Претражи Живе Речи Утехе

How China Just “Reset” the Global Monetary System With Gold International oil trade is the crux of the issue. For decades, the world’s largest oil importers have paid for oil using the petrodollar, which supports the dollar’s value and fuels U.S. government deficit spending (primarily because the petrodollar is backed by Treasuries). But now, China is looking to upset the current petrodollar system by introducing gold-backed “petroyuan” oil futures contracts. And since China is the largest importer of oil globally, this massive shift away from the petrodollar could be bad news for the U.S. But it could be great news for gold owners. Here’s why…

Vasile Banescu, a spokesman for the Romanian Patriarchate, denounced billboards depicting doctors and nurses as “saints” with coronavirus-shaped halos as a blasphemous “visual mistreatment of Christian iconography” on Wednesday. The posters, created by Romanian artist Wanda Hutira for the McCann Worldgroup ad agency’s “Thank you doctors” campaign and posted throughout Bucharest, have also offended the Medical Guild, Banescu said, reports the Romanian Church’s Basilica News Agency. The scandalous images combine eclectic elements of Indian religious art and Orthodox iconography. In one image, a character wearing a robe, goggles, stethoscope, and mask, blesses with his right hand, as does Christ in Orthodox iconography, while holding a medical chart in his left. In another, a nurse is depicted with several hands, as in images of the god Shiva, the creator and destroy of the universe in Hindu mythology. All the characters have halos in the shape of the coronavirus. Banescu responded strongly: “I think this is a ridiculous campaign to promote a dystopian vision of the situation caused by the pandemic; an embarrassing attempt at symbolic theft and visual mistreatment of Christian iconography, marked by bad taste fed by ignorance and a hideous ideology that only knows how to caricature Christianity.” The images are an affront to the hard-working doctors and nurses themselves, Banescu believes: “It is not just a blasphemous act but also an insult to the very honorable profession of doctors who, like all of us, do not think they are saints or improvised saviors and do not demand a public cult.” Bucharest city hall said it would ask the advertising firm to remove the billboards, “which could be replaced with images that bring homage to hero doctors without offending the faith of passersby,” reports Reuters. “[They’re] a daring artistic choice but one which is in no way following a political, religious or any other kind of purpose,” McCann Romania said in a statement. https://orthochristian.com/130765.html?fbclid=IwAR0QP7K5O9GDx_432tvZBZZC2ieE2lfGDc32AR5LrvSKHy8AcML0hxQ3nE8

PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW DISCUSSES AUTOCEPHALY WITH NORTH MACEDONIAN POLITICIANS Istanbul, January 14, 2020 Photo: Romfea Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople received a number of North Macedonian politicians yesterday to discuss the matter of the autocephaly of the schismatic “Macedonian Orthodox Church.” According to the Greek outlet Romfea, the Patriarch met with Prime Minister Oliver Spasovski, his predecessor Zoran Zaev, and their assistants Dane Talevski and Dejan Sotirovsky, at the politicians’ initiative. Pat. Bartholomew was accompanied by Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, Metropolitan Maximos of Silibria, Metropolitan Amphilochios of Adrianople, and other clerics and representatives of the Patriarchate. The Orthodox Church is represented in North Macedonia by the canonical Ohrid Archdiocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church, though the majority of citizens belong to the breakaway MOC, which is seeking for autocephaly from the Patriarchate of Constantinople after the example of the schismatic “Orthodox Church of Ukraine.” Pat. Bartholomew and the North Macedonian representatives decided the Patriarchate will invite representatives of the Serbian Church and of the unrecognized MOC to the Patriarchal residence in Istanbul for consultations and an attempt to find a mutually acceptable solution. The Prime Ministers and their associates expressed their respect and trust in the Patriarchate of Constantinople following the “warm and sincere” discussion. Zoran Zaev earlier stated that he was prepared to offer Pat. Bartholomew a cash bribe to receive autocephaly for the MOC. “Hierarchs” of the MOC have repeatedly expressed their belief that they will receive autocephaly from Constantinople in the near future, including as recently as January 7. “The Ecumenical Patriarchate officially confirmed that it has not given up on the desire to resolve the issue of the autocephaly of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, despite the opposition of the Serbian and Russian Orthodox Churches,” writes the North Macedonian outlet Religija. “During the talk, the previous stages of the discussion were raised, including the request of the Church [the MOC—Ed.] to return to the canonical name of the Archdiocese of Ohrid, in accordance with a timely request for an appeal on its part,” the Religija report reads. In September 2018, Pat. Bartholomew declared that he would never recognize the MOC as long as it used “Macedonian” in its title. The MOC, which formed as a schism form the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1967, reached out to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in November 2017 for assistance in becoming a canonically-recognized autocephalous Church. The Bulgarian Church agreed to help, which greatly angered the Churches of Serbia and Greece, and also the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The MOC then appealed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate as well in May 2018 for the regularization of its canonical status, which responded that it would take up the issue and take appropriate measures “under the essential conditions of the observance of the historical-canonical powers and privileges of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” After declaring his opposition to the title “Macedonian,” Pat. Bartholomew later declared in October 2018 that the issue of the MOC is within the Serbian Church’s competence. At its May 2019 session, the Council of Bishops of the Serbian Church resolved to resume negotiations on the resolution of the status of the MOC, though there does not seem to have been any progress since then. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited “Archbishop” Stefan of the MOC in October, after which Stefan declared that the U.S. is committed to protecting the MOC. 1/14/2020 Извор: https://orthochristian.com/127059.html?fbclid=IwAR0jhUA8cQD-FuP_OGkv64IxSKVJnV3eBQeC13rIZnasfR5nzFdn-KA3Yz4

