My Life is Better Than Caesar’s

Introduction

The other morning, a couple of proselytizers from the Jehovah’s Witnesses came to visit me. We had a simple discussion of the Bible and I was invited to attend one of their meetings. They were friendly although they struggled with answers they were not prepared for. One of them was to the question “Do you believe the world is getting worse?” I answered “Yes” and they were rather surprised. One of the ladies said no one has ever said “yes.” This post will share my reasons for why.

Developing Perspective

I know when the ladies go asking this question, they are trained to do so because it is expected the answer is going to be a no. This naturally leads into their discussion about the importance for the Second Coming of Christ, an event I believe has already happened. However, this won’t be a theological discussion but instead focus entirely on perspective. You see, those who proselytize also believe the world is getting worse and I feel hope everyone feels the same. This is sad because to me, this means they are seeing the world through a very narrow scope, one that is self-centered and not God oriented. They also hope those they meet are the same so as to compel church attendance and maybe membership. This is slightly manipulative and denies an opportunity for truth.

I would say though that this phenomena is not exclusive to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. As they go door-to-door, they will be coming across people of all walks of life. They will meet the religious and irreligious, the educated and uneducated, man and woman, young and old, and every skin color which the world has to offer. The vast majority of this entire population has found it acceptable to believe the world is getting worse yet hope for a better tomorrow. Even in the political arena, when I listen to talk shows like the conservative Rush Limbaugh or the progressive Thom Hartmann, the general sentiment is that things are getting worse but there are pathways to making them better.

I would like to offer my perspective on this matter since I really do believe the world is getting better. As the proselytizers were hoping to teach me about Jesus, I figured I would focus on when Jesus first existed in the flesh, in the early days of the Julian calendar.

The Time of Jesus 1.0

You see, most who are called Christian profess their belief in Jesus. Despite this belief, they believe the world is getting worse which means Jesus 1.0 no longer has a positive effect in this world. This is a poor expression of faith and denies the truth. What was the world like when Jesus walked amongst the people in Palestine, then of the Roman Empire? What was it like to be poor? What was it like to be wealthy? What was it like to be Julius Caesar, the most powerful man in the world? Yes, I know Julius was not alive when the ministry of Jesus took place, but for symbolism and the fact people believe the calendar which Julius started was started because of Jesus, I figure why not? Julius Caesar was wealthy, well-traveled, and a symbol of the best civilization was offering at the time, at least in Europe and the Middle East.

How is My Life Better than Caesar’s?

The following will be brief observations about how my life is better than Caesar’s

  1. My life expectancy of about 80 years is greater than the life expectancy of any Roman, to include Caesar. Caesar was famously killed at 56 years, but for the entire population the average was 25 years. If a baby survived into adulthood, they might be able to have reached 60. Today, I and most others can expect to live longer than the longest lived people of the Roman Empire. The worst country in the world today for life expectancy is Swaziland currently at 49 years. Our worst today is nearly twice as good as that in the time of Jesus.
  2. It is suggested Julius Caesar when traveling to various war spots in Europe, could travel about 100 miles per day over the course of 8 days. The most powerful man in the world at the time of Jesus thus would travel 800 miles in a little over a week. I can currently drive 800 miles in about 12 hours or fly 800 miles in about 3-4 hours. I can move about this world today better than Julius Caesar ever could.
  3. Julius Caesar was a Roman, whose capital Rome is in the current state of Italy. What was Roman food like, or old Italian food? I have the luxury of having marinara sauce made from tomatoes, a food Romans never would have experienced. Only when the Native Americans were discovered could Italians create their famous tomato based pasta sauces. Yes, I eat more delicious and flavorful foods than Caesar could ever dream of.
  4. When Caesar was alive, the world was at a constant state of war for land and resources. Borders were always changing. Today, I live in a world where such war is rare and borders hardly changed. When Russia took Crimea a few years ago, this was only the 2nd time a border in the entire world changed this decade and this was with no bloodshed. The world is more closely linked and peaceful than it was when Caesar lived.
  5. Finally, when Caesar lived, what would happen to his poo? Rome being the wealthiest city in its time, did not have toilets. There was fresh water, there was somewhat of a sewer system, but these systems were not linked. Poo often had to be carted off, passing by people. Caesar, when he would have to go about the streets or to other locations, had to smell the poo of others and had to get his own poo out of the way. The air and water all around me is fairly clean with barely a foul odor.

There are many many ways I could go on about how my life is better than Caesar’s. For all intents and purposes, my lifestyle is greater than the most powerful King during the era which Jesus lived. I am not a King and I am considered squarely in the American middle class. Caesar would envy my life. Caesar would envy your life.

