The far right and the extreme rights

One specialty of a dominant power is its ability to hijack the achievements and merits of others, from material progress to social progress. Thus, capitalism, neoliberalism, and the new radical ideology of business (whereby even the small and long-suffering businessmen and entrepreneurs believe they are members of the same union as Elon Musk, the Walton family and Donald Trump), has convinced the world that we owe all the economic, technological, scientific advances and even the bread we eat to its benefactor order. This insanity, easily refutable but fossilized in popular superstition, is as absurd as the idea that capitalism and democracy go together, when history shows that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it has meant the opposite. Big businesses and corporations have promoted multiple wars and dictatorships in multiple poor countries, with the exception of the country where the power and the interest of order and good example came from. One of these problems (only one but of vital importance), was noticed and denounced on the television network by the same President and General Dwight Eisenhower in 1961, at the time of saying goodbye to the presidency: the obscene alliance in his country between the military power and the corporations. Long before, president Rutherford Hayes had done the same in 1886: “This is not the government of the people, by the people, and for the people; it is a government of corporations, by corporations and for corporations ”.

Democracy is another example of perfect kidnapping, just as the official religions were, whereby even Jesus ends up being the protector of capitalism, the spokesman for the unbridled ambition of billionaires, and blesses wars, and dictatorships of all kinds. When democracies were unavoidable in multiple countries, they were colonized through the big press, and the new mass media such as radio and cinema.

In the United States, at the end of the 19th century, the white slavers, defeated in the Civil War, rebelled against the new rights of the blacks. They created the oldest terrorist group in existence, the KKK, and the uprisings, lynchings and even direct attempts at coups d’état, banana republic style, became popular. Some were successful. On November 9, 1898, a mob seized the court of Wilmington, the largest city in North Carolina, and declared “Independence of the White Race” based on the “superiority of the white man” and the constitution of the country, which “It had not been written to include ignorant people of African origin.” The blacks, the majority of this city, have managed to participate in the last elections, electing some representatives. The next day, two thousand armed whites stormed the streets, destroyed and burned businesses and the only newspaper in the city run by the inferior race. Unsurprisingly, word got out that some blacks have opened fire on the white hooligans, for which the order was “kill any bloody black who shows up.” To bring order, the governor ordered the soldiers who have returned from Cuba (where they kidnapped other blacks from their own revolution) to take the city. As a result, a few hundred blacks were executed and thousands had to leave their homes. The government and its representatives, elected at the ballot box, were replaced by a dictatorship that will never be called a dictatorship, but the government of responsible and peaceful citizens who restored “law and order” and the will of God. Sound recent?

Even feminists, fighters for the female vote like Rebecca Latimer Felton, will recommend lynching the blacks who won the 1898 elections in North Carolina, since the more educated and the more they participate in politics, the greater threat they pose to the virginity of the defenseless. White women. Lynching was (is) an institution established by the superior race that, not without irony, fears the physical and sexual superiority of the inferior races. Felton, a champion of modernizing education, kept insisting that the more money that goes into educating blacks, the more crimes they commit. For years, she argued that giving him the right to vote would lead to the rape of white women. Although from generations immemorial rapes were generally committed by white men against young black women, the pornographic fantasy of power never rested and Felton recommended a thousand lynchings a week to reduce the sexual appetites of these dark and ignorant men that she considers gorillas. In 1922, for 24 hours, the racist feminist became the first United States senator from Georgia. The second woman was Kelly Loeffler, also from Georgia, who, in January 2021, lost to an african american candidate Raphael Warnock. That same day