January 30, 2007
The Holocaust is something that has been being hammered into our consciences since many years ago, and Germans are only too conscious of that fact. Why?
I must say that I have had unpleasant experiences of Germans and their behaviour face to other nationalities.
In the late 1980s I had a Dutch friend who was married to a nice Dutch lady of Indonesian origin. He said to me that he had problems whenever he and his wife had to go to Germany because when they went into restaurants everybody German inside the restaurant stared at his wife. He confidentially said to me that racism in Germany in that epoch (1980s) was still existent, that is about 36 years after Hitler and Nazism’s apparent disappearance.
I had to do with a British Airline and I remember that German tourists arriving at the airport in their majority showed disrespect for anybody that was not of their own nationality.
My question is: Did Nazism die with Hitler and Co. or is it still present? Is that political ideology a trait of the German people in general or do you think it is the patrimony of a minority in Germany?
I just wonder.
January 30, 2007
First of all I must say I have had more wine glasses than is decent, but my mind is quite clear nevertheless. Or at least that is how I feel.
We have been hearing and reading how faithfulness is a trait we all must preserve. How we must be faithful to our partner, to our country, to our family, to our friends, to our whatever. And that is something that deserves our profound consideration.
Is our partner, our country, our family, or are our friends, or is our whatever, worth being faithful to? Are we sure we must be on the alert just in case our everyody as detailed above is in need of our help? Or must we consider ourselves individuals with a clear conscience that we must take care mainly and exclusively of ourselves? Are we afraid that people around us think we are selfish and therefore we behave in a way to convince those people that we are not? Or are we conscious that we care a fig what those people think of us?
Sociology is a science someone invented to study the people’s relations and their sociological counterparts, and those in charge of developing that science are believed to understand those subjects destined to their analysis. Nothing farther from the reality.
In principle we are all not loyal. Loyalties are determined by the degree of love a person may feel for another person, so loyalty may disappear simultaneously to the disappearance of that particular love. So may we liken loyalty to love?
I think that in fact they are the same and one coincidental trait. Love must be a partner of loyalty. But is it so?
Yes, it is. If a person loves another person, truly love her/him, then that love carries implicitly along the sense of loyalty, otherwise it is not love, or is it?
We can be faithful and love. But is the love f0r a partner complicit with loyalty? Is that coexistence, or rather must be that coexistence synonym with loyalty? Or must that love be so exclusive as to dismiss any temptations that may jeopardise loyalties?
Are there moments when we forget love and loyalty? If so why?
As I said at the beginning may be I am staggering off the path of my thoughts. If so, my sincere apologies.
January 24, 2007
I ventured to open this blog thinking that my time will permit me to carry on with my normal duties in Respect Discussion Board where I am a manager with my respected friend, Michael. But circumstances have proved that I was wrong.
Respect Discussion Board exacts most of my time and I was starting to experience difficulties to be present in a normal way in the interesting discussions that take place at that forum, and the new blog has been on too many occasions cumbersome and embarrassing, so I have decided to forswear my activity here.
To those who bothered to read and participate I am deeply in debt and only can say that I will visit their sites occasionally and see how I can be of any help to them.
From now on I may be contacted through
where I can assure you will find matters of interest in the present state of affairs occurring all over the world.
I wish you all the best.
January 11, 2007
In modern times there is a new expression to call organisations that have been set up to house persons whose apparent only mission in this world is to serve leaders to proceed in the course of their public career. They are the so-called “Think Tanks”. To use a bellicose name in a club exclusively dedicated to the thought carries along an eerie implication.
In the case of the “American Enterprise Institute” there seems to be a confirmation that this organisation has had an important hand in the recent decision taken by the American President to send more troops to Iraq in an attempt, according to his words, to stabilise that Middle East country, a decision that is contrary to the report and recommendations given by the James Baker group who strongly advocated dialogue with Syria and Iran as the first step to the pacification of the late Saddam’s domain.
I read a commentary in one of the “Truthout”‘s regular communication
which attributes to a scholar, Frederick Kagan, the writing of President Bush’s plan to increase the number of his troops. Frederick Kagan appears to be a senior member of the American Enterprise Institute.
Apart from the considerations that Frederick Kagan exposes, what I find really striking is the number of this kind of organisations in the political field of the United States, and how much weight they have with the White House. The American Enterprise Institute, the Henry Jackson Society, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, etc, etc, seem to have in their hands the foreign policy of Washington DC. And I wonder why this is so, not only because it worries me that an entity whose democracy is little less than dubious, but that a President of the US follows its recommendations to the letter, so to speak, does not tell favourably about the democratic system of that self-named most important democracy in the world. The more so when the American people has so clearly expressed in polls their adverse opinion on the Iraq affair.
