Is Homeopathy a Scam?

It seems that the two most controversial topics revealed by the Internet are Jesus Christ and homeopathy. What do they have in common? Perhaps a desire to do good without the technology, without the money and the greed. Perhaps it's the logic that others fail to see, because they live in a very limited, evil world of their own. Jesus healed people through love. Homeopathy heals people through information available in nature.

There is endless hate for homeopathy (as for Jesus) from those who are unable to grasp its principles and wisdom, from those who reject any proof that it can work. These are the people who only retain the failures of the method (as with the failures of the humans/the church - if one priest did something bad, then the whole faith is rendered null).

Homeopathy is a scientific method and has never done the harm traditional medicine is causing. It is growing worldwide and one of the reasons is because people have experienced the failures of traditional medicine and are at least willing to explore new therapies.

Besides I debunk the usual beliefs and pseudo-arguments of homeopathy haters, I want to ask this:

What do you prefer?

You're ill. Do you want to be prescribed a medication which you don't know how was made and with what, you don't know if the studies concerning are truthful and valid or just sponsored, or would you like to be analyzed wholly, based on all your symptoms and prescribed a customized remedy? Would you like the doctor to care about who you are, how you feel and what your lifestyle is, to understand your health problem? Or would you like them to just observe the symptoms and prescribe a generic medication to cover those up?


"Homeopathic specialists are scammers and they never healed anyone"

Traditional doctors are often scammers, too. If some of them do this for the money, this doesn't invalidate the method itself. Anyone is free to choose whichever therapy and be a complete scammer. There's equality between these doctors, yet you refuse that. Yes, of course you will find all kinds of healers to be scammers. This doesn't mean anything.

As for the healing evidence, the word of mouth is doing its job. Reality will never change - people try these remedies and, when they find healing, they spread the word. This is the only way homeopathy got to expand and prosper. Note that finding the right remedy is the big challenge. This is why some patients are not healed. This is the reality of homeopathy - it takes a lot of patience, honesty, hard work to understand a patient's problem and select the right remedy. That's why it fails at times. Why not see the failures of traditional medicine, too? they are countless. Why you excuse those, but not these? Besides, homeopathy never killed and cannot kill. The skeptics themselves say it's "only water and sugar". Therefore, how can a 'scam' so harmless kill someone?

"That person stayed ill/died after using homeopathic remedies"

What was their illness? Was it an emergency? Homeopathy never claims it can replace traditional medicine 100%. It is a helper. It leaves the urgent cases to the emergency services. Traditional medicine can heal with a heart attack, a broken bone or organ, but cannot understand ailments like anxiety, depression or any psychosomatic disease. Why not see all the people who got worse and who died because of traditional medicine? It happens every day in hospitals. All mindlessly treated through the same methods, regardless of the differences between patients. A headache can have a hundred reasons, it's ridiculous to believe that masking it with a painkiller will get you rid of all those reasons. This is only one example, mind you.

"It's only water and sugar!"

You'll mostly hear this ridiculously childish complain that homeopathic medicine has no active principle in it and therefore it cannot heal. This is a very primitive 'logic'. Homeopathy is based on information, not on substance quantity. I ask the skeptics:

Do you believe in mobile phones? in computers and tablets?

Of course, you'll say. "I use these objects every day, they work and they help me, what's the deal with it". Well, you believe in them although it doesn't make sense. You use your smartphone to get such a great deal of information. Where is all that stored? How can you have so much in so little? Physically, your phone is a very small object. You can't cram too much in it. Secondly, you can open the case and see what's inside. Metal and plastic. You can't find the apps, the information, the sounds, the visuals, nothing of that is inside. Just some tiny metal and plastic pieces. Then why don't you ask yourself how is that possible? You were taught to never question it. It's the way electronics and information work. If we were to step back (or just go back in time with some decades), we wold consider it like magic. Would you have imagined smartphones 2 decades ago? No, the idea would have seemed like pure magic! Crazy! Yet you're using a smarphone these days and have the world at your feet.

The same goes with homeopathy. Its remedies, though only sugar and water and alcohol physically, are loaded with information. Just like the Internet. Can you see the Internet in a purely physical form? Can you touch it? Can you use scales to weight it? A knife to cut a piece of it? No, it's entirely 'abstract', yet you can use it s you please. Yet you don't believe that a remedy can be like that, contain information in it and be beneficial through that.

"There are no studies to assess the benefits of homeopathic medicine"

Studies require a lot of money. Money go in industries where huge sums are being handled. It's not the case with homeopathy. It's a simple law of economics, you cannot invest in something that brings no real profit. Homeopathic medicine is very cheap. The time of the doctor is precious, hence why consultations are expensive (by the way, one consultation lasts about 1 h), but the remedies are not. It would never be logical for the money to go towards this method. And sadly, without studies many will dismiss homeopathy without getting educated or trying it. 


"Homeopathy is not compatible with Christianity, it's witchcraft."

Honestly, when I heard this claim, I started to think seriously about the possibility. I am not 100% convinced about the 'cleanliness' of the preparation method for homeopathic remedies, but I have some common sense observations to make.

God created plants and minerals. The Bible says God left herbs for our healing. By all means, it is impossible for humans to get to know ALL the plants in the world and identify the right ones for ALL the conditions in the world. Therefore, it requires some sort of revelation, of divine inspiration.

