MAX: Dissecting Life and Society

The Paradox of Money Laundering

2012-01-24T13:00:00.000Z

The Money Lender and His Wife (detail) by Quentin Massys

Money Laundering: the process of taking the proceeds of criminal activity and making them seem legal.

By criminal activity authorities mean drugs & armaments trafficking; human, human organs and antiques trafficking; prostitution, illegal gaming, kidnapping, blackmail, robbery, fraud, embezzlement, extortion and (the hot topic of the first decade of the 21st century) terrorism.
Some add “tax evasion” to the list however many find it debatable.

The money laundering paranoia began when a group of illuminated regulators believed that the best way to fight crime is to hit criminals where it hurts them most: money. Then, perhaps, they’d eventually stop committing crimes. However, they haven’t stopped and money keeps being laundered.
Interesting how Men set themselves out to design regulations while overlooking several aspects of human nature (e.g.: human creativity for both good and bad).

Certainly crimes must be fought against and punished; but I am not sure if anti-money laundering laws are the best way to do it; specially when these laws sound more like a pretext to violate banking secrecy (meaning that one’s personal banking information could be subject to being shared at the request of authorities) even if/when one does not partake in criminal activity.

Authorities (in EU, for instance) have decided that one person cannot deposit more than €15,000 in a day (it’s considered money laundering); they have also decided how much a person should have at home (which is not only an absurd but also proof that lawmakers attempt to violate people’s liberties); they have decided that banks are the main source of money laundering and so they force these institutions to not only interrogate potential clients but mostly to rat on their customers – and what is more interesting is if customers decide to take all their money from the banking system (to either protect their privacy or protest against the whole financial system or even sabotage banking institutions) and keep it at home they would probably be committing a crime: money laundering (assuming that they have a comfortable account and/or savings account).
Financial institutions are not subsidiaries of security forces. They can’t nor should do police work, cause doing so will eventually backlash: money will stop flowing affecting, thus, economies around the world.

What happens when governments launder money? I mean, there are times when governments commit what is perceived as crimes (sale of weaponry to undesirable nations; sale of drugs; kidnapping, prostitution, extortion, blackmail etc) and then actually create front businesses, and invest in legit corporations, to make it all legal...so, what happens then? Nothing because it is considered a perpetrated evil for the greater good; meanwhile, the main shareholders of these governments (i.e. tax payers) become targets of a new entity of persecution: the Financial Inquisition.

Interestingly enough, the only activity that is not consensually accepted as money laundering is tax evasion; which, in my opinion, constitutes the biggest financial crime of them all.

Money laundering is a global business of between $590Bn and $1.5Tn: do you think that linear regulations will make it go away?

"Ethiopian Immigrants should be Grateful" She Said...

2012-01-17T13:00:00.000Z

Israeli Flag (edited version of This one)

For those who think that women in power would make this world a better place: Sofa Landver has just proved you wrong.

Sofa Landver is a Minister of Immigrant Absorption. This position implies doing the utmost for the integration of Jewish Immigrants in Israel. But apparently, Minister Landver’s utmost effort to integrate immigrants (olim) is done according to the immigrants’ amount of skin melanin.

Kiryat Malakhi’s housing committees do not consider Ethiopian Jews worthy of buying their homes (even though they can afford them). Of course, this generated outrage among the Beta-Israel community (and decent Israelis in general) and so they protested against this obvious act of racism. And what was the Absorption Minister’s response to the protests? “Ethiopian Immigrants should be grateful [for what they have received from Israel]”. Israel is the one that should be thankful to Ethiopian Jews and not the other way around. Must we remind Minister Landver the Purpose behind Operation Moses, Operation Joshua and Operation Solomon? When these rescue operations occurred, Ms Landver was old enough to make a proper use of her grey cells.

Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) are mostly descendants of the House of Judah and there may very well be descendants of the House of Menelik (the son of King Solomon and Queen Sheba) somewhere among them and, I can only imagine what these might be thinking right now.

Does it make sense at all for certain Jews to be racist? Given the Jewish history of persecutions throughout the ages and genocide; no, it doesn’t. Racism in the heart of Israel is unacceptable, shameful, hypocritical, immoral and, mostly, amoral.

Before moving on, I have one question: did Hitler spare the blue-eyed-blond Jews in Germany and Eastern Europe?
Make no mistake: when evil comes after the Jewish People it doesn’t discriminate and, it is only then when certain Jewish fools realise that, regardless the colour of the skin, the Chosen People is all the same.

Sofa Landver is a Russian-born and raised Jew and a member of the Yisrael Beiteinu; a hard line political party representing Soviet immigrants. Given this fact, it is easy to grasp the reaction of this fascist minister; but what I don’t quite understand is why PM Netanyahu keeps giving space to the Far Right to sabotage his tenure.
Coalitions are to be respected, no doubt about that; however when these put in peril a re-election...

Racist Jews insist upon trying to show the idiots around the world (who say there is apartheid in Israel) that they are right. They also insist on giving prominent figures, like Desmond Tutu, material to side with the Palestinians – regardless of their terrorist acts.
This sort of Israelis is a liability to the Jewish State; and a menace to the security of the Jewish Diaspora.

In summa: racists have no place in Israel and reckless politicians can cost her future.

“Sofa Landver should be sacked” She Said...

Lusitanian Mélange

2012-01-10T13:00:00.000Z

Portuguese Flag

Portugal, a country with circa de 5 million emigrants, is suddenly adverse to emigration. Ok, not Portugal per se but the Portuguese Left Wing...
Presently, the Lusitanian territory has tens of thousands of unemployed teachers (I’d provide the exact number, however the site of the Teachers’ Union doesn’t offer a specific figure). Every year, countries like Switzerland, Brazil, Timor and Mozambique (to name a few) ask Portugal for teachers, but most of the teachers simply refuse to emigrate.
Passos Coelho, the Lusitanian Premier, last month explained that there will be an increase in unemployment in the Education sector (since more schools are being closed, as a result of the decrease in birth rates) and, as such he suggested that unemployed teachers should seek a job abroad, with emphasis in Portuguese-Speaking countries. Hysterically, the Left Wing reacted accusing Passos Coelho of not offering hope to the Portuguese teachers – again, does hope pay bills? No, but working abroad might. Plus, the Left is failing to see the strategy behind this suggestion.

I recently read an article that calculated a 10.8% unemployment rate for 2011; however the INE (National Statistics Institute, in Portugal) calculated the 2011 unemployment rate at 12,4%, because it used a new methodology in its calculation (e.g.: the change in the questionnaire). The new methodology suggests two things: 1- the numbers calculated under the old methodology, that set the markets & governments on fire, didn’t represent reality but sheer manipulation; 2- the figures reached by the new methodology, that make us all squirm in our sits, do not represent reality but manipulation, once again...

Last week, I saw the Left Wing standing up for the people for the first time ever.
Context: Portugal doesn’t have analogue TV any longer. As of the 1st of January, DTV (digital television) was introduced; meaning that if a household doesn’t have cable TV, it must acquire a DTV decoder if it wants to continue watching television. The DTV campaign, in Portugal, says “If you don’t have DTV, in January; you won’t see TV at all!” So far, the Operation DTV is a complete disaster since people who have already adhered to it are having a hard time watching the telly.
The Left asked the government (and it was fair enough to recall the Socialist Party its role in this mess, when it governed the country) about the cost involved in acquiring DTV (flat TVs, connection compatibility and such). Now, if a household earns less than €500 (+/- $635) the DTV kit will be subsidised, costing only €40 (+/- $50) – still a lot of money; households earning more than €500 will have to pay €77 (+/- $97) – if they have 2 kids, €77 is a huge amount of money. So, I congratulate the Left for a positive opposition work.

