I’ve decided to change this blog’s header and found that the new one is a really relaxing panorama in green and ocean blue.

Reminds me of my island.

We live in our homes as we wish to. We place our furniture as we deem will be more confortable for us to go about our home. We get up in the morning and go to bed in the evening at the times our physical needs often require us. We believe or do not believe in a God or in many gods. We eat what we have been taught to eat and use our discernment for those meals that may not be advisable to eat. And how we must educate our children.

If we ever go to our neighbour’s home we find that they are acting as we do, although they may have strong differences in their perception of what comfortability is, what their God or gods should be, at what time they must get up or to bed, what their meals should be and how they educate their children.

So far I cannot see any problem. I let my neighbour live and he lets me live. No problem.

Then, why this upsurge of racism (I don’t believe it is racism), bigotry, or is it a sense of self-defence, with regards to the new-arrivals?

When we read in or listen to the communication media that an individual of our nationality commits a crime, slays a person or does something which is contrary to our way of thinking, to our sense of ethics, we are confident that the law will take care of him/her, and forget about the case just to find a new one on next day’s newsreels. Which we of course forget again as soon as we leave the paper aside or turn off the radio/tv.

But this does not happen with foreigners, with immigrants. If these immigrants dared to behave as those who were born in the same circumstances as we were do, then we do not forget. We do not pardon, we use our sense of self-defence to demand that they be expelled from our country, from our home. And our attitude also varies depending on where these immigrants come from, if they have our sympathy or not.

Of late we have been hearing, we have been warned against the Islamic terrorism, and we have immediately categorised not the term terrorism - which we may have been suffering in our own countries for a long time b y the hand of our co-nationals - no, we categorise the term “Islamic”. Is this religious bigotry or is it self-defence against a religion which is not the one we are used  to living with? Are some interested parties trying that we consider the term “Islamic” as the fundamental part of the whole expression?

Why do we not consider the term terrorism as the essential question here?

I have many Muslim friends with whom I have no problems whatsoever. They are religious people, I am not religious, they respect me I respect them and love them as they do me. I have many Basque friends on the same friendship terms I have with my Muslim ones.

Spain has suffered for a long time now the plague of the “Basque” terrorism, as one time  the British suffered the IRA terrorism. We have not asked the expulsion of the Basques from the Spanish territory and I am sure the British did not ask for expulsion of all the Irish people from the UK. Why then this different feeling towards Muslims?

Centuries ago the Jews were expelled from some European countries, among them Spain, for reasons which were not sufficiently clarified by historians, but that researches attribute to hatred, to religious bigotry, because the Jews were a part of our communities with special abilities in the economic sector. I wonder whether what we witness today regarding the Muslims is not a similar situation. I must draw your attention here to the fact that when the Arab domination in Spain, the three religions : Islam, Judaism, Christianity; had no problems of coexistence., as we see there are no problems of coexistence with the Jewish community in Iran and elsewhere in the world, except in those countries where the presence of Israel is more felt. I must say, notwithstanding, that a growing anti-Jew feeling here is being noticed after the problems in Palestine.

In my opinion the main cause of the resentment of our populations regarding aliens is not something that can be called racism or bigotry. It is a feeling of self-defence which our authorities have not been brave enough to ease up by applying the Law with all its consequences. Those of any religion or race who live in our countries must respect the Law as we do and must get the punishment the Law metes out in all cases it contemplates.

It will, I have no doubt, comfort us and make us forget those offenders as soon as they are tried and imprisoned as they deserve under the Law.

If we see that the Law defends us, then why still sustain a feeling of self-defence?

I may be wrong, though.

Anticant has started a campaign for Peace in the World which I heartily support.

I invite all readers to join and spread the news around.

I have been reading a novel by a celebrated British author and one phrase caught my attention: “ …, most guilt is irrational.”

Rational beings, among whom humans find themselves, in the present days receive an education, are taught to discern which is good and which is bad, which is honest and which is dishonest. This education started in the early years of our lives set a code of conduct for the rest of it, a code of conduct that, depending on how ingrained it is in our consciences, serve us to be admitted in the folds of our societies. Fortunately much of this code contents have been erased, modified or perfected to make this world of ours a more livable, nicer place - not always achieved as we all know.

Do we have a sense of guilt, as we have those of sight, taste, hearing, touch and smell, to which the sixth sense has been added although I believe this extra sense is a combination of the other five.

