A tiny problem

March 31, 2007

Tomorrow a Sunday of all days, the Power Plant  – by the way owned by Endesa – will cut supply from 08 to 13 hours (GMT + 1), due to technical reasons. Return to normality will be after 13 hours or before if anything goes alright for the corporation.



March 31, 2007

From the Greek: Ploutos = wealth + kratia = power. In day-to-day terms, Rule By The Rich.

A tour de force between the Socialist government and the opposition Partido Popular (Right Wing) is taking place these days in Spain regarding the purchase of the energy Company ENDESA and a Public Purchase Offer (PPO) presented by the multinational corporation E.ON, which is apparently supported by the opposition party, and another PPO from the multinational corporation ENEL together with the Spanish Building Company ACCIONA which, also apparently, have the sympathies of the government. I am not going to deal here with the technicalities of both offers nor am I going to step into, figuratively speaking, the positions held by both opposition and government, although my inclinations tend to be more favourable to the government’s.

I am going to deal here about my every day firmer conviction that the world is not ruled by political parties, be them democratic or not, nor is it ruled by the people in democratic terms. I firmly believe that the world is ruled by the rich people through a system which I would like to name Corporatocracy. I do not think I am coining any new term because I am sure many people in the world think like I do.

In the epoch of the last dictatorship the energy companies in Spain were owned by the state which controlled them through a sort of state holding : the Instituto Nacional de Industria (the National Institute of Industry). When the democracy(?) appeared in Spain after the dictator’s death, there were very important changes in the economic panorama, and little by little, with the shy opposition from the unions, the big companies changed hands from public to private, which was called privatisation.

It may not escape to anybody’s comprehension that the energy industry holds one of the safest positions in the world’s economy, particularly in the developed countries. Nothing can be done in terms of economy without the active intervention of energy, and it is in the energy sector which the avid eyes of those thinking with their purses stare continuously.

The offer presented by E.ON has been advised (?) by the following financial advisors:

BNP Parisbas S.A. – Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. – Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch –

J.P. Morgan Plc – Lehman Brothers (Europe) Ltd. – Merryll Lynch Capital Markets España S.A. –

You may find details about these companies in http://en.wikipedia.org because given that including in any post more than one link may make me the victim of cyber hackers I am not going to oblige them by doing so. In any case in future comments I’ll be pleased to include more links that are convenient to the issue under analysis.

I think it was Richard who suggested somewhere else that without the energy suppliers we would have nothing to do, and I think he was right. They have so much power, if you think carefully about it, that I would not be able to write these simple ideas today if I do not pay them their bill every two months. The energy suppliers are fundamental for everything: house building, car making, domestic appliances, clothes, shoes, combs, pins, post stamps, etc, etc., weapons of all kinds, aircraft, ships, nukes, you name it!

And I ask at this point: do any of you believe that with these assets and the political system that rules all of us is there anyone that dares to challenge the power of an Energy Corporation?

And in practical terms, although these corporations are ruled by a wealthy elite aided by super-intelligent persons who are not permitted to wholly integrate in their social layer, the public in general with money to participate in the property of those corporations by simply buying their shares in the Stock Exchanges, also benefit from the initiatives which at all times are directed to earn more money. Only that the latter cannot effectively participate in the decisions that are concocted by the real owners of the entities, you know those holding the majority of the shares.

In any case these extra shareholders are in no way a cause of worry to the top brass of the corporations.

Nor, of course, are they a majority among the public in general of whom they are members.

And believe it or not, the SEC has also something to do with these Public Purchase Offers. Do you know what the SEC is?

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the first comment to this post, I will give you a link to check this information about the SEC.

Which will definitely not be solved today. I hope tomorrow the day will give me better news, because these problems don’t permit me to write as I wish in blogs and forums. The server’s pace is sluggish and not trustable.

There have been reactions for all tastes in the comments written to the First Part of this issue, I’ll try now to give a response to them at the time I include in this Second Part new elements of consideration to the problem under revision.

