Know Yourself

I’ve noticed many of my friends are so confused – morally and ethically – that they don’t even know what they stand for. Accept first who you are. Understand your principles and your values. It then follows you can decide to change. In either case, you must both be consistent with yourself and accept the consequences of your choices. A man who does not know himself is condemned to follow another blindly. A man who has no moral values is condemned to follow nothing and, in so doing,lose himself.

Convenience is often enough the opposite of conscience.

Who are our heroes today? The promiscuous, the avaricious, the ruthless, the reckless, the weak of character, the ambitious, the arrogant, the deceiving. So, pity the nation that has heroes, and mourn for the nation that needs them.

I've never worked quite as hard as I did this year. I've rarely been as perceptive, supple or persistent. Nor have I've ever achieved quite as little. Defeat is thence not a measure of effort. It is rather a function of inspiration, multiplied by exertion and support and then subtracted by ineffectiveness and context as elevated by backstabbing. Unfortunately, at the moment, second part of my equation seems to be the greater one.

Business ethics has become an oxymoron.

He who hides a mistake makes two.

If a strong economy and the end of the global economic crisis is the objective, I think we need less of a change in political leadership and more of a change in policy.

Bad executive decisions are like good boomerangs: they always come back at you.

The State has no competence in redefining moral issues. Outlawing traditional moral values or personal opinions is as clear a step toward despotism as can be had.

I have it in me to respect any serious religion, for I believe there is only one God, and if you are praying, you are praying to Him. I also respect an agnostic’s and an atheist’s right to live their lives within the guidelines of their syncretism, science or whatever else pleases them to believe, though I find it that it seems to be too much to ask that they respect my right to live within the boundaries of my religion. Yet I have no respect for those who profess a belief in a mockery of religion, such as Jediism, Witchcraft and the artificially reintroduced neo-pagan sects. Nor do I respect syncretism per se, for it is not a religion at all as much as a person confused about which precepts and concepts belong together.

It has been a VERY long time since I saw – or even heard of – an idealist taking up politics and the last one was a tyrant.

Tell me which nation in the world believes they live under a truthfully democratic regime, and I’ll point you a people deluded.

Would it not be much easier to spend the hundreds of lives and billions of dollars that today are spent on securing petroleum into securing an alternative form of fuel to make a nation independent? Couldn’t that sum be spent in buying peace at a bargain rate?

On the transparency of preconceptions:

I once interrupted an acquaintance that was going on and on about the “ignorance of religions and the ignorant who follow them” to tell him I’m religious, and that person made a very surprised look and posed: “but you’re intelligent.”

More on Abortion

To those who argue abortion is preferable to a poor childhood: I heartily disagree. It benefits a child nothing to be ended horribly in the mother's womb - least of all if the mother consents - for that child will have known violence and sin and will not have known love, just as if that child had been exposed to a violent and heartless environment. What must be done, is for adults to become responsible for their choices before Society. If a child results from those choices, then that child's parents must be made to take responsibility for their child and care for the child as best as possible. Failing that, Society's agents should take up that child and care for that child, with love, to enable a productive and righteous adult to surface. Killing the child will in no conceivable way make the world a better place, for the act itself corrupts the world.

On Infidelity

Infidelity is not romance, Infidelity is not love, Infidelity is no new chance, Infidelity is no white dove, Infidelity is not pretty, Infidelity is not beauty, Infidelity is not righteousness, Infidelity is just weakness.

On Personal Responsibility vs. Society's Role

Society does as Society wills. Personal responsibility comes first. I for my acts. You for yours. If that is tended properly, Society falls in place. Not the other way arround. A Society of the corrupt cannot and will not correct the wrongs of the individual adequately.

Be consistent: if you don’t agree with the precepts of a religion, don’t say you’re a follower, and if you say you are, then be it.

It strikes me as odd when a pregnant woman is prevented from entering into academics or applying for a job. Though I will not dare dispute that pregnancy is inconvenient to employers and to academic carreers, I must say our Society should have come to terms with it by now. After all, it has only been FOREVER since we've lived with this particular phenomenon.