Since Jesus first walked among us, life did improve. The only problem I see is our expectations change. We expect to be able to communicate with anyone in the world in an instant, to feel electricity powered fans, air-conditioners, and heaters to give us a comfortable temperature, to move about our environment with increasing speeds, dress in elaborate clothing, adorn ourselves with precious metals and gems, and eat any food we desire. We can raise our families in relative peace and security. Imagine Rome in the year 0 A.D. with no night-time lighting, no police, narrow streets, the smell of poo, and not knowing what is in those dark streets. Even in the most oppressive societies of Saudi Arabia and North Korea, people still go about their lives with much greater freedom than the people of ancient Rome.

Conclusion

If we open our eyes and our perspectives to look beyond ourselves, we can see a world which is getting better. My grandparents suffered through the Great Depression and World War II, and my life is better than theirs. Each generation things improve. We do not need a Jesus to return to make our lives better because God is constantly guiding us to a better world. We should be more grateful for what we have, grateful that we do not have the lifestyle of those in the ancient days, and grateful we have opportunities to seek our purpose rather than our purpose being decided for us. Life is better. This is the Good News. This is the Gospel. This is the effect Jesus had on society as well as all the Manifestations of God have had upon our world.

Climate Change Will End White Supremacy

yOn June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump announced he would have the United States withdraw from the Paris accords and the Paris agreement. His reasons were simple. He said the agreement would put the United States at an economic disadvantage when compared to other countries such as China. Trump stated there were financial obligations required of the United States which were unfair. The regulations imposed by the agreement would harm American industry and over time, reduce American household income. Trump finally suggested only the United States would suffer these impacts.

To cite his information, Trump used a study from the National Economic Research Associates. You can see the full study here. What is interesting is the study cited is a simulation of various scenarios the United States would have to take to reach the goals necessary to reduce emissions by 80%. The study said current US policy, even that under President Obama, was insufficient to meet those goals. The study then, was not an assessment of current US policy, but an assessment of what the United States would need to do and the economic impacts of this simulation. As we all know, a simulation is not quite reality. Also, the study did not simulate impacts of other countries. This was not a comparison then, as Trump repeatedly stated in his address.

I do not believe President Trump is familiar with the Paris Agreement, the study he cited, nor anything else regarding environmental economics. He said the Agreement would reduce coal jobs, but the Agreement says nothing about reducing coal jobs. All contributions by nations according to the Paris Agreement are voluntary. If Donald Trump does not want to give money to the United Nations for climate change, the United States does not have to and could still be a part of the Agreement.

Since Donald Trump does not even believe in climate change, what other motivations are there his decision? What could Donald Trump be disagreeing with?

I will summarize statements from the Paris Agreement and use evidence from Donald Trump’s actions.

1) Donald Trump disagrees with the principle of equity affirmed by the Paris Agreement. Throughout Trump’s business career, he has been well-known to exclude non-white minorities from much of his investment. Who in Trump’s inner circle is not white? Where in Africa has Trump invested? What non-white person has Trump praised for a specific value or act?

2) Donald Trump disagrees with the idea there are certain developing nations who are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Which developing nations are not a white majority? Has Donald Trump expressed any sentiment towards any developing nation or its people as being important or valuable? I have not heard of any such sentiment.

3) Donald Trump disagrees with the ideas of sustainable development, equitable access to development, and the eradication of poverty. Name one policy Trump has supported which alleviates the needs of the poor, let alone eradicate poverty. Has he ever used the words sustainable development? Has he ever expressed a sentiment that those in Pittsburgh, the city he often mentioned in his speech, can have equal access to the opportunities he was given? A golf course is not sustainable development.

4) Donald Trump disagrees with safeguarding food security and ending hunger. For example, there is a famine in South Sudan, near famine in Ethiopia, and other issues with hunger in countries like Yemen. Has there been any mention of this in any public statement by Donald Trump? No. People going hungry in Africa or Asia is not important to Donald Trump.

5) Donald Trump disagrees with a person’s right to health. Can anyone state any expression or desire of any American to be healthy or to have access to health care. In fact, the political party he is a member of, the Republican Party, has proposed legislation limiting health care access for the poor, many of whom are portrayed as being non-white citizens.

6) Donald Trump disagrees with the rights of indigenous people. The very first executive action Donald Trump took was to deprive the native Lakota people a voice in favor of white oil and finance industry executives. Donald Trump has made no personal investments on native American land and has never expressed the equality of any indigenous people.

7) Donald Trump disagrees with the rights of migrants. The first expression of Trump’s political platform was to build a wall to keep Mexicans out of the United States. Similar sentiments have been expressed towards Muslims, especially Arab Muslims. He tried to institute a travel ban preventing Muslims and then all Arabs and Persians from being able to enter the United States. He has also expressed no sentiment or favor towards refugees of war.