It is thought that giving the economy as a root motivation for the crisis that is going on in the Middle East is an oversimplification of the problem. I do not believe it is, I firmly believe it is the reason for everything going on in the region. Simple reasons can be the answer to difficult problems, sometimes matters are made difficult to understand because those who deal with them so want them to be to hide the real situation behind. In this connection I remember an Einstein’s anecdote when he had to confront the number one student in a class room to solve a problem. The student took just some minutes to find the solution, while Einstein took very much longer to find the same solution because he used a scientifical process to do it.

If you look at things with simple eyes is quite different to looking at them with complicated ones.

Religions have all the time since their inception been exploited. Men were always exploited in one or another way, and they still are, much that they want us to understand that slavery has been erased off the face of the Earth. But this is another question I am not going to deal with here.

It is religions and their exploitation that have brought us to this post, and on them I am going to focus here.

Thirst of power is what have made men and women(the latter in scarce circumstances) divide into two sides : those wielding the power and those suffering the consequences. The growth of populations caused the growth of memberships in all religions. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchies organised them in a way that the faithful were permanently subject to fear of God. God was made in the image of man, not all the way round because this is absolutely impossible as God has never been seen by any one.

Fear, the most abject of the human traits, is at the root of all our problems. We have fear of wars, of fights, of not having enough money to reach the end of the month…, and above all of death. The Catholic Church instituted the sacrament of Confession as a unique instrument to keep its faithful in the fold. Psychologically speaking Catholics owe their souls to the Church dignitaries who are allegedly endowed with the grace granted by God of absolving all sins. The Imams are in charge of this mission, although in a different way, in the prayers all Muslims are compelled to pray every day, while Jews must have a weekly time, the Sabbath, to strengthen their relationship with God. All of these are rites in which the faithful of each religion firmly believe which keep them united in each of the folds.

And those who wield the temporal power, or want to wield it, know and use it for their own benefit.

We have seen in all these years since the problem in the Middle East became really serious, that there have been situations where suspicions might have arisen of attitudes which went against one or another religion. The cartoons issued in Denmark, the Pope’s statements about Islam’s being violent, whilst Judaism has maintained the same position it has for centuries continuously using today the Holocaust to keep undesirable situations off its limits, that is Muslims fighting against Christians, Christians uniting to Jews – of all unions – to fight Muslims, and all of them making the world a complete chaos to live, this in sheer fear of one another.

I do not believe for a second that religion be at the root of the problem, of this universal problem we have been compelled to live with, religions are being used just to keep us watching the locks of our houses, the persons who walk on the streets about us, the suspiciously-coloured passengers that will be travelling in the same planes we travel, the strange bags that have been left unattended anywhere, in sum distrust about each other is growing non-stop in the world. Why?

I do not believe in conspiracies, I believe in evil and in goodness, I believe a human being is capable of being evil or of being good, of being greedy and of being modest. How many times have we seen how a human being has used another one for the former’s benefit? Numberless. Husbands using wives and viceversa, children using parents and viceversa, friends using friends, etc, why then human beings cannot use religions, too? And above all the members of those religions?

Why, for instance, cannot Jews use Christians and Muslims against each other in their own benefit? What are the Christian-Zionists (not Zionist-Christians curiously) but an aberration which is being used in favour of Zionists? Why cannot Muslims use Christians against Jews? Or Christians not use Jews against Muslims?

While they are busy trying to settle their enormous differences, some take advantage of the situation to fill their own coffers.

Religions should avoid to have any interferences in politics, but it is imperative that religions do not allow politics to use them because politics have not anything whatsoever to do with religion. Politics is material, religions are spiritual. The day this is achieved, we shall start to have peace because religions are in their origins meant for peace and love among the human beings.

As we have been able to see through the years and our studies, practically all religions have been conceived under the fundamental concept of God, or a god, in this post I am going to deal with the idea of religions which have been a permanent part of our lives for thousands of years, namely – in chronological order – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Of all the three are based in beliefs that have God as the main core of everything that exists, the origin and eventual end of life, any life.