The Bible also tells how "like cures like" (by looking at the metal snake, the people were healed from venom snake bites; Jesus saved mankind by being born as human; Jesus vanquished death by dying).

It's impossible to say we should not use natural remedies because pagans have used them and because they were ones to rely on the "like cures like" principle. Pagans also ate plants and drank water, perhaps Christians should stop doing that because it's something 'pagan'.

A Christian myself, I do not agree with such over cautious attitude. Plants are from God and God says He wants us to use them to heal. Could this be a farce, because it's impossible to get to know all the plants and their effects in normal conditions? Just like with Hildegard von Bingen, it needs inspired people to discover a method of healing. It's not witchcraft if God wanted it so. It's not a farce from God. There's no devil calling and no incantation involved, but ordinary chemistry and physics.



In conclusion, no amount of saying "It doesn't work", "It's ridiculous", "It's a scam", "It's doing nothing" can ever suppress the logic and the evidence. Some people will always think for their own and investigate. Some will simply try the treatments and spread the work if they work. This is how homeopathy didn't die, but actually got more and more powerful and popular, without the support of corporation and without the streams of money that are being usually pumped into traditional medicine.

There Is NO Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom

Lately, many of the bigoted (and vastly intolerant to different views) homosexuality supporters have been enforcing their opinions by claiming how animals are often homosexual and therefore it's "normal and natural" for humans to be that way, too. This post is going to provide a clear explanation as to why it is 100% inaccurate and misleading to call animals homosexual.


Animals are PANSEXUAL.


Pansexuality is a sexual orientation that makes one attracted to everything -- yo the opposite sex, to the same sex, to other species and to inanimate objects as well. "Pan" means "everything".
Ever seen a dog humping on a human's leg? It is because it is pansexual. Ever seen a bird displaying courtship behaviour towards a human? That is pansexual, too.

In other words, the animals do not have that discernment. They just breed when they feel like it. They are ruled by their breeding instinct. Thus, it doesn't matter to them how they're trying to satisfy this drive. It is simply ridiculous and manipulative to use this as an arguments in today's debates.

Besides, what these people support is a downgrading of the human species. If we are to accept or adopt homosexual or pansexual behaviour ourselves, then it means that we return to the animal state. Are you ready to say goodbye to millions of years of evolution? Funny thing, it's the same supporters that claim they're oh so evolved and everyone else should have their views in the 3rd millennium.

What this animal homosexual propaganda is in fact saying is: "forget about the long way the human species has come; forget about discernment; forget about the purpose of the sexual instinct in all living beings. Just become a mindless animal and tell those who oppose you that this is the "normal" and "evolved" way!

No wonder so many are saying, "No, thanks!"

Instead of blindly believing what the Internet or a fanatic supporter tells you, better have a look at nature yourself. A good look. See things for what they are. Animals don't have enough discernment to make the difference. They're just driven by a blind breeding instinct. If you want to be like that too, fine, but let the others be humans and mind their own stuff. Don't push false education and pseudo-science down their throats!

No matter how much footage you see of "homosexual animal behaviour", you should know that this is only part of what's out there. They show you that because that's how they want you to see it but remember, animals are pansexual.

Also, if you are going to say that "it's normal and natural to be pansexual", then I hope you realise you're also supporting things like necrophilia, pedophilia and zoophilia! After all, where do we draw the line? What is "natural" and what isn't? (it's rhetorical, yes) Who are we to tell others how to behave sexually, right?

Peter Jackson's Films Did Much Good to J.R.R. Tolkien. Here's How

I have never had any sympathy for those who are against the screen versions of J.R.R. Tolkien's books. Being totally against screen adaptations is an attitude which is doing a disservice not only to fans everywhere, but also to J.R.R. Tolkien himself. We are going to see how exactly this happens.

An Era of Different Entertainment

Director Peter Jackson

People consume art and entertainment in a different way that they did 200, 100 years ago, even 50 or 20 years ago. The general taste is ever changing. If you want to spot obvious differences, compare old romance movies with new ones. Or, compare Bible-themed ones. You will see a great difference in tone, costumes, cinematography etc. Music, writing, painting etc., all have changed with time. Nowadays we like our art in a certain way. We are entertained by certain features. It's only natural to accept and understand than an author who created many decades ago will be envisioned later in a 'modern' way. It cannot be as back in the day, nor as it all was in his mind or any of his readers' mind.

Bringing The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit on the silver screen in a 'commercial' manner is no crime, especially as it perpetuates the noble message of the author.

Harsh as it may sound, Tolkien's writings would have been far less popular by now if it weren't for Peter Jackson's adaptations. He'd still be a classic, especially in English-speaking countries, he'd still be mentioned as the father of high fantasy, he'd still have his avid readers... but things in general would be tremendously different. He'd be more like a piece in a museum. Nowadays he's so alive! His heart is beating in thousands and thousands of hearts who feel the gratitude as they both watch and read the Middle-Earth stories. Without the support of a movie, Tolkien would have a very different status.

A Fierce Competition

Let's take two of the most popular examples of successful literature today: George R.R. Martin and his Game of Thrones or J. K. Rowling and her Harry Potter books (I wouldn't want to mention Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey, because I believe those to be geared towards the teen crowd and not aimed at the general adult audience). While I can't compare these to Tolkien's brilliant work, we can sure talk about what success and popularity mean today. Nowadays, turning a book into a film is the method that works best if you want to boost its appeal and reach more people. Undeniably, these examples are powerful.

