La privatización de la verdad

Nuevo libro:

La continuidad de la ideología esclavista en Estados Unidos

La privatización de la verdad

La continuidad de la ideología esclavista en Estados Unidos

«The privatization of the truth»
«The continuity of the slave ideology in the United States
«

Jorge Majfud

Col·lecció: Biblioteca Javier Coy d’Estudis Nord-Americans, 179

Universitat de Valencia

ISBN: 978-84-9134-887-0

Matèria: filologia

Submatèries: fiologia anglogermànica

Idioma: castellà

Any ed.: 2021

Enquadernació: rústica

Format: 17 x 23,5 cm.

Pàgines: 204

La privatización de la verdad

Els Estats Units és el país de les màscares i de la doble personalitat del superheroi de la cultura popular: l’obsessió de la ‘unió’ emmascara les seues profundes divisions, així com el discurs sobre l’expansió de la ‘llibertat’ va acompanyar la permanent expansió del sistema esclavista en cadascuna de les seues conquestes territorials. Encara que els confederats, els esclavistes del sud, van perdre la guerra civil en 1865 i després van perdre la guerra cultural durant el segle XX, inadvertidament van guanyar la guerra política i, sobretot, la guerra ideològica que va fer dels Estats Units un imperi basat en els mites de superioritat racial, primer, i de superioritat cultural i moral després. Així mateix, de manera subreptícia, la ideologia dels perdedors va aconseguir demonitzar els pobres i la classe treballadora i elevar a categories bíbliques els rics i la classe inversora, igual que abans havia demonitzat els esclaus mentre santificava els amos esclavistes. “La privatització de la veritat” és un contrapunt entre el passat i el present més recent (sobretot, el darrer any de la presidència de Donald Trump), una mostra de la continuïtat de la guerra civil i de la ideologia dels esclavistes del sud per mitjà d’altres mètodes. El nou capitalisme estatunidenc és la continuació del sistema d’esclavitud derrotat en la guerra. No ho distingeixen les narratives sobre la llibertat i el messianisme dels de dalt; només algunes lleis que prohibeixen l’assot físic i imposen un salari, i la substitució d’algunes paraules per unes altres, com ara ‘negre’ per ‘comunista’.

Spanish

Estados Unidos es el país de las máscaras y de la doble personalidad del superhéroe de la cultura popular: la obsesión de la unión enmascara sus profundas divisiones, así como el discurso sobre la expansión de la libertad acompañó la permanente expansión del sistema esclavista sobre cada una de sus conquistas territoriales.

Aunque los confederados, los esclavistas del sur perdieron la Guerra civil en 1865 y luego perdieron la guerra cultural durante el siglo XX, inadvertidamente ganaron la guerra política y, sobre todo, la guerra ideológica que hizo de Estados Unidos un imperio basado en los mitos de superioridad racial, primero, y de superioridad cultural y moral después. También, de forma inadvertida la ideología de los perdedores logró demonizar a los pobres y a la clase trabajadora y elevar a categorías bíblicas a los ricos y a la clase inversora, de la misma forma que antes había demonizado a los esclavos mientras santificaba a los amos esclavistas.  

La privatización de la verdad es un contrapunto entre el pasado y el presente más reciente (sobre todo, el último año de la presidencia de Donald Trump), una muestra de la continuidad de la Guerra civil y de la ideología de los esclavistas del sur por otros métodos.

El nuevo capitalismo estadounidense es la continuación del sistema de esclavitud derrotado en la guerra. No lo distinguen las narrativas sobre la libertad y el mesianismo de los de arriba; sólo algunas leyes que prohíben el azote físico e imponen un salario, y la sustitución de algunas palabras por otras, como la palabra negro por comunista.

English

THE UNITED STATES IS THE COUNTRY OF MASKS and of the double personality of the superhero of popular culture: the obsession of the union masks its deep divisions, just as the discourse on the expansion of freedom accompanied the permanent expansion of the slave system on each one of their territorial conquests.