8) Donald Trump disagrees with the rights of people with disabilities. On his campaign, Trump had specifically made fun of the disability of a journalist, questioning his ability to be a good journalist. Trump has never expressed any statement stating the equality of people with disabilities to those who don’t, nor has he mentioned their rights.

9) Donald Trump disagrees with the idea of gender equality. He was famous about stating how he could do anything he wanted with women, objectifying them and their private areas as not theirs, but his. Those in his inner circle do not include women, and when there are women, they do not have a voice. Even his daughter Ivanka recently found this out when he disregarded her advice regarding the Paris Agreement.

10) Donald Trump disagrees with the importance of having public access to information. Repeatedly Trump has attacked the press in the United States and has praised leaders who suppress the media in their countries. He calls the media as presenting fake news, especially when they present news which appears unfavorable to him professionally and personally. These attacks demonstrate how important it is to reduce access to information. Finally, one of the first changes to the White House website was to eliminate any mention of climate change. He even has restricted access to NASA and NOAA information which scientists and others in the public use.

You see, everything else in the Paris Agreement, such as the goals of the United Nations and member countries, the affirmations to work together towards a common cause, mean nothing due to the foundation of values expressed prior. Why would Donald Trump believe in helping mankind in a common cause when the very core of his beliefs only favor a very specific portion of mankind.

Donald Trump only cares about white male affluence.

Now let me tie this in to Russia. The media have often reported the potential reasons why Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin seem so intent on working together despite their countries having historically divergent roles and ideologies. Blackmail has been mentioned, access to better business investment, and even occasionally the hope these relationships can bring a long-standing peace. I believe the only thing which ties Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is the ideology of white male affluence.

Repeatedly during Putin’s tenure as President, various elements of his government have regularly expressed their sentiments. Some have felt the white race is being threatened by increasing mixing of multi-ethnic people. Some, to include Putin, have expressed their goal of keeping Russia a majority ethnic Russian majority nation. There have been policies proposed to purposely reduce the birth rate of non-ethnic Russians, such as the Muslims in Chechnya. A survey of African people in Russia have shown that over half of all African people have been assaulted by white people solely because of the color of their skin. It is also known how cold Putin was in his relationship with President Obama, a black man who Russian people often portrayed as a monkey.

You can say Russia is one of the last major powers of the Old World where the majority of the population and its members of government still strongly believe in white supremacy. Are there any further relationships Donald Trump has had which indicates white supremacy as an ideology are important to him? One could point to the support of David Dukes, the former leader of the white supremacist group the Ku Klux Klan. One could point to the current website of the Ku Klux Klan and note many of the positions they believe in are also supported by Donald Trump.

What can Donald Trump gain from his allegiance to Russia, his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and his current political agenda? I do not believe all of the intentions are focused on making money, although making money does help support the rest of his goals. I believe Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are seeking to work together to weaken the institutions which could help non-white people of the world a chance to compete with white people on the international stage. The coordination of actions taken so far, such as the assistance to Bashir Assad in Syria, demonstrate their need to have friendly puppets in power which can help keep non-white people weakened.

Is White Supremacy sustainable?

I do not believe it is. So far the current manifestations of white supremacy are dominated by oligarchs who are controlling most of the world’s resources. A majority of the world’s wealth is controlled by white people or non-white people who are basically puppets of white people, such as the King of Saudi Arabia. Even if some people like Bill Gates who does give charity to non-white people are not considered white supremacists, they have still benefited by white supremacy and have done nothing to change this system or allow non-white people to even compete with them in business. I believe it will end with the growing populist movements throughout the world. Even a majority of white people are losing their wealth and beginning to realize this. Many times a white man realizes he is not supreme, it is expressed with deep psychological disease and violence. In the USA, look at who commits the mass murders and why. The world is ready to start addressing this disease and hopefully healing it. The erosion of rights and opportunities will force people throughout the world to seek the rights and opportunities they demand for a fulfilling and rewarding life.

Climate change is the one thing which will end white supremacy. There is one point I do agree with when Trump left the Paris Agreement. He said the agreement will not do enough to end climate change. I do agree with this but I also believe there is no way to avert climate change. The population is increasing, the total energy needs of this population are increasing, and even if we use less carbon, we are destroying the forests, wetlands, and other critical carbon sinks to sustain the current economic system designed by white supremacists. Climate change will become the great equalizer. As an unprepared world starts to suffer more from extreme droughts, flooding, and other high cost and high impact weather events, the more we will realize how few resources are left to compassionately help our neighbors. In turn, the economic systems and their political structures will become increasingly fragile and eventually forced to change.

What will this change worldwide look like? From the future disordering of the world institutions will become a greater order of eventual peace and unity. It may be rough getting there, but we can do it. This new greater order will have a foundation of unity where no form of racism will affect us. People of all ethnicities will have access to equal rights and opportunities. People from both genders will have access to equal rights and opportunities. People with disabilities will have equal rights and opportunities. The only thing which will affect our success or lack of success is the combination of skills, discipline, and some measure of luck. Success won’t be determined by our heritage alone.