Imagine a world where Tolkien wouldn't benefit of screen adaptation, but these writers would. Could that be fair? Would it really be nice to have a fabulous author like him fade into oblivion, while these ones who do nothing but copy him enjoy such massive success? Would it really be fair? I am surprised the Tolkien family isn't thinking about it.

The Films Do Him Justice

Keeping Tolkien in the literature zone only would be a terrible thing to do. If he never got on screen, the Tolkien phenomenon would have been greatly reduced today. He could even become misunderstood. Now thankfully, through these films, be they good or bad (it's not necessary to discuss this here), his name is known to the world, to every nation, even to the youngest of us... and a huge gate is open - the gate to his books, now made easier to connect to.

I dare to think that his aura would fade with time, outshun by the less original authors. Totally not fair. Tolkien is, after all, the creator of a highly successful genre and no one did it better than him.


Why Royd Tolkien Is Admirable

Royd Tolkien, great grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien

If you are part of the fandom built around Peter Jackson's 6 Middle-Earth movies, you must have
noticed Royd Tolkien by now. He's active and, most important, is supportive. Moreover, he's quite a contrast to his other relatives, it seems. While he's not exactly in his twenties, nor thirties, he is young enough to taste entertainment as it is enjoyed today. He's a man of the newer generations. He understands the appeal of movies and the fact that this can only do good and no harm to his great grandfather's name. He had cameos in the movies, participated in promoting them, attended the premieres and voiced his opinion when needed. Royd always has a word of support when asked about the films and he's very enthusiastic in his answer. This should matter.

It is also worthy to observe how Royd embodies some of the virtues cherished in Middle-Earth. Personally, I greatly admire his friendly, open and easy going nature, as well as the honourable way in which he speaks his mind when he has to. He's one to understand completely that there will always be a difference between books and movies, that people want to get inside the story (hence the fanfiction, cosplay, conventions etc.) and that every such story will be lived according to the fashion of the current time.

As long as the author's original message is intact, no harm is done.

We Are More Visual


Entertainment got to be centred on visuals. We are not necessarily getting dumber. Lazier perhaps, but not dumber. Besides, it's only normal to become more visual nowadays, since technology has evolved so much in this direction. We have means that have been unheard of, unspoken and undreamt of until very recently. It's fabulous to have these.There's so much more that's possible on screen now. It was only a logical step and an honourable attempt to create Middle-Earth in a visual form like that.

It is a dear hope that, one day, someone will be daring enough (and allowed) to bring The Children of Hurin or maybe a few tales of The Silmarillion on screen.

The Science Behind Offending

We've all done it at some point. Ever wondered why? Ever happen to get upset yourself about someone else bringing you offence? I'm going to talk about a trending topic... and no, perhaps you won't like it.

The free speech right is often used to give way to offensive attitudes. The offenders claim it's a basic right to insult and it shouldn't be censored, but when others confront them, the double standards apply. They will silence the offended or anyone criticising them. How is that free speech then?

When we are truly at peace, happy and content with ourselves, there is no need to offend. We are simply at peace. But when we feel frustrated, angered, weak, when hate starts to dwell in us... we start looking for weapons. Sharp words are the easiest to use.

Why do you need to offend? What is there in you that has already caused you harm that you need to leash out onto someone else? What makes you feel so inferior that you must take the other down in order to get up again?

Offending is a frequent thing in childhood and teenage. It has an infantile thing about it. When you keep on doing it in your adult age, you look like you've never grown up. It can only be a good move if you back it by real facts and arguments. If you simply make a statement that's based on nothing (say, "Your mother is a whore" or "God is not real, you're stupid"), you're only talking volumes about your low level. You haven't proved a thing about the other, but about yourself.

When you take the freedom to offend, you must also accept any of the possible consequences. Do you go into the forest and poke the bear? That bear may not be at the same level of understanding as a human being... therefore it won't understand when you tell, "Stop, I was only having fun!". No, that bear will come to get you. It's silly to make any excuses after poking a bear. You should've known what you were getting into.


I frequently offend, too... and each time I do it I know it comes from a place of weakness.

A Scandalous Opinion about the Terrorist Act in Paris, France, 07/01/2015 #IAmCharlie

We should all be free to express our opinions and criticise, right? Then the following one should be equally free to our western world, I believe.

Imagine you are dealing with wild animals. A group of savage beasts has invaded your territory and caused loss and destruction. They've done it repeatedly in the past and they are doing it now, too. What do you do? Do you go out and talk to them or do you use something that actually works to get rid of them? Do you show them drawings? Do you talk to them? Do you laugh at them? Here they come again to wreak havoc and spill blood, in spite of your 'clever' ridicule.

Here begins the truly rational take on the recent events. While doing what those terrorists did is an abomination, some reactions to it are equally disturbing. You can't say - no one can say, in fact, they didn't know how the Islamic State reacts. Everyone knew they're violent and unreasonable. Then why in the world they kept on using the same triggers instead of doing something that would actually get them rid of such threat? For the sake of logic, why do westerners think they're so smart by making satires when they know that a group like this will only react in a violent way?