Finally, I’d like to suggest Portugal to open itself more to the world. It is an embarrassment not to have the option to read Portuguese sites (or even literature) in other languages – what is Portugal concealing, or what is it afraid of? Governmental web-pages should be translated into other languages (mainly in English) for purposes of National Interest (cultural dissemination, investment, tourism etc). The world wants to know Portugal in its entirety (not Sintra and Algarve only).
For example, I wanted to share with my readers the links containing some of the data discussed here, but I couldn’t because they are written in Portuguese only...

Portugal: wake up and smell the damn coffee, we’re in the 21st century!

New Year, New Life?

2012-01-03T13:00:00.000Z

Still-Life with glass, butter and cake by Van Schooten

Happy New Year!
This simple wish implies the hope for a new life, or at least a different approach to it; however 2012 has already started off in a way that promises more of the same...

Political Speeches
I watched New Year speeches by 3 different political leaders:
President Obama: a proper New Year’s Message. It was positive, it reminded Americans about their role in American politics and that they are the true vehicles of change.
President Cavaco Silva: overall, a depressing New Year’s Speech. The Portuguese president repeated a lot the words “sacrifice”, “difficulties”, “crisis” rendering the speech heavy, gloomy and thus ineffective. He also spoke of hope, but frankly hope doesn’t pay bills. Nevertheless, there were two excellent moments in his speech when he reminded the Portuguese that they too were responsible for this crisis and that no Portuguese is discharged from the combat for the future of the nation.
President Sarkozy: overall, another depressing New Year’s Address, on Dieu! He repeated a lot the word “crisis” (which is ineffective, he should sack his speech writer), he used the words “souffrance” (suffering) and hope...what is the matter with Latin-Europeans? However, I loved his assertiveness “neither the markets nor the agencies will decide French policies.”...vive la France!

Fareed Zakaria
It is not a secret that I watch GPS every Sunday. And this Sunday was no exception. This time, Fareed Zakaria didn’t dare offering us his forecast for 2012 so he invited a panel of 3 experts to do so: what a disappointment. The most interesting expert was the one who spoke the least; the least interesting expert (who avoided eye contact) was the one that spoke the most and the lady...giggled.
GPS has accustomed us to a certain level of excellence, but yesterday’s show seemed to vaticinate a boring year – same comments, same opinions, same good old analyses.

Portuguese Media
People just welcomed and embraced the New Year with joy and hope. The Portuguese Media, with a panicking tone, bombarded Portugal with the following tragic news: starting the 1st of January your electricity bills will increase by 4%! Going to restaurants will cost more due to the increase of VAT (now 23%)! Buying concentrated juices, sodas, pre-prepared meals, industrial cookies and cakes, pizzas etc will cost more due to the new 23% VAT (oh yes, what a tragedy to eat healthily – the ingredients to make, at home, most of the mentioned products are only subject to 6% VAT)!
Portugal and the media need to learn one thing: we are before an opportunity and not the end of the world. Just reinvent yourselves.

At least Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffin made me laugh to tears and that is the proper way to start a new year: humour, laughter, music, joy and relaxation.

New Year, New Life? Not quite. But I can tell you that in this blog it will be something like: “New Year, New Scalpel”.

The 2012 session of “Dissecting Life & Society” starts now!

2011 is Disappearing Below the Horizon: what a year!

2011-12-27T13:00:00.000Z

Sunset in Lisbon (borrowed from a relative)

Farewell 2011!

In January I dared presenting my forecast for the year and in February I foresaw that this year would “be a fiery blogging year!” and by Jove it was!

Politically speaking, we had a surprising year: Bin Laden was found and scythed from the face of the earth; Gilad Shalit came back home; tyrant leaders in Muslim nations were confronted with the wrath of the People; Gaddafi expired; the West no longer fears China (now it sees it for what it really is: an investment and investor); Syria entered the threshold of change; Palestine tried to circumvent agreements and basically failed (thus, teaching us all a great lesson: honour your agreements and when you’re the weakest link, be humble); Iran began to slide and it hints that Ahmadinejad’s days are numbered; India’s people showed their resolve in fighting corruption; Brazil’s economic bubble began to burst; South Africa’s President expelled a disenchanted member of his party (and a possible successor); Russia is breaking the Putin-Spell; President Sarkozy revealed the world his lack of class (by trying to insult a leader of a sovereign country) and the Eurozone realised that Europe desperately needs a “change we can believe in”...etc etc.

Unlike the media, I will not give emphasis to the “Occupy X” Movements because, generally speaking, I am suspicious of their real motives and agenda.

2011 witnessed some loving moments: the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge got married as did the Prince of Monaco & Her Serene Highness (perhaps too serene but with an excellent sense of style & fashion).
I’d mention that Kardashian girl, but I do not have much patience for people who marry for the sake of marrying and then divorce at the end of 72 days.

2011 saw Portugal sacking the socialists and electing a proper right wing government that managed to reduce our 9.1% deficit to 4%, in 6 months alone.
Many Portuguese are crying, as if they were professional mourners, because the government cut subsidies; it reduced unemployment benefits, it increased taxes; it increased working hours by 30 minutes (in the private sector); it removed 4 bank holidays (2 religious and 2 secular) off the calendar; it froze salaries (in the public sector) and, because it sold its share in EDP (Electricity of Portugal) to the Chinese who paid 50% more than its worth.
The whining Portuguese seem to have forgotten that the majority of the Lusitanian electorate sanctioned these austerity measures the day they elected the new government (since most of these measures were included in the Campaign Programme of the Social-Democrat Party).

It was a very interesting year indeed: the globe underwent a profound change (promising destruction of the old) that warns us about the advent of a new Era.

My dear friends and loyal readers, I would like to thank you for having read & spread my thoughts. I hope our friendship and interaction continues to grow in the coming year: it will be an honour to step into the new world order with you.

Happy 2012!

Hannukah Sameach & Merry Christmas!

2011-12-20T13:00:00.000Z

Hanukkah 2010 (borrowed from a relative)

To the Jewish communities all around the world: Chanukkah Sameach (Happy Hanukkah)!!

Tonight, begins the 25th of Kislev (under the Jewish calendar) and therefore commences the Festival of Lights. The Shehecheyanu will be sang, the first candle will be lit while a blessing is recited.
Hanukkah not only commemorates the re-dedication of the Second Temple, in Jerusalem, after it was defiled by the forces of Antiochus IV (who had profaned almost all of the temple's ritual oil), but it also celebrates the miracle of the oil.

The Miracle of Hanukkah
Of all the desecrated ritual oil, only one container remained sealed with enough oil to keep the menorah lit for a single day (since the Light must always burn in the Temple [Ner Tamid], as a symbol of God's Eternal Presence). However, Elohim made the oil burn for eight consecutive days (exactly the time needed to prepare new oil).

From the 25th of Kislev until the 2nd of Tevet, the duration of this festivity, it is pertinent to thank Hashem for all the miracles He performs before the Jewish People (and He does perform many - the existence and the thrive of the Jewish State, for example, is testament to that).

During the festive week, the Jewish people prepare fried dishes like Sufganiyot and Latkes. A Portuguese-Jewish family member also prepares Kosher Cacos, Rabanadas and Sonhos.

While eating sufganiyot, I repeat: Happy Chanukkah to you all!

Christmas Tree (borrowed from Here)

Merry Christmas!

This coming weekend, on the 25th of December, Christian communities celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ (the most loved and admired Jew in the world).
It is a time of Love and Peace (on earth and among the men of good will) celebrated with a lot of light and loads of candles, as well.