There are other challenges to this future. Here in the USA for example, over 80 million people voted for the ideologies and actions of Donald Trump. An entire political party supports a great portion of his aspirations. You see, in the end, an elected official reflects the values of the people who elected him. Elsewhere, many others subscribe subliminally to this idea of white supremacy. Go visit India or the Philippines for example. The lighter your skin color, the greater chances you have of affluence. In many countries skin lightening products are popular and it is sometimes considered as a sign of prestige to be in a close relationship with a white person from the USA, Canada, Europe, or Australia. Often times those with darker skin seek the approval and respect of lighter skinned people in social settings, leading them to act somewhat differently. Violent movements such as Islamic militancy tend to only target the idea of white male affluence. When this white male affluence is targeted, entire wars are started and nations destroyed.

Unueco Partio believes in establishing a world where we take care of our neighbors, both in the local communities as well as those who live in other nations. As we take care of our neighbors, we do so with the belief in equity at every level of society. We seek to abolish poverty by reducing the imbalance of wealth current ideologies support. We seek to secure a food supply while encouraging sustainable development. We seek the rural farmer to be as important to our system as a CEO or monarch. We seek free access to any information we desire so that we may be more fully educated. We seek a society where indigenous people are as important as migrants or the progeny of migrants. We seek a society where there is no future creation of refugees but a safe place to live wherever you want to call home. Unueco Partio believes that this entire world is a home to all, under the same roof, under the same banner of one humanity. This will not be the world of Donald Trump, but it will be the world for all of us.

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Questions

The TPP is a potential trade agreement between the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. In the USA, the TPP seems to be quite unpopular. Unueco Partio is supportive of enhanced trade deals which can benefit for all involved.

What is it your view of the TPP? What specifically do you dislike or like about the TPP? How will it help or harm the country you live in?

Here is the full-text of the TPP available on Medium.

The Values Behind the 2016 US Presidential Election

I like to say any democratic election, no matter the party platform, no matter the candidate, and no matter the positions the candidates support, is a referendum of the values of the majority. I accept often times values aren’t at the forefront of an election. In the USA, for example, issues people seem to be interested in are related to the economy, such as wages, worker’s rights, and the effects of immigration and international trade deals. Other issues in play include our foreign policy and how the United State’s power should be projected, and some domestic moral issues such as abortion and freedom of religion.

Still, despite these issues, there are underlying core values which the population expresses, some in the majority and some in the minority. It is these core values which find their expression in the way issues are framed, viewed, and voted upon. In the end, after the voting is over on November 8, 2016, the world will know what the core values are for the majority of the population and perhaps what the core values are for a significant minority.

With the lead-up to this much publicized 2016 US Presidential Election, from the primary process between political parties all the way up to the final campaign pushes by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, what are some of the core values you observe and what do you feel it means for the future of the USA? If you are not from the USA, do you feel these core values can lead to a positive future for the people of your country?

The World’s Central Conflict, a Study of Faith, Philosophy, and Kingship

Conclusion

The central theme of all the world’s conflict is the world’s desire to have a just King with divine qualities, yet our rejection of the very idea such a King could even exist.

A Glimpse Into the World Today

There are many strong political movements which desire to influence the direction of the world’s future. Most of these movements are expressed in national or regional forms, but each share very common goals. One of the most common movements has been the secularization of rule. This secularization has led itself to modern democracies whose governments are based on the popular consent of the people or the popular consent of the people’s representatives under the umbrella of a secular constitution. This secularization has led itself to modern autocracies such as communist governments where rule is condensed to a single party representing the ideals of the commons. In both systems, power and authority are organized in a way where faith has no place in the affairs of state and nationalism is the primary goal.

The other common movements are those which have a religious foundation. Each movement believes power and authority must belong to a divine monarch representing their faith tradition. The variations of these movements are based on whether the monarch exists today, existed in the past, or will exist into the future. Sometimes there is a blend between the past, present, and today. Sometimes there are variations in methodology to establish this divine monarchy, such as the brutal tactics of ISIS. Sometimes the methodology is peaceful such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and sometimes they can be both peaceful and brutal such as the theocratic government of Iran.

All political movements can be presented under these two umbrellas. In each umbrellas there can be the political left, the political right, the moderates, and any other label you seek.

How Did These Two Movements Come to Be?

This is a very difficult question to answer. Sometimes I like to start from the present and work my way backwards, much like starting this post with the conclusion. We know what is today, but can we work our way to the origins? Being in the USA, I will focus on what I am familiar with which is mainly Western History for this segment.