"Feedom of speech bla bla". Ok, of course we should have it. But you already know their reactions. The whole world knows it. Remember the comparison above. If you're going to 'arm yourself' with papers and words in front of the wild creatures, expect to be defeated by their force. If this happens and you're complaining and victimising yourself, then you're not as smart as you believed.

You're not there for the humour of it or for a legitimate critic, you are there with the sole purpose to offend. Only the weak and the mentally troubled find pleasure in offending like that, that's a fact. You just want to pick on religion because you're a hate-ridden, intolerant anti-theist.
You're just like those extremists. You are an extremist yourself.

You saw they started a war and you kept on fuelling that war.
That doesn't make you a pacifist.
You don't tolerate a different world view, but you expect to be tolerated?
You say you hate fanatic extremists, but you have a fanatic extremist attitude yourself?

You're a special breed of hypocrite.

Then comes a rebellious writer to spill more of his ignorance. I won't name him. He's just like the Islamic terrorists, albeit he sees himself as superior and enlightened. Unlike most people, he fails to see that it's only a small group to do these horrible acts, not the entire Muslim community, nor the other religious people of the planet. This dude uses the supreme weapons of ignorance and stupidity by making a general attack on all religions. You got it, it's one of those 'rational' haters who can't miss an opportunity to spill hate on the entire spiritual community of this world. His dream? "Oh, if only all religious people would just go away... I can't tolerate anyone who's having a different opinion" Get it? See the hypocrisy?

This makes me wonder, are these western critics really superior to those barbaric and violent terrorists? Apparently not. Good thing that most people won't buy this. Most people still have discernment and can grasp the differences. Shame on those who use this terrorist attack in Paris to aggressively display their ignorance, narrow views and hatred.


Later edit:

A routine check on Twitter has actually shown me that my take on this topic is not unpopular at all. In fact, people are showing they're no longer that easily fooled into hostility and attitudes of separation and hate. Way to go!

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (Review)

As of 20 December 2014, I joined the ranks of those who could proudly wear a t-shirt with the "I survived BOFA" inscription. Many tears were shed, priorities were re-checked and all hope was lost. Not sure if that qualifies as proper surviving though...

Much has been speculated, many endings envisioned... Like some dedicated fans have said, this version that we saw on screens was probably the best possible for a story that was, sadly, rather carelessly written by master Tolkien (all made worse by the film team's efforts to make it more mature and more fitting to LOTR - therefore more tragic for the audience). I'm not meaning to be disrespectful to the author. It's just that The Hobbit as a book was not intended as a piece of writing for adults, nor was it meant as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings. It became so only much later. The difference was huge and, when this book had to be filmed, they had an almost impossible task to deal with.

Did I like it as a work of art? Oh yes! Did I find anything to criticise? Sure, but that was too little in comparison to all the things I applauded. The 'sins' of this 3rd installemnt can be easily counted as below:

• poorly inserted comic moments (I know there is a rule of breaking tension or tragic moments with a comic relief, but it didn't work here. Yes, I'm looking at Alfrid.)
• subplots and story moments that were important to the theatrical version but were left for the EE
• too much fight scenes with Legolas, for the sole purpose of pleasing his fans
• rushing events and leaving too much to the EE.

Generally, there was this obvious struggle of having to please both the old fans of the Elves and the new ones, of the Dwarves. I understand it was a tough thing to do, both sides demanded to be pleased. As for the often-mentioned 'rushed pace' of the film, it's the whining viewers to blame. Honestly, I have no idea why they were even cared for. they were the ones to complain about the length of the two films (and no real fan would ever want less of what he loves!) and now I bet it's the same ones that whine about how it's been cut too short.

Let's go on to the juicy part now... although it's hard to have any positive attitude when it comes to a film that's grabbing your heart and tearing it to pieces, a film that's built the most lovable characters for you, only to have them mercilessly killed by deadly weapons in the end.

Success Is Counted in Tears

Well, we can look in a different way at it, though.
Tragic as it may be, it succeeded in drawing many tears in every theatre around the globe. For weeks during the screenings (and even weeks before), pretty much every Hobbit-related social media comment would mention tissues for the tears. That is another definition of success - to make people cry at your show. Congrats for that! I bow down to those who managed to give Thorin Oakenshield a heroic death and who made those plot twists that clearly showed who was more of a villain and provided some ways of evolving (Thranduil being metaphorically slapped for his bitchy-ness and then admitting his parenting failure - Yes, thank you!)

Shakespeare comparisons

This is not your average fantasy/medieval/hero production. This is something far deeper and complex. Don't get fooled by its popularity and take it for an action flick set in mythical times. A psychologist would find a lot of delight in this film, especially in seeing what exactly is happening to Thorin and to his friends in close connection to him. The 'madness' is so realistically portrayed! Richard Armitage knew so well what he was doing there. He can act with even the smallest muscles on his face. He can show you one emotion, then go to its opposite in a split second. These quick changes are impressive and what's even more impressive is that they are real - they really happen so when one is affected in that way. There is no exaggeration about that.

Thorin here is a deeply troubled character, a king with a burden. Consumed with his duty feeling of protecting the treasure and facing the reprimand of others, as well as the hostile armies at his gate, he goes through a personal inferno and comes out of it on his own. He's brave beyond measure, fair in his dealings with the enemies, stoic, caring and truly warm to those whom he cares about... and really takes on the role of a magnificent, legendary warrior king. It was pleasing to see that even those bitter, usually overly critical reviewers have said grand words about his interpretation and compared his drama to that of Shakespearean kings.


