A Tad Bit ‘Bout Life

In the Crusades, Christian knights set forth to eradicate and kill the pagan Muslims and recapture the Holy City of Jerusalem, all in the name of God.  Besides braking God’s Will (violation of the 6th Testament “Thou Shalt not Kill”) they are killing innocent (bloodthirsty and armed) Arabic peoples. Is the slaughter involved justified by the fact that they are acting on God’s behalf?

Another example that shows this was the American Revolution. Is it justifiable that thousands of British and Rebel soldiers, as well as innocent bystanders were killed, in the name of liberty?

 It is all a matter of personal morals as well as values. The first example was, I believe, a miserable idea, in almost all senses. On the other hand, fighting for Libertas, if the cause is genuine and fair, is (to a certain limit) justifiable. An example of this, as well as the American Revolution, is of the Hungarian rebellion against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). This is an excerpt describing just that, from Wikipedia: 

“The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the Stalinist government of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from October 23 until 10 November 1956.^[3] It began as a student demonstration which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building. A student delegation entering the radio building in an attempt to broadcast their demands was detained. When the delegation’s release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police (ÁVH) from within the building. The news spread quickly and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital.

The revolt spread quickly across Hungary, and the government fell. Thousands organized into militias, battling the State Security Police (ÁVH) and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and ÁVH members were often executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. Impromptu councils wrested municipal control from the Communist Party, and demanded political changes. The new government formally disbanded the ÁVH, declared its intention to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact and pledged to re-establish free elections. By the end of October, fighting had almost stopped and a sense of normality began to return.

After announcing a willingness to negotiate a withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Politburo changed its mind and moved to crush the revolution. On 4 November, a large Soviet force invaded Budapest. Hungarian resistance continued until 10 November. An estimated 2,500 Hungarians died, and 200,000 more fled as refugees. Mass arrests and denunciations continued for months thereafter. By January 1957, the new Soviet-installed government had suppressed all public opposition. These Soviet actions alienated many Western Marxists, yet strengthened Soviet control over Central Europe, cultivating the perception that communism was both irreversible and monolithic.Public discussion about this revolution was suppressed in Hungary for over 30 years, but since the thaw of the 1980s it has been a subject of intense study and debate. At the inauguration of the Third Hungarian Republic in 1989, 23 October was declared a national holiday.“ As you can see, this event was tragic, but the uprising was justifiable (even though the Hungarians lost). The Hungarians stood up for a noble cause: that of freedom, democracy, and nationalism. The Hungarians are proud and patriotic peoples, and were the only Russian client states that rebelled and temporarily expelled the Russians.  Violence is an unpleasant factor, but it is justified by a good cause. Of course, a different way must always be at least attempted, for example, diplomacy. This isn’t always possible, as has been demonstrated innumerable times in the past. Strangely, war has always been attractive to most humans. “Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war.” – Homer.  

I have included a few quotes related to war that I have found interesting:

“We kind o’ thought Christ went wagin war an’ pillage.” – James Russel Lowell

“I’ve been to war. I’ve raised twins. If I had a choice, I’d rather go to war.” – George W. Bush

“You can’t say civilization don’t advance — for in every war, they kill you in a new way.” – Will Rogers

“We make war so that we may live in peace” – Aristotle

Is it Mother Nature? It must be, as she unleashes storms, droughts, tornados, hurricanes, and all those cataclysms on us. Well, sorry to say this, but…Wrong. We, as humans, are our own biggest enemies.

How eccentric. Why should we be our own greatest enemy? That makes little sense. Unfortunately, though, every bit reflects truth. We fight wars against each other. We kill ourselves for politicians, intolerant religions, and plain, pathetic prejudice. Look at Ireland. The peoples of Ireland have been killing each other since 1155, when the English annexed them, forming Great Britain, along with Scotland and Wales. Why? Over squabbles of Protestant and Catholic religion. It is, I believe, a shame, that the Irish Protestants and Catholics must fight amongst themselves, rather than keep away from each other. Ireland could be a much more beautiful place (It already is), and the hatred among the people wouldn’t exist. Another example is Africa.