Although the Confederates, southern slaveholders lost the Civil War in 1865 and then lost the culture war during the 20th century, they inadvertently won the political war and, above all, the ideological war that made America an empire based on the myths of racial superiority, first, and cultural and moral superiority later. Also, inadvertently the ideology of the losers succeeded in demonizing the poor and the working class and elevating the rich and the investing class to biblical categories, in the same way that it had previously demonized the slaves while sanctifying the slave masters.

The privatization of the truth is a counterpoint between the past and the most recent present (especially, the last year of the presidency of Donald Trump), a sample of the continuity of the Civil War and of the ideology of the southern slavers by other methods.

The new American capitalism is the continuation of the slavery system defeated in war. He is not distinguished by the narratives about freedom and messianism from those above; only some laws that prohibit physical spanking and impose a salary, and the substitution of some words for others, such as the word black for communist.

University of Valencia

https://puv.uv.es/la-privatizacion-de-la-verdad.html

Radical Culture Versus Cultural Radicalism

University of San Diego Lecture

November 16, 2021.

What Good Is Culture?

(2011)

In 2006, in Lewisburg, Tennessee, a neighborhood group protested because the public library was investing resources in the purchase of books in Spanish. Of the sixty thousand volumes, only one thousand were published in a language other than English. The annual budget, totaling thirteen thousand dollars, dedicated the sum of one hundred and thirty dollars to the purchase of books in Spanish. The buying spree, representing one percent of the budget, enraged some of the citizens of Tennessee, causing them to take the issue to the authorities, arguing that a public service, sustained through taxes charged to the U.S. populace should not promote something that might benefit illegal workers.

Thus, the new conception of culture surpasses that distant precept of the ancient library of Alexandria. That now almost completely forgotten library achieved the height of its development in second-century Egypt. Its backward administrators had the custom of periodically sending investigators throughout the world to acquire copies of texts from the most distant cultures. Among its volumes, there were copies of Greek, Persian, Indian, Hebrew, and African texts. Almost all of those decade-long efforts were abruptly brought to an end, thanks to a fire caused by the enlightened ships of the emperor Julius Caesar. Nearly a thousand years later, another deliberately-set fire destroyed the similarly celebrated library of Córdoba, Spain, founded by the caliph Al-Hakam (creator of the University and free education for poor kids), where the passion for knowledge brought together Jews, Christians, and Muslims with texts from the most diverse cultures known in the period. Also, in this period, the Spanish caliphs were in the habit of dispatching seekers throughout the world to expand the library’s collection of foreign books. This library was also destroyed by a fanatic, al-Mansur, in the name of Islam, according to his interpretation of the common good and superior morality.

In the past, military rulers of Latin American dictatorships (I grew up in one of them), to exacerbate honor and patriotism, tried to clean up the Spanish language, college education, and culture itself from any foreign influence, starting with ideas (people in power frequently fear other’s ideas, which is understandable; words are perceived as more dangerous than money and arms and, in fact, sometimes they are). For some reason they, as the Nazis and many other self-proclaimed democratic people did and do today, never realized that there is no idea, no tradition, no language, no religion, no race uncontaminated by foreigners. By definition, every human creation is historical, that is, is the result of a long evolution and, very frequently, of short and devastating involutions.

The Tennessee anecdote perhaps represents a minority in a vast and heterogeneous country (both “real Americans” and anti-Americans hate the most beautiful characteristic of this country: diversity). But it remains significant and representative of still millions of people, frequently exacerbated by some big media shows, a practice that was invented in Germany eighty years ago.

Significant and common is the idea, assumed in that anecdote, that the Spanish language is a foreign language, when any half-way educated person knows that almost one hundred years before English, it was Spanish that was spoken in what today is the United States; that Spanish has been there, in many states of the Union for five centuries; that Spanish and Latino culture are neither foreign nor an insignificant minority: more than fifty million Hispanics live in the United States and the number of Spanish-speakers in the country is roughly equivalent to the number of Spanish speakers living in Spain. For many, the “real American” (another stereotype, as most of the “real” men and women, are), often depicted as a kind of cowboy, actually derives from the Mexican vaquero (originally from the Arabic tradition, like most of the traditional West and Southwest architectural style) who left a strong mark on both legal and illegal immigrants from the eastern US. The dollar symbol, $, is derived from the Spanish Peso (PS), the common currency until late 18th century—not to mention the Spanish Empire Flag, which is in the flag of some southern U.S. states. And so on, and so forth.