Is there really the likelihood of having irrational guilt? In my opinion there is not. Guilt is a term that defines admission of having done something badly or wrongly and be repentant for it, except in the cases where the guilt is not admitted by the individual but is considered to be it by others. In this connection Justice has much to say.

But coming back to the beginning of this post, I wonder why the author made this assertion and I am wondering whether any of the possible readers of this post has something to say, if really “most guilt is irrational”, or there may be irrational guilt to some degree in the human being.

I find it advisable and opportune to reprint here this Declaration that so much was sought after and so much has been neglected - in some cases hated  - by those whose duty it is to uphold it around the world.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - English (English)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

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 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

“We should not depend on the bloody American military any longer”.

“Sir Arnold was watching the French general intently:  ‘Do you perhaps envision a time when we’d want to go to war with the United States?’ A hush spread around the room. while La Porte paced, his face in a sudden scowl, his ponderous body impressive for its agility. ‘We already are at war with the Americans, in every aspect of life and business except militarily. But militarily, we cannot be. We are too weak, too dependent on all their systems, hardware, and even the most modern weapons. We have soldiers and arms that we can’t properly equip, move or control, without Washington.’

—-

“We French do not have a ’special relationship’ with the Americans, unlike you English…..”

—-

General Moore stared at La Porte a full thirty seconds more. Then he seemed to think of something else. He relaxed, smiled,and stood up. “I believe our business here is over. As for the fate and future of Europe, we in Britain consider it tied permanently to that of the United States, whether we like it or not.”

—-

These are excerpts from a novel by world-famous author Robert Ludlum, The Paris Option, in this case of a meeting held by generals of several countries belonging to NATO.  HarperCollinsPublishers, 77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB - www.fireandwater.com.

——————

 Another best-selling Welsh-born novelist, Ken Follett, also wrote a novel, a Corgi Book reprinted in 1987 in Great Britain by Hazell Watson & Viney Limited, Aylesbury, Bucks, which, in accordance with its preface “is a true story about a group of people who, accused of crimes they did not commit, decided to make their own justice”  and this is part of its Cast of Characters:

Dallas

Ross Perot, Chairman of the Board, Electronic Data Systems Corporation, Dallas, Texas.

Merv Stauffer, Perot’s right-hand man.

Five more executives of Electronic Data Systems and

Tom Luce, founder of the Dallas law firm Hughes & Hill

Tehran

Several EDS Corporation’s executives headed by Paul Chiaparoni, country Manager.

It deals with the evacuation from Iran of these American executives carried out by a team commanded by Colonel Arthur D. ‘Bull’ Simons.

The book includes real pictures of the named people and situations in Tehran’s street immediately after the ousting of the Shah.

———

I have included these two books here because they had been written by two very popular authors and my intention is to maky a summary of how popular authors and books can influence the opinions of ordinary people for or against any particular person or country, as is the case of the former in the latter book and the latter in the former transcriptions.

I realised this because I am now reading Ludlum’s novel and compare it with the present situation in the world, where there appear to be antagonisms between the populations of Europe and America and I have thought that perhaps these antagonisms have been provoked by the reading of novels like those under review.

The book by Follett exalts the personal qualities of Ross Perot, after the book was written a candidate to the Presidency of the US.

What do you think of this likely influence of best sellers in people’s attitudes and stances?

In my opinion readers should be very careful not to admit those books prima facie, and consider sensibly what the implications of their contents may mean for the coexistence among us.

Who or what is Satan? Religions have been very concerned about this stereotype of evil, in such a way that they have come to consider it - don’t call me profane, please - at the same level they consider God. Well, if not at the same level at least at the same level in nether regions of spiritualism, an antagonistic force to God’s.

Religions have considered Satan the antithesis of everything godly because they have found they had to have an entity whom to blame for what allegedly is anti-God attitudes, something so imposing that the human beings should be careful not to be drawn by in their way towards God.

Actions and reactions.

In my opinion God and Demon have been meant to be two components of our spiritual being. The one against the other has been exploited for centuries by those who have also exploited us to achieve their goals in our world. Why have they been used almost in all cases when our attitudes have been worth of spiritual study?

If we dare to fall in the Demon’s hands, then we will be entirely against God. But if we reflect on these doctrines we were taught in our early years, we may arrive at the conclusion that the Demon- Satan - was “instituted” to make us fear his influence and definitely dedicate ourselves to the God’s cause.