Bilbo. Martin Freeman. Damn, he can act!

His acting is superb here. I don't know who was responsible with writing his final lines next to a dying Thorin, but that person should be probably banned somehow... My apologies, but that makes me burst into tears whenever I think of it! "The eagles are coming... Thorin... the eagles are coming", all said in a cracking voice, so innocently, like a child hanging on to the smallest hope... No, that was too much. That was premeditated murder of thousands of sensible fans.

Some voices informed that the scene we're talking here was mostly spontaneous and the actors never really rehearsed it. If this is truly the case, it's hats off again...


The one scene that's worth all the gold in Erebor. And then some.

Is there anything more touching than the Bilbo-Thorin scene? For me, it is. And it's touching in a most positive way. Thorin charging for battle. There, I said it. As he comes out of Erebor followed by his loyal Dwarves, with Dain shouting enthusiastically "To the king, to the king!", I can't help but feel shivers from head to toes. It makes me ecstatic. It's beyond goosebumps. The cinematography is excellent, it builds anticipation in a stunning way. Just watch as the huge bell smashes the gate and the camera goes backwards... yet you can't see a thing coming out of the mountain, but you expect it, and seconds later they appear, running full speed but in slow motion. Fabulous! That's the one scene that gets me every time, that seems the best of the entire movie... of the trilogy... of maybe of all 6 movies?

I'm usually judging my films based on my first reaction to them. Nevertheless, I'm surely paying attention to how my feelings change with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th viewing... and this battle charge hasn't changed a bit. 100% success. I just want to install a big screen on a wall of my room to play that scene in a loop. I need it in my life.

Pleased with the fan service

Of course, some basic needs couldn't be left out! A sure fan favourite is Thorin's majesty being completed by a most majestic battle mountain goat (or battle ram, as is frequently encountered). apart from this, it was vastly enjoyed that Kili finally learnt to smoulder majestically, like his uncle. Not only that, but he actually breaks into some serious anger there, shouting about how he's not going to let others fight their battles for them. Then comes that sweet Thorin and Kili family moment. Precious! Dwarf fans like me also got a generous share of fun and joy as Dain was allowed to mock Elf king Thranduil by calling him a 'woodland sprite' (it gets a satisfied smirk from me every time). Another moment of similar intensity (but of a very different tone) was when brave Tauriel confronted the same elf king and called him loveless.

No Tauriel hate, really. Her presence is essential, she gets to oppose characters and attitudes that are so negative. I can't describe how happy I am to see someone facing Thranduil and wording out his biggest flaws. Also, she's one to show that the Dwarves are cared for, that they can conquer and melt hearts, which is important for this film. Ultimately, she is the voice of the fandom. "Because it was real" speaks volumes about who we are and how we feel as fans... and why it hurts to see BOFA. That may be an overly simple dialogue, but she's right. Too right.


Further thanks to Howard Shore for extending some of his best musical themes.

Democracy wins through Facebook: Romanians Electing Klaus Iohannis for President

Years and years of dirty destructive politics have turned Romanians into passive citizens. There was no point in voting anymore, as if everyone turned to Mark Twain's words: If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it. All politicians were just as corrupt, annoying and hypocritical.

The first round of the 2014 elections (November 2) had two finalists: Victor Ponta, the country's Prime Minister, named by President Traian Basescu himself. The other was the one rejected by Basescu -- Klaus Iohannis, mayor of Sibiu (Transylvanian town) for 14 years, an ethnic German born and raised in Romania.

Two Radically Different Human Types

A journalist wrote, "Iohannis is everything Ponta isn't." During the following two weeks, people could see the huge differences between the two: Ponta was aggressive, was lying and turning around every righteous accusation. He avoid making the necessary changes that were in his power when Iohannis urged him to do so. He was interrupting his speech, not keeping his promises and generally being rude. The German was considerate, respectful, discreet and had dignity.

The Diaspora

There are millions of Romanians working and living abroad. Some say they are about 3m. Hundreds of thousands of these are in big European cities like London, Paris, Berlin, Turin, Madrid, Rome etc. In these cities, the voting locations were too few and were closed too early on November 2 for everyone to get in and vote. Loud protests followed, in Romania and abroad. Solidarity was finally born.

When he was asked about this disaster, Ponta didn't accept voting as a human right.

This whole scandalous situation sparked revolutionary thoughts. The diaspora was ready to record the events of the next round and spread them on social networks for people 'at home' to see them. Ponta promised we would get a fair election process and that everyone abroad would be able to vote this round.


Ponta Digging His Own Grave

Ponta promised to fire his men if the next voting round wouldn't go well ( = if people still queue without hope). His men promised they'd send more money abroad, but money was not an issue. It was all about time: voters spent way too much time waiting. The personnel at embassies and other such places were deliberately slow.

During televised confrontations, Ponta also showed his true character. It was a source of disgust in millions of people. The #puiemonta hastag was born and it became increasingly popular (it is a funny way of saying, "suck it, Ponta"). Intellectuals and artists rallied against him and tried to educate the population.