I have lost all my respect for Africa because of the ridiculous wars being waged. They have no resources, yet they easily manage to slaughter each other. Africa could be a developed continent, with brilliant people, incredible architecture and excellent government-systems, but instead, it is a war-ravaged region, with little other than death, dying, and the hungry. This proves that mankind’s biggest enemy is man. Africa has delayed or maybe even completely destroyed its development because of the yapping of a few political heads. I would think that the people are sick of fighting, but definitely not the political leaders. They will have a go at each other for the next decade.

We are supreme as humans. We are the top of the food chain. Nobody snacks on us (in exception of a few sharks, crocs, and maybe a lion or two). Yet millions of people die every day. We kill each other in subtle forms, such as cigarettes, drugs, food poisoning, unhealthy ingredients, and through our reckless treatment of our host, Mother Nature. Alone from tobacco-related products, 5 million people die every year worldwide (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSL0987501220071109?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews). Imagine-in ten years, 50,000,000 people will die. That is 5/6 of the UK’s population (60,776,238). Deaths due to cigarette smoking excede the combined killing power of alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs. It is clear that smoking needs to be eliminated. Adding to that, it proves my rather glum point. 

I think it is time for us to negotiate a ceasefire.

As I sit, reading a good book and nibbling a piece of Cadbury’s chocolate, I wonder “Why do all good things come to an end?” A rather trivial question, but definitely important if it concerns chocolate. Chocolate, as many of you might have recognized by now, is one of the elixirs of life. Its creamy, sweet excellence is simply perfect. The combination… ahhh, if I continue to describe it, I would myself start drooling. Anyway, the luxury of eating chocolate always comes to an unfortunate end. Either the bar has been depleted, or I decide that I, regretfully, must control myself, and save it for later, even though I would gladly finish it off immediately. Things always come to an end, whether good or bad, simply because there is a natural balance in everything. For example, evil will never completely take over the world, and it will never be completely destroyed. Without balance, we wouldn’t savour the pleasures of life as they are. If you had an infinite amount of the finest chocolate, and you stuffed yourself with it every day, you would grow to see it as something normal. You would regard it as you do bread. You would find yourself despising it after a while of extremist eating, and you would change your diet to eating mollusks, or lobsters. Without balance, you wouldn’t realise how beautiful things are. If you had lived your entire life in a beautiful palace, where everything was joyful and perfect, you wouldn’t enjoy it, and simply take it for granted. If you were ever introduced to the real world, you would really suffer because you were used to having everything as you wished them to be, and would realise the luck and fortune of your previous years. But on the other hand, if you were poor, and suddenly were to win the lottery, you would be extremely happy, and very grateful, for the reason that before you lived in deplorable conditions, and that now you live in a massive Chateau in southern France, eating Fois Gras and sipping fine French Bourbon. The balance that I am talking about is also known as Ying and Yang.Ying and Yang is a Chinese philosophical term that describes antithesis or mutual correlations in human nature. The words “liang yi” are a synonym to this, a viewpoint, or belief that is easily proportioned to human life. Ying are the dark forces, while Ying, on the other hand, are the forces of light. These two counterbalance each other. This fits perfectly into what I believe.

So, next time you pick up a Lindt or Hershey’s chocolate bar, keep in mind that soon you will be chucking the wrapper away, and feeling rather fat, as well as regretful for not having another to accompany the first.

     Humor must be one of the greatest things on this planet. Without it, we would be a bunch of dull, moronic creatures. In fact, I don’t think we could live without humor. We would become so boring and serious that we wouldn’t be able to hold the stress any longer, and would die. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, without laughter, we would in fact die, because two parts of our brain, the hippocampus and the amygdala, need humor, whether primitive or advanced, simply to live. The act of laughing releases endorphins, which trigger happiness, or feelings of joy. What a terrible world it would be if there wasn’t Rowan Atkinson as Mr. Bean or Blackadder, or Laurel & Hardy, Eddie Murphy, and all those great laughable figures. With humor, we can laugh and cry, release excessive stress, make friends, and feel genuinely happy.    