On Catholics vs. Birth Control

The debate on Catholic doctrine vs. birth control and the spread of HIV is moot. The most prolific populations on Earth are not even Christian. On the other hand, the Christian concept of fidelity is the ONLY effective prevention against venereal disease. People don't abide by Church precepts, and then blame the Church for the consequences of their own choices. What's the logic in that?

As to manipulation of the majority by a minority: The world needs more people capable of speaking their minds, and less people bowing to the "politically correct". It is not the way societies work, but it how it ought to be.

The Catholic Church pursues consistency with its precepts and dogmas. Conversely, Society is morally inconsistent, that is why it is perennially at odds with the Church.

On the "Politically Correct"

The term “Politically Correct” has been used as a card blanche to impose a great many unilateral agendas. It is the death of democracy posing as democracy. People should be true to their beliefs and their conscience, and it should follow that they should act by them as well, in all things, even in the face of dissention. Most of all in politics, a citizen must be true to his or her beliefs, even if they are tolerant of other beliefs. You may accept another and live harmoniously near them without condoning what you deem is wrong. This is tolerance. Bowing to what you deem is unjust, corrupt or even sinful is not tolerance, but betrayal of self and of those who share your views. It may well serve the “politically” inclined, but it will never be “correct”.

I always get confused with governments who on one side distribute contraceptives and condoms, pursue planned parenthood, condone abortions etc. and on the other offer help with Viagra and assisted impregnation. Demagogy? Nah....

More on Radical Feminism & Abortion

There can be no justice or equality where an infant innocent is made to pay for the choices of an adult. If to be a post-modern feminist is to condone abortion in support of licentious behaviour in women, than what's so great about it? What is so noble about sharing your bed with multiple immoral males that deserves the unholy sacrifice of the unborn babies that result from the act? Copying reproachable male behaviour is certainly NOT the way to go about establishing women as dignified citizens.

Why Defend the Faith?

I don't understand why I bother; yet I do. I yearn to see the Truth out, I suppose. I regret the injustice of the accusations that I witness. Why are they made? A question best directed to the accuser than the accused. My theory is that people lash out against those who live a life that contrasts with their own. I think that they feel justified in sin if they destroy God.

The "branding" of social groups dehumanises the interlocutor and is conduscive to acts of ignorance. Conversely, "identity" of a group facilitates unison.

I once had an Aikido o-sensei with whom I didn’t really get along very well, but who once said something I always thought was very pertinent; he said: “Good manners are a replacement for the absence of genuine affection, under which good will would have a person behave well toward another. If the latter is lacking, be sure that the former is not.”

I once had an Aikido o-sensei with whom I didn’t really get along very well, but who once said something I always thought was very pertinent; he said: “Good manners are a replacement for the absence of genuine affection, under which good will would have a person behave well toward another. If the latter is lacking, be sure that the former is not.”

One "gets used" to a lot of things. That doesn't make them tolerable enough. It just makes them a reality.

Never tell yourself you're a loser, even if others do it. There is no shame in defeat, but there is plenty of shame in self pity. Always bear this in mind: It is wise to recognise inferiority, for it prepares you to excel in face of adversity.

On Free Will

If life were a game, and God the Writer of the rules, then free will would be a rule in the game and God, as Dealer and Game-Master, would not need to cheat the players to know the outcome. The rules being so intimately His, it would be logical for Him to be able to foresee every outcome. This in no way undoes the freedom of the players to choose their moves. It simply makes them predictable.

On Free Will

The question of free will is indeed a problem because it empowers Man to do evil and pursue wickedness and then blame God for the outcome. Conversely, it also empowers us to choose to be better and grow.

While I will vouch for obvious common ground between Judaism, Christianity and Islam without hesitation, I do not think that syncretism between those who believe in reincarnation and those who do not is possible at all.

It is my firm belief today that, if governments were to be committed at all with the people they govern, the salaries and benefits of government officials, ministers and top management in governmental institutions should at all times be proportional to the country’s GDP. In that manner, they would grow or shrink as a function of how well the economy is flowing. If their reward is directly proportional to the performance of the country's economy, it should follow then that they would take great care to select only people of competence to occupy positions of leadership, and that a country’s leaders would police one another in order that one’s ineptitude would not affect another’s diligent work. It may also follow that the people’s perception of their leaders would improve knowing that they are as directly affected by the welfare of the nation as the regular working people. As to corruption: it would certainly endure, but the cost of it to the people would be diminished.