Unfortunately for Ponta and his party, many genuine videos surfaced and showed the state of the nation: the scandalous situation abroad, people's revolt and the horrible misinformation in isolated parts of the countryside. Some peasants didn't even know that voting means there are two candidates to choose from. They were simply 'taught' by the mayor or the priest to "choose Ponta or his symbol" on that damn paper.

The power of the Internet was underestimated.As people started posting with the hashtags and haring massively, it became obvious that the Ponta government is doing its best to prevent a fair voting.

Loads of people who stayed at home during the first round were now angry enough to go out and cast their vote. This is how Ponta lost. He never believed there could actually be smart people who would see his treacherous ways and stand against.

The 'Common Sense Revolution'

Iohannis won because he resonated with many Romanians. Those who used to be passive and pessimistic found a new courage to express themselves and to fight against the lies. It was an awakening. Their clever, eye-opening messages starting pouring on Facebook.

Iohannis was the successful and beloved mayor of Sibiu (European Cultural Capital in 2007 and vastly different from the rest of the country in a very good way), elected again and again with percentages of over 70% and even over 80%. People knew that and took it as undeniable proof that he is a capable leader. They already had the proof.

Beyond being capable, Iohannis was also a man of a different breed: composed, cool, gentleman-ish, of great dignity, courteous, righteous, empathic, rational, mannered.

Facebook Warriors of Justice

Thank God we had the Internet and they didn't cut it down!

Organised under hashtags, all the illegal moves spotted that day would be publicly shared and seen on Facebook.
Sadly (and unbelievably), the Romanians in foreign countries were once again troubled. The voting process was not improved as promised. Video proof of the real situation was available on Facebook, coming from countless frustrated voters. Ponta, in spite of his promise, did his best to compromise this once again.

Weto see a different face of Romanians. The warriors for justice. They did what was in their power: they went to cast their vote, humble but determined. It took them many hours (on occasions even 13) and loads of coffee to go through the cold wet weather and reach the desk. The mockery was obvious, yet they persisted and didn't become aggressive.

The treacherous promises and these foreign events showed undecided people that they'd better go vote against Ponta. Yes, much of it was 'anti-Ponta', because not everyone can fully trust Iohannis. We cannot see the future or know everything happening behind the curtains. What we could see was what happened during the past weeks and during that Sunday especially. This is what got tens of thousands of Romanians out in the streets and made many undecided ones pick up the stamp and cast their vote.

People informed one another. Truth won. The true meaning of democracy was finally seen. People recorded and photographed undeniable evidence of fraud during the elections, and it was all against Ponta's party. There was no complaint concerning Iohannis's.

What Happened on Sunday, November 16

I did not believe in voting, but the way Ponta's party tried so hard to falsify the votes spoke volumes. "Perhaps there is something real in it, since they're struggling so hard to get more on their plate..."

Ponta and his men used not only propaganda to convince uneducated and isolated people, but also FRAUD. Deceased citizens' names were found on their lists. People who did not come to vote were 'replaced' with a fake signature by their men.

And then... the buses. On an awfully rainy and cold November day, suddenly hundreds of citizens decided to go on a trip! A trip to the most plain, uninteresting places in the country. It was indeed called 'tourism'. In fact, what was happening was that countless buses would take brainwashed people to various voting locations along the road. They would vote on the available 'special lists', meant for those who don't reside in that specific place. This is how the non-attractive county of Teleorman got to have a 263% voters presence, when the country average was of 50-60%!


Many were shocked at how much Iohannis had recovered. He was 10% behind, but eventually got ahead and won, even before the diaspora results were calculated. He eventually recovered about 14% and won the elections. 6.2 million votes for Iohannis, a record for Romania.

He has German origins and is a Protestant, but he is much more of a Romanian and a Christian than his opponent, who even threatened priests and their families and who used popular Romanian saints to promote his deceitful messages. 

Dracula Untold: Clever, Immersive, Beautiful, History Honouring Film

From Gothic erotica to classical & modern hybridisation, the Dracula myth has been screened for so many times, each vision leaving me with a feeling of dissatisfaction. I'm a Romanian. I learnt about Vlad Tepes in school. I know some of the history that many prefer to ignore... and now, I happily find this film to be truthful, beautiful, inspiring in many ways and very poignant.

In a cinematic era of too many ridiculous, far-fetched heroes, an era of watered-down (again ridiculous) vampires, this new Dracula brings quality to the table (and, I hope, smashes all those fake gods). Moreover, the fantasy element was perfectly and honourably intertwined with the real story. There was something about the acting, the lighting, the emotions, about every scene... that felt just right - not underplayed and not overdone. Also, there was the right amount of cosmetisation.

[some spoilers ahead]

The wonderful costumes are spot-on (excepting the dragon armour - too much like a Comic Con thing for 15th century Transylvania and looking like painted plastic), along with Transylvanian landscapes and churches (the castle was superb, but nothing like Transylvanian architecture of any age. It was a lot like the Western Gothic cathedrals). The sins I mentioned are easily to forgive, though. Maybe one went a little too far: I am sure that Transylvanian peasant women had no smokey eye makeup back in that century!


I loved the scenes in the forest, by the river and those when Vlad and his family met the Turks. Everything felt so genuine - the acting, the landscape, the looks. I was so afraid they would turn Luke/Dracula in a sort of Marvel hero, which sadly happens to too many film characters these days, but that was not the case. It was all believable, which I find to be the number one quality of a good production. This was what I did not expect.

