Comment: Strike Action

Vanitas Still-Life by Edwart Collier

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I have your attention, please! I promise to be extremely brief...

The Portuguese civil servants were on strike last Thursday. Portugal is in an economic crisis and the unions decided that the best thing to do was to go on strike to protest against the government (which is doing its utmost to clean up the mess left by the Left)...really smart and productive.

It must be a true blessing to work for the government: you go to work, you produce (or not); you disrespect tax payers (basically, your true boss); you get paid at the end of the month; you get to complain all the time and you play havoc with the lives of those who pay your salary (i.e. tax payers) on the day someone decides you must go on strike...dreamy!
If I, as an independent political consultant, would ever dream of going on strike, whom would I take a strike action against? Let me think: maybe that special client of mine (to whom I service with valuable information) that owes me big time since January? I can’t imagine what sort of satisfaction he may retrieve from not paying his due, however I can picture him laughing his eyes out if I’d sit in front of his building holding a banner vociferating improprieties against him...nightmarish!

I understand that strike actions were born in the midst of the Industrial Revolution, a time when workers were exploited (including children and women [who didn’t have the right to vote yet had the right to be scandalously exploited]); I comprehend work stoppages are meant to exert pressure and demand for better conditions; I appreciate that strikes may help forcing governments to change their policies...I understand it well in times of prosperity.
I do not understand, however, how during an economic crisis (in many countries, provoked by the incompetence of socialist governments with the connivance of the People) national citizens reject setting aside partisanship and refuse to come together to make their nation rise from the ashes. I do not comprehend how a citizen can commit itself to further ruin its country. I do not appreciate when people go after leftist demagogy without questioning that nefarious practice and commit treacherous acts, such as senseless strikes when the country needs them the most.

Strikes today are no longer about workers’ rights.
Strikes today are sheer political instruments that sometimes border anti-patriotic acts.

Thank you, Ladies and Gents, for listening; you are a beautiful audience...

Blogging or Cultural Diplomacy?

The Thames & the City of London from the Richmond House by Canaletto

Do you blog? Then you just might have a new job title: a Cultural Diplomat.

Milton C. Cummings defined Cultural Diplomacy as being “The exchange of ideas, information, values, systems, traditions, beliefs and other aspects of culture, with the intention of fostering mutual understanding”.

So far, only travellers, teachers and artists are considered cultural diplomats or informal ambassadors; however, if we think about Milton Cummings’ definition then bloggers must be included in the whole concept.

Blogging is an exchange of thoughts, information, values, culture, history, traditions, beliefs, emotions and so much more that it brings people (from all corners of the world) together.
Through blogging we understand that, regardless where they are, people are people who just want, and need, exactly the same things as we do: love, freedom, a job, healthcare, respect, dignity, self-determination, peace, happiness and a future.

The goal of Cultural Diplomacy is to yield long-term benefits (e.g. promoting national interests, building relationships and enhancing socio-cultural understanding) and blogs can do just that.
Does this imply that governments should start using bloggers as informal diplomats/ambassadors? If they don’t yet, they definitely should because blogs are an extremely effective means to promote mutual understanding.

Political parties, religious institutions, the media and other groups tend to shape societal opinions. In order to be successful, they must limit the horizons of people and thus the amount (and quality) of information they receive. However, the Blogosphere expands our horizons: it offers other perspectives of life, of people and of the world. It also complements our personal & travelling experience. It further transmits a sense of humanity, generosity and solidarity. And, finally, the blogosphere builds relationships that can reveal themselves to be vital to all sorts of national interest (e.g. the promotion of tourism, trade and foreign investment). And this is the beauty of the Blogosphere's potential.

It is said that the Patron Saint of Diplomacy is the Archangel Gabriel. Since he is the deliverer of the word of God, a born-communicator and an emissary, I’d say he is also the Patron Saint of Bloggers, when these work as ambassadors.

So, if you promote your nation’s history, gastronomy, art, philosophy and religion; if you promote politics, human & international relations thus, contributing to a peaceful existence through understanding...Are you just a blogger or are you a Cultural Ambassador?

Mary Madeleine: La Traviata or Jesus' Disciple?

La Gioconda by Leonardo Da Vinci

Mary Magdalene is often portrayed as La Traviata (this rumour was addressed in The 3 Maries), because being so she becomes a symbol of redemption.
But some Nag Hammadi Scriptures seem to describe a much different Magdalena we have grown accustomed to: one of the most prominent disciples of Yeshua, who asked many informed questions and understood [perhaps the reason why Jesus, when resurrected, appeared before her first].

I could understand why Christian Institutions, before the discovery and study of such texts, would not make an effort to reform the New Testament: perhaps because it is more comfortable to leave it as it is, lest the Codices force drastic changes (both dogmatic and structural).
I like Apocryphal texts, because they offer us another perspective of the Religious Play and its Personages. For example, if we take a peek at a very interesting excerpt of the, ant-nibbled (indicated by the [...]), Gospel of Philip:

«As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.”»

What is the meaning of this text – which part is to be taken literally and which part deserves a deep exegesis? Did Jesus have an intimate relationship with Miriam Magdala and, if so, why is it so difficult to perceive Yeshua, a Jew (who followed the Torah, which clearly states that it is not good for a man to be alone), as an individual with human desires?