Hundreds of persons form the body of counsellors of a person who is considered the most powerful person in the world, but this body of counsellors is eventually useless because what should be decided in its ambit needs the use of a “Think Tank” that is private, not elected by the people. Elected by the people are the Senate and the House of Representatives who are essentially in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and who should decide on the foreign politics of the nation. In a separate post I transcribe the report given by Frederick Kagan who has needed the collaboration of a retired General of the US Army.
It is fantastic, indeed, and unimaginable in a country of the relevance of the United States of America. And what is still more worrying is that these American Think Tanks have crossed the Atlantic Ocean and appear snugly set up in Europe, concretely in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
January 6, 2007
There is a most interesting discussion at a learned linguist’s blog at http://reasonssword.blogspot.com/2007/01/limits-of-my-language-are-limits-of-my.html the reading of which I recommend. Was language before thought? I do not think so. Language had to come after at the beginning of times, although logically enough language has had to intermingle with thought as the human being went on perfecting the way to share his thoughts and ideas.
Thought comes before language but language has become so an intrinsic part of our being, as intrinsic as thought is, that if you try to convince somebody of this peculiarity in our life they may stare and dismiss it as sheer nonsense. And it is not nonsense.
Nonsense is whatever is not anything that leads us to consider our origins and our faculties, mental, linguistic and otherwise.
We as persons should take ourselves in earnest and if not often – because that seems a waste of time to some – at least occasionally think of our evolution through the millions of years that the humankind has lasted to reach the stage where we live today.
Perhaps by doing so we may some time end up by knowing ourselves a little bit.
January 6, 2007
The price of oil has reached in 2006 its peak returning this current year to where it started. Many have been the reasons given for the exaggerated increase, among them Iraq, Iran, some minor civil wars, Lebanon, etc, etc, but I am thinking that the sudden upsurge in price has a different motivation.
I am thinking that the real reason for this growth in prices is no more no less than an alarm felt by everyone concerned with the exploitation of oil : producing countries, oil corporations, financial system, banking, etc, etc. There are too many economic sectors related to the black gold. That alarm is because apparently oil is starting to become less.
News today is that oil is nearing its peak production and decline. That oil is going towards its end. that new energies must be developed if we want that the capitalistic ship proceeds on its money-making course. A learned geologist forecast in 2005 this was going to happen, and the sudden increase of oil corporations to exert their influence in governments to secure the supply of oil also seems to back that assertion by geologist M.K. Hubbert.
I draw your attention to this item of news appeared yesterday which has every symptom of truthfulness:
I also read today that the European Union is, at long last, vowing for renewable energies, and as I have become along the years suspicious enough not to believe that our leaders profess a tendency to clean the atmosphere or do good to their subjects, this move by the EU affirms my belief that things in questions of oil will change from now on.
Perhaps Nature is wise enough to find out that if it kept supplying oil that would mean its own death and made for the natural resource to dwindle in flowing. I do not know but the coincidence is too much obvious.
January 1, 2007
I am really fed up with the continuous accusations to governments in Third-World countries – I don’t know why they are called Third World because normally those countries are essentially rich countries in natural resources- of corruption. Such is the case with Nigeria, an oil-rich country with over 140 million inhabitants. Nigeria’s successive governments have been accused of corruption by the World Financial Organisations and by countries as the U.S. of A.
For a government to be corrupt there must be something that rots it. In the case of Nigeria and other not so rich countries, corruption comes arm in arm with the multinational corporations which are those in charge of establishing the means that corruption is to take place by. So it is in the interest of those multinationals that corruption settles in Third-World countries.
It is not the case of countries like the U.S., the U.K., France, Spain, etc, etc where corruption takes the shape of more subtle proceedings. One of these is lobbying.
The political parties need financing. The more important the financing the more important the problems of the financing entity take a place in the agenda of the incumbent government whose election depended in a large proportion on the prodigality of the former. It is a different manner of corrupting. In countries like Nigeria corruption is mainly in the benefit of individual pockets, whilst in the so-called civilised countries it is the exercise of power that is involved.
We have seen how all of a sudden – at least to me – there have been criticisms against the government of the US for alleged interferences of the Jewish lobby in Washington DC’s politics. At first sight there seems that these criticisms are well founded given the extraordinary support – economic or otherwise – that successive American administrations of one or other colour have paid the State of Israel. This is clearly a patent case of corruption. Not only the US guarantees the safety of the Israeli state, but it also takes on a role in attacking its enemies. Much money must cost those financers this behaviour of the American government.
In other countries, European, we see how a particular commercial or industrial activity thrives outstandingly during the period of government of a particular party. On many occasions these activities are localised in zones where the party supporting the government also has electoral predominance. It is clear and we only have to make a simple addition= two plus two equals four.
That the World Bank, a US enclave in world finances, criticises poor countries for alleged corruption is nothing but a deflection of criticisms which should be directed to the financing organisations that take part in the decisions of that bank, financing organisations that also control those multinationals operating in the territories of the countries under analysis.
It is such a melange that it would take a full body of analysts with full powers to unveil the magnitude and reach of that corruption.