If those who become nervous because of the presence of that “new culture” had the slightest historical awareness, they would neither be nervous nor consider their neighbors to be dangerous foreigners. The only thing that historically has always been dangerous is ignorance, which is why the promotion of ignorance can hardly be considered synonymous with security and progress—even by association, as with the reigning method of propaganda, which consists of associating cars with women, tomatoes with civil rights, the victory of force and wealth with proof of the truth, or a million dollars with Paradise.

According to French-American Thomas Jefferson, Spanish is a crucial language to an American. He read Don Quixote in its original language and recommended the study of both Spanish and French. However, as the revolutionary British Thomas Paine once said: “nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice.”

I am not so naïve as to think that today we could have intellectual politicians like the Founding Fathers, but at least it could be convenient to consider that myths, traditions, and popular history are written based on a convenient combination of memory and forgetfulness. Sometimes it helps to mitigate the pride of ignorance—and the fire as well.

(2011)

What good is literature, anyway?

I am sure that you have heard this loaded query: “Well, what good is literature, anyway?” almost always from a pragmatic businessman or, at worst, from a Goering of the day, one of those pseudo-demigods that are always hunched down in a corner of history, waiting for the worst moments of weakness in order to “save” the country and humankind by burning books and teaching men how to be “real” men. And, if one is a freethinking writer during such times, one gets a beating, because nothing is worse for a domineering man with an inferiority complex than being close to somebody who writes. Because if it is true that our financial times have turned most literature into a hateful contest with the leisure industry, the collective unconscious still retains the idea that a writer is an apprentice sorcerer going around touching sore spots, saying inconvenient truths, being a naughty child at naptime. And if his/her work has some value, in fact he/she is all that. Perhaps the deeper mission of literature during the last five centuries has been precisely those things. Not to mention the ancient Greeks, now unreachable for a contemporary human spirit that, like a running dog, has finally gotten exhausted and simply hangs by its neck behind its owner’s moving car.

However, literature is still there; being troublesome from the beginning, because to say its own truths it only needs a modest pen and a piece of paper. Its greatest value will continue to be the same: not to resign itself to the complacency of the people nor to the temptation of barbarism. Politics and television are for that.

Every so often a politician, a bureaucrat or a smart investor decides to strangulate the humanities with a cut in education, some culture ministry or simply downloading the full force of the market over the busy factories of prefabricated sensitivities.

Much more sincere are the gravediggers who look us in the eyes, and with bitterness or simple resentment, throw their convictions in our faces as if they were a single question: What good is literature?

Some wield this kind of philosophical question not as an analytical instrument but as a mechanical shovel, to slowly widen a tomb full of living corpses.

The gravediggers are old acquaintances. They live or pretend to live, but they are always clinging to the throne of time. Up or down, there they go repeating with voices of the dead their utilitarian superstitions about needs and progress.

How to respond about the uselessness of literature depends on what you comprehend to be useful and not on the literature itself. How useful is the epitaph, the tombstone carved, a reconciliation, sex with love, farewell, tears, laughter, coffee? How useful is football, television programs, photographs that are traded on social networks, racing horses, whiskey, diamonds, thirty pieces of Judas and the repentance?

There are very few who seriously wonder what good is football or the greed of Madoff. There are but a few people (or they have not had enough time) who question or wonder, “What good is literature?” Soccer and football are, at best, naïve. They have frequently been accomplices of puppeteers and gravediggers.

Literature, if it has not been an accomplice of puppeteers, has just been literature. Its critics do not refer to the respectable business of bestsellers or of prefabricated emotions. No one has ever asked so insistently, “what good is good business?” Critics of literature, deep down, are not concerned with this type of literature. They are concerned with something else. They worry about literature.

The best Olympic athletes have shown us how much the human body may withstand. Formula One racers as well, although borrowing some tricks. The same with the astronauts who put their first steps on the moon, the shovel that builds also destroys.