Met. Chrysostomos of Dodoni (right) with Pat. Bartholomew (left) Several Moscow Patriarchate hierarchs and clergy went on pilgrimage recently to the Greek Ionian Islands, where they had a chance to meet with the Greek hierarchs of Zakynthos and Dodoni and to discuss current Orthodox events. During the course of the conversation, His Eminence Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Dodoni expressed his views on the Ukrainian issue, revealing the influence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s particular understanding of the issue on certain hierarchs in the Greek Church. On Sunday, September 15, His Eminence Metropolitan Isidore of Smolensk and His Grace Bishop Seraphim of Bobruisk of the Belarusian Exarchate and two accompanying priests were warmly welcomed at the Monastery of Strofades and St. Dionysios in Zakynthos by His Eminence Metropolitan Dionysios II of Zakynthos and His Eminence Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Dodoni, formerly the hierarch of Zakynthos, reports nyxthimeron.com. After visiting the sepulchral church of St. Dionysius, the guests toured the ecclesiastical museum, exchanged gifts, and were served a rich meal, during which Met. Chrysostomos, who has served as a bishop since 1976, expressed his nostalgic love for the two former Patriarchs of Moscow, with whom he had close ties, as well as several other historical figures of the Russian Church. However, the metropolitan revealed another attitude towards the Russian Church when the guests broached the topic of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis. “With the boldness that distinguishes him, [he] pointed out that any problem could have been raised and solved at the Holy and Great Council of Crete (2016) if the Moscow Patriarchate had not refused, with various excuses, to attend, thereby sabotaging unanimity and unity, and even compelling other Churches. This is because Russia always has aspirations of being ‘Third Rome,’” nyxthimeron.com reports. Whether Met. Chrysostomos has simply grown fuzzy on the details in the years since the Council or whether he was intentionally distorting the timeline is unclear. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church announced on June 1, 2016 that it would not attend the Council; the Antiochian Church announced on June 6 that it would not attend; and the Georgian Orthodox Church announced on June 10 that it would not attend. Only after these three Churches had withdrawn did the Russian Church announce that it could not attend. Moreover, the Churches did not simply withdraw, but rather called for the council to be postponed so that their respective issues could be addressed. The Moscow Patriarchate specifically proposed holding an emergency pre-conciliar session for just this purpose, but Patriarch Bartholomew refused to do so, choosing instead to plow ahead with the council without full pan-Orthodox unity. While the Patriarchate of Constantinople blames the Russian Church for influencing the other Churches to withdraw, this has always remained groundless speculation, as are paranoid fears of a “Third Rome” ecclesiology. A position of respect for the other Local Churches allows them to speak for themselves, and each of the Churches expressed their own seriously-considered reasons for withdrawing from the Council. And despite Met. Chrysostomos’ contention, the Ukrainian issue would not have been addressed at Crete even had the Russian Church attended, as Pat. Bartholomew publicly acknowledged already in January of 2016 that it was not on the agenda. The official agenda for the Crete Council was published on January 28, and also did not include the topic of autocephaly and how to grant it. Pat. Bartholomew has referred to the fact that autocephaly was not dealt with at Crete to justify his claim to the right to grant autocephaly whenever to whomever, wherever. Meeting with the Russian hierarchs, the Metropolitan of Dodoni also stated that every nation has the right to self-determination and to Church autocephaly. Recall, however, that the Patriarchate of Constantinople claims large chunks of Greece for itself, thus there are two Local Churches operating within one nation. Met. Chrysostomos also noted that autocephaly is typically given by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as was the case with Russia, Greece, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria. It should be noted, however, that those territories were within the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople before they received autocephaly, whereas Ukraine has not been part of Constantinople for more than 300 years. Moreover, the Georgian Church received its ancient autocephaly from the Patriarchate of Antioch. Concerning the Russian clerics disquiet concerning “Patriarch” Philaret Denisenko, Met. Chrysostomos again insisted that everything could have been settled if not for the Russian Church’s efforts to “torpedo” any pan-Orthodox council. Recall that His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Antioch, and many other primates, hierarchs, and Synods, specifically called upon Pat. Bartholomew to summon a pan-Orthodox council to deal with the Ukrainian issue, and Pat. Bartholomew flatly refused, citing the failure of the Crete council. The Greek hierarch also criticized the Russian Church for ceasing Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, though reports did not mention if he detailed how he thinks a Church should respond to another Local Church non-canonically invading its territory and setting up schismatics as a new church. Met. Chrysostomos concluded with a very revealing remark, noting that the Church of Greece is of the same ethnicity and race as the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and thus it is inconceivable for it not to align itself with Constantinople. The Greek metropolitan is echoing the sentiment of Pat. Bartholomew and the Patriarchate of Constantinople with such remarks. Certain Greek and Ukrainian media outlets have repeatedly framed the Ukrainian issue as “Russia vs. Ukraine” or “Russia vs. Constantinople,” rather than considering it through the lens of Orthodoxy. In October of last year, Pat. Bartholomew himself declared that “Our Slavic brothers cannot tolerate the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and our nation in Orthodoxy,” and “Whether our Russian brothers like it or not, sooner or later, they will follow the decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarch, because they have no other choice.” A similar attitude was displayed recently when Metropolitan Ephraim of Hydra, Spetses, and Aegina threatened to canonically punish three clerics who had written a letter of support to His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine. Viewing the matter as one of ethnic enmity rather than one of holy Orthodoxy, the metropolitan interpreted their support for Met. Onuphry as a declaration of loyalty to the Moscow Patriarchate, rather than as the declaration of loyalty to the sacred canons of which they wrote. Such an attitude stands in stark contrast to that of many other hierarchs, including His Holiness Patriarch Irinej of the Serbian Orthodox Church, who recently spoke of how the Serbian Church is autocephalous and equal to all the other autocephalous Churches, as racial or ethnic superiority has no place in the Church of Christ. Greek hierarch: We are the same race as Constantinople, we must side with the Patriarchate ORTHOCHRISTIAN.COM Several Moscow Patriarchate hierarchs and clergy went on pilgrimage recently to the Greek Ionian Islands, where they had a chance to meet with the Greek hierarchs of Zakynthos and...

The Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople unexpectedly decided to remove the exarchate status of the Archdiocese of Russian Churches in Western Europe, telling the parishes that they had to become part of the Patriarchate’s Greek metropolises. However, the clergy and faithful of the Archdiocese then overwhelmingly voted to remain together as an ecclesiastical body. They are actively considering several options for their future, the most likely being to join the Moscow Patriarchate, which has the backing of the Archdiocese’s hierarch, Archbishop John of Chariopoulis, though there are certainly those members who actively oppose returning to the Russian Church. On August 9, the parishes of the former Exarchate received two documents, one with a proposal from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the other with a proposal from the Moscow Patriarchate. The clergy and parishioners have until September 7 to consider the two proposals, when the Archdiocese’s next General Assembly will be held to take a vote, “either to preserve its identity, specificity, and traditions under the Patriarchal omophorion of Moscow,” or “to abandon the past, becoming a vicariate without a future,” Abp. John wrote in his address accompanying the letters, reports the Independent Gazette. The 24-page document from Constantinople is, “in fact, the same statutes that the parishes of the Russian tradition live by today, but with all the references to the Archdiocese as a territorial and legal entity replaced with ‘vicariate,’ with the addition of ‘the Gallic Orthodox Metropolis, in the canonical jurisdiction of the Constantinople (Ecumenical ) Patriarchate.” Whereas the statutes previously proclaimed the independence of the Exarchate, they now note that decisions can be made only with the “consultation” or “approval” of Metropolitan Emmanuel of Gaul. Metropolitan Emmanuel previously sent a letter with a proposal for the churches within his territory to become a vicariate to the priests of the Archdiocese. His letter stipulated the “the preservation of the existing association, which will continue to manage the property belonging to it, and to function according to its own statutes, probably with some necessary adaptations.” The new Constantinople letter makes clear that the “necessary adaptations” are to strip the Archdiocese of its former freedom, as Abp. John comments. Moreover, both Met. Emmanuel’s letter and the present proposal apply only to the churches in France. No offer has been made for the parishes throughout the rest of Western Europe. “We are not talking about the preservation of the Archdiocese, but only about the preservation of its French part,” Deacon Alexander Zanemonets explained to the Gazette. Noting that Abp. John would be able to take actions only with the consent of Met. Emmanuel, Dcn. Alexander commented that “the proposal of the Russian Orthodox Church should be considered both in the context of the Romanian refusal and in the context of this Constantinople option.” As Dcn. Alexander explained, the Romanian Patriarchate offered the Archdiocese to join it only temporarily, and required a canonical release from Constantinople. “But since the Archdiocese is no longer part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, there cannot be any canonical release,” the clergyman explained. Meanwhile, as he notes, the Moscow Patriarchate’s latest offer “corresponds to what was originally discussed.” That is, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill’s winter letter and the final proposal are identical, with all the features of the entire Archdiocese being preserved, including the independence of the Archdiocese in all internal decisions. “That is, in fact, the only change is that the Patriarch of Moscow will be commemorated instead of the Patriarch of Constantinople, while the structure of the internal life of the Archdiocese remains the same,” Dcn. Alexander explained. And, importantly, the Moscow proposal allows the Archdiocese to quickly elect diocesan and vicar bishops. Abp. John’s age has been a point of concern for the Archdiocese, but there has been no hope of electing successor bishops under Constantinople. The Russian Church has even offered to amend its own statutes to accommodate the traditions of the Archdiocese of Russian Churches. http://orthochristian.com/123008.html?fbclid=IwAR3HtowjDzzE4_a-elqZ6iVnTD7ueCxwnDFDr0yrIRTnxJEbymxXBzW9lV4

On May 25, the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU) celebrated the 19th anniversary of the restoration of St. Michael’s Golden-domed Cathedral in Kiev. The Liturgy was celebrated by a number of OCU hierarchs, about 100 priests, and two hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople: Metropolitan Emmanuel of Gaul and Metropolitan Amphilochios of Adrianople. As OrthoChristian reported on Thursday, also concelebrating was “Archimandrite” Boris Bojovic of the “Montenegrin Orthodox Church,” an unrecognized breakaway from the Serbian Orthodox Church that has long had relations with and enjoyed the support of the Ukrainian schismatics. The head of the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s public relations office told the French outlet Orthodoxie that given the large number of clergy present at the Liturgy, it was impossible for Met. Emmanuel to know who all of them are. While Constantinople was not responsible for Bojovic’s presence, it remains to be seen how the Patriarchate will deal with the fact that the OCU invited a schismatic cleric, causing the Constantinople bishops to inadvertently serve with him. Moreover, the “Montenegrin Church” is currently headed by “Metropolitan” Mihailo Dedeić, who was defrocked, excommunicated, and anathematized while serving as a priest of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Italy. Although President Milo Đukanović of Montenegro has publicly declared his intent to achieve autocephalous status for the tiny “Montenegrin Orthodox Church,” the public relations head stressed that Constantinople is in canonical unity with the Serbian Orthodox Church and recognizes only its jurisdiction on the territory of Montenegro. However, Constantinople also used to declare that it recognized only the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church and its canonical Ukrainian Church on the territory of Ukraine, while the events of the past year have shown that Constantinople can change its mind dramatically. The press service of Kiev Metropolia of the OCU has also responded to the reports about them serving with the schismatic “Archimandrite” Boris. Revealing a glaring lack of understanding about the Eucharist and the unity of the Church, the OCU explains that it has good relations with the “Montenegrin Church,” but argues that concelebrating and sharing the Eucharist with representatives of that church does not mean it has Eucharistic communion with that church. The OCU statement (published in Ukrainian and English) reads: Before receiving the Patriarchal and Synodal Tomos of autocephaly, the Church in Ukraine had a communication with those, who among the Orthodoxy wanted to communicate with it. Upon receiving Tomos, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine has and maintains church-canonical communication with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and only with the Churches with which the Ecumenical Patriarchate communicates. The participation of the aforementioned person in the Liturgy does not mean that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine will recognize the jurisdiction to which it belongs or whether the OCU has church-canonical communication with this jurisdiction. If someone was harmed by this event, then we assure you that this did not happen intentionally. In contradiction to the OCU’s argument, it is proper Orthodox practice to only share the Eucharist with those with whom there is Eucharistic communion. Further, the message states that the OCU hopes that all ecclesiastical questions in Montenegro will soon be resolved with the participation of Constantinople, and that the Serbian Church will soon recognize the OCU, “to which it is called by the Tomos of the Ecumenical Patriarch.” http://orthochristian.com/121880.html

NEW YORK – The Holy Archdiocese of America cites the following announcement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate: ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE It is hereby announced that today Saturday, May 4, 2019, His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch received His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios, Geron of America, who apprised Him on various affairs of his God-saved Eparchy. Thereafter, His Eminence, the Archbishop submitted his written resignation from the throne of the Holy Archdiocese of America, which he shepherded with God-loving care for twenty years, and which the Patriarch will bring for consideration before the Holy and Sacred Synod in its upcoming meeting of next Thursday, May 9. https://www.goarch.org/-/announcement-regarding-the-meeting-of-the-ecumenical-patriarch-with-archbishop-demetrios-geron-of-america Било је питање времена...