Does Satan exist? Does God exist?

Well perhaps if we ponder over the two concepts we may conclude they both exist, at least spiritually. I mean inside our spirits, inside our innermost beings. Not that I am being influenced by religions, but because I am convinced that ethics or morals have a remotest origin derived from the successive centuries of coexistence we, mortal beings, have been given to live.

That this was imbued into our minds by a God is something nobody can prove, but along the years many have tried to convince us that God exists and the Devil exists.

It is very simple: If we want to obtain God’s approval then we must reject Satan’s influence.

This is copypasted from Richard’s forum http://gatwickcity.phpbb3now.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=148&p=859#p859 because I felt I could use your wise thoughts in trying to find out what our spirits are.

Quote

Spirit? What is spirit? Can we consider spirit the innermost arcane in the human being which conditions our so-called heartfelt behaviour? Is it really mysterious or is there any explanation to give about the spirit?

Sorry, friends. Too many questions.

Unquote

Thank you for your patience.

Are we free? Do we really use our free will? What is freedom?

People speak of freedom as though it were something tangible, something that we have a right to, and I often wonder whether this is truly so. My conclusions always are it is not.

To be free we must have an absolute capacity to behave without any kind of interferences from anywhere or anything or anybody. And this is in practice clearly impossible. Something or somebody will always influence our freedom, no matter how proud we may be of wielding the ideals of liberty. There is no such.

Our right to freedom is also hampered by our duty to coexist. In a way coexistence limits our liberties, which is not in itself negative but suggests our dreams of liberty are nothing but that, dreams.

Democracy also seems to give us a charter to behave as we freely like. Let us not delude ourselves: democracy is illusory, it does not exist, it is not our daily way of existence or coexistence.

There exist influential factors in everything we do,  even in our thoughts, they are all affected by external circumstances, by education, by the reading we do or the news we hear or read, by our environment, by Nature, by our families and friends, by the laws which presumibly are enacted to strengthen our liberties but which ultimately constrain them. In actual fact we are living a life of oppression, an oppression that ends up by making us slaves of the circumstances.

Long back in time man and woman were not free either, they did not have an education to go by. Today we do, most of us, have an education, have read multitude of books by learned persons whose principles we have been assimilating gradually, or rebutting in a limited scale. Why? Because our education has not been wholesome, has not been leading us to think for ourselves, it has been an education, generally speaking, conducive to our leaning on those principles which, it has been found out with time, are prejudicial for our free thinking and liberties.

It is time for the world to get aware what is the line of conduct suitable to a better coexistence, to ignore the sirens’ songs of those politicians whose aim is just their own egotistical interest,  and try to unite with those people whose ways of thinking are similar in a effort to overcome the ever increasingly overwhelming dictates of our leaders.

Dictates that are meant to coerce our liberties and thoughts.

Our friend Anticant, perhaps inadvertently, gave me the idea  of this post. Almost every country has a written constitution which is called the Mother of All Laws, except the case of the United Kingdom where the Law rules. But I regret to say that all laws today are a reflection of religion in a way, ethics some times been likened to religions, too.

I think that perhaps this is so because those who cultivated the art of writing were mainly from the clergy side of our societies, persons who had been brought up in religious backgrounds, so somehow this is quite logical.

But the human mind has learnt to think by itself without the support of those who have been exalted to higher positions among us, most of the times undeservedly. Primitivism has long been forgotten, there exist primitives among us but that circumstance is sporadic as education has been declared compulsory by law in most countries of the world.

Why must there be a law for this and laws for so many other incidences in our lives?

If what is taught to children since their earliest principles is the cultivation of Respect in all the ambits of their lives, then perhaps laws would not be necessary, because laws are made by persons like you and me and are in many cases absolutely unfair and unjust. In this connection the use of bail comes to my mind as unjust and unfair. That a person just for the fact that she/he has money enough can be temporarily freed from the obligation to be in jail, whereas another person with no means and who has committed a lesser crime cannot is something that I personally cannot understand. The same happens with too many other aspects of our legislations as is the employment of lawyers and attorneys who defend you better or worse depending on their standing in their profession…and their fees. There are some honourable exceptions, of course.

If Respect were deeply ingrained in everybody, racism would not exist, nor would any differences among us which today are the reasons of conflicts, or at least they might be reduced to acceptable minimums.

Can I not be utopian?

Let me, please!!!