The same way, the great writers throughout history have shown how far and deep human experience, (what really matters, what really exists) the vertigo of the highest and deepest ideas and emotions, can go.

For gravediggers only the shovel is useful. For the living dead too.

For others who have not forgotten their status as human beings who dare to go beyond the narrow confines of their own primitive individual experience, for the condemned who roam the mass graves but have regained the passion and dignity of human beings, for them it is literature.

Then, yes, we can say literature is good for many things. But, because we know that our inquisitors of the day are most interested in profits and benefits, we should remind them that a narrow spirit can hardly shelter a great intelligence. A great intelligence trapped within a narrow spirit sooner or later chokes. Or it becomes spiteful and vicious. But, of course, a great intelligence, spiteful and vicious, can hardly understand this. Much less, then, when it is not even a great intelligence.

(2000)

Who’s Afraid of Culture?

The problem with words is that they think for us, and in this way, we are means of thought and values ​​transmitted by words too often: we repeat apriorism embedded in language, in popular culture. This problem is more remarkable when we lack a metalinguistic awareness.

One of these traps is to use words that contain an unsuspected diversity where one of their possible meanings dominates and excludes the others. To mention just a few, some of those words are patriot, freedom, equality, radical, culture, and all those names of countries, religions, and other good intentions.

In any debate or policy on culture, it is necessary to clarify what culture we refer to. In a basic classification, there is what was once called «high culture» in the last century; very close, inside, and outside of it, is the «radical culture.» Radical culture raises the consciousness of individuals and peoples, which is not satisfied with reproducing standards and stereotypes and which, by consequence and consistency, is constantly pushing the limits of thought and sensitivity. It is the one that makes us more human.

On the other hand, we have «popular culture» and within it two radically opposite forms: first, the culture that is generated by people (that is, that which arises from the bottom up) and, on the other hand, the culture that is produced by the culture industry (the one that is dictated from the top-down). The first type of popular culture has been, for centuries, the dominant one. Today it can be found in regions such as Africa, far from the tourist circuits (which vulgarizes everything and empties it of content), with its plastic art, songs, and legends.

The 20th century, on the other hand, saw how people consumed popular culture produced in specialized industries such as the film industry, whose paradigm was and still is Hollywood, and the mainstream media. Thus, the peoples’ adopted forms and values ​​of which they were alien, exercising a single role: to consume.

Before the critics, the market defended itself (it still does) with the innocent but consistently compelling argument that the success of the sales is due to offering what the public demands. If we accept such a theory, we should concede that novel readers are responsible for the million-dollar campaigns of the big publishing houses. So, every year, the children of the world agree to demand that international companies produce all those surreal cartoons and dolls (such as the most recent Minecraft or Minions). Thus, each year, the united children of the world exercise their power over the poor production companies that have no choice but to satisfy such an arbitrary demand, typical of immature people, based on two or three basic characters.

Freedom is a utopia, and it is a myth in the worst case since there are only forms of liberation but never freedom, despite this being the most recurrent word in nationalist narratives. Without radical culture, there is no democracy, and there is no full individual. In contrast, radical culture has not reaped the benefits of some new habits of our time, such as social networking sites, in the same proportion as the market and popular culture. It is enough to observe that the cultural and intellectual differences between individuals who share the same space are not given by social networks but by some other form of education that they have received, either formal and traditional education or education in the family environment. Social networks have not contributed anything to radical culture but, perhaps, the opposite: those consumers of prefabricated popular culture simply limit themselves to that: to consume and reproduce values ​​that are not only predictable and monotonous but are also functional to groups in economic power to which poor consumers do not belong.

Then there is a paradox of resistance. We owe all the ethical and social progress of modern history: culture sells, but the managers and creators of radical culture do not live from culture as do the producers and reproducers of standardized popular culture. Radical culture survives thanks to this minority army of artists, scientists, and publishers with a small market share. In this way, democracy is saved from planetary dictatorship, and individuals are protected from dehumanization, of mere consumption and standardization.