The “hierarchs” and flock of the Kiev Patriarchate (KP) outside of Ukraine cannot be forced to move under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople,” says Philaret Denisenko, the “Honorary Patriarch of All Rus’-Ukraine” of the Ukrainian schismatic church. Although one of the conditions of granting the tomos of autocephaly by Constantinople to the so-called “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU) was that all KP parishes outside Ukraine would necessarily be transferred to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the KP cannot force its foreign dioceses to fulfill this obligation, Denisenko said in a recent interview with Glavkom. Specifically asked about the KP dioceses in Russia, Philaret responded: ““Yes, there is such a requirement. But they themselves do not want to transfer to Constantinople. This is a requirement not only for those bishops in Russia, but also for those in Canada, the USA, Latin America, and Europe. But they don’t want to go to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. And no one can be forcibly separated from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.” OrthoChristian previously reported on four parishes abroad that were refusing to switch to Constantinople. The extent to which foreign parishes are taking a stand against changing their jurisdiction is unclear. “Metropolitan” Epiphany Dumenko, the primate of the schismatic church, has declared that negotiations are already underway for transferring foreign parishes, while Philaret Denisenko seems to present the situation as if no parishes will make the move. This is but one of the many ways in which the schismatic church, and Philaret Denisenko in particular, has been defying Constantinople and violating tomos of autocephaly granted to it on January 6 in Istanbul. Notably, he continues to style himself as a patriarch, and the schismatic church continues to honor him as such, although Constantinople explicitly received him only as a metropolitan. Philaret has continually proclaimed that he was, is, and always will be a patriarch, and maintained in his new interview with Glavkom that as he is a patriarch, that means the KP still exists. Constantinople stipulated that the KP and the “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” had to dissolve themselves before merging into a new nationalist church on December 15. “There is no Kiev Patriarchate legally, but in reality there is, because there is a patriarch,” Denisenko said. The OCU’s status as a metropolitanate is only a transition to a patriarchate, he is sure. Conversely, Epiphany Dumenko has explicitly stated that the KP does not exist anymore. While the Holy Synod of Constantinople explicitly stated on October 11 that there should be no violent and forceful seizures of churches and monasteries, Philaret has stated that, on the contrary, there’s nothing unusual or wrong about the state participating in forcing parishes to transfer from the canonical to the schismatic church. And further, in the first part of his interview with Glavkom, Philaret stated his belief that the OCU needs to change its statutes and no longer use those written by the Holy Synod of Constantinople. He contends that the OCU has the right to amend its statutes as it wishes, though Constantinople has made it clear that all changes need to be coordinated with them. “The statutes do not satisfy me personally. Therefore we should hold a meeting at the next Local Council and adopt statutes of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—not the Kiev Metropolia within the Patriarchate of Constantinople, since we now use these statutes, these Greek statutes. As an autocephalous church, we must have our own Ukrainian statutes,” Philaret said, expressing confidence that Constantinople would not object to any changes, and that it had even told them they could change the statutes at will. However, the text of the tomos itself stipulates that the statutes must comply with the provision of the tomos, as a requirement for Constantinople to grant and bless the autocephaly of the OCU. http://orthochristian.com/120150.html?fbclid=IwAR1u_p9wM3NDJ0LU-GYisFn5Flgl6eSihXQXYrR5GWPKYUFoTjHFl7CVdXM

Two members of an art collective were detained for flinging holy water at the Moscow mausoleum containing Vladimir Lenin's corpse, in an apparent bid to resurrect the revolutionary leader. In video footage of the incident published by news site Grani.ru, artists Oleg Basov and Yevgeny Avilov can be seen emerging from a nearby church and approaching the mausoleum with two bottles of water labeled with crucifixes. Basov and Avilov, members of the art collective Blue Horseman, then managed to bypass a security gate before flinging holy water at the walls of the mausoleum while chanting “Arise and be gone!” Their performance, entitled “The Exorcist: Desecration of the Mausoleum” took place on Monday, when Orthodox Christians celebrated Epiphany — a religious holiday marking the baptism of Jesus. The two men were soon apprehended and taken to a nearby police station, where they were detained overnight, police monitoring site OVD-Info reported. Basov and Avilov now face charges of disorderly conduct, which is punishable by a fine of up to 2,500 rubles ($38) or 15 days in jail. Vladimir Lenin, whose embalmed corpse has been housed in the mausoleum since shortly after his death in 1924 barring a wartime evacuation, was one of the founding fathers of the Bolshevik party. He famously rejected religion as “opium for the masses.” https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2015/01/20/artists-detained-for-attempting-to-resurrect-lenin-with-holy-water-a43035