Historically, a professional or mercenary army is always easier to spend than one made up of conscripted citizens and patriots, and if you have one, you have to use it from time to time lest you'd have a problem in your hands. An army of conscripted citizens is inherently more concientiously deployed. Conversely, an army of patriots is inherently a defensive force and can never be used for invasion.

In the absence of true affinity, social salvoirfaire is desirable. Likewise, in the absence of genuine respect for life, respect out of fear the threat of punishment is a fair substitute. If one will not preserve me out of love, they will respect me out of fear.

There is rule of Law, and there is rule of conscience. Law governs a people via threat of force and punishment, conscience governs self via moral values. I accept that no religious doctrine and no moral value can be forcibly imposed without generating conflict. Yet, they can and must be heartily defended in a just and coherent fashion. A self professed Christian cannot abide abortion, unjust war, consumerism, homossexual behaviour, polygamy, pornography and other choices that go against his/her belief. Neither can a Christian suffer to see those that do chose such paths violated or trampled in their right to chose such paths according to their conscience. A Christian must hate the "evil act" whilst loving the "misguided person". There can be no compromise. There is a fine line between defence of Faith and a tyranny of the intolerant. The latter is the most common in both religious and anti-religious groups, but even more so among anti-religious minorities.

Governments the world over are redefining social relationships and ethics at the expense of expressive conservative groups and moral traditions. The initiative, though applauded by the naive and the gullible as progressive, reeks of totalitarianism and self-interest.

On Feminism

Whether or not the Feminist movement started out as a reaction to injustice and abuse, the truth remains that it went astray. The radicalism that took over organised Feminism resembles the injustice it once fought. No good comes from unleashed hatred. I'm not saying feminists are wrong at all in pursuing female dignity and opportunities for female professionals. However, the level of indignity at some of the issues raised by Radical Feminism is justified and in others it is disproportionate. Radical feminists seem to throw in the same pot felonies, misdemeanours and commonplace affairs and this only makes everything reek of blind rage. In my view, this is what weakens the ultimate goal of Feminism as a whole. The same is true of other contemporary movements. For instance, I currently don't live in the US, but I can tell you from when I visit and from the American women in my social circles, that the relationships between men and women in the US have been somewhat compromised by the manner in which defence of feminine dignity has been pursued in that country to-date. It became tainted and artificial in some very natural points, utlimately compromising the enjoyment of a straightforward relationship by either party. Also, the whole issue of “being the same” has, in some level, led to groups of women pursuing promiscuity (of the same kind that is condemnable in licentious men), which does not become the very dignity that is desired by feminist women. As I said, the message was corrupted along the way. It needs to be redressed and rebuilt. You have to fight a monster without becoming one. To me, the ideal between genders is not independence at all, but interdependence. This is what empowers both within the same dignity. Two halves of one whole. Slightly different in nature, but equal in worth.

"Seven social sins: politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi And we are doing it all.

On The Constant Siege of Christianity

Seriously, illustrating Christianity by using examples of bad Christians who don't follow Christ's example or Christian doctrine is no good. Shall we start digging for bad feminists, bad homossexuals, bad atheists etc. throughout history (I'm sure there are a few)? It's like illustrating Medicine via poor doctors, Engineering via bridges that fell, Art via unskilled paintors, Music via Rap (yeah, I kind of don' like Rap music, though I think hip-hop is fine). I can tell you from my experience that for every rotten apple, there are basquetfulls of good Christians out there.

On Accountability

If you pay a tax to a government, and that government uses the money to pursue something that is utterly iniquitous, are you still accountable? I say you are, if you were aware of their policy when you fuelled their coffers. If you elect a politician and that politician pursues iniquitous acts, are you co-responsible? I say you will be insofar as you were aware that such wrongdoings were part of the politician’s agenda. If you follow orders from a superior and those orders are iniquitous, will you be absolved of the wrongdoing? No. A man may rightfully command another, but each man is accountable for his own acts.