In accordance with what we have learnt, Christianity was the origin of a religion that sprouted from Judaism and which Judaism did never accept as legitimate by Jewish standards. The Christian Messiah was never admitted as the Messiah the Jewish Scriptures spoke of. Perhaps if he had been admitted Christianity would not exist, only Judaism would have been consolidated. But events took a different course to what today seems it would have been a logical one.

Islam came to existence long afterwards. Its origins are in a way much to do with Judaism and Christianity, although it is a totally different religion. All in all I wonder whether if there had not been a split there would have existed the problems we have today which oppose the three religions against one another. If there existed just one giant religion all over the world, without divisions, how would the world behave in religious matters? Would it have been a religious dictatorship? My opinion is that it would not. My opinion is that given the individualistic condition of the human being, it would eventually have split into as many divisions as there are today, with the same problems we also have today.

The concept of God has been taken by the three divisions as an individual patrimonial asset and each one has claimed its property along thousands of years, something that bumps frontally with the very foundations of the three religions, because in all cases God is the proprietor not the propriety.

It is curious that the term fundamentalism was first used in reference to an extreme Protestan position characterised by the belief that the Bible is a verbally accurate recording of the word of God. This position holds that the writers were divinely inspired to the smallest detail of revealed truth. The term has been applied to a part of Islam with the same strict adherences to the Muslim sacred text, the Coran. But the term, if I am not wrong, was employed by Christians in the first place. Following the definition given above, then Judaism is the most fundamentalist of all doctrines, but this has never been said of it.

We have Orthodox Jews, as we have Orthodox Christians and I believe Muslims, too. Can we liken Orthodoxy to fundamentalism? I think we can quite easily. As happens with so many other idioms or terms in our languages, the degeneration of the meaning of fundamentalism has been clearly taken to represent a religious position that in our Western world demonises its followers when it is applied to Islam. If we follow the traject of the term its meaning is all the contrary: it is strict adherence to a faith, nothing else.

Did the persons who started using the term realise that its application was by no means a clear reflection of the real status of those it was meant to be used for? Perhaps they did not or perhaps they did, I do not know nor do I believe anyone will at this stage. The fact is that the term is considered as a deprecatory one referred to the Muslims who use violence in their aims which as far as I can understand, have nothing to do with the Islamic religion. It has to do with the freedoms the people who live in the Middle East region want to achieve for themselves, freedom from the economical grip exerted by multinational corporations whose only interest in that region is the exploitation of natural resources paramount for the normal development of the Western world.

But a world-wide system of news at the service of those corporations has created a false impression on the minds of its readers which really in my opinion disguise a legitimate claim on those resources in a veneer of religiosity. Not that religion is not mixed up in the struggle, but it is mixed up because it is the only way to make Arabs move, given their adherence to the Islam’s principles and tenets. In my opinion it is not conquest what this movement pursues, it is the devolution to their legitimate owners of the exploitation alien forces make of those natural resources.

And in this pursuit the media I referred to before take much care in focussing the attention on Muslims in general, which creates the desired outcome of generalisation of the problem. The more people accuse the Muslims in general, the more Muslims will join what the Western Media call fundamentalism. That is the main mistake – sometimes I call it purpose – of the Western countries regarding the Arabs: their position face to Islamic countries is being conducted by interested parties which will never bow to the Arabic countries’ legitimate claim of their own land and resources.

And to this we should also add the precarious situation in which Arab leaders recognised by the Western countries find themselves in, starting being hated by their subjects for their affinity to the West.

My thoughts about the situation in the Middle East, and in the World, are many more than a normal post would permit, so I will leave it as it is now for the consideration of readers, as otherwise it would be too long and boresome.

The title of the post also allows for a second part to be written.

Oppression and oppressed

March 11, 2007

Every day there are new aggressions against women, against children, against elderly people. As it happens it seems the world is turning against the weakest human beings. This is nothing new, it has happened for centuries and centuries, but never was the world so technically advanced as it is now. Never were morals so much considered as they are now.