The Revolutions Against European Monarchs

The 1700’s were a prolific century. It is this century when Europe and the Americas started to pivot quite forcefully against the rule of a King or Queen. A couple of the people I feel were highly influential in these movements were Benjamin Franklin and Voltaire. These two individuals were intelligent and extremely active in civic affairs. Benjamin Franklin lived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA and is mostly known for being a businessman, inventor, writer, and diplomat. Voltaire is known mostly for being a writer, perhaps one of the most influential writers of the 18th century. The link I find both have, other than the fact they did meet in person once, is their deep reflections upon religion. I would say Voltaire was sometimes aggressive in his criticisms while Franklin would usually try to be the optimist towards religion. Both being products of the European Enlightenment, often would question the role religion should have in the affairs of both people and government. Both sought to explain why religious fanaticism existed, what is the purpose of religion, were the prophets divine, what is the benefit of religion, and what are the motivations of the leaders of religion. Both were described as being Deist, although both had strong relationships to Christianity. Both studied other faiths such as reading the Qur’an. Both felt religion should be a force of good but if it is not, should be eliminated.

Their harshest criticisms were of leaders who would use religion for power and wealth at the cost of a common person’s liberty and freedom. However, they both often criticized the common person’s religious belief as regularly being full of superstition instead of genuine education as to the “nature of creation.” Both came to the conclusions that a King could not be divine nor have authority from God if they sought to deny man liberty. This basic premise set the stage for powerful revolutions.

Another trait both men shared were philosophies which some have described as Hedonism, that is the pursuit of pleasure. They believed it was not wrong to partake in the luxuries and pleasures of life and it was of great economic benefit to all of society to pursue those pleasures. They still believed in virtues such as doing good for others. Pleasure must not come at the cost of another’s pleasure. The pursuit of happiness is the ultimate benefit of liberty. They believed God did not create pleasures merely for man to be denied therefrom nor to be punished for.

Epicurus’s Philosophy

Epicurus was the leader of a Hellenistic period school in Greece which lasted from the 4th century BC to the 4th century AD. It was one of the longest lived philosophical schools from Greece and one of the longest in human history. Surprisingly, Epicurus is not very well-known. He had great admiration for the likes of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates and built upon their foundations.

Epicurus was heavily focused on man’s ability to seek their own happiness and to not worry about the will of the gods. Some say he was an atheist, some say he was a hedonist, but I believe he highly reflected upon his relationship as man with that of the gods. He believed they were real but because man was made of atoms, they could not directly effect the affairs of man. This school of thought lasted surprisingly long given the growth of Rome, the adoption of Christianity by Rome, and the growing hatred towards Greek philosophy by the leaders of both Rome and Church.

The Epic of Gilgamesh

In this excerpt from the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the oldest known forms of literature in the world, we see a similar dilemma.

She answered, ‘Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that life for which you are looking. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man.’ But Gilgamesh said to Siduri, the young woman, ‘How can I be silent, how can I rest, when Enkidu whom I love is dust, and I too shall die and be laid in the earth. You live by the sea-shore and look into the heart of it; young woman, tell me now, which is the way to Utnapishtim, the son of Ubara-Tutu? What directions are there for the passage; give me, oh, give me directions. I will cross the Ocean if it is possible; if it is not I will wander still farther in the wilderness.’ The winemaker said to him, ‘Gilgamesh, there is no crossing the Ocean; whoever has come, since the days of old, has not been able to pass that sea. The Sun in his glory crosses the Ocean, but who beside Shamash has ever crossed it? The place and the passage are difficult, and the waters of death are deep which flow between. Gilgamesh, how will you cross the Ocean? When you come to the waters of death what will you do? But Gilgamesh, down in the woods you will find Urshanabi, the ferryman of Utnapishtim; with him are the holy things, the things of stone. He is fashioning the serpent prow of the boat. Look at him well, and if it is possible, perhaps you will cross the waters with him; but if it is not possible, then you must go back.’

Gilgamesh, who is described as being the son of gods, is seeking eternal life. Instead, he his told to seek his happiness in the pleasures of life for they were created by the gods for man to enjoy. Gilgamesh fears death and finds it difficult to find purpose in life when loved ones and he himself will one day die. This relationship between mankind and divinity has existed since the dawn of human consciousness. What is the relationship God has with Man? Should we be concerned with who leads us or should we seek a virtuous leader? Gilgamesh did not find everlasting life, although he literally had it within his grasp. However, his destiny was to be a just and great King, one who would always be remembered with a great monument. This monument is the Epic itself.