Why is it that some people just feel a need to come to your face and say that your religious beliefs are wrong? Does it in any way change anything at all? I find that the most insistent and vexing anti-religious interlocutors are those who have no solid theological, scientific or even philosophic basis with which to challenge my Faith. All they have is guilt and the will to do away with it.

On Homossexualism

Until 1973, homosexuality was recognized as a disorder. After 1973 the matter became political and no longer scientific, so scientific argument was compromised entirely and I won't even go into that. Homossexuality was (and sometimes still is) regarded as a deviation of the natural norm. Frankly, it is isn't it? If we take away all the propaganda and all the moral onus that's associated with the issue, everyone KNOWS it is not the natural norm to be homossexual just as it isn't normal to be a paedophilic (distinctive clinical causes notwithstanding). That having been said, I personally feel that, unlike paedophelia, pursuing homossexuality is an issue of individual conscience insofar as it affects adult individuals who decide about their lives "conscientiously". No one has a right to PERSECUTE homossexuals socially just as no one has a right to IMPOSE homossexuality on Society or any subgroup thereof. This should NEVER have become a legal issue. I believe it did solely on account of interested parties. It is indeed hard to be a homossexual. I've homossexual friends who accept their inclinations and those who don't. Of those that accept them, some act upon them and others refrain. They all have a hard time dealing with the reprecursions of their choices. That I may have friends with different lifestyles, beliefs and divergeant sexual orientation does not mean that I agree with them on all their choices. I may like the person, respect their choices and still disagree. Likewise, disagreeing with any stranger about their choices does not immediately mean that I nurture any resentment toward them. Is that such a difficult concept to understand?

On all issues of modern moral controversy: It must be said that making something LEGAL doesn't necessarily reflect that it will also be MORAL or RIGHT. More often than not, it merely means it is CONVENIENT.

Modern Lies

The worst kind of lie is the one hiding behind the truth because it deceives further. It is more insidious and therefore more effective and potentially more harmful. We must keep in mind that a lie that is 99% true is still a lie.

The universal golden rule is to “do onto others what you would want done for yourself”. It is a good rule that promotes social harmony. So why do we keep trying to bend this rule to “have others do what you’d rather not do for yourself”.

More and more, I become convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.

There exists no democracy today that can afford to submit to the will of the people without disrupting the affluence of banks and corporate conglomerates.

Another day I toiled. Another dream was foiled. Yet here still stands a man capable of dreaming dreams of glory. Through nightmare and through turmoil, light will shine anew. Tumble I still may, though never will I falter. Steady I will stay, growing ever stouter. Tomorrow, have you faith, beckons another day.

On perspective: insane, as they say, is the world around us. Sanity in an otherwise insane context will take the guise of insanity itself. Likewise, morality in an otherwise immoral context will seem insane.

Was the Pill the Solution?

Historically, I identify the root of contemporary relativistic movements with the 1960’s, when many social taboos were ruptured in the advent of organised groups and certain advancements in medical science.

I submit that the removal of practical consequences directly linked to acts deemed immoral up until the discovery of the contraceptive pill have enabled the pursuit of those acts with greater impunity. This same impunity became the catalyst to a popularisation of immorality.

The rebelliousness of youth – using a new and very appealing social trend to affirm their independence before the previous generation – by and by took to the new practices. Then – having pursued “immorality” – when their offspring followed in their footsteps, they had no moral standing with which to admonish the practice. Through repetition, what was deemed immoral became common practice; thereby becoming normal in the fullness of time.

Yet the change is still incomplete. There remain undeniable ethical and practical complications relevant to human nature in the “normalised immorality.” Our change of demeanour has not changed our inbred emotional and physiological reactions. Emotional attachment and the physiological consequences associated with romantic and sexual involvement are still present. No matter how hard we try to turn our bodies into playgrounds, we are still human and we must learn to recognise that fact. Knowing ourselves, we must not forget how we have learned to restrain our more self-destructive urges. Morality and religion were responses to our darker side. They were tools to enable society to exist. We set them aside at our own peril.