The Miracle of Christmas
Once upon a time, a virgin conceived immaculately and the Christian Messiah was born. He cast a Light upon a barbaric world and his Wisdom changed the mentality and behaviour of Men.
I wish Christians would focus more upon the spiritual significance of this holiday, but I know that it is hard for most of them to renounce the pressure of consumerism.

In Portugal, Christian (or like many call themselves: culturally christian) citizens eat several goodies during Christmas: see here. I can't help but to correlate Christmas' festive fried delicacies with Hanukkah's fried goodies because the Portuguese eat a lot of fried sweets during this time of year too - it's not surprising though, since 70% of the Portuguese have Jewish blood boiling in their veins.

While tasting filhoses I repeat: Merry Christmas to you and you!

Shariah Law: not necessarily anti-democratic

2011-12-13T13:00:00.000Z

Golden Mosque in Manila (in Top Ten Marvels)

Shariah, in Arabic, means “path”. It could be said that Shariah Law designs the moral and religious path for all Muslims, based on the Quran and on the Sunnah.

Muslim Brotherhood leads in Egypt. In Tunisia, Ennahda (an Islamist party) won the elections. Before such scenario the West renewed its fears: will these parties implement Shariah Law? How will this affect the diplomatic strategies and will the West be forced, once again, to negotiate with crazy rads?

Implementing the Islamic code, in Muslim nations, doesn’t necessarily imply an adhesion to Islamic fundamentalism nor does it have to be anti-democratic. Shariah is interpreted differently by modernists, reformers, traditionalists and fundamentalists; signifying that Muslim nations seeking to implement Democracy need to decide what kind of society they want for themselves and apply the Islamic code accordingly. Instead of trying to interfere with their internal affairs, we should only help them in the path to democracy.

Religious codes are not new or anti-democratic.
Western societies are extremely democratic and yet endeavour to follow the Noahide Code:

Prohibition of Idolatry
Prohibition of Murder
Prohibition of Theft
Prohibition of Sexual immorality
Prohibition of Blasphemy
Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
Establishment of law courts.

The Jewish State is an extremely democratic society and yet its Mishpat Ivri (the Jewish Law or jurisprudence) is based on Halakha (“the path” - the traditional Jewish Law which includes Biblical Law and Rabbinical Law). Mishpat Ivri refers to aspects in religious law considered relevant to “non-religious” and to “secular” Law, such as contracts, property rights, ownership, public law, international law, negligence, legal liability, copyright etc.

If our societies can reach a compromise between religious codes and laicism so can Muslim societies, once they set theocracy, authoritarianism and specially fundamentalism aside (this is, if they wish their nations to profit from sustainable human and economic development).

I thoroughly appreciate one aspect of Shariah: the salah (= connection). The idea that one stops 5 times/day to pray to (or connect with) God, thus bathing in the divine love & tolerance, promises a Muslim society able to connect with all of God’s creation…Muslim or not, religious or not.

We wish Tunisia and Egypt wisdom in concatenating Shariah, modern society and globalisation.

Miscellaneous Thoughts on Iran

2011-12-06T13:00:00.000Z

The Isle of Death by Arnold Böcklin

Iranian students attack the British Embassy in Tehran and a plethora of thoughts pace around my mind...

Watching foreign affairs analysts discussing Iran, on TV, can be rather fatiguing. First, they all say the same things; secondly, we can sense their disappointment before the American and Israeli military inaction. Watching foreign affairs analysts’ bloody fangs while debating Iran is like watching an even cheaper version of the Twilight Saga.

The US military presence in Iraq is coming to an end; and its presence in Afghanistan will soon end as well. The Arab Spring/Summer/Autumn (and nearly Winter) will eventually fade away as people topple dictators (one-by-one) or as intelligent political leaders make the reforms their people demand for.

So, what’s next on the foreign affairs institutions’ agenda? A conflict with Iran.

The most curious thing is that these institutions seem to be more than willing to give Iran what it wants the most: to see the West yielding to its provocation in order to weaken it even further (it may seem odd but by focusing on the wars, against Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, the West neglected its economy and went on a military spending spree that unfortunately weakened its economic power – BRICS took advantage of it and Iran rubbed its hands with a grin on its face).

The West should refrain itself from waging wars against whomsoever, before getting economically stronger. However, hard power is to be used against Iran, yes, but in a smart and cost-effective fashion.

And speaking of the Persian Nation: those who are attacking Embassies in Tehran...are they night students? I looked at them trashing the British Embassy and my immediate thought was “Ah, they work in the RevolutionaryGuard during the day to pay their college tuition”. I mean, the so-called students seem far too old to be simply labelled as “students”; besides it doesn’t make much sense that the very same Iranian students that practically gave birth to the “Arab Spring” would now protest to defend those they wish to topple...

It is always interesting to see Western journalists striving for an interview with President Ahmadinejad and, I would like to know why because he always says the same things, he hypocritically speaks of freedom and human rights, he always finds a way to be obnoxious, he always tries to offend Western Values and he always manages to bring Zionists into his monologue. What I am about to say may not seem correct, but it would be incorrect of me not to say it: I think Pres. Ahmadinejad smokes something before his interviews, and it is not tobacco.

What I admire in Ahmadinejad is his OCD: as a Mayor of Tehran he kept the city spotless and as a President he makes sure that the country is absolutely clean, lest he catches a disease when travelling around Persia. Good for him! It would be interesting if African leaders would follow Ahmadinejad’s example: be a dictator but keep things clean.

Persia could seek regional power in a more positive way, but instead it chooses to be powerful through the sponsorship of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Divide, disseminate evil and destroy to conquer...that’s the new Persian philosophy.

Comment: Strike Action

2011-11-29T13:00:00.000Z

Vanitas Still-Life by Edwart Collier

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I have your attention, please! I promise to be extremely brief...

The Portuguese civil servants were on strike last Thursday. Portugal is in an economic crisis and the unions decided that the best thing to do was to go on strike to protest against the government (which is doing its utmost to clean up the mess left by the Left)...really smart and productive.

It must be a true blessing to work for the government: you go to work, you produce (or not); you disrespect tax payers (basically, your true boss); you get paid at the end of the month; you get to complain all the time and you play havoc with the lives of those who pay your salary (i.e. tax payers) on the day someone decides you must go on strike...dreamy!
If I, as an independent political consultant, would ever dream of going on strike, whom would I take a strike action against? Let me think: maybe that special client of mine (to whom I service with valuable information) that owes me big time since January? I can’t imagine what sort of satisfaction he may retrieve from not paying his due, however I can picture him laughing his eyes out if I’d sit in front of his building holding a banner vociferating improprieties against him...nightmarish!

I understand that strike actions were born in the midst of the Industrial Revolution, a time when workers were exploited (including children and women [who didn’t have the right to vote yet had the right to be scandalously exploited]); I comprehend work stoppages are meant to exert pressure and demand for better conditions; I appreciate that strikes may help forcing governments to change their policies...I understand it well in times of prosperity.
I do not understand, however, how during an economic crisis (in many countries, provoked by the incompetence of socialist governments with the connivance of the People) national citizens reject setting aside partisanship and refuse to come together to make their nation rise from the ashes. I do not comprehend how a citizen can commit itself to further ruin its country. I do not appreciate when people go after leftist demagogy without questioning that nefarious practice and commit treacherous acts, such as senseless strikes when the country needs them the most.

Strikes today are no longer about workers’ rights.
Strikes today are sheer political instruments that sometimes border anti-patriotic acts.

Thank you, Ladies and Gents, for listening; you are a beautiful audience...

Blogging or Cultural Diplomacy?