Just as writing beyond the micro fragment is a radical act of thought and sensitivity, reading a book is also an expression of rebellion typical of radical culture. Whether digital or printed, a book is subversive being only because of its format, due to its resistance to the fragmentation of the individual.  So are cultural events that governments timidly support as if they were superfluous waste; they are exercises of radical culture. Exercises of liberation, of levitation of the human conscience that in its natural state (that is, not brutalized by propaganda and ideology) always aspires to release from its conditioning factors, from its ongoing dehumanization; the liberation of its proper powers.

A people without culture (without radical culture) are a docile people, a slave who thinks he is happy like a drug addict who thinks he is free just because he has access to drugs.

Even if we do not favor government interference in culture and most individuals’ lives, it would be naive to expect something better from the other major player, the market. Leaving culture in the hands of the laws of the market would be like leaving agriculture in the hands of the laws of meteorology and microbiology. No one can say that excess rainfall, droughts, invasions of locusts and worms, pests, and parasites are less natural phenomena than the always suspicious, elusive hand of the market. If we left agriculture to its own devices, we would starve. In the same way, it is necessary to understand that if we leave culture in the hands of the laws of the market, we will perish in barbarism.

Seven points to consider

The Culture and the Cult of Obviousness

  1. The same way ten years ago the governments of the World were trying to escape from the Great recession increasing the drug that had been driving the Planet to the catastrophe (consumerism) today they are focused on STEM-only education. I am in favor of science and scientific thinking but neglecting Humanities to save Humankind is not a wise strategy. We should not invest in intelligence while abandoning our pursuit of wisdom. During the 30s, Germany was the most advanced country in science and technology. Hitler labelled the Bauhaus as “un-German,” “Degenerate art,” and the Nazi pressed until it closed. Its artists and thinkers had to migrate.
  2. Only a radical culture that recovers the sense of doubt and the complexity of the Human experience, can recover and cultivate wisdom. Our present is marked by tribalism and sects of any kind —(from 2000 to 2005 I published articles like “The Slow Suicide of the West” and “The mental borders of tribalism”). 
  3. Now everyone is absolutely sure about the importance of eliminating doubt, confusing obviousness with truth. Is it possible to save the human mind, the human soul, and, consequently, the Human existence on this planet this way? 
  4. We do need more investment in science, but we desperately need a massive investment, attention, and cultivation of Humanities to save Humanity.  
  5. There has not been any time in human history when the very existence of our Human race had been at stake. Never. We are at this very point, right now. 
  6. There have been always cultural and political identity wars. The difference is that, due to a global economic structure, all this was exported to the colonies and to the «inferior races». Now the stage of the conflict and dissatisfaction is the so called First world and, again, it is exporting its political and cultural frustrations in a new wave of fascism, nationalism, racism, tribalism, and fanatic medievalism.
  7. The same way the Biosphere will perish if we destroy biodiversity, the same Humankind will perish if we do not understand that human diversity is not an attribute of the Devil, as Medieval Theologians used to say, but a necessary and beautiful condition of the Human race. 

Masacre que no se filtra no existe

Si las guerras pueden comenzar con mentiras, la paz bien puede comenzar con la verdad”. Julian Assange.

El 8 de marzo de 2019, los analistas de un comando militar estadounidense localizado en la millonaria península de Catar, se encontraban observando una calle de un pueblo pobre en Siria a través de imágenes de alta definición captadas por un dron inteligente. En la conversación que quedó grabada, los analistas reconocieron que la multitud estaba compuesta mayormente por niños y mujeres. A un costado, un hombre portaba un arma, pero todo parecía desarrollarse de forma tranquila. Hasta que una bomba de 220 kilogramos fue arrojada desde un poderoso F-15E, justo sobre la multitud. Doce minutos más tarde, cuando los sobrevivientes de la primera bomba comenzaban a correr o a arrastrarse, el mismo avión arrojó dos bombas más, esta vez de una tonelada de explosivos cada una y a un costo de un millón de dólares por explosión.