The artwork, banners, posters, trailer don't really do justice to this film. I had no high hopes, really. For some reason the mantled Dracula, transforming in a swarm of bats, felt like they were trying to sell something too modern and cheesy, not to mention the dragon armour! Thankfully I was wrong, everything flew so nicely and was perfectly immersive. I thought it would be all about some visual effects, skilled fights and a weak plot but nooo, my dear, it was rich, smart and sublime.

I loved how they integrated all the conflicts, all the fantasy elements to the main story. Nothing was out of place and that's difficult to do when you have such a story to begin with.


For example, when the old vampire tells Vlad he's got only 3 days to either resists the thirst and return to being human or drink blood and seal his fate as a vampire,  you think there will be a climax when he feels tempted to drink someone's blood. you don't expect that to happen a couple of times, then have the real climax when his own (dying) wife begs him to drink her blood. It's all unexpected and very clever. Also, there are no silly lines that hint at the coming plot developments.


Thanks to the addition of sultan Mehmet, it was delightful to be able to connect it with other deeds of this sultan, like the siege of Constantinople in the same century. The two events have many links connecting them and the siege is something I've been feverishly passionate about lately.

On to the other characters, I can't complain. The film is a short one and there are many twists and turns in the plot, many dramatic moments. Vlad's wife, Mirena, falls off a cliff, just like the legend says. I don't agree with those who consider her role to be so passive - she's actually very active, courageous, outspoken and gets to seal Vlad's fate. How isn't that a big thing?

Nevermind, let's talk about Luke Evans (Bard the bowman in The Hobbit, hooray!). He was BADASS and yeah, this word has been popping inside my head many times while watching. Finally, a Dracula who is hot but no ladies' man, who is a fierce warrior but not a torture-and-blood-addict. Also, the performance is good, natural, believable. Even more, Luke Evans has a soft warm voice that he uses very well here.


Ultimately, I understood why I loved this version so much. There's a good man and his good followers turning 'dark' (going BADASS) and fighting against the true evil. Throughout time, I've been deeply fascinated by things like "when angels go to war..." or "beware of the revenge of the innocent" or "when a good man goes to war..." - you know the rest. It's about that crushing power of the innocent ones, the good who were done wrong and are now retaliating instead of just taking s*it. Just like in The Equalizer, it's great to see the bad ones being shocked at the power and determination of the good guys.

Well done and thanks for doing what we, Romanians, have been unable to do: honouring our history and our praiseworthy ancestors, along with their impressive achievements!

Emma Watson's Speech on Feminism - Emotional Enough to Be Bought by the Average Viewer

First of all, let me say that I'm not buying when a celebrity ( = influence and many, many views) is addressing an issue like this. Secondly, she is an actress, yet her voice was trembling all the time. "Oh, but she is really invested and really cares for that cause, that was real emotion!", you will say. I'm not entirely sure. I repeat, she's an actress.

I liked her speech for the real issues it emphasised, though: feminism getting a bad name because of bad feminists, men being asked to suppress their feminine side etc. As a woman with a very strong masculine side, I enjoy my personality as a whole and would never suppress its masculine traits. I also support men in becoming 'whole'. This shouldn't mean ditching their 'manly' traits. Yes, I stand for 'girly' and 'manly'. I love these. These will keep on going until we no longer have people born with penises and people born with vaginas, but have a hybrid of the two.

Food for thought: if both genders are being discriminated and feminism got a bad name through numerous bad actions, why we call it feminism and not egalitarianism?

Like many have said, feminism is defined not by nice quotes, nice dreams and speeches, but about the deeds of feminist individuals and groups.


What deeds do we have in recent years? Extreme feminists have spread hate, intolerance, violence. Unfortunately, this kind of feminists are much more numerous than the good ones like Emma might be. Most feminist I've known rejoice when a man is suffering, call a woman bad names when she disagrees with them, hate religion (but hide behind a speech of "accept anyone, any race, religion etc."), hate anyone who dares to disagree, spread false statistics, beat up people, break down stuff, objectify themselves, support murder of human beings in the womb and call them as their own body and much more.

More Wrong Things in Emma's Speech

 

• Her girlfriends dropped out of their sports teams because they didn't want to appear muscular - Wasn't it THEIR choice, Emma? Why do you insists on all other people doing things your way? Yes, feminists do this all the time. God forbid you want to do things differently, like choosing how you want to look!

• She was sexualised in photos - Then why did she accept those photo shoots?!

My Very Recent Experience with a Feminist

Just go on Tumblr or dig up Ukrainian feminism to see more negative feminist examples than you can take. I'm going to entertain you with the latest one in my life.

House party, numerous guests of various skin colours, beliefs and so on. Everyone's having fun and discussing about the things that unite us. One woman decides to make herself heard and, without having been in any way provoked to do so, starts avertising herself loudly as 'feminist'. Loudly. Repeatedly. In the company of very decent men. She starts poisoning the party atmosphere with her gender issues, with her false statistics (one in every four women is raped?!? who taught you maths?!). Her body is muscular and her voice is rough, coarse. Next to her, I see women who truly honour their femininity. Soft, gentle, loving and kind, smiling, talking positively. She, on the other hand, insisted to turn the party into a fiery feminist speech that was never required. Some of the men left early. so did I.