2011-11-22T13:30:00.000Z

The Thames & the City of London from the Richmond House by Canaletto

Do you blog? Then you just might have a new job title: a Cultural Diplomat.

Milton C. Cummings defined Cultural Diplomacy as being “The exchange of ideas, information, values, systems, traditions, beliefs and other aspects of culture, with the intention of fostering mutual understanding”.

So far, only travellers, teachers and artists are considered cultural diplomats or informal ambassadors; however, if we think about Milton Cummings’ definition then bloggers must be included in the whole concept.

Blogging is an exchange of thoughts, information, values, culture, history, traditions, beliefs, emotions and so much more that it brings people (from all corners of the world) together.
Through blogging we understand that, regardless where they are, people are people who just want, and need, exactly the same things as we do: love, freedom, a job, healthcare, respect, dignity, self-determination, peace, happiness and a future.

The goal of Cultural Diplomacy is to yield long-term benefits (e.g. promoting national interests, building relationships and enhancing socio-cultural understanding) and blogs can do just that.
Does this imply that governments should start using bloggers as informal diplomats/ambassadors? If they don’t yet, they definitely should because blogs are an extremely effective means to promote mutual understanding.

Political parties, religious institutions, the media and other groups tend to shape societal opinions. In order to be successful, they must limit the horizons of people and thus the amount (and quality) of information they receive. However, the Blogosphere expands our horizons: it offers other perspectives of life, of people and of the world. It also complements our personal & travelling experience. It further transmits a sense of humanity, generosity and solidarity. And, finally, the blogosphere builds relationships that can reveal themselves to be vital to all sorts of national interest (e.g. the promotion of tourism, trade and foreign investment). And this is the beauty of the Blogosphere's potential.

It is said that the Patron Saint of Diplomacy is the Archangel Gabriel. Since he is the deliverer of the word of God, a born-communicator and an emissary, I’d say he is also the Patron Saint of Bloggers, when these work as ambassadors.

So, if you promote your nation’s history, gastronomy, art, philosophy and religion; if you promote politics, human & international relations thus, contributing to a peaceful existence through understanding...Are you just a blogger or are you a Cultural Ambassador?

Mary Madeleine: La Traviata or Jesus' Disciple?

2011-11-15T13:00:00.000Z

La Gioconda by Leonardo Da Vinci

Mary Magdalene is often portrayed as La Traviata (this rumour was addressed in The 3 Maries), because being so she becomes a symbol of redemption.
But some Nag Hammadi Scriptures seem to describe a much different Magdalena we have grown accustomed to: one of the most prominent disciples of Yeshua, who asked many informed questions and understood [perhaps the reason why Jesus, when resurrected, appeared before her first].

I could understand why Christian Institutions, before the discovery and study of such texts, would not make an effort to reform the New Testament: perhaps because it is more comfortable to leave it as it is, lest the Codices force drastic changes (both dogmatic and structural).
I like Apocryphal texts, because they offer us another perspective of the Religious Play and its Personages. For example, if we take a peek at a very interesting excerpt of the, ant-nibbled (indicated by the [...]), Gospel of Philip:

«As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.”»

What is the meaning of this text – which part is to be taken literally and which part deserves a deep exegesis? Did Jesus have an intimate relationship with Miriam Magdala and, if so, why is it so difficult to perceive Yeshua, a Jew (who followed the Torah, which clearly states that it is not good for a man to be alone), as an individual with human desires?

I am also enjoying the Gospel of Mary because it shows us that despite having had the honour to learn from Yeshua, some male apostles returned to the human vicious nature upon their Master’s demise:

«But Andrew answered and said (..) “I at least do not believe that the Saviour said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.”
Peter answered (..) “Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?”
Levi answered (..) “Peter you have always been hot tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Saviour made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Saviour knows her very well. That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Saviour said”.»

Apocryphal texts are like Mona Lisa: they look at us with a smirk in their face, as if mocking us for our inability to see beyond the apparent reality. They mock at our ability to swallow consensus truths. They smirk while telling us “Question everything; doubt everything; for doubts lead you to the Truth!”

And God Created Woman...

2011-11-08T13:00:00.001Z

Mrs. Mary Robinson by Thomas Gainsborough

“And the Lord God said: it’s not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18).

Women were created to help men, to be their balance; however since women’s emancipation the definition of “help” may have changed a bit (at least, in the mind of many women). So, how far are today’s men willing to go to get “female help”?

This past weekend, I heard a most disturbing episode (taken place in England): a man, secretly, administered steroids to his wife, for three months, so that she’d become ugly and fat enough to quit her job and finally stay at home to take care of their children.
I wonder how the whole affair may have played out...

Hypothesis I
He asked his wife to be a stay-at-home mum, because now he is earning well enough to provide a comfortable life to his family. She rejected this suggestion, outright, saying that she has a career to think of and, that soon she will be promoted. He reminded her of the children’s welfare and, the advantages of her staying at home to give them support etc; but she reiterated her career comes first and, plus, her salary will allow her to buy them all the things they want, need and dream of. He begged her to reconsider; she said “no!” He went to his local gym and while running on the treadmill, he plotted the future of the “career woman”...[*running*]...“You see, darling, I put my children (& myself) first!” he tells himself...three months later, his bearded, stout, wife is a “loving & caring” fulltime mum.

Hypothesis II
The husband is promoted, he earns big time now and, in his professional circle he is the only one whose wife isn’t a “Real Housewife” – this embarrasses him. Therefore, he gets home and conveys his promotion to his beloved. He stresses the fact that now that he has been promoted, they are in the “first league”, meaning that she no longer has to put up with her boss (that pain in the neck); that she can stay at home and do what she has always dreamed of: to take care of their children. She frowns and with vehemence says “NO!” She presents her arguments (valid ones: her mum stays with the kids, they are fine; she wants to be busy and accomplish something) but although he doesn’t agree with her, he smiles saying “You are right, love!”
At the gentleman’s club he shares his personal predicament with a colleague who suggests a radical plan: steroids to tame the shrewd.
Three months later the “Real Haired Housewife” is a fulltime mum.

And God created woman to help. But today, what does “help” mean exactly?

Comment: Pacifism

2011-11-01T13:00:00.000Z

The Sea of Ice by Caspar David Friedrich

Animals, in the wild, fight to mark territory, to prove strength and ability to protect; in summa, they fight for power. This is Animal Nature.

Humans, as part of the animal kingdom, display a similar demeanour; however that which distinguishes them from primordial animals is the intelligence and ability to build (and use) tools to use during those battles.
Aristotle said that a man who lives alone is either a god or a beast; meaning that humans were created to live in community. But living in community does not necessarily imply a 100% pacific co-habitation; for this goes against the nature of existence (on earth) and the principle of duality.

To know peace we must know war. To know war we must have the notion of peace. These two concepts cannot be learnt from history books; they can only be absorbed through experience (of any sort).

Knowing that war is part of the human condition, what are we to think of Pacifism?
Personally, I see pacifism as an ideal, one that can be as detrimental as the ideal of socialism, whose implementation can generate more conflict than peace.
Jimmy Carter is a person who speaks his mind (a feature I very much admire in any human being) however he is a pacifist. A fortnight ago I watched him on BBC, speaking about his achievements as a President – he stressed the fact that he sought to bring peace about in the whole world. After listening to him talking, I was under the impression that President Carter is/was blinded by his ideal: his dream of a 100% pacific world led him to make mistakes and trample upon the history and cultural identity of certain People. What was the result of his attempt to solve international disputes peacefully? Further resentment, tension, dissension, conflict and war.