     According to Wikipedia, humor is “the tendency of particular images, stories or situations to provoke laughter and provide amusement. Many theories exist about what humour is and what social function it serves. Yet, people of all ages and cultures respond to humour and most people share a common sense of humour.

     The term derives from the humoral medicine of the ancient Greeks, which stated that a mix of fluids known as humours (Greek: χυμός, chymos, literally: juice or sap, metaphorically: flavour) controlled human health and emotion.”There are billions of humor types in the world, but no one appreciates every one of them. As Mahatma Ghandi said: “If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide.” A developed sense of humor is not only part of one’s entertainment, but a necessary part of life. To find humor in the most difficult situations is to be a truly positive and cheerful person. To stimulate your own sense of humor, I have included a few quotes. They read as follows. 

“Marijuana? It’s harmless really, unless you fashion it into a club and beat somebody over the head with it.” – Bill Bailey 

“Son, if you really want something in this life, you have to work for it. Now quiet! They’re about to announce the lottery numbers.” – Homer Simpson   

“You know, somebody actually complimented me on my driving today. They left a little note on the windscreen, it said ‘Parking Fine.’ So that was nice.” – Tim Vine  

“Apparently, 1 in 5 people in the world are Chinese. And there are 5 people in my family, so it must be one of them. It’s either my mum or my dad. Or my older brother Colin. Or my younger brother Ho-Chan-Chu. But I think it’s Colin.” – Tim Vine  

“But I’ll tell you what I love doing more than anything: trying to pack myself in a small suitcase. I can hardly contain myself.” – Tim Vine  

“So I got home, and the phone was ringing. I picked it up, and said ‘Who’s speaking please?’ And a voice said ‘You are.” – Tommy Cooper 

Violence is a terrible, yet universal thing. Is it inherently a part of you? Are you naturally driven to violence? Many sources (including myself) believe that yes, it is part of human nature. Why? There are several answers to this rather puzzling question. Look at animals.

Animals’ lives revolve around violence. Dogs, cats, rats, bats, horses, giraffes, lions, and all other kinds of animals fight amongst themselves over food, mates, social status, and everything or anything they might jointly encounter. As an example, I have selected a situation to which I can easily relate.

I happen to have six dogs at home, and my household is always on edge because of these hairy beasts. There are four rottweilers, a boxer-rottweiler mix, and a labrador-street cross. Of the four rottweilers, two are males, and must be kept apart. To solve this problem, we now have two garden sections: front and back, split apart by a tall fence. The next problem is on side A, in which there are two rottweilers, a castrated male and a female. These always quarrel over insignificant things, and one of them, the female (named Stasi, after the East German secret police, in an attempt to make her an intimidating creature) crowned herself Queen, and is highly restrictive to the male, forbidding him to bark at certain passer-by’s, and to eat without her “royal” permission. On the other side, though, things are quite different. The senior rottweiler on that side is called Baloo (after the bear in the Jungle Book), and he is extremely friendly with both dogs and humans, a rather rare combination. The junior rottweiler is Grunter, an absolutely hyperactive pest, who spends her life bugging others. Her constant “bugging” of others resulted in a quarrel, and one of the dogs (Mutt, a rather fierce canine, yet full of dignity, which we picked up at the dog shelter, was the outcome of crossing a labrador and a street dog) residing on side B needed to be given protection from the little devil. Our dogs, as well as all other dogs, are constantly engaged in violent activities, whether as play, or in serious “social” grabs to canine power. We humans, according to the Theory of Evolution, hypothesized by Charles Darwin, are related to animals, though in a rather vague sense. This makes us animals, though civilized and advanced, but nevertheless animals.    

     Another addition to the theory that humans are inherently violent is the idea that all humans (yes, you, me, and the world) are violent, but the difference that makes a person “non-violent” (not theoretically or practically possible, but by modern means true) is with what power he suppresses his violence. People with flaring tempers are, according to this theory, weak-minded. To have the ability to control and release one’s temper might not be an easy thing, but it is absolutely possible. Some people cannot be provoked or offended because they learn to control and cover their emotions. This is, I believe, becoming a thing of the past. It seems that swallowing pain, honourable as it is, is “out.” It seems to be all the rage to weep and scream, and to allow the testosterone to erupt into an angry ball of fire. Physicians say this is “healthy”, but I believe that it is nonsense. I admire the people that control their feelings. People like this have a strong character, as well as very effective emotional defences, allowing no insults to seep through.           