A 1870 kilómetros, en el Centro de Operaciones Aéreas Combinadas del ejército estadounidense en la base de Al Udeid en Catar, los oficiales observaron la masacre en vivo. Alguien en la sala preguntó, sorprendido, de dónde había partido la orden. 

Al día siguiente, los observadores civiles que llegaron al área encontraron casi un centenar de cuerpos destrozados de niños y mujeres. La organización de derechos humanos Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered publicó algunas fotos de los cuerpos, pero las imágenes satelitales sólo mostraron que donde cuatro días atrás había un barrio modesto sobre el río Eufrates y en un área bajo el control de la “coalición democrática”, ahora no quedaba nada. La Oficina de Investigaciones Especiales de la Fuerza Aérea de estados Unidos se negó a explicar el misterio.

Luego se supo que la orden del bombardeo había procedido de un grupo especial llamado “Task Force 9”, el cual solía operar en Siria sin esperar confirmaciones del comando. El abogado de la Fuerza Aérea, teniente coronel Dean W. Korsak, informó que muy probablemente se había tratado de un “crimen de guerra”. Al no encontrar eco entre sus colegas, el coronel Korsak filtró la información secreta y las medidas de encubrimiento de los hechos a un comité del Senado estadounidense, reconociendo que, al hacerlo, se estaba “poniendo en un serio riesgo de represalia militar”. Según Korsak, sus superiores se negaron a cualquier investigación. “La investigación sobre los bombardeos había muerto antes de iniciarse”, escribió. “Mi supervisor se negó a discutir el asunto conmigo”.

Cuando el New York Times realizó una investigación sobre los hechos y la envió al comando de la Fuerza Aérea, éste confirmó los hechos pero se justificó afirmando que habían sido ataques necesarios. El gobierno del presidente Trump se refirió a la guerra aérea contra el Estado Islámico en Siria como la campaña de bombardeo más precisa y humana de la historia.

El 13 de noviembre el New York Times publicó su extensa investigación sobre el bombardeo de Baghuz. De la misma forma que esta masacre no fue reportada ni alcanzó la indignación de la gran prensa mundial, así también será olvidada como fueron olvidadas otras masacres de las fuerzas de la libertad y la civilización en países lejanos.

El mismo diario recordó que el ejército admitió la matanza de diez civiles inocentes (siete de ellos niños) el 10 de agosto en Kabul, Afganistán, pero este tipo de reconocimiento público es algo inusual. Más a menudo, las muertes de civiles no se cuentan incluso en informes clasificados. Casi mil ataques alcanzaron objetivos en Siria e Irak solo en 2019, utilizando 4.729 bombas. Sin embargo, el recuento oficial de civiles muertos por parte del ejército durante todo el año es de solo 22. En cinco años, se reportaron 35.000 ataques pero, por ejemplo, los bombardeos del 18 de marzo que costaron la vida a casi un centenar de inocentes no aparecen por ninguna parte.

En estos ataques, varias ciudades sirias, incluida la capital regional, Raqqa, quedaron reducidas escombros. Las organizaciones de derechos humanos informaron que la coalición causó miles de muertes de civiles durante la guerra, pero en los informes oficiales y en la prensa influyente del mundo no se encuentran, salvo excepciones como el de este informe del NYT. Mucho menos en los informes militares que evalúan e investigan sus propias acciones.

Según el NYT del 13 de noviembre, la CIA informó que las acciones se realizaban con pleno conocimiento de que los bombardeos podrían matar personas, descubrimiento que podría hacerlos merecedores del próximo Premio Nobel de Física. 

En Baghuz se libró una de las últimas batallas contra el dominio territorial de ISIS, otro grupo surgido del caos promovido por Washington en Medio Oriente, en este caso, a partir de la invasión a Irak lanzada en 2003 por la santísima trinidad Bush-Blair-Aznar y en base a las ya célebres mentiras que luego vendieron como errores de inteligencia. Guerra que dejó más de un millón de muertos como si nada. 