I am also enjoying the Gospel of Mary because it shows us that despite having had the honour to learn from Yeshua, some male apostles returned to the human vicious nature upon their Master’s demise:

«But Andrew answered and said (..) “I at least do not believe that the Saviour said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.”
Peter answered (..) “Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?” 
Levi answered (..) “Peter you have always been hot tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Saviour made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Saviour knows her very well. That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Saviour said”.»

Apocryphal texts are like Mona Lisa: they look at us with a smirk in their face, as if mocking us for our inability to see beyond the apparent reality. They mock at our ability to swallow consensus truths. They smirk while telling us “Question everything; doubt everything; for doubts lead you to the Truth!”

And God Created Woman...

Mrs. Mary Robinson by Thomas Gainsborough

“And the Lord God said: it’s not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18).

Women were created to help men, to be their balance; however since women’s emancipation the definition of “help” may have changed a bit (at least, in the mind of many women). So, how far are today’s men willing to go to get “female help”?

This past weekend, I heard a most disturbing episode (taken place in England): a man, secretly, administered steroids to his wife, for three months, so that she’d become ugly and fat enough to quit her job and finally stay at home to take care of their children.
I wonder how the whole affair may have played out...

Hypothesis I
He asked his wife to be a stay-at-home mum, because now he is earning well enough to provide a comfortable life to his family. She rejected this suggestion, outright, saying that she has a career to think of and, that soon she will be promoted. He reminded her of the children’s welfare and, the advantages of her staying at home to give them support etc; but she reiterated her career comes first and, plus, her salary will allow her to buy them all the things they want, need and dream of. He begged her to reconsider; she said “no!” He went to his local gym and while running on the treadmill, he plotted the future of the “career woman”...[*running*]...“You see, darling, I put my children (& myself) first!” he tells himself...three months later, his bearded, stout, wife is a “loving & caring” fulltime mum.

Hypothesis II
The husband is promoted, he earns big time now and, in his professional circle he is the only one whose wife isn’t a “Real Housewife” – this embarrasses him. Therefore, he gets home and conveys his promotion to his beloved. He stresses the fact that now that he has been promoted, they are in the “first league”, meaning that she no longer has to put up with her boss (that pain in the neck); that she can stay at home and do what she has always dreamed of: to take care of their children. She frowns and with vehemence says “NO!” She presents her arguments (valid ones: her mum stays with the kids, they are fine; she wants to be busy and accomplish something) but although he doesn’t agree with her, he smiles saying “You are right, love!”
At the gentleman’s club he shares his personal predicament with a colleague who suggests a radical plan: steroids to tame the shrewd.
Three months later the “Real Haired Housewife” is a fulltime mum.

And God created woman to help. But today, what does “help” mean exactly? 

Comment: Pacifism

The Sea of Ice by Caspar David Friedrich

Animals, in the wild, fight to mark territory, to prove strength and ability to protect; in summa, they fight for power. This is Animal Nature.

Humans, as part of the animal kingdom, display a similar demeanour; however that which distinguishes them from primordial animals is the intelligence and ability to build (and use) tools to use during those battles.
Aristotle said that a man who lives alone is either a god or a beast; meaning that humans were created to live in community. But living in community does not necessarily imply a 100% pacific co-habitation; for this goes against the nature of existence (on earth) and the principle of duality.

To know peace we must know war. To know war we must have the notion of peace. These two concepts cannot be learnt from history books; they can only be absorbed through experience (of any sort).

Knowing that war is part of the human condition, what are we to think of Pacifism?
Personally, I see pacifism as an ideal, one that can be as detrimental as the ideal of socialism, whose implementation can generate more conflict than peace.
Jimmy Carter is a person who speaks his mind (a feature I very much admire in any human being) however he is a pacifist. A fortnight ago I watched him on BBC, speaking about his achievements as a President – he stressed the fact that he sought to bring peace about in the whole world. After listening to him talking, I was under the impression that President Carter is/was blinded by his ideal: his dream of a 100% pacific world led him to make mistakes and trample upon the history and cultural identity of certain People. What was the result of his attempt to solve international disputes peacefully? Further resentment, tension, dissension, conflict and war.

Pacifists’ ideal blurs their reason. It’s easy to say, “I am against wars and guns!” and “Make love not war!” while at the same time waging sub-wars: bigotry, oppression, corruption, cancer, famine, idleness, addiction, loss of values and disrespect. These sub-categories of war can be annihilated; however wars intended to protect, to reaffirm power, conquer and mark territory will never cease to take place as long as there’s human beings on earth.

No one loves War, not even soldiers. Our Spirit comes from a peaceful place so the concept of Peace is engraved in our Soul; having said this, we try to bring a piece of peace to our virtual Paradise, however to do so humans many times have to resort to conflicts and battle.

Immanuel Kant, in “Perpetual Peace: a philosophical sketch” [1795], imagined a league of nations (the forefather of the UN) to control conflicts and promote peace between states; but looking at history we easily reach the conclusion that perpetual peace, on earth, is not possible and it is nothing but a philosophical sketch indeed...