Commentary on the Ukrainian Issue for the Cypriot Holy Synod The Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus issued a very diplomatic statement on the Ukrainian issue yesterday, though it was not signed by every bishop on the Synod. Without directly placing any blame, the statement is hard on the Russian Church while not criticizing any of the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Nevertheless, the Cypriot Synod did not recognize the so-called “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” as a legitimate church and has not entered into Eucharistic communion with them. A translation of the Synodal statement is available on Orthodox Synaxis. After the Synod’s statement was released, a personal statement from His Eminence Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos was published on the Greek site Romfea, which speaks much more directly about the errors of the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s actions in Ukraine and the impossibility of having communion with the Ukrainian schismatics. From the moment that the question of the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church first arose, we have openly spoken in its favor. In communication with various people—both Church and secular—I have insisted that, in essence, the practice that a politically independent country has its own autocephalous Church prevails in Orthodoxy today. However, I had hoped that this—certainly desirable—autocephalous Orthodox Ukrainian Church would be established not in haste and in a rush, but gradually, with great attention and in agreement with Orthodox tradition, the sacred canons, and generally the totality of the Church-canonical law of our holy Orthodox Church. Unfortunately, the entire process of proclaiming and recognizing the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church did not proceed by the democratic Orthodox conciliar process; it was not democratic and conciliar sentiments and tendencies that triumphed in it, but, as sad as it is to admit, authoritarian and autocratic. Although His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople acknowledged and confirmed by his letter more than twenty years ago the deposition and excommunication of Metropolitan Philaret and his followers as schismatics from the Russian Orthodox Church and in general from the Body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; although three years ago, at the Synaxis of Primates in 2016, as His Beatitude Patriarch Kirill of Moscow reports in his open letter, the Patriarch of Constantinople promised that he wouldn’t do this, that he wouldn’t unilaterally grant autocephalous status to the Ukrainian Church and especially to schismatics—despite all of this, he completely without any reason began the process of granting autocephaly to the above-mentioned church. Moreover, what’s even sadder, after twenty years, and his own written agreement with the reprisals imposed on Philaret notwithstanding, he nevertheless restored the above-mentioned condemned person, contradicting himself and restoring those deposed and condemned by the Russian Orthodox Church. In my humble opinion, this action is anti-canonical from the point of view of the sacred canons, which say that any reproach, deposition, and excommunication can be removed only by that body which imposed it and only under the condition of the repentance of those condemned. Therefore, only the Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate had the right to restore Philaret and the canonical jurisdiction to return him to the bosom of the Orthodox Church. The biggest mistake made by the Ecumenical Patriarch, from my humble point of view, is the contemptuous disregard for Metropolitan Onuphry, the Metropolitan of the only Ukrainian Orthodox Church having general canonical recognition, and also the recognition, instead of him, of Epiphany, having no canonical ordination, as Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine, and also the handing of a tomos of autocephaly to him while concelebrating with him. Most blessed and most holy brothers! I can draw only one conclusion. Sadly enough, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew’s granting of autocephalous status to the schismatic community of Philaret and Epiphany not only did not heal the existing schism in Ukraine, but on the contrary, aggravated it. Now, after the granting of the tomos, we see a tragic reality: In Ukraine there exists a canonical Church under Metropolitan Onuphry and a schismatic community under the leadership of the defrocked Philaret and Epiphany. Obviously, there is a danger that after three years of military confrontation, the Ukrainian people will now be divided by a religious confrontation. Even greater is another danger: The unhealed Ukrainian schism could affect, as many have already said, the entire Body of universal Orthodoxy, with which, alas, it proved to be connected. Thus, I believe that we, the Holy Synod of the Cypriot Church, cannot recognize the schismatic Epiphany, having no canonical ordination, as the canonical Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine. It is even more unacceptable for us to have Eucharistic communion with unordained schismatics. Thus, my humble proposals are as follows: 1. Our Holy Synod should not side with either the Moscow Patriarch or the Ecumenical, so as not to damage the mediation efforts of the Church of Cyprus to achieve a canonical solution to the problem. I also express the fear that the worst would happen—that the Slavic Churches would side with the Moscow Patriarchate and the Greeks with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. That would make it a long-lasting schism (to the great joy of the enemies of universal Orthodox). 2. Our Holy Synod should support the proposal of His Beatitude Patriarch John of Antioch to soon convene a pan-Orthodox council or (if it is difficult or even impossible) a Synaxis of the primates, where the Ukrainian issue can be discussed and a canonical resolution will be found in agreement with the sacred canons and Tradition of the Orthodox Church. 3. I believe that the Cypriot Church, having received autocephaly at the Third Ecumenical Council, endowed with authority and crowned with the light of the Eastern Church, can and should play a decisive mediating role in the implementation of the above proposals and the resolution of the problem situation. Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos http://orthochristian.com/119457.html?fbclid=IwAR01srUrO_mYlxyApF8BE8GDgiFookEt0f9r488epHAVAi3RwOtQf1HS2Ag

Ghanaian preacher Daniel Obinim has been filmed performing a ritual where he moves around a room full of men, grabbing them each by the crotch. In some cases, he will keep hold of their penises and give them a little shake. Graciously, he also offers to massage women’s breasts in order to enlarge them too. In a scene broadcast on his own channel, Obinim TV, the bishop says: ‘If you do not like the looks of any part of your body, come to me. ‘What do you want that I can’t offer? If you want big buttocks I can do it for you. If you want big breasts, I can help. If you have a small manhood, I can change them all when I come to the spiritual realm.’ Bishop Obinim, who founded the International God’s Way Church in the Ashanti region of Ghana, has been criticised for his controversial practices before. In August he was filmed whipping teenagers while accusing them of being sexually promiscuous. He is now facing charges over the incident. <iframe src="https://metro.co.uk/video/embed/1370991" title="Metro Embed Video Player" width="540" height="353" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/12/bishop-claims-to-make-mens-penises-larger-by-massaging-them-with-his-hands/?fbclid=IwAR2Rh6__S7H_UbTwRfqAX8XrdlVo9eba9IocD4q59TOv-DG1FunsBxbRaSc