     Some philosophers believe that violence is a due part of evolution, that we fight for survival as beings. Without violence, we (humans) wouldn’t have survived. This is basically “Survival of the Fittest.” The potential of violence is in everyone, states this theory, but it is in certain circumstances where that violence is released, whether permanently, or temporarily.            

     There are many theories that support the idea that violence is part of human nature, but on the other hand, few that oppose it. The only one I could think of or find was the Christian viewpoint on the subject. It is as follows.            

     According to Christian belief (which I ironically happen to belong to), we are all pure when we first come to Earth. It is Satan who provokes acts of violence, and it is our choice whether we listen to him or not. Most people, unfortunately, listen to Satan, and therefore fall in sin. The following matter is indeed highly complicated, and highly ironic. In 1095 A.D., Pope Urban II rallied all those of Christian faith in Europe to drive out the pagan Turks, as a reward promising instant redemption of sin. How could those of Christian faith do exactly what the Christian and Catholic Church were formed against? How could Pope Urban II, the absolute top of the Catholic religion, contradict his position to God, and listen to Satan by engaging in violence, and war? Readers, those of you that are Christian, or know of the Ten Commandments, recall the Sixth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill…” This is hard to understand. The text itself is clear, but why did the Crusaders kill in the name of God if killing was a mortal sin? They manipulated the words of the Bible, saying that they weren’t killing, but that they were rooting evil, Satan, out of the world by decimating Muslims, and recapturing the Holy City of Jerusalem.

At that time, the Roman Catholic Church was, shamefully, corrupt. They sold pardons, which redempted sin. The funds went into building the Basilica of Saint Peter, the largest Church in the world. Rather shameful, but those times were filled with corruption, pain and death. The Dark Ages were times that are best forgotten, or maybe used as a remembrance of the anarchy of the time, and a lesson to future generations. It is an ironic thing that I, writing of all these atrocities, am Catholic. I am a firm believer, but I am open to other reasonable ideas. It is said that religion is a controversial matter, and therefore, I wish not, and will not get into it any further.            

     This all , I hope, has given you (other than a cracking head-ache) an insight of the controversies of the world, and of why I believe violence is inherent to human nature. If you have anything to argue (please not about religious technicalities if you could), please do. Thank you.

Freedom is an overused word. This word has been used to fuel wars such as the Second World War, it has been used to overthrow governments, and it has been used to motivate weak-minded followers. It is, though, a very important part of life.

Without freedom, whether freedom of speech, freedom to worship any religion, or any other liberty, our government might suppress us, and make us do things we would never be forced to do nowadays. We would probably rot in prison, if not instantly executed, were we to utter a single word of criticism against our government.

We must bathe in our freedom, but not abuse of it. As a blogger, freedom is very important to me. It is questionable whether there would even be such a thing as blogs without the concept of “freedom of speech.”

Freedom has liberated the lower classes, and has helped build the world which we so love, and despise. Freedom lets us rat out a corrupt government, as well as abuse of our power, and fill the world with obscenities. Alas, the internet is already filled with such impurities.

“Nowadays, you have to shout out three times as many cuss-words to reach the desired effect, compared to 20 years ago,” informed a comic strip in the Costa Rican “La Nacion.” It is quite a shame (and not because you need to spend more time swearing), as the world is now filled with dirty words, having mixed into street language. According to latest statistics, swearing is up by 800%. Even here, in local Costa Rica, people around me unfortunately accompany every uttered sentence with at least three foul invectives. That is, I suppose, one of the nasty side effects of freedom of speech.

 I can guarantee, though, that not a single rude, crude, or offensive word will ever land on this blog. If such an obscenity ever dares to pop up on the screen, it will be curtly dealt with. Freedom of speech, fortunately/unfortunately, is limited, as well as strictly controlled, on this site. I am glad to say, though, that I, as Supreme Editor and Author of This So Very Important Site, have an irrepressible sense of freedom.