The UN Precedent

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?

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:

1. The state is ran by Men and, any man’s spiritual education will forcefully affect his thoughts, values, conduct and, thus, decision-making. 
2. 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

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

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.

Homeland Security: Part I

Soldiers by Béla Uitz

On the 22nd of July, Norway suffered a terrorist attack.
This hideous crime reminded the world of two things:

1. There is terror beyond Islamists.
2. The permissiveness of the Left Wing awoke the Monster.

A few years ago, I heard a European political sciences professional (in a party) telling me that she correlated “terrorism” to Muslims. I was disappointed to learn that an individual that was supposed to be proficient in the political language could be so narrow minded, bigoted and thick. Being a Muslim doesn’t necessarily equal to being a terrorist.
There is terrorism beyond radical Islam: ETA (Basque terrorists – Spain), IRA (Catholic terrorists – Northern Ireland), Hamas (political terrorists – future state of Palestine), FARC (communist terrorists – Colombia), PKK (Kurdish terrorists – Turkey), The Patriots (far right terrorists – USA), etc.
Islamists are an evil seed, however the Intelligence World got so focused upon them that it became oblivious to the other dormant evil seeds; giving them, thus, time and space to sprout and thrive.

Although the role of the Left Wing, in democracy, is important it really needs to admit its abysmal mistakes (mainly, ultra-generous re-distribution of national wealth, that leads to idleness, therefore to low productivity, thus to poverty and ultimately to recession; plus, relaxed positions towards illegal immigration) and re-structure its speech and stance.
The socialist permissiveness and emotional politics led Europe to the chaos in which it presently finds itself, and unfortunately it woke up the Monster.
History has already taught us that economic, social and cultural discontentment is the perfect fertilizer to grow far right extremists, so I can’t understand how the Left has failed to grasp the painful lessons of the past, and allowed evil to resurface.

The Norwegian security forces have admitted to the increase of far right wing activity last year; however they also suggested that the movement was feeble, that it lacked a charismatic leader and it showed modest growth potential. It seems like they were quite mistaken.
The apparent disorganization may be intended to deflect attention, as it seems to have been the case: security units were too relaxed about the “pseudo-disorganisation” of far right radicals and allowed a very dangerous extremist young man to murder 77 human beings.

Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian PM, has stated that Norway “has not lost its innocence”, but for Norway’s sake I hope it has, for innocence and naïveté do not keep a nation safe.

Homeland Security: Part II