Summary

I cannot find any earlier trace of a man seeking to answer what is the relationship between the divine, man, and those who rule man. You can see a common thread between the histories of Franklin and Voltaire, Epicurus, and Gilgamesh. Each believed in the Divine, each relied on their own intellect, each believed a true purpose in life is to enjoy what is in creation, each believed this pursuit of happiness is man’s true liberty, and each believed the Divine created all which we can enjoy in liberty. By the time we got to the 18th century, knowledge had grown to the point where man could devise a form of government whose sole purpose was to grant each individual the right to pursue what makes him/her happy. This was God’s will. Virtue was expressing this liberty in a way in no man would deprive another of the individual right to pursue what makes him/her happy.

With the United States having a government founded upon these principles for nearly 250 years, another change has taken place. Notice how in the Epic of Gilgamesh, only Shamash could cross the oceans. Shamash was a name given to the Sumerian sun-God who administered justice in the world. Today, not only can mankind cross the oceans, we can do so within hours. This is nearly as fast as Shamash could. Mankind today has the abilities which in ancient times and in the 18th century was described as divine. Mankind can travel as fast as the Earth spins and can even create intelligence. Mankind can split the atom and destroy itself while at the same time finding the remedies to countless sicknesses. Yet, in the nearly 250 years since Benjamin Franklin and Voltaire helped their people in their pursuit of liberty, liberty from being ruled by corrupt leaders who claim to be from God, we lost something.

We lost the hope that a King, divine in nature, could lead us. Religious fundamentalists fight for this cause, but as Voltaire would criticize, they are steeped in so much superstition and hatred they are a source of evil instead of good. The religious moderates seem to fear the very promise their Scriptures make about a just King ruling them. They believe in Krishna on his chariot, Moses on Mt. Sinai, Jesus on the cross, and Muhammad in the trenches of Medina. King Cyrus the Great, a Zoroastrian from Persia (Iran), is described by Jews as being anointed by God. These are examples of Kings among men who, despite being men, had their souls connected to the divine. As our hope for one of them to lead as King fades into the sunset, all we have left is ourselves.

Who Are We?

We are a people who are being ruled more by our pursuit of happiness than finding moderation in the virtues of yesterday. We spend our wealth, we spend our time, and we spend our passions continuously seeking the pleasures of luxury and entertainment. Unlike Franklin and Voltaire, we do not seek to make a life better for mankind and we do not seek incorruptible leadership. Unlike Epicurus we do not seek to moderate our pleasures so as to not cause ourselves or others pain. Unlike Gilgamesh we do not seek to live a destined life of righteous rule. We sought our own corruption and prefer those like us to rule us. We are a people who will go to a building, an internet forum, or where ever we can get public attention and say we long for the day for the divine King to come to us, to bring love, peace, and unity into this world. We are a people who, when that King would come to us, would immediately reject Him because love, peace, and unity will come at the cost of our infinite appetite for pleasure. We are a people who have the ability to be a King or Queen of our home and our family and the majority of us choose not to. We teach our children hatred, racism, superiority, and other forms of deceitful lies. We do so to validate ourselves, to continue to feel good about ourselves. We are becoming closer to our nature than becoming closer to our potentials.

All of the world’s conflict comes down to this central premise. We are each growing in our capabilities to have the qualities of the divine, yet we live a life where we have no respect for any higher authority. We believe there must be a future Divine King, but it will never be today. You replaced that King with yourself in your pursuit of happiness.

What Is the Consequence?

The very revolutions Voltaire and Franklin helped lead will be fruitless. As they sought to remove religion from government, they had no idea humanity, in its pursuit of happiness, would slowly destroy the revolutions they created. As our environment degrades, as our care for our neighbors decrease, as our civic engagement is replaced by 24 hours of entertainment, and as we replace the divine with ourselves, we are losing our liberties. We are losing the ability to work and live a decent livelihood, we are losing our ability to drink clean water, breathe clean air, to create, and most importantly, rely on each other for support. Our families are suffering from increased dysfunction, our churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues are no longer pillars of virtue but instead symbols of our own hypocrisy. Our local governments and echelons above are ruled by money and profit, not by the pursuit of individual liberty for all nor the mutual shared benefit of all. This is true throughout the world, from the USA, Haiti, the Congo, Greece, Russia, China, India, and everywhere in between. The entire world has succumbed to these effects.

We need to change. Let’s talk about what this change can look like.

 

Abuse and Power

abuse-chart

Graphic is from the National Domestic Violence Hotline

Why does it seem natural for many people to abuse others when given the power to do so?

What about the ability to cause fear and intimidation gives the powerful pleasure?

Why do we regularly look up to those whose desire is to dominate the weak?

Can we ever stop this natural carnal nature of man from the powerful abusing the powerless? If so, how?

Unueco Partio wishes to be a platform where those who have been abused by the powerful can have a voice and even help lead the fight for justice and equality.

What is Wrong with 69% of White Protestants in America?

In June, I wrote about American Born Churches & White Supremacy. Now I want to comment on some recent polls in the US Presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. As reported by the Washington Post on October 8, 2016, “The newest poll from the Public Religion Research Institute said that 69 percent of white evangelical Protestants favored Trump while 19 percent supported Clinton.”