The Church also calls for a pan-Orthodox gathering to address the Ukrainian issue. Warsaw, November 16, 2018 The official site of the Polish Orthodox Church has published its Council of Bishops’ communiqué from its Wednesday session, confirming earlier reports that they refused to recognize Constantinople’s rehabilitation of the two groups of Ukrainian schismatics. “The Holy Bishops’ Council forbids the priests of the Polish Orthodox Church from having liturgical and prayerful contact with the ‘clergy’ of the so-called Kiev Patriarchate and the so-called ‘Autocephalous Orthodox Church,’ which have committed much evil in the past,” the statement reads. According to the Polish hierarchs, persons deprived of episcopal and clerical ordination cannot be leaders in establishing peace in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. “Only the observance of the dogmatic and canonical norms of the Church and the preservation of the centuries-old tradition will protect Orthodoxy from severe ecclesiastical consequences on an international scale. The Polish Orthodox Church prays fervently for the unity of the holy Orthodox Church and for peace for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,” the message further reads. The portions of the communiqué concerning Ukraine read in full: I. The holy Council of Bishops has received disturbing news from Church life in Ukraine, which often affects the life of Orthodoxy in Poland. Considering the above, as well as the general Orthodox concern of the Orthodox Local Churches resulting from the instability of Church life in Ukraine, which has a devastating impact on the whole life of the Church in Orthodoxy in general, the holy Bishops’ Council, in the interest of the good of the holy Orthodox Church, upholds the position expressed in the Council’s resolution of May 9, 2018, No. 340, and reiterates its call to make a decision to gather all the primates of the Orthodox Churches together in the spirit of evangelical love, humility, and understanding, while maintaining dogmatic and canonical doctrine, with mutual respect leading to a peaceful solution to the issue of divided Orthodoxy on Ukrainian soil. Persons deprived of episcopal ordinations and priests cannot be leaders in introducing peace in the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Their actions cause even more confusion and scandal. Only the observance of the dogmatic and canonical norms of the Church and the preservation of the centuries-old tradition will protect Orthodoxy from severe ecclesiastical consequences on an international scale. The Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church prays fervently for the unity of the holy Orthodox Church and for peace for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church II. The Holy Bishops’ Council forbids the priests of the Polish Orthodox Church from having liturgical and prayerful contact with the ‘clergy’ of the so-called Kiev Patriarchate and the so-called ‘Autocephalous Orthodox Church,’ who have committed much evil in the past. The Council of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church also recently refused to accept the rehabilitation of the Ukrainian schismatics. In calling for dialogue between the various Orthodox Churches, the Polish Church echoes the call of not only the Russian Church, but also of the Romanian, Antiochian, Georgian, and Orthodox Church in America Holy Synods. The same call has also been made by the primates of the Serbian, Antiochian, Czech and Slovak Churches, and the Finnish Church, which is an autonomous body within the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and also by a joint Antiochian-Serbian statement. Met. Sawa himself made the same call last month. http://orthochristian.com/117295.html?fbclid=IwAR1gsCinoQLTfaJ-OkbCVz_MPRMKH2mL3QDEs9CK_bNZDuiYEZbH8c8__M4

Donald Trump claims Russia has violated the terms of the 1987 treaty President Donald Trump has said the US will pull out of a nuclear treaty with Russia because Moscow has violated the agreement. The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty helps protect the security of the US and its allies in Europe and the Far East. It prohibits the US and Russia from possessing, producing or test-firing a ground-launched cruise missile with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles. Mr Trump made the announcement during a campaign stop in Elko, Nevada, on Saturday. He said: "Russia has not adhered to the agreement. So we are going to terminate the agreement. https://news.sky.com/story/trump-confirms-us-to-pull-out-of-nuclear-treaty-with-russia-11531257

Timisoara , May. 27, 2008 (CWNews.com) – A Romanian Orthodox bishop has shared Communion with Catholics, causing a sensation in a country where Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox have a history of tense relations. At the consecration of the Queen of Peace parish church in Timisoara on May 25, Orthodox Metropolitan Nicolae Corneanu of Banat asked to share Communion. The Orthodox metropolitan approached the altar and received the Eucharist from his own hand. Romanian Catholic Bishop Alexandru Mesian of Lugoj was the celebrant of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Catholic church; Archbishop Francisco-Javier Lozano, the apostolic nuncio to Romania, was also present. Although Orthodox and Catholic bishops often join in ecumenical services, and occasionally participate in each other’s liturgical ceremonies, they do not share Communion– an indication of the breach in ecclesial communion between the Orthodox churches and the Holy See. In Romania, tensions between the Orthodox Church and the Eastern-rite Romanian Catholic Church have been pronounced, adding to the surprise created by Metropolitan Corneanu’s action. With some Orthodox believers outraged by the metropolitan’s sharing Communion with Catholic bishops, the Orthodox Patriarchate of Romania issued a statement saying that at the next meeting of the Orthodox synod, in July, Metropolitan Corneanu “may be asked to give an appropriate explanation” for his action. The statement from the Orthodox patriarchate went on to say that ecumenical relations with the Catholic Church, “already quite fragile, cannot be helped, but are rather complicated,” by sharing in Communion. Metropolitan Corneanu– who was one of the first Orthodox bishops to admit that he had cooperated with the secret police under the Communist regime– has a record of friendship with Romanian Catholics. He was among the few Orthodox leaders prepared to return church properties that had been seized by the Communist government from Catholic ownership in 1948 and handed over to Orthodox control. http://patriot.rs/romanian-bishop-communes-with-roman-catholics/

atWith A Bang, CONTRIBUTOR GROUPEthanSiegel, CONTRIBUTORNov 1, 201710:093 National Fusion Research Institute, Korea The plasma in the center of this fusion reactor is so hot it [+] The United States spends more on military spending than the next ten nations combined: an estimated $600 billion annually. Meanwhile, the entire budgets of NASA and the National Science Foundation, combined, is only ~$25 billion, or about 4% of our military budget. Many astronomers, astrophysicists, engineers, and scientists of all persuasions dream of the benefits that mild increases to their budgets could bring, but these are tiny, incremental dreams. What if we truly reached for the stars? What if we dreamed of a day where we invested in peaceful research for the betterment of humanity as much as we invested in war, defense, and the military? If our space and science budgets went up to $600 billion, either in lieu of or in addition to whatever we spent on the military, what we could accomplish would be tremendous. Here are five possibilities of what we could do with just a single year’s worth of military-level spending. PPPL management, Princeton University, the Department of Energy, from the FIRE project A fusion device based on magnetically confined plasma. Hot [+] 1.) The ultimate energy breakthrough: a net-energy-producing nuclear fusion reactor. While there are multiple different methods we have for achieving nuclear fusion, the most promising avenue is through magnetic confinement. An international consortium, known as ITER, was begun as far back as the Reagan-Gorbachev era, and construction is finally set to be complete in 2019, after a total investment of around €20 billion. After that, it will take another decade to get the plasma running successfully, and then in the 2030s, it can push past the breakeven point, fusing deuterium and tritium together. Yet in many ways, the only thing preventing fusion power from permeating through our world today is this up-front investment with an incredible long-term payoff. For the cost of the military’s budget for just a single year, we could not only achieve nuclear fusion, we could learn to scale it and revolutionize how we deal with power and energy on Earth. It’s the ultimate holy grail for energy, and the greatest barrier to its success isn’t physics, but a lack of investment. NASA/Viking 1 Mars, along with its thin atmosphere, as photographed from [+] 2.) At least four separate human colonies on Mars. Humans on Mars? The only thing stopping us is funding, and this has been true since the 1990s. With a sustained investment of between $50 and $150 billion total over 10 years, we could land a slew of equipment on the Martian surface, then a crew of human beings, who would stay for anywhere from 6 to 18 months before returning home. Even at the maximum end of that, we could set up four separate, independent colonies on another planet for the cost of just one year of US military spending. The only reason we haven’t done so already is funding. Wikimedia Commons user Lucas Braun Two workers installing a tilt-up photovoltaic array on a [+] 3.) A 2,000 Watt solar power system for every US household. There are lots of revolutionary technologies that are being outfitted with solar power, from transparent windows to shingles to siding. But the cheapest, most efficient solar technology is still the solar panel. Systems that generate approximately 2,000 Watts are now under $5000, and provide an estimated 175-375 kWh per month. With around 125 million households in the United States, a $600 billion budget could provide one of these systems for every household in the country, where the average American uses 920 kWh per month. It wouldn’t solve our energy needs, but it would significantly reduce the burden on our electric grid and cut our fossil fuel consumption dramatically. And it would take effect immediately, or at least as quickly as we could produce that many solar panels. ILC collaboration A hypothetical new accelerator, either a long linear one or [+] 4.) A country-sized particle accelerator 40 times as powerful as the LHC. So, you thought the LHC was fun? It’s achieved proton-proton collisions at 14 TeV of energy in a 27-kilometer-long tunnel, underground, and it’s done so for a total cost of around $10 billion. What could we build for sixty times that amount? Believe it or not, there are only two free parameters that determine how high-in-energy your circular accelerator can make protons go: the strength of the electromagnets used to steer them and the circumference of your ring. For $600 billion, we could build a tunnel approximately 1000 kilometers around, and achieve proton-on-proton collisions of over 500 TeV. If our electromagnet technology continues to improve, we might finally crack the PeV (where 1 PeV = 1,000 TeV) frontier. The next step up from a ring this large would be a “Fermitron,” first envisioned by Enrico Fermi, of a particle accelerator the circumference of the entire Earth. If the LHC turns up anything new beyond the Higgs boson, there will be a strong science case for investigating the next level in the energy frontier. G. Snyder, STScI /M. Postman, STScI A simulated view of the same part of the sky, with the same [+] 5.) A “super-Hubble” over 100 times as powerful as today’s. The Hubble Space Telescope was a revolutionary observatory, and in many ways is still the top dog in the field of astronomy and astrophysics. But at just 2.4 meters in diameter, it’s already reached its maximum resolution. In fact, to see objects ten times as faint, it needs to observe them for 100 times as long! But if we built a space telescope ten times the diameter, at 24 meters, it would not only have ten times the resolution, but would see in just 2 hours what it takes Hubble over a week to see. The James Webb Space Telescope, with its segmented design, sunshield, and automated, robotic technology can serve as a proof-of-concept of a mission like this, but the limiting factor is funding. To get the size, image quality, and launch-and-servicing capabilities necessary to make a behemoth like this possible would require a massive investment. For $600 billion, we might be able to get all the way up to a diameter of between 30-and-40 meters, but “100 times as powerful as Hubble” is a very conservative estimate. That, and the technologies we’d develop would be as revolutionary for humanity as anything that came out of the Apollo program. Mars One (rendering) An illustration of what a human colony on Mars might look [+] Of course, for much, much less than $600 billion, we could make extraordinary contributions towards every single one of these at once. ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, is still under construction, with an estimated total cost of $40 billion for all of its total expenses during its lifetime, which should extend into the 2030s. A single crewed mission to the Martian surface, round-trip, could be responsibly done for as little as $50 billion, including massive infrastructure development of the Martian surface. 2 kW rooftop solar installations are commercially available for under $5000 apiece, and could cut an average electricity bill by 25% each and every month it’s in operation. “Smaller” supercolliders are cost-estimated in the range of $20-40 billion, and would achieve energy levels many times greater than the LHC. And LUVOIR, the most ambitious space telescope proposal with 40 times the light-gathering power of Hubble, would likely fall in the ~$15 billion range. NASA / LUVOIR concept team; Serge Brunier (background) The concept design of the LUVOIR space telescope would place [+] The costs of achieving our scientific dreams is, indeed, astronomically high, but the payoffs are even greater. In just a single generation, an investment of this scale in science and technology could transform our world in a way we’ve never seen before. Just a single year’s worth of the military budget — a whopping $600 billion — could more than double our investment in space and basic scientific research for the next 25 years. It would do more than make America great again. It would make the world great in a way that nothing else can; in a way humanity has never seen before. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/01/5-incredible-advances-science-could-buy-with-the-governments-600b-military-budget/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx_HZuGlQUo