I feel a sense of oppression myself, something against which I cannot fight, something that leaves me depressed and unable to shake it off, and I presume the rest of the human beings around me find they are themselves in the same helpless position, although most of them have never been aware of what produces this depression.

I think our religious education may have something to do with it. Our moral education sees itself so many times compelled to contend with irreligiosity – in the strictest sense of the word -, with immorality. Those principles we were  reared on are of no use any longer. Double morals to explain the inexplicable are continuously used to contain any likelihood of our rebelling against the established system, a system which we have contributed to shape because we have bowed to the pressure of our oppressors.

And the worst part of it is that people do not think, do not discern over what they are forced to do. They go to wars, they accept that human beings be killed for motivations that they have never come to understand just accepting those motivations because it is simpler to do so than fight against them. And that is to me nothing less than oppression.

Men speak about rights for women, for children, for the elderly, but it is just a way to content themselves that they are doing their duty in accordance with the principles they were brought up with, but there eventually is no effectiveness after the decisions have been taken. Women’s standards of living are below men’s, the children are neglected absolutely and parents duties are not exacted but, instead, those duties are transferred to the state which is the ultimate decider via the Law or otherwise.

There is no reality in education, every new political tendency that takes the power either by election or by force creates its own educational system, again oppression.

The elderly see how their end approaches and muse over what they have done during their life, not realising that their life has not yet extinguished and that they are as valid – or perhaps more valid – to society as always although these last years they are forgotten by the establishment because they are too dear to maintain. Again oppression.

There are very rich countries whose health and social security conditions are really third-world, they exact from their citizens whatever they deem convenient, but again this kind of oppression does not take into account that these citizens have imperative needs both physically and spiritually, citizens are not compensated for going and dying in wars, and when they return the oppressing state does not think it is neessary to see to their quick recovery and rapid attention.

There is a generalised feeling of despair that we are living this life as best as we can, irrespective of how we are treated. Our sense of responsibility has also been affected by these conditions.

Responsibility seems it is no longer our duty but the duty of the oppressing state.

These are just thoughts that keep ocurring to me and I write them because it so seems I let steam off and it helps me to carry on.


New World Order?

March 6, 2007

None such! I have been reading around on the net how many free thinkers believe there is a New World Order under way, and I am afraid this is another way to delude us into the same giant lie we have been fed with since the end of World War II. The New World Order, in my opinion, was instituted sharp on the end of the talks held by the various world powers that won that war. There have been changes, apparent substantial changes, but the run of the world is being kept inside the canons of a dictatorship of Capitalism.

The last news that leads me to believing this is what I hear about China’s giving its countryside inhabitants such a quantity of perks that that would ensure a pacific transition from Communism “a la Chinoise” to Capitalism “a la Chinoise”. Unbelievable, isn’t it?

Russia took the same way with Gorbachev and we now see how Russian societal levels have taken a new look and every day the differences between rich and poor are more evident, as happens in the US where there officially exist 37 million poor, nothing more nothing less than about 17% of the population.

If there were to be a New World Order and it were going to be imposed by the “Old” World Order… then I’d better not think about it, because our lives and our minds would be subjected to unthinkable levels of tyranny. We would be reduced to mere pawns without a will whose only mission should be to act as tools of the New Ultra-Capitalist Dictatorship.

China has realised, as did Russia, that the best system to run a country is the Capitalist system, and I think that for the time being it is. What is not acceptable is ultra-capitalism, that all thoughts and ideas be exploited to enhance the powers of Capital, instead of being used to improve our living conditions and our education so as to achieve for ourselves what is intrinsec in our lives : freedom in all its expressions.

Have we ever realised that without us Capitalism would not exist? Have we ever realised that we also think, that we also have ideas, that we do not need anybody else’s ideas to survive?

As the world goes I can only see two kinds of protagonists: those who are high up and control everything from birth issues to death rates and the rest of us.

And as Merkin says, we still have this means of communication, let’s use it as long as we are allowed to.

Which is becoming a clamour on the internet.

We can also change the World Order.