Pacifists’ ideal blurs their reason. It’s easy to say, “I am against wars and guns!” and “Make love not war!” while at the same time waging sub-wars: bigotry, oppression, corruption, cancer, famine, idleness, addiction, loss of values and disrespect. These sub-categories of war can be annihilated; however wars intended to protect, to reaffirm power, conquer and mark territory will never cease to take place as long as there’s human beings on earth.

No one loves War, not even soldiers. Our Spirit comes from a peaceful place so the concept of Peace is engraved in our Soul; having said this, we try to bring a piece of peace to our virtual Paradise, however to do so humans many times have to resort to conflicts and battle.

Immanuel Kant, in “Perpetual Peace: a philosophical sketch” [1795], imagined a league of nations (the forefather of the UN) to control conflicts and promote peace between states; but looking at history we easily reach the conclusion that perpetual peace, on earth, is not possible and it is nothing but a philosophical sketch indeed...

Sanctity of Life & Desecration of Death

2011-10-25T13:00:00.000+01:00

The Cemetery Entrance by Caspar David Friedrich

What a week! Since last Tuesday, a lot has happened: a political promise has been fulfilled, the fulfilment of another political promise has been announced and a criminal authoritarian has been killed.

The Sanctity of Life
Gilad Shalit was released a week ago (on the 18th of October). PM Netanyahu had vowed to bring him home and he did. He put Gilad’s life in first place, period.
But what interests me the most, right now, is the symbolism behind the whole event: Gilad Shalit was released on a Tuesday – in Judaism, Tuesdays are auspicious days. Gilad was freed from captivity on the 18th – the number 18, in Judaism, is the numeric value of Chai (Life). And if we add October to the equation, the 10th month of the Solar calendar; we will have the number 10 that corresponds to the Wheel = moving forward, new beginnings, expansion, big break-through. Is it all a big “coincidence”?
In Judaism, Life is more valuable than gold, silver or even diamonds; simply because Life was created by El-Shaddai and therefore it is every Jew’s duty to respect, value and sanctify it.

President Obama announced, last week, that the US will withdraw all of its soldiers from Iraq until the end of the year.
Now, many theories have arisen to justify this decision: some say it is because the Iraqis, inspired by the Iranians, will not extend US soldiers’ immunity from prosecution; others say it is to save money the US so desperately needs; others utter the move is intended to draw liberal votes...I tend to think it is something more complex than that, however I’ll go in a different direction.
President Obama’s announcement can be viewed as a way of Life preservation. Violence is growing in Iraq and since this country seems to be associating itself with Iran, it would be most likely that violence would soon turn toward US soldiers; therefore it could be said the US is anticipating itself and preserving the Life of those who fight to keep the lives of not only US citizens, but of all citizens in the world, safe.

The Desecration of Death
Muammar Gaddafi is dead. I won’t pretend that I feel sorry for his demise, because I do not. However, I do not rejoice over it either.
Gaddafi was a murderous authoritarian who bitterly failed his people. The NTC claims to be different than the previous regime, but when the time came to prove their inclination for the rule of law, they failed by allowing their “soldiers” to execute Gaddafi on the same day they captured him. I did not enjoy witnessing them treating Gaddafi’s dead body with that amount of disrespect. By doing so, the NTC proved to have little respect for Life and even less for Death.

The Libyan utter disrespect for a dead body reminded me of the disrespect the Congolese showed for the dead body of Laurent Kabila (in 2001); the lack of respect the Angolans showed for the corpse of Jonas Savimbi (in 2002); and the disrespect the Muslims in the Middle East show when they use dead bodies for propaganda purposes.

God exhaled life into flesh and it became Man. God inhaled life from flesh and it became Soul. Thus, Life and Death are extremely sacred...

Occupy Wall Street, Rome, London...Occupy yourself!

2011-10-18T14:00:00.000+01:00

Distribution of white bread by Otto van Veen

Last weekend, the world witnessed a series of protests organised by the “Occupy X” Movement: Wall Street, Ottawa, Berlin, London, Madrid, Rome, Tokyo and so forth.
It is said that people participating in these protests are mad about social & financial injustice, about not having jobs or money.

Then Portugal had its version of the movement, “The Indignants” (to emulate the Spanish “Los Indignados”), organised by the Far-Left (in a poor attempt to regain the votes they lost in the legislatives and in Madeira [where it lost all representatives, in the elections, last week]). This version was so poor - in rhetoric - that international News Networks didn’t even mention the event.
Lisbon indignados hit the streets to shout “Sack Passos Coelhos [the Portuguese PM elected last June]!!” and “No more austerity measures!” plus “You are condemning us to poverty!”...The indignants did not go to the streets to demand, from the government, details on how exactly the previous socialist government caused a €3,4Bn budget deviation right under the MPs’ nose. The participants of “Occupy Lisbon” did not demand to know how the previous government could have spent 70% of the 2011 debt ceiling by June, of the current year. No, the so-called indignants were too occupied protecting their iPhone, flat TV, Levi’s, Nikes, clubbing and marijuana purchase power – that is the only explanation to the amount of irrationality, and lack of political wit, I witnessed this past weekend.

Berlin occupiers said, “Capitalism is a Religion”. And they were so mad about capitalism and social injustice that they danced the occupation away.
London occupiers are also mad about everything that is going on and they decided to clash with the police in order to express their discontentment toward the establishment.
Rome occupiers were peacefully expressing their worries about the economic and social crisis when leftist thugs hijacked their movement to disturb peace and spread destruction.
Wall Street occupation is a protest against capitalism disguised as social preoccupation, but I think if it were intended to express a sincere social-political discontentment, they’d all march to, and occupy, Washington. Ottawa occupiers claim to be in solidarity to the “Occupy Wall Street” movement (read: emulate the Americans)...

I acknowledge the democratic right to peaceful protests, specially when politicians are not serving the People. However, what we have been seeing lately is not a war against politicians and their bad service; it is certainly not a demand for jobs; it is rather a war against banks, corporations and rich people.

I have a question: are there really no jobs or people are not willing to do just any job? I ask this because in Portugal there are several industries that see themselves forced to “import” workers because the Portuguese do not want to fill those positions. I can imagine the same happening in other countries.
Another question: are these people really angry at capitalism or are they furious because deep down they’ve realised that re-distribution of national wealth doesn’t work?

Occupy Movements say “It's time to put people before profits & communities before corporations.” then why don’t they all occupy themselves by volunteering?
They must prove they put people and communities first. Lead by example.

Brazil: Quo Vadis?

2011-10-11T12:30:00.000+01:00

Brazil is a wonderful country: rich in culture and art; adorned by a happy, generous, people and submerged in positive vibes. The way Brazilians speak Portuguese is sweet, mellow, with an accent that assures us tomorrow will be a better day.

This nation has marvelled the world with its economic success (which was paved by the Plano Real, created in 1989 by centre-right Minister of Finance, Fernando Henrique Cardoso), with its ability to reduce the huge gap between rich and poor and to stand out in the international community.
Yet, Brazil chose to tread in perilous political grounds.

Brazil’s President, Dilma Rousseff, assumed office early this year. She fought against the military dictatorship, she fought for democracy; she was arrested, allegedly tortured for 22 days, and survived – all in the name of Freedom.
Yet, her government legitimises terrorist & oppressive groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah; her government refused to impose sanctions on Syria (whose leader is a dictator that so far has murdered 2,900 people fighting for democracy) and her government’s buddy is Iran (whose authoritarian leadership oppresses, imprisons, tortures and rapes members of the opposition). President Dilma Rousseff speaks of democracy and equality but then her government engages in orgies with the Red Dragons (a honourable animal that insists on refusing freedom of speech & equality to his cute offspring).
Brazil is spitting on other People’s freedom and, indirectly, it arrests and tortures the opposition of its political friends (to protect, what it believes to be, Brazilian interests).