To those who argue the pill brought the promise of freedom and bliss, I say we have enjoyed over fifty years of what the hedonist and utilitarian currents have proposed. Sexual freedom, anthropocentrism and ethical malleability have flourished and prospered all this time. Where is the incommensurable joy that should have resulted from it? Where is the brotherhood of man that would embrace a selfless existence of its own accord? It isn’t here. Quite the contrary, we’ve become selfish and heartless in our petty pursuits and pharmaceutical companies were the ones that prospered alongside abortion clinics.

Through the ethics of profit, governments and oligarchies paint in the pastel colours of currency the raw red of human suffering and the black stain of environmental decay.
In the race for supremacy, truth is dead and burried.

Respect is Not Consent

That I may have friends with different lifestyles, beliefs and divergeant sexual orientation does not mean that I agree with them on all their choices. I may like the person, respect their choices and still disagree. Likewise, disagreeing with any stranger about their choices does not immediately mean that I nurture any resentment toward them. Is that such a difficult concept to understand?

It is undeniable that governments tend towards promoting inward interests at the expense of the international community, and therein lays the bone and marrow of every war. Men and women too often forgo their individual conscience to rule under the premise of patriotism, and in so doing they err disastrously. Interdependence is the key to global peace, but it only works genuinely if commerce is pursued without the barriers of government subsidies and disparate social rights. No one dares to bomb their source of revenues. If I sell to you and you sell to me, at a fair exchange, there will be peace between us. If we both buy from them, they won’t harm us either. Economic interdependence is the greatest deterrent to war and the healthiest way to establish genuine globalisation.

The New Utopia - Introduction

Oh what a marvel it would be to find the whole World renewed, redeemed and crisp with hope and a true Brotherhood of Man to populate it.

Is it such a distant dream to aspire to global harmony? Not at all, for all the impediment that we today struggle withal is of our own making.

Imagine, if you will, a world where a man is not the sum of his belongings, but of his accomplishments. Imagine a society where higher station is awarded to those people who serve us all out of altruism, not for personal gain. Imagine an economy that sees profit as a consequence of benefits provided to the buyer, rather than the opposite. Imagine a world that does not lie to itself saying that we have pursued the only possible course of action, and that this sole alternative will necessarily culminate in self annihilation.

These are not new dreams, but ancient ones. We chose to ignore them because we allowed ourselves to be convinced that the dream was impossible. By this assumption, we have allowed ourselves to accept the unacceptable. We have allowed ourselves to look onto our brother and let him starve. We have chosen to let ourselves be corrupted and seduced by greed, convenience and comfort at the steep price of human suffering.
We have told ourselves that the Earth is incapable of giving Mankind what it needs, but have we been honest about it? Do we all need what the rich possess? Do we all need luxury and excess? When people starve in our time, is it because the forces of Nature have dealt a lethal blow, or is it because grain and foodstuffs are valuable commodities negotiated under the ethics of profitability?

Make no mistake: The Earth is perfectly capable of sustaining Mankind, as long as each of us renounces their self-servitude and the path of hedonism. It is not our ecology and our natural resources that are at fault. It is not the size of our populations. It is indeed the fact that we want more than we need. It is the fact that there are those who want more than they deserve. I’m not talking about want, but austerity.

The inconvenient truth is that the sum of our contemporary code-of-ethics boils down to economics and financial gain. We have, as a society, decided that our finances rule us, and thereby guide our decisions and our actions. We let our hungry purses guide our conscience and we have the folly of telling ourselves it’s for our own benefit.

What’s more, under the premise of equality, we have left behind time-honoured values once believed to make nobler that which we call “human nature,” and we substituted them for the cold practicality of material wealth. We told ourselves we were freeing ourselves from moral bondage, and then we have enslaved ourselves to our finances via consumerism, hedonism and convenience.

Whether we have been induced to this error by interested parties or whether we have jointly arrived at this stage by our own choices is less relevant than the fact that we are here; though it would be an interesting social exercise to analyse this progress from an objective viewpoint.