Donald Trump has so far expressed the following views:

  1. Mexicans are rapists and murderers and we should build a wall to keep them out. The Ku Klux Klan says this “America is being over run by illegal immigrants mostly from nonwhite countries who do not share the Christian European values of our nation’s founders. Immigration should remain open to all White Christians throughout the world . There is not one single country that does not persecute it’s White Christian citizens such as in South Africa where the violent crime against Whites is at an all time high. The entire reasoning behind the forming of America was to allow one place in the world where White Christians could live together in harmony without any outside interference from those of other religions or races.
  2. To restore the United States as a Christian nation. The Ku Klux Klan says this “As James Madison, known as the ‘Chief Architect of the Constitution’ stated; ‘ We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.‘”
  3. To Repeal NAFTA and other international trade deals. The Ku Klux Klan says this “These ‘laws’ given to us by the Democrats and Republicans is damaging to the American worker and will eventually put millions upon millions into desperate poverty.”

Here is a list of the KKK Party political platform which Donald Trump supports.

  1. Make abortion illegal
  2. Make homosexuality illegal
  3. Ensure Christianity is taught in public schools
  4. Single flat income tax rate
  5. Abolish anti-gun laws
  6. Ban Muslims from entering the USA

In math, there is a relationship called the “Transitive Property of Equality.” This property states if X=Y and Y=Z, then X=Z. Let me apply this to the 69% of White Protestants who support Donald Trump.

If 69% of White Protestants support Donald Trump, and Donald Trump supports a majority of the White Supremacist Group KKK’s political platform, then 69% of White Protestants support a majority of the White Supremacist Group KKK’s political platform. Here is a link to how the KKK has achieved this result.

If you are are White Protestant or “Evangelical” and are offended by the claim of this article and support Donald Trump, please comment below. Show me the words of Jesus which support your views instead of copying the Ku Klux Klan white supremacist talking points.

If you are a Christian and are offended by this association to white supremacist groups, please comment as to how you will help clean up the Christian churches in America to counter the ideologies of the Ku Klux Klan. Please don’t offer a simple statement of following Jesus or praying, provide a course of action hopefully supported by Jesus’s words.

I will close with these words from Unueco Partio: Creating a Single World Currency.

“If Jesus were to govern the world as King, how would the world economy look like? Would it remain as we currently know it or perhaps would he create a system which more closely follows the principles of religion?” and “I ask these questions because those who fear the consequences of a single world currency and potentially a governmental structure to support this endeavor have not fully questioned the consequences of what they claim to believe in. In their fear, the creation of unity is considered a bad thing, the development of an economic system where someone in Bangladesh can earn a similar wage to someone in the USA is considered unjust, and war is the only pathway towards peace. To me, this is twisted and goes against the very principles Jesus taught. These people who believe in tribulation and rapture end up preferring an unjust, greedy, war-mongering system instead of the equity, peace, and contentment promised to them.”

 

Homosexuality & Religious Law

Yesterday a friend belonging to the Jehovah’s Witness congregation asked me a question that is quite contemporary with the concerns of today.

What do I think about homosexuals and do I support them?

My answer:

I believe homosexuals should be treated with as much love as heterosexuals and everything done for their rights to be protected. All should be done to treat them as our equals. It is unfair they are singled out by Christian, Muslim, and other religious extremists when God (in each of their Scriptures) seeks to modify the sexual nature of ALL people in such a way which is beneficial to the rest of society.

This begged me to ask “Why do religious extremists care to punish homosexuals for their sexuality, but ignore other religious law regarding themselves, such as adultery?” In the United States for example, pastors in churches regularly speak out against the “homosexual agenda” and how they are ruining the moral fabric of America. It is an abomination. Yet, over half of all heterosexual church-goers who have been married have also been divorced. Jesus did not allow divorce. I won’t even speculate on the forms of extra-marital sexuality when Jesus forbade lustful thoughts.

Another common thing I hear is the United States is a Christian nation built upon Christian values? Why then was the Constitution not based on the Bible? No state or locality in the United States has a legal system based on the Bible. I would actually support a legal system where people are judged by what they believe, for example a Jew being judged through Jewish law and an atheist through secular law. We would see who is truly a believer of what.