Desde entonces, cada vez que se sabe de alguna matanza de las fuerzas civilizadoras, es por alguna filtración. Basta con recordar otra investigación, la del USA Today que hace dos años reveló los hechos acontecidos en Afganistán el 22 de agosto de 2008. Luego del bombardeo de Azizabad, los oficiales del ejército estadounidense (incluido Oliver North, convicto y perdonado por mentirle al Congreso en el escándalo Irán-Contras) informaron que todo había salido a la perfección, que la aldea los había recibido con aplausos, que se había matado a un líder talibán y que los daños colaterales habían sido mínimos. No se informó que habían los habían recibido a pedradas, que habían muerto decenas de personas, entre ellos 60 niños. Un detalle.

Mientras tanto, Julian Assange continúa secuestrado por cometer el delito de informar sobre crímenes de guerra semejantes. Mientras tanto los semidioses continúan decidiendo desde el cielo quiénes viven y quiénes mueren, ya sea desde drones inteligentes o por su policía ideológica, la CIA. Este mismo mes, la respetable cadena de radio estatal de Estados Unidos, NPR (no puedo decir lo mismo de la mafia de las grandes cadenas privadas), ha reportado que hace un año la CIA debatió entre matar o secuestrar a Julian Assange.

La conveniente, cobarde y recurrente justificación de que estos ataques se tratan de actos de “defensa propia” es una broma de muy mal gusto. No existe ningún acto de defensa propia cuando un país está ocupando otro país y bombardeando inocentes que luego son etiquetados como “efectos colaterales”.

Está de más decir que ninguna investigación culminará nunca con una condena efectiva a los responsables de semejantes atrocidades que nunca conmueve a las almas religiosas. Si así ocurriese, sólo sería cuestión de esperar un perdón presidencial, como cada mes de noviembre, para Acción de Gracias, el presidente estadounidense perdona a un pavo blanco, justo en medio de una masacre de millones de pavos negros.

Nadie sabe y seguramente nadie sabrá nunca los nombres de los responsables de esta masacre. Lo que sí sabemos es que en unos años volverán a su país y lucirán orgullosas medallas en el pecho que sólo ellos saben qué significa. Sabemos, también, que al verlas muchos patriotas les agradecerán “por luchar por nuestra libertad” y les darán las gracias “por su sacrificio protegiendo este país”. Muchos de estos agradecidos patriotas son los mismos que flamean la bandera de la Confederación en sus 4×4, el único grupo que estuvo a punto de destruir la existencia de este país en el siglo XIX para mantener “la sagrada institución de la esclavitud”. 

Tradición que nunca murió. Sólo cambió de forma.

JM, noviembre 2021

https://www.pagina12.com.ar/384639-masacre-que-no-se-filtra-no-existe

https://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/214390

Veterans Day

En el Día de los veteranos en EE.UU. ya nadie recuerda a marines como Smedley Butler, el general más condecorado de su generación y silenciado cuando se dedicó a decir lo que pensaba de las guerras de su país. Cuando publicó La guerra es una estafa, los millonarios decidieron que ya no era un patriota. Y el general Butler se convirtió en un peligroso nadie.


“He servido en la Marina por 33 años hasta llegar a General y durante todo ese período he pasado la mayor parte de mi tiempo siendo el músculo de Wall Street y de los grandes negocios… En pocas palabras, he sido un mafioso del capitalismo… Nunca tuve tiempo para detenerme a pensar hasta que me retiré del servicio. Como cualquier militar, mi mente estaba suspendida y ocupada en cumplir órdenes… Cuando miro hacia atrás, pienso que podría darle algunas clases a Al Capone, con la diferencia de que él opera en tres distritos y yo operé en tres continentes”.


General Smedley Darlington Butler, 26 de mayo de 1933. (La frontera salvaje: 200 años de fanatismo anglosajón en América latina, 2021)

La extinción masiva del Homo Sapiens

Cientos de seguidores de QAnon se reunieron en el centro de Dallas para recibir a Kennedy Jr., candidato a vicepresidente en la formula Trump-Kennedy 2024. Kennedy Jr. no apareció porque hace 22 años que está muerto. Claro que este detalle no desalentará a los seguidores de QAnon, quienes tienen acceso especial y misterioso a cualquier verdad.

May be an image of 1 person, standing and outdoors