faculties, gender segregation is allowed. For Muslims only, obviously.

[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]

God’s place in a humanist society (21) [Locul lui Dumnezeu într-o societate umanistă]

It wouldn’t be fair not to admit that followers of any religion who are teaching or studying at the University of Sussex can use a specially designated building (in the picture) for services, prayers or meetings of whatever kind.

From this point of view, the university is 100% politically correct, although not immune to a certain degree of pro-Islamic bias specific to some contemporary British institutions like the BBC.

Anyway, the university – which will be half a century old in 2012 – boasts itself with being completely secular, while also tolerant to all religious beliefs.

From another perspective, it’s strange – if not ridiculous – how such a humanist university uses as a motto a truncated verse from Psalm 46.

The moto says “Be still and know”, instead of “Be still and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.”

Couldn’t have the humanist founders of the university found any other motto not reminding of this ‘mythical character’ (according to their views) Whose existence they deny?!

[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]

Towards a grievous failure of British democracy [Către un eşec dureros al democraţiei britanice]

Six years ago, in that blazing autumn that saw France engulfed by violence (to a degree not seen since 1968 or even 1871), what is happenig today in many British cities (London + its suburbs, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham) seemed utterly inconceivable.

The French had granted citizenship to immigrants, irrespective or nationality and religious background, therefore they should have considered the ‘risk’ implied by this more or less forceful integration, many British thinkers were probably imagining.

Whilst on the contrary, multicultural Britain had offered homes that retained all ethnic and religious peculiarities (from the fartherst corners of Asia and Africa to the Carribean and Eastern Europe) to millions of people.

The British model was deemed superior, many believed, because newcomers were not forced to adhere to abstract values such as those of the French Republic. 

Instead of that, they were likely to become law abiding citizens of a country that let them live their way, with little-to-none interference of the state in their lives.

The presumed solidity of this approach was hailed during the time when T. Bliar and his gang were in power (1997 – 2010), and every now and then Britons (and friends of Britain, like me :-) were exposed to ‘success stories’ about multiculturalism.

They sounded good: communities were interwoven by racial harmony, peace, understanding, respect for diversity, a climate of political correctness and allegiance to democratic values. All of these and economic prosperity overlapping.

Then the economic crisis struck Britain, followed by severe public spending cuts, and in early 2011, PM David Cameron openly acknowledged the failure of multiculturalism.

In theory, multiculturalism looked great – as appealing to the eye as these pictures of little streets from the City of London, a melting pot that, since the late 1600s to our days has been home to French Huguenots, Jews, Irish, Africans, African-Americans, Indians, Chinese, Pakistanis etc.

In practice, the often questioned multicultural achievements of British democracy lie shattered among the broken windows, broken skulls, and burning shops in British (only English, no Scottish, Welsh or Irish so far!!!) cities that no long before were ‘dream destinations’ for people from all over the world.

The mobs are not ‘united in diversity’ (as the EU motto claims) on the streets of British cities that I have so often praised as beautiful; there’s but a sort of ‘unity’ in discontent, rage, and meaningless devastation.

Not that I would find a political claim excusable, however, any political stance supported by the people on the streets could be at least understandable. Yet there is no such thing.

Just like the blitz riots in Canada’s most liveable city (2011), like those in France (2005), in the USA (1992), what is happening in the UK these days can’t be understood without taking into consideration the moral abyss into which Britain has been sucked for the past decades.

Unlike the localized Brixton Riots (of 1981, 1985, and 1995), these widespread events may have farther reaching consequences, in spite of (or precisely because of…) the hoodlums’ having no official agenda.

From one perspective, this makes the riots very convenient for everyone. Firstly, they look like a difficult (on the short term) but politically rewarding (on the long term – if dealed with wisely) task for the UK Government, which is very unlikely to draw any opposition to a massive crackdown.

Apart from Trotskyists and other weirdos, plus Tony Bliar’s former friend in Lybia, it’s hard to believe that anyone agrees with the violence in Britain.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to say whether UK’s law enforcement agencies, crippled by budgetary cuts, could come up with a swift response to the violence.

It appears that the summer of discontent has still reached Britain, and I wonder whether Cameron and Clegg have the strength to deal with a prolonged crisis (such as Margaret Thatcher’s miners’ strikes) in case the British riots will last as long as those in France.

Secondly, hordes of unorganised (?!) looters with no demand (albeit as skilled at using new technologies as those that ignited the so-called Arab Revolutions), and acting like mere Pavlov’s dogs, are also very convenient to Britain’s enemies. 

As the cradle of ancient democracy (Greece) is faltering, it’s sad – but not surprising, for a great nation where atheism is in full bloom – to see that the egg from where democracy as we know it today hatched (Great Britain) is crumbling.

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