“There is an intrinsic loss, for the country, whenever the experience of a youth (that dived into the fight for democracy and into combat to build a better country [...]) is destroyed by death” (Dilma Rousseff, in 2008, during the memorial to 11 students that died during the fight against the military regime) [Translation by Max Coutinho]

The persecuted Syrian Youth, being presently slaughtered, would definitely agree...

Quo vadis, Brazil?
Brazilian’s Ministry of Women ran by Minister Iriny Lopes; banned a TV ad, starring Gisele Bundchen, claiming that it “reinforces the erroneous stereotyping of women as sex objects” and it “ignores the progress made in ending sexist practices. It also represents discrimination against women” – Feminist hysteria used to implement censorship.
One of these days, the Ministry of Women will suggest Brazilian women to cover their bodies with burkas.

Brazilian Evangelicals could also be behind their government’s odd support to Islamic radicals and dictators. All the Brazilian evangelical churches, I visited, expressed their anti-Semitism through that dangerous rhetoric “Jews killed Jesus Christ, our saviour! And the Star of David is a demonic symbol!” – how much weight do they have in the Brazilian foreign politics?

Of course, Brazil is surrounded by countries with Leftist governments, which may have influenced its silly and perilous political choices.

Is this the rise of dictatorship ~~of the proletariat~~ in Brazil?

Max Coutinho: shiiuuu...hush up!

2011-10-04T12:30:00.000+01:00

Seated Cupide (detail) by Étienne-Maurice Falconet

I have been blogging in a free world, yet some people suggest that I hush up. Should I be surprised at such chutzpah?

In April 2008, I wrote a post about a specific People Republic. Some people implied that I shouldn’t speak of that thriving country lest their hackers would attack my computer. What these folks were basically saying is that I should silence before violations of Human Rights and pseudo-communist authoritarianism in order not to suffer an attack...

In October 2008, I received a very interesting email, by a fellow blogger, where he demanded that I’d immediately remove a certain post from my blog. I was disappointed to realise that a citizen from the Land of the Free (where even paedophiliac literature is protected under the first amendment) would want to suppress my right to Freedom of Expression.
The post that raised such despotic behaviour, also led other people to question my right to criticise Republican presidential candidates. Well, since the Presidential elections are coming up, I would like to clarify one thing: I am following the Republican primaries, I will follow the Presidential campaign and if I see fit I will pronounce myself on it. Do I have the right to do it? I do, because not only I invested in US Bonds, but also my family (including American citizens) have business in the US and thus the political designs of this country are also my concern.

In September 2009, I also received interesting feedback on an article about my biggest disappointment: I was to be very careful not to depict the Mother Land in a negative, and unfair, way. Apparently, I was to perpetuate the poverty campaign and not to mention the political obscenity going on there.
I have much respect for NGOs that assist the sick and the poor people in that continent, however I cannot pretend that African Leaders are not responsible for that social tragedy. NGOs do their job (non-politicised) and I do mine (politics).

In June 2010, I spoke of a very inconvenient truth: some individuals didn’t like it and reacted to it.
In May 2011, I questioned a certain catastrophe: it sparked a fiery, yet marvellous, debate. Yet some leftists began looking at MAX with suspicion.

My name is Max Coutinho and I am a Modern Right Winger. I uphold Law & Order. I am against censorship and self-imposed gags (i.e. PC). I do not support abortion; I do not appreciate Contemporary Hysterical Feminism; I am not afraid of publicly talking about and supporting Israel; I am totally against Islamic, Christian and any kind of Radicalism; I abhor Homophobia and I have an issue with the Left Wing, specially when leftists betray their own people and do their politics under false pretences.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” (article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

No need to agree but let me be free.

Mass Media: Informational Pacifier Dangerous?

2011-09-27T12:30:00.000+01:00

Johann Christian Fischer by Thomas Gainsborough

Mass Media: means of communication reaching large numbers of people, such as the telly, newspapers, e-news and radio.

The media does reach a large number of people with its capacity to disseminate information throughout the world in a short period of time, thus bringing us closer. And that is a positive thing.

The negative aspect of the means of communication is the pretentiousness of being the owner of truth, when they often omit facts, manipulate information and lack precision.

We should make the distinction between the press and televised journalism. The first seems to offer more latitude to journalists because they can gather the facts, present them (or not) in the written form, build an opinion and share it; confront individuals or/and governments and comment it. The way I see it, televised journalism is divided into three main categories:

The transmission of information as it is received, devoid of comment and immune to some amount of bias.
Political interviews. These are often used to misinform, counter-inform, manipulate opinions and confuse the public (specially when interviewers do not ask the proper questions and allow that moment to be the vehicle needed for some politicians to disseminate cheap demagoguery; radical and nonsensical messages).
Opinion/Comment panels. These can be rather informative and useful to help forming an opinion (since the group usually is composed by several people with different experiences and viewpoints on any given subject). Nevertheless, these too can be intended to manipulate the public: it all depends on the networks’ agenda or political sympathies (proven by the sort of guests invited to form the fore mentioned panels).

Sometimes, we are under the impression that the media wants to appease certain segments of society and certain Peoples. This role, as a pacifier, can be dangerous because it can influence the way governments make certain political and diplomatic decisions (that sometimes are vital to national security and welfare) lest the emotions are ignited and result in a warfare – all because the mass media often adds fuel to the wrong fire.

With globalisation, many private news networks (and other mass media companies in general) became public companies; meaning that citizens from all over the world can buy a piece of them and, the higher the number of shares owned the higher is the amount of pressure upon networks to stream information toward a specific direction. Having said this, private means of communication can also represent a means of foreign interference in domestic affairs and foreign policies.

It is said that the media is the fifth power, but it became so because we (the people) grew thirstier and thirstier of information in our own quest for power (or at least, a vision of it).

When the media manipulates us, whom is to blame?

False Issues

2011-09-20T12:30:00.000+01:00

Head of a Man by Annibale Carraci

The political universe is pregnant of false issues. Below, we will address three points that are politically juggled with to justify cheap politics.

False Issue #1
Corruption impairs African development.
There’s corruption all over the world, however the people denounce and fight against it. In most parts of the globe democracy is implemented despite jobbery; that is, the people elect their government every 4-5 years, they get education, healthcare, freedom of speech (of assembly, of association, of religion etc) and equal opportunities to help developing their nation. The same happens not in most of sub-Saharan Africa, why? Because the present situation serves someone’s interests. The African elite studies abroad (where they decry the African situation) yet when they return home they yield to the status quo for fear of reprisals; and in the process they allow their fellow-citizens to be dragged through the mud and misery by those who sell off their country to China: African leaders.

False Issue #2
Arab-Israelis.
In Portugal, we do not call our black people, Afro-Portuguese; we do not call our Jews, Judeo-Portuguese; we do not call our Hindus, Indo-Portuguese; we do not call our Muslims and Arab descendants, Arab-Portuguese...we call them Portuguese citizens. A national citizen is a national citizen, regardless of its cultural/religious background.
The label “Arab-Israelis” represents a subliminal message and is politically dangerous: these citizens call themselves Arab or Palestinian nationals with Israeli citizenship; to whom then do they pay allegiance: the Arab League, Gaza or Israel? Without prejudice intended, the “Arab-Israeli” stance sounds treacherous; thus, a danger to national security.