Another shocking claim she made was about phrases that speak bad of women's bodily parts (such as when you tell someone, "You're a c*nt"). She complained how only women's bodily parts are given a bad meaning. Well, I can't even start telling how wrong her opinion was! How about "Don't be a d*ck"? Ohh, perhaps we are allowed to talk badly about the male body? Also, it is a cultural thing. In my country, people speak badly only of male genitalia, while women genitalia names are used to describe something as 'cool'.

The whole thing left me wondering why do feminists always have to be so strident and stand out in inappropriate situations. That gathering was made of Christians, Hindus, non-religious individuals, vegetarians, omnivores, white, black, straight and maybe gay people. None of these ever felt the need to speak about their options. The feminist did.

The Feminists I Know

I wish I lived in Emma Watson's fairytale. Sadly, the feminists I know are awful, most of them. Also the feminist 'men'. They are only hoping to have more of a change to get some p*ssy by siding with feminists. I've known them all too well. A confident man needs no such gimmicks. He loves and respects women without sporting a fancy label. Also, a confident, proud woman doesn't need to beg for men's help to become equal. She simply becomes.

A Privilege: Richard Armitage in Conversation at The Old Vic

"The play makes me want to tear my own flesh off my bones",

said wonderful actor Richard Armitage in an honest talk about The Crucible

Admirers of Richard Armitage and fans of The Crucible play as rendered by Yael Farber were invited to join a one-of-a-kind event in September, right at the theatre, less than 2 weeks before the final performance.

Ticket sales were announced sometime during summer and all seats were occupied in the blink of an eye. For some reason I didn't even try to attend (having understood that only Old Vic community members would be entitled to tickets) but fate eventually stepped in and the glorious RA fandom provided me with a ticket. Even better, it came from a friend whom I've met earlier in the season, when seeing the play.

I arrived at The Old Vic at 4:30pm and there was already a happy crowd of adoring fans. Having been around for many times, I can tell this round it felt so different: a special vibe, different from the performance time. A very happy day, with smiling faces all around and very obvious excitement. Those people... I am sure I must have crossed virtual paths with many of them on social networks... and here we are, we meet, we greet - those of us who planned to do so or who are able to recognise each other.

Time to enter the building, take a few more photos with the fancy mirror made famous by the RA himself and go to our seats (for me - right in the middle of the Lilian Baylis circle - not bad!). Right next to me, there was a man who got his notebook ready and started taking notes. I did the same and I am glad I did, because the chat transcripts have missed on a lot of important things.

We witness the final preparations. Cameras are in place (hooray!) and there are 2 red velvet cushion chairs in the middle of the stage, with a small table between them. In the audience, I can see people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s...

The well-known humble nature of the beloved actor showed right from the start. There was no kind of announcement, nothing whatsoever - Richard just stepped in and had our spontaneous applause. His presence, the smile and tone of his voice, as well as the audience laughing, gasping and so on, made it feel just like a meeting between friends - hundreds of friends. It was an intimate feeling, something that could only resemble my experience at The Hobbit film premiere in Madrid.

The following come straight from my notes and please forgive if there are any mistakes:


Richard describes the play's evolution "like watching a child grow".

He was "shocked" (in a positive and inspiring way) by the audience reacting (through laughter or breathing). "The audience feeds the play".

To him, it was all about "being at the right time in the right place: the director, the Old Vic..."

The flashbacks: "I was a 20-year old actor who knew nothing about life".

"I was in a musical, in Cats, but I actually grew up and knew what I wanted to do".

"The play makes me want to tear my own flesh off my bones" (while it was still in talks and was questioned on how he felt about the role)

It was "a privilege to take the character to that place" (and who could have done it better?)

"When he calls for God at the end... I feel an ascent".

There were also the fun bits - for example at a matinee he had a bit of carrot from Elizabeth's stew stuck in his throat.

Confessed how scared he was during rehearsals, complaining to Yael about having to do the play even twice in a day. Often said, "I don't know if I can do another one" but "the play takes you there".

The play will keep evolving to the last performance.

"I find it disrespectful to just shut him (Proctor) off" at the end of the play, so Proctor stays with him.

Went to Salem, milked cows, cleaned dirt, made a wooden axe.

"I listen to a lot of classical music". Also plays weird music in his dressing room, which "keeps people away". Then stays in the dark for the last 15 minutes before the play starts.

Has the play changed him? "I suppose I already feel changed (...) Proctor has opened a part of myself that has frightened me before but no longer is".

There was only time to answer two fan questions, but we were promised another chance to ask more through Twitter. All in all, on this 2nd and sunny day of September I enjoyed such a friendly, relaxed atmosphere, with the audience laughing heartily so often... a truly fulfilling event. It lasted for approximately 45 minutes and afterwards some of us went to have a glass of wine downstairs in The Pit Bar. We literally couldn't contain our emotions. The excitement pushed us to share things on Twitter. Funnily, Richard himself was doing that, too - in the same building, only in different rooms, of course. While we were writing our updates, he also tweeted, which was lovely.

Many thanks to all who made this possible and to the dear ladies I met - you know who you are! I wish I had spent some time with those whom I didn't know that well, but time isn't always on our side!