Greeks have rang the bell. People start getting unrest from what they suffer and from what they hear. Is it possible that a revolution arises from all this?

As we all know revolutions have been the consequence of situations similar to that we are experiencing these days, but I wonder whether the revolution that might come out of this one would be in the benefit of people. This time it may not be so. This time it might lead the world to a tighter control of everything. This time it might be a revolution of the top brass.

We can see how the police forces of each and every country are organised to fight any “insurgencies”, how the armies have on many occasions reacted when it has been shouted that the integrity of a country is under threat by outer or inner forces. Those forces have at all times reacted following the orders of the constituted power, but this constituted power is really very far from the so much alleged Democracy we should be enjoying.

We have been under the spell of a so-called terrorism, people fear everything from their own security to global threats both human and environmental. Fear is the word nowadays that is helping the leaders of the world’s countries to rule.

The world has not changed it continues to be the same world it was in the Middle Ages, the power of the strong and few prevailing over the weaker and many. The human condition at its best. And this time the West does not need any religions to cooperate.

I am very much afraid all this will turn out  to be a new step towards a harsher control of us all, via money, mortgages, eventually poverty.

May I be wrong!

Advertisements

Energy

January 24, 2009

I see the media care about the likely systems of energy proposed to replace oil and suppress contamination, and apparently everything points out to nuclear energy, deceitfully advising it to be the least contaminating.

Nuclear energy is dangerous on one side because it is subject to human control and on the other because their waste is very difficult, if not impossible,  to dispose of without contaminating. And I wonder why solar, wind and sea energies are not more researched, being as they are natural, cheap sources of energy. In my opinion there is a fundamental cause for the preference: its set-up costs place it very far from a relatively average pocket. Corporations – again this word! – must be formed to organise power plants. We, the people in general, the only part that can have in it is our investment in those corporations and which in fact helps to exploit us, ironically.

In effect, the costs of building wind mills to produce energy would little by little decrease as  demand grows, placing them at the reach of households. The same would happen with solar and marine energies.

In real fact, what makes governments  opt for nuclear energy,  in my opinion,  is that obtaining the source of energy – uranium – is not at the reach of any household, therefore practically impossible that the power (not a pun) given by the privately controllable sources: oil and uranium,  would always be held by the powers-that-be (not a pun,  either).

Energy is the real source of power for those who command. We need it and are ready to pay for it: in homes, motor-cars, aeroplanes, industry, sea craft, war machines, everything relies on energy, and…we pay for it the price which curiously enough is not inside the frame of the “free market”. At least that gives a subtle appearance of public control, but we all know that eventually it is not so.

The control keeps being held by those who control the governments.

It is so easy if we unite, but no,  every effort is done to keep us the furthest from one another.

On this the strength of power is based. (Again not a pun).

Leaders

January 11, 2009

There are many definitions in the dictionary of what leaders are. I have picked up just one:” someone who acts as a guide”.

And a guide are those who we do not elect but who as heads of a list of nominees try to be our rulers in future legislatures. Persons who have been elected by others, a few, who believe their election will be the solution to the problems occurring at each time. Unfortunately what is good for a few does not happen to be good for many, and this has been proved along the centuries since Democracy (or so they would have us to believe) was installed in our lives.

To achieve leadership in olden times needed a cumulus of circumstances, among them to be a person capable to lead people in wars, a person with enough clairvoyance to make his followers risk their lives for whatever he wanted them. Unfortunately, or fortunately, this has ceased being so. A leader nowadays is a quite different person. A leader nowadays must be someone who can convince people that her/his intentions are the panacea for them to have a pleasant, easy life.

That so many believe her/him is the way for her/him to achieve what she/he seeks. And what is it that they seek? So far I for one see that they, whatever their political inclinations,  follow a political pattern that in cases favours the destitute among their co-citizens – which is today called socialism – and others follow what their predecessors in their very same political trend did, that is favouring those people powerful enough to make them do it.

But, both of those tendencies cannot but support what Capitalism has become, which is not the same thing as when it all began. As we all know.

Leadership must be won. Leadership, unlike Royalty, is something a person must achieve through conviction among those who are led that the leader is the one who can save them from all difficulties, economic or of welfare, that are encountered in the normal course of our lives.

And this leadership cannot be provided by those whose main objective is to achieve personal ambitions.

I am really fed up with everything I read and listen. And suddenly that saying came to my mind and made me think again on what is happening in the world.

I live in Tenerife, the largest of the Canary Islands, once attacked by Admiral Nelson and where he lost his arm and where he had to submit to the islanders and where he and his men( no women then) were cared by the Tenerife people as though they were their best friends. Things that happened then and that ceased to happen since. If I were to go to another Canary Island I would try to behave as those who live in that island behave, because we all have different ways to live and behave.

I wonder why Spanish and other nationalities do not have that way of thinking that was the usual thing many years ago. I remember when I went to Britain I tried to se how British acted and I tried to do what they did. I had no problems whatsoever.

Why colonialists did not act as their colonists acted is a product of human arrogance. Perhaps the people they colonised, morally, were far better than them, but was it religion that made them think otherwise? Or was it education where religion those times had a very important influence? I cannot say.

What I can say is that the powers of the world – where the US, Russia, China and India are included – see themselves as people that can invade and change the conduct of the locals by means that are deceitful – such as the implant of democracy – when what they are after is richness and control of natural resources.

On the other side of the oceans, immigrants want themselves be respected by those who they must respect in the first place. They want that their customs and rites be superimposed to those already in use in the visited country. I wonder whether they would tolerate British or Spanish or Russians or Indians or Chinese to superimpose their customs and habits if they were in the immigrants’ birth lands.

In my opinion this is the responsibility of laws and authorities of the welcoming countries and immigrant minorities cannot by any means demand that the local customs be changed to adapt to theirs.

The invasion of the coalition forces in Iraq was meant to change the customs and rites of that particular country, Democracy was paramount in that invasion, or at least that was the excuse. We all know what was really behind it.

Palestine is today the word in vogue. The State of Israel , as we all know, usurped the Palestinian lands, and it tries by all means to become the overwhelming power in the region. Instead of acting as Palestinians do Israel has wanted to impose its views and opinions and, most dangerous of it all, its concept of religion – often used with biased intentions – over the other religions of the zone, the Christian religion included although Israel has been wise enough to use Christianity for its own aims. Once and if everything is solved to Israel’s satisfaction we will then see Cristianity become another enemy of the Zionist State.

But coming back to Europe, my question is the question that every European asks themselves: why the immigrants do not respect the laws that are in force in the visited country? They were not called to be there, therefore they should take that circumstance into account.

The Law and its servers must see to it that those laws be respected, using all the means on hand, disregarding what the visitors may have in their minds as to the ways of living in the new country.

Elections, votes, parliaments, etc., are there for something. Or aren’t they?

What I can see from my sad chair is that everybody wants to deceive everybody using the methods everybody lays at their disposal to that end. If the word is racism, then racism will be the excuse. If the word is ethnic cleansing, then this will be the excuse