False Issue #3
Recognising a Jewish State isn’t, in any way, a threat to the rights of those Israelis who profess Islamism, Christianity, Baha’i or any other faith.
The United Kingdom is a Christian nation, de jure, and all citizens (regardless of their religion) enjoy the same rights and bear the same responsibilities. Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, the United States (for example) are Christian countries (de facto) and yet citizens of all faiths have the same rights and responsibilities as any Christian.
So, if Muslims who descend from Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, Egyptians, Jordanians and etc, in Western countries, recognise those nations as officially Christian and serve in the military, sing their national anthem with fervour and respect their national flag (that often bears Christian symbols [e.g. the Portuguese flag even bears the 5 crucifixion wounds of Christ]), what is the problem of singing Hatikvah, respecting the Shield of David Flag and being loyal to the Jewish State?
I visualise the day when all Christians and Jews in Arab nations will enjoy the same rights and religious freedom as any Muslim citizen...

What other false issues do you know of?

Cuts in Defence & Security: a mistake?

2011-09-13T12:30:00.000+01:00

The Battle (detail) by Albrecht Altdorfer

In several nations, left wing disciples tend to request severe cuts in defence budgets, as a solution to budgetary disequilibrium.
For some reason, investing in defence and security is looked at with suspicion (as if freedom and liberties were at risk) so that funds can be channelled to what is viewed as more pressing issues - i.e. social benefits.

The military, military intelligence, the secret services, federal agencies and security forces (in general) employ, directly, a lot of people. These forces also indirectly employ another whole lot of individuals through defence-related businesses, through companies supplying those businesses and so forth.
People employed, nation secured. Taxes paid, nation wealthier. Military R&D, nation secured, trading and wealthier...
This being said, investing in defence can help solve some social and economic issues; therefore, politicians that use defence as a tool of demagoguery (and actually succeed in leading governments to cut in defence) are simply not thinking it through.

Is it wise to cut in defence & security (D&S)?
Decreasing expenditure in D&S may present two disadvantages:

Offer the impression of national vulnerability (ex: terrorism, both internal and external).
Give the impression of social permissiveness (ex: delinquency, anarchy, riots).

In economic crisis, it is easy to yield to the temptation of wanting to make defence cuts; however it is not logical (nor safe) to do so, since economic distress leads to social discontentment, which in turn augments the probabilities of uprisings, criminal activities and terror attacks (not to mention that cuts may equal to layoffs [in all departments and in industries related to defence], which would worsen the social crisis). A proper D&S will help to tackle any activity that may throw us into economic, social and political upheaval.
In days of prosperity, D&S should have a comfortable budget so that it can set up R&D labs, in order to produce goods to either improve itself or to sell (as a means of self-finance; contributing, thus, to a decrease in government deficit) and, to prepare itself (i.e. logistics and strategy) for an eventual warfare .

A nation like Israel cannot afford to decrease its defence forces budget. A nation like the US cannot afford to have its military budget cut. A nation like Portugal (a NATO member, devoid of proper military technology and destitute of R&D) should feel embarrassed for not investing more on defence. Should India make defence cuts (now that it seeks modernization of its armed forces to tackle its security issues and cement its strategic position)?

Not having a solid national Defence is detrimental to Homeland Security and to Political Strategy.

What do you think; cuts in defence and security: a mistake or not?

The Elders

2011-09-06T12:42:00.000+01:00

The Artist's Parents by Philipp Otto Runge

It’s an honour to age.

When human beings age, in general, they reach a stage of refined maturity (just like a good bottle of Porto wine).

I ask, what possesses a young and middle-aged person to disregard or even mistreat an elderly?

Parents & Children

Last weekend, I heard two disturbing examples of a relationship between aging parents and their offspring.

I: A parent gets sick. A couple of adults are advised that their parent needs to be looked after. What do they do? They dump him/her in a hospital (under a false address) and keep receiving their parent’s retirement benefits.

II: A parent gets old and it is not advisable for him/her to live alone. The offspring takes him/her in; it manages to benefit from their pension by co-signing the parent’s banking account.

Do people (like the ones in these examples) forget who those aging, fragile, human beings are? Once upon a time they were young and healthy, they fell in love, they married, they had children, they worked to make sure their kids would not want, they loved and played with them and, towards the end of their life how do their kids repay them...?

Senior Citizens & Society

I: A bus is full, an old lady with a cane enters the vehicle: no one gets up to offer her a sit.

II: A couple of old people walks, enjoy their afternoon and then decide to visit a museum. When reaching the main entrance: a young man brushes through them abruptly to enter first, opens the door and then let’s the door slam on the seniors’ nose.

III: A young couple gives birth to their first child. They struggle with the idea of putting the child in a day-care facility. Both of the child’s grandparents are retired and healthy: instead of leaving the child with one of their parents; they spend money they can’t afford, hiring a nanny (a total stranger).

These few examples already give us an idea of how perturbed society is.

The Elderly and Confucius

Confucius taught that we should seek to be a Man of Rén. Being so means realising that we are not alone and that everyone is responsible for either someone or something (be it a relative, the state or the world). He taught the Five Relationships but the one pertaining this article is:

"Elder to Junior - there should be consideration among the elders and deference among the juniors"

Indeed, the elders should not misuse and abuse their status yet they deserve our utmost respect, and care, for being the symbol of nurture, experience and wisdom.

Before mistreating a senior citizen, we should always remember that eventually we’’ll be in their shoes.

“Do not do unto others what you do not want others do unto you”…I say…

The UN Precedent

2011-08-30T05:00:00.000+01:00

United Nations Emblem

To support or not to support, that is the question.
The Palestinian UN Statehood recognition bid is set for the 20th of September.
I wish all the best to the new Palestinian State: the Gaza Strip.

However we are not here to discuss the success of the incoming UN recognition request. Instead, we are here to think about the doors the Palestinian UN bid opens to other prospective nations.

To support or not to support, that is the question...Spain & France support.
The Basque Country is a region located in North of Spain and Southwest of France. Its culture and language, euskara, in nothing are similar to the Spanish and French. Basques already existed prior to the establishment of both nations (history has it that Basque tribes exist since the Palaeolithic). Successive wars and occupation generated a Basque nationalism, toward the end of the 19th century. Since then, the Basques seek independence (ETA – a terrorist group – was born from that endeavour, in 1959). This year, ETA renounced violence in order to seek independence and recognition through democratic ways. It invited Spain to hold talks – so far, Spain refused. Does this behaviour ring a bell? The occupier refuses to sit with the rightful owners of the land to discuss a peaceful solution. Perhaps that is why the Spanish Government supports the incoming UN recognition of another occupier. As for France: no comments, just yet...
The Basque Country should organise itself properly and eventually seek unilateral statehood recognition near the UN.

To support or not to support...China supports.
It is well known that Tibet is an occupied nation, although China claims that the occupation is “nothing but a fiction of the imperialists who committed aggression against China in modern history”. The Central Tibetan Administration (CTA, an institution, based in India, with the goal of “rehabilitating Tibetan refugees and restoring freedom and happiness in Tibet”) claims that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has actively overwhelmed Tibet with migrants in order to change Tibet’s “demographic makeup” – what does this strategy remind you of?
China clings to Tibet because the Tibetan plateau is rich in mineral deposits (estimated at $128Bn), making thus China independent of foreign mineral imports. Still, in the words of CTA “China’s administration [of Tibet] is an illegitimate military occupation”.
The Dalai Lama has removed his position as authority within the institution and now Tibetans-in-exile can democratically elect their Kalon Tripa (equivalent to a PM). This move suggests that the Tibetan Spiritual Leader wishes to exercise some sort of separation of Church and State, so that the CTA can better address the Tibetan problem before the international community. Upon completion of its organisation and strategy, the CTA should seek unilateral statehood recognition at the UN.