Be that as it may, by our ethics today, an individual is worth his NET worth to society in general. The individual is thence not a complete person in the pragmatic eyes of contemporary society, but merely a piece on the great game-board of macroeconomics. Human dignity is often reduced to legal formalities or the individual’s ability to purchase it. Likewise, social relationships are very much interdependent with material wealth and society in general rewards only financial success, and mainly when this is proven through the trappings of monetary triumph.

By our contemporary principles, an individual deserves as much as others are willing to pay him for the benefits he claims to offer, where benefits can be goods or services or both. The objective becomes then to distort perception so that those others grow to be willing to pay more than the actual value of the benefit offered by the individual.
While this does bring about a sense of justified enrichment of the individual making the offer, this distortion of perception that allowed the “honest” enrichment provokes ripples in the foundation of valuation and the fabric of our morals, the instrumental consequence of which is relativism and inconsequentiality.

Technological advancement notwithstanding, global society has traded much of its progress for higher aspirations that were once our own to cherish. We pursued growth at the expense of our quality. Through distorted anthropocentric ideals, we have ceased to empower our better side to surrender to our primeval instincts. We accepted that the search for pleasure and the sating of our cravings is within our DNA. We decided to admit that our animal passions are indeed very powerful and we have surrendered much of our spirit and intellect to sate them. We chose our convenience over our accountability.

Timeless institutions, such as marriage, fidelity, monogamy and family, have been deemed mere inopportune paradigms and cast aside to make more room for hedonism and consumerism. However, in our present considerations, we, as a society, have forgotten that these institutions were not mere social conventions. They were indeed historical creations that enabled society to exist within communal parameters. They were instruments that came to exist in order that we could curb our more destructive instincts and turn them into something better; a code that allowed us to live in relative harmony within a larger community.

Like these institutions, our contemporary society has forgone the habit of promoting certain moral values and certain codes of conduct that were once at the very heart of our social identity. That we were always and remain imperfect is less important than the will to pursue higher aspirations. We forgot that, and by our lack of memory we were diminished as a society.

We are choosing instead a pragmatic approach. We are choosing a code that is measurable and quantifiable: Material wealth. Yet the ethics of material wealth are excessively malleable. They are prone to absolute pragmatism and relativistic values. After all, if only wealth is rewarded, than what is there to stop us from doing anything and everything to achieve wealth?

By our very human nature, it is, in my experience, paramount that society promotes a higher moral code to serve as a light by which the individual can guide his conduct in the valley of shadows that constitutes purely pragmatic thought. Law & legal punishment alone are insufficiently strong to promote ethical behaviour, for the unlawful expect to escape civil and penal penalties, and they are too often right in their assumption.
The impoverishment of our sense of community and the destitution of human dignity associated with valorising the sole objective of financial supremacy over every other accomplishment generates a moral manipulability that is harmful both to the individual and to society as a whole. This is our contemporary reality. Does it have to be like that? The answer is quite simply: No.

The search for something better is also in our nature. The search for the divine and the sublime is within our DNA. We can choose to feed on it. We can choose to foment it and to harbour it until it can eventually become our reality. As with most things, the ability to choose a better destiny is within our reach.

Because the ethics of profit have become supreme in contemporary society, people feel they can trample over everything else to achieve material wealth. To our collective shame, we often enough applaud them.

Escaping from Reality

Funny thing. In reviewing a list with the bulk of popular contemporary literature and contemporary cinema blockbusters, it is possible to notice that the great majority of themes and settings have very little to do with reality.

Honestly. Nowadays it is all about "super-science", "super-powers", "super-natural" and otherwise "magical" precepts. Inchlings of reality find their way here and there, but they also tend to be exacerbated "super-realism". To my mind, that the popular preference is for the fictional and the fantastical is clear indication of escapism.

Could that mean that we have made our real lives "super-dull" and "super-infernal"? Can't we change our daily lives to make them more than bearable? Can't our reality be interesting enough and pleasurable enough for us to enjoy it and write about it and make movies about it?

Food for thought.

The 3 Business "Us"

Because of the 3 business “Us” – unethical, unreasonable & unsustainable – the greatest crisis in future business relations will be credit.