I find it hypocritical to persecute a people based on an idea of religious law but deny this “opportunity” of religious law for everyone else who believes in your religion. The reason why there is no country in the world which has a religious law based entirely on a Book that people believe is God’s Word (Old Testament, New Testament, Qur’an, etc.) is because of the following reasons:

  1. The believers of such Books cannot agree on government reflecting these teachings
  2. The believers of such Books cannot agree on the laws regarding these teachings
  3. The believers of such Books do not want to be held to the standards their Books teach
  4. The believers of such Books often only seek targeted application of their Books to persecute minorities
  5. The believers of such Books only say they want a religious nation but run from the opportunity to create it

This is why the separation of religion and state is required, because the majority of people fall into one or more of those 5 categories. To disprove my argument, if any person who reads this feels their nation should be a nation of their religious law, would you care to describe the following:

  1. The name of your religion
  2. The name of your “Book”
  3. The form of government you would form (democracy, monarchy, etc.)
  4. Laws regarding Marriage
  5. Laws regarding Homosexuality
  6. How the justice system would address these laws (type of punishment, type of correction)

If you are not interested in doing so, maybe you could comment as to why you do not want to.

By the way, the person who asked the question answered in her own way.

“I will love them but I prefer to keep my distance so I will not be stained by sin or uncleanliness.”

Human Rights: Are They For All?

We often talk about human rights, especially from a perspective of protections from government. Are they for all?. Let me lead with an excerpt from “Unueco Partio: Creating a Single World Currency.

I personally believe it [evaluating a minimum quality of life for all people] starts with whatever human rights we have collectively described and agreed upon, such as with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Sometimes I feel these declarations are more altruistic than real, especially when considering how we choose to organize ourselves, or how we consent to our organization, despite expressing certain ideals. For example, in the last chapter we see how we can have a democracy whose government expresses the freedom of speech, but we may accept to organize ourselves into families or even corporations where this freedom is replaced with censorship. Human rights must exist at every level of society which enforces some kind of legal or judicial system. If not, then nations can never fully be the bearers of ideals the smaller organizations go against. I say this because our smallest units of organization, such as that of a family, religious organization, business, etc. are far more representative of us (all of the I’s and they’s) than a distant national government could ever be.

Do you believe a human right should exist in every level of our organization, to include the family, religious organization, business, and so forth? Why or why not?

Do you believe a human right should be equally accessible for all people? Why or why not?

Presidential Debate Fallacies

The United States Presidential Debate is a scam. It is fake. The entire system is a scam.

The reason why I say this is a scam is not because it did not really happen, sadly it did and is very real. I say it is a scam because my country has been forced into dichotomies which are not real. Let me share them.

  1. Donald Trump discussed all black and hispanic people have been failed because all of them live in crime-ridden areas. Hillary Clinton confined race relations solely to the interactions with police. It seems it is only about all or nothing. Why can’t America finally remove the labels associated with race, and say there are too many Americans who suffer from crime, who suffer from injustice at the hands of government institutions, religious institutions, corporations, and even our own individual selves? This dichotomy about us, they, them, we, and the other splits us up. We are one!
  2. Donald Trump talked about eliminating certain people from immigration, and reducing other pathways. Hillary Clinton talked about being tough on illegal immigration. Why is it illegal for a person to freely move? Why does a shirt made in Pakistan have more freedoms than a Pakistani? We are forced to choose between quotas for immigration or nothing at all. Why can’t we go back to the days of open borders? Why can’t we help people outside the United States to have a quality of life we hope for ourselves?
  3. Hillary Clinton talked about the importance of Donald Trump’s tax returns and Donald Trump related every issue to money. How did money become more important than discussing the rights and aspirations of people? People seek more than only money. People seek to have family, to worship as they choose, to be independent, and to basically feel good about life. We created a world where money is required for all of these pathways, but the supply of money is controlled by a single industry. We seek to divide based on a system not a single politician or political party can control nor influence.

These are just a few of the observations I made. The idea all of this is a scam is because they are mostly puppets. They are swayed by the media, they are swayed by this notion of “popular sentiment” when in fact the popular sentiment is controlled. The only way we can have a free market is if people are free, if people have more freedoms than the items people produce, if people can go anywhere to seek a better wage and can go anywhere to seek a better opportunity. Through this, we stifle the competition between all of us and stifle the competition between nations. The modern economic systems rely on the production and consumption of people, and this will always be true. In the long run, restricting any person’s rights, even outside of your own nation, will eventually restrict your own rights and opportunities. It will especially restrict the rights of the future generations, for example your own children and grandchildren.

Also, the only way for us to regain control of our money is to adopt a single worldwide currency which is managed by an institution managed just like a government with checks and balances. The leaders are elected from around the world instead of appointed. The leaders must come from various backgrounds, not only be an economist, financier, or vested banker. Until then, there is no policy any politician can promote which will positively effect the goals and aspirations of the world’s majority, that is the poor and working class.

Finally, we need to stop dividing each other based upon skin color, religious practice, or any other divisive identity. All were created in the same manner, and all will return to the same dust. We must sustain our equality and oneness for the years between birth and death. Unity is the only prescription and Unueco Partio is the only movement seeking to aspire towards a worldwide unity.