Za Juanita, evo jednog teksta u kojem Soroš govori na Cato seminaru, kritikuje on tu i tržište, tržišni fundamentalizam, teoriju racionalnih očekivanja, Hajeka, Popera, objašnjava zašto finansijska tržišta trebaju biti regulisana, kritikuje i državu, govori o svojoj teoriji itd. I koliko se god ja ne slagao sa njim, koliko god on lupao o Hajeku jer ga nije dovoljno čitao posebno Poredak slobode i kasnije knjige, on meni djeluje bliže klasičnim liberalima nego neki libertarijanci Meni je čak i prihvatljiviji jer se bori i protiv raznoraznih političkih rasista, totalitarizma itd. Naravno da i on koristi sve i svašta kako bi uticao na političke izbore, potplacuje itd. By GEORGE SOROS 04/28/11 03:00 PM EDT Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Friedrich Hayek is generally regarded as the apostle of a brand of economics which holds that the market will assure the optimal allocation of resources — as long as the government doesn’t interfere. It is a formalized and mathematical theory, whose two main pillars are the efficient market hypothesis and the theory of rational expectations. This is usually called the Chicago School, and it dominates the teaching of economics in the United States. I call it market fundamentalism. I have an alternative interpretation — diametrically opposed to the efficient market hypothesis and rational expectations. It is built on the twin pillars of fallibility and reflexivity. I firmly believe these principles are in accordance with Hayek’s ideas. But we can’t both be right. If I am right, market fundamentalism is wrong. That means I must be able to show some inconsistency in Hayek’s ideas, which is what I propose to do. Let’s start with Hayek’s influence on the twin pillars of my interpretation. I was a student at the London School of Economics in the late 1940s and read the great methodological controversy between Karl Popper and Hayek in Economica, the school’s periodical. I considered myself a disciple of Popper. But here I was on Hayek’s side. He inveighed against what he called “scientism” — meaning the slavish imitation of Newtonian physics. Popper took the opposite position. He argued in favor of what he called the doctrine of the unity of science — that the same methods and criteria apply to all scientific disciplines. I was drawn to this controversy by my interest in Popper. I had read his book, “Open Society and its Enemies,” in which he argued that the inconvertible truth is beyond the reach of the human intellect, and ideologies that claim to hold this truth are bound to be false. Therefore, he argued, they can be imposed on society only by repressive methods. This helped me see the similarity between the Nazi and communist regimes. Having lived through both in Hungary, it made a great impression. This led me to Popper’s theory of scientific method. Popper claimed that scientific theories can never be verified — they can only be falsified. So their validity is provisional — they must forever remain open to falsification by testing. This avoids all the problems of needing to prove scientific theories beyond any doubt and establishes the importance of testing. Only theories that can be falsified qualify as scientific. While I was admiring the elegance of Popper’s theory, I was also studying elementary economics. I was struck by a contradiction between the theory of perfect competition, which postulated perfect knowledge, with Popper’s theory, which asserted that perfect knowledge was unattainable. The contradiction could be resolved by recognizing that economic theory cannot meet the standards of Newtonian physics. That is why I sided with Hayek — who warned against the slavish imitation of natural science and took issue with Popper — who asserted the doctrine of unity of method. Hayek argued that economic agents base their decisions on their interpretation of reality, not on reality — and the two are never the same. That is what I call fallibility. Hayek also recognized that decisions based on an imperfect understanding of reality are bound to have unintended consequences. But Hayek and I drew diametrically opposed inferences from this insight. Hayek used it to extol the virtues of the invisible hand of the marketplace, which was the unintended consequence of economic agents pursuing their self-interest. I used it to demonstrate the inherent instability of financial markets. In my theory of reflexivity I assert that the thinking of economic agents serves two functions. On the one hand, they try to understand reality; that is the cognitive function. On the other, they try to make an impact on the situation. That is the participating, or manipulative, function. The two functions connect reality and the participants’ perception of reality in opposite directions. As long as the two functions work independently of each other they produce determinate results. When they operate simultaneously they interfere with each other. That is the case not only in the financial markets but also in many other social situations. I call the interference reflexivity. Reflexivity introduces an element of unquantifiable uncertainty into both the participants’ understanding and the actual course of events. This two-way connection works as a feedback loop. The feedback is either positive or negative. Positive feedback reinforces both the prevailing trend and the prevailing bias — and leads to a mispricing of financial assets. Negative feedback corrects the bias. At one extreme lies equilibrium, at the other are the financial “bubbles.” These occur when the mispricing goes too far and becomes unsustainable — boom is then followed by bust. In the real world, positive and negative feedback are intermingled and the two extremes are rarely, if ever, reached. Thus the equilibrium postulated by the efficient market hypothesis turns out to be an extreme — with little relevance to reality. Frank Knight was the first to identify the unquantifiable uncertainty inherent in financial markets. John Maynard Keynes and his followers elaborated his insight. Classical economists, by contrast, sought to eliminate the uncertainty connected with reflexivity from their subject matter. Hayek was one of them. The methodological debate in Economica took place in the context of the larger political controversy over the role of the state in the economy. Hayek was on one side, Keynes and socialist planners on the other. But Hayek subordinated his methodological arguments to his political bias. That is the source of his inconsistency. In the Economica, he attacked scientism. But after World War II, when the communist threat became more acute, he overcame his methodological qualms and became the apostle of market fundamentalism — with only a mild rebuke for the excessive use of quantitative methods in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Because he was fighting communism, a scientific theory that proved that market participants pursuing their self-interest assure the optimum allocation of resources was too convenient for him to reject. But it was also too good to be true. There are some inconsistencies in the Chicago School brand of economics, the author writes. | AP Photo Why I agree with (some of) Hayek By GEORGE SOROS 04/28/11 03:00 PM EDT Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Human beings act on the basis of their imperfect understanding — and their decisions have unintended consequences. That makes human affairs less predictable than natural phenomenon. So Hayek was right in originally opposing scientism. At the time of the Economica articles, Popper was between Hayek and the socialist planners. He was just as opposed as Hayek to communism’s threat to individual liberty, but he advocated what he called piecemeal social engineering rather than laissez-faire. Here I sided with Popper. But Popper and Hayek were not that far apart. I was influenced by both — and I also found fault with both. By identifying Hayek’s inconsistency and political bias, I do not mean to demean him — but to improve our understanding of financial markets and other social phenomena. We are all biased in one way or another and, with the help of reflexivity, our misconceptions play a major role in shaping the course of history. Because perfection is unattainable, it makes all the difference how close we come to understanding reality. Recognizing that the efficient market hypothesis and the theory of rational expectations are both a dead end would be a major step forward. As in that earlier time, the political controversy on the role of the state in the economy is raging today. But the standards of political discourse have greatly deteriorated. The two sides used to engage in illuminating arguments; now they hardly talk. That is why I was so pleased to accept this invitation to the Cato Institute. As I see it, the two sides in the current dispute have each got hold of one half of the truth. which they proclaim to be the whole truth. It was the hard right that took the initiative by arguing that the government is the cause of all our difficulties; and the so-called left, in so far as it exists, has been forced to defend the need for regulating the private sector and providing government services. Though I am often painted as the representative of the far left — and I am certainly not free of political bias — I recognize that the other side is half right in claiming that the government is wasteful and inefficient and ought to function better. But I also continue to cling to the other half of the truth — namely that financial markets are inherently unstable and need to be regulated. Above all, I am profoundly worried that those who proclaim half truths as the whole truth, whether they are from the left or the right, are endangering our open society. Both Hayek and Popper, I believe, would share that concern. Those of us concerned with the protection of individual liberty ought to work together to restore the standards of political discourse that used to enable our democracy to function better. George Soros is the founder of the Open Society Foundations and author, of “The Crash of 2008 and What It Means: The New Paradigm for Financial Markets.” This is an excerpt of a speech Soros is giving at Cato Institute on Tuesday. The event is being livestreamed at www.cato.org beginning at 4 p.m. Tuesday, and will be available on the site after.