Indeed, the incoming Palestinian UN bid opens so many gates to other nations-in-waiting. The precedent Fatah is opening will eventually lead us to see a free Tibet and Basque Country: thank you, Palestine!

Separation of church & state: reality or fantasy?

2011-08-23T05:00:00.000+01:00

John Locke by Herman Verelst

Despite appearances, church and state have not filed the divorce papers.

Thomas Jefferson said that government is not to interfere with religion; but interestingly enough I couldn’t find evidence of his having said that religion is not to interfere with government. In 1802 he wrote, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God (…)”; and if true then it is easy to assume that religion indirectly interferes with government.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The usual interpretation of this is that the federal government besides being forbidden from passing laws to establish religions, it cannot designate an official religion for the nation either; however we are under the impression that the official religion in the United States is Christianity (notice how Presidential candidates strive to prove how Christian they are, how they abide by Christian values, lest they won’t be elected. Yes, the congress and the senate are religiously eclectic; nevertheless, it seems like the commander-in-chief needs to be Christian).
The 41st article (line 5) of the Portuguese Constitution says, “The Church and other religious communities are separated from the State and are free to organise themselves and, exercise their functions and services” but is the State separate from religion? Former socialist PM António Guterres, an observant Catholic, passed a bill forbidding supermarkets from trading on the Lord’s Day; then over a decade later socialist PM José Sócrates, a more spiritual liberal individual, reversed the decision and people could go back to shop on Sundays. Furthermore, in Portugal, Roman Catholicism is the de facto religion.
The first article of the French Constitution states that “La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale.”(Transl: France is an undivided, secular, democratic and social Republic), yet most French holidays are religious holidays (Catholic, of course, making France therefore a de facto Catholic nation).

Many countries (ex: England, Brazil, Greece, Costa Rica, Monaco, Israel etc) are a good example of how a nation can openly declare its state religion and yet present a healthy balance between secularism and religion. However, despite their equilibrium and respect for other religions, there is one interesting common ground between them and those that openly defend separation of state and church: the heads of the state must profess the official religion of the country.

No matter how many turns humans may give to this subject the truth is that State and Church still have an extremely intricate relationship, due to the following reasons:

The state is ran by Men and, any man’s spiritual education will forcefully affect his thoughts, values, conduct and, thus, decision-making.
The people elect politicians and, usually they are the vast majority who professes the state religion (be it either de facto or de jure).

Is separation of church and state a reality or a fantasy? I’d say, a very interesting fantasy.

Commenting Death

2011-08-16T12:43:00.014+01:00

The Island of the Dead by Arnold Böcklin

Death as Physical demise

The body, as we know it, at some point (and for any given reason) demises. The ones staying behind usually throw themselves into the sea of sadness and mourn the departed ones. However, many of us celebrate the expiration of our loved ones since we believe that a new cycle of existence begins (one that is much better than the cycle spent on earth).

Yet, sadness invades our being and gets comfortable on the fluffiness of our hearts. Why do we shed tears or feel sad? It’s certainly not for the “lucky one” who crossed over; it is rather for ourselves, for our own feeling of abandonment and temporary loneliness.

This raises a question: is it correct for us to focus upon ourselves and pain; instead of rejoicing at the fact that the soul of the loved one is freed from the burden of matter and praying that it goes to the light?

Death as a Symbol

In symbology (needed to interpret dreams, visions and tarot [for instance]), death means change, cutting through the entangled webs of life (symbolised by Death’s scythe) and the end of a stage. And that is why it is very hard for an esoteric individual to tell a consulter whether someone will die or not (since physical death is not viewed as an end but as a continuation of the cycle of existence, subject to a change [i.e. mutation of body]).

This raises a question: being people so ego-centred how could they be informed, for self-appeasement, that a loved one would crossover; what’s the symbol of physical demise?

Death as Transformation

In each life, we are born once yet we die several times (implying several re-births) before we move on to the after-journey.

Everyday our body witnesses the demise and re-birth of each cell (for instance, when we’re healthy, our hair falls and grows each day). Whenever we get sick, we die a little and when we convalesce we are re-born to an exciting life. Each time we experience an existential vicissitude the way we deal with, and react to, life demises and then nativity to a whole new form of inhaling existence takes place. When a relationship dies, our heart tends to be born again for love and happiness.

This being said, daily death (which can be straining and painful, in so many ways) represents an opportunity for utter transformation: our bodies mutate everyday; recovering from a disease equals a deep transformation of body, mind and soul (either positive or negative); life hurdles, fights, break-ups, heart-breaks etc, they all pose as a true path to transformation, leading thus to burning off karma (for mystics) or to atonement of some sort.

This raises a question: if we die everyday, why then are we so afraid of what is perceived as the Ultimate Death?

Homeland Security: Part II

2011-08-09T13:02:00.019+01:00

Reclining Soldier by Lászlo Mednyánszky

Homeland Security: Part I

The author of the terrorist attack, in Oslo (on the 22nd of July 2011) was Anders Breivik, who claimed to have “acted to stem the Islamisation of Western Europe, blaming the government [and its liberal immigration policies] for allowing it to happen”.
For this effect, the young man set up front agricultural companies to allow him the purchase of fertiliser without raising suspicions. Given the fact that fertiliser is an ingredient used to make bombs (the reason why Israel does not allow Gaza to receive fertiliser through its borders), young Breivik was immediately put in the security forces watch-list. But did they follow up? No. Why? Perhaps, because he was not a Muslim.

The Oslo attacks raise a few pertinent questions: was Anders really working alone; will his actions inspire other far right terrorists; is the Swedish neo-nazi movement involved or not (even if it doesn’t appear so); is one-man cell the new black in terrorism?

Far right-wing groups are dangerous.
They usually begin by targeting a single religious-cultural group (in this case, they seem to aim at Muslims) but when they get hungry for more, they then move on to other groupings (in this context, we could say that after the Muslims, they’d go after the Jews [such a far right cliché], black people; then gypsies, Catholics; then Hindus, Buddhists; gays and perhaps even witches...).

Now, why did Anders Breivik attack a group of young Norwegian people exercising their democratic right to gather and share political ideas? Many analysts say that the political camp was viewed, by Breivik, as a nest of socialism and, therefore, the nest of Marxist multiculturalism – in his mind; it was a pre-emptive attack to safeguard the future. But I’d like to go even deeper...
The keywords “Muslim” and “Marxist multiculturalism” are propagandistic and serve as a deflection.
There are no coincidences. The timing of the attacks which led to the dissemination of Breivik’s message (the terror attacks caused the media to expose his Manifesto, thus, quickly spreading Right Extremist messages throughout the world; therefore exhaling the breath of radicalism into the nostrils of dormant far right adepts) was impeccable: economic and social crisis; huge waves of immigration, fatigue over Islamism; and the short period since chancellor Angela Merkel and PM David Cameron proclaimed the failure of multiculturalism.

Anders Breivik’s mission statement included the obliteration of Left-Wing politicians, responsible for the “Marxist multiculturalism in Europe”; but we cannot be sure that this was really what he meant; because far right-wing packs do not exactly fancy right-wingers either, since they view them as too liberal (fascists mock individual freedom and freedom of speech). So, I wonder, what would happen after the fascists would realise that there are not that many Marxists left to “wipe out”? Would any other political ideology be safe? No. Authoritarianism would be re-born and democracy would be murdered again.

The European Homeland Security can’t afford to doze off, not in times of economic difficulties. It must wake up and stand alert at all times. Threats from any quadrant must be thoroughly analysed and tackled so that the Hitler-wannabes won’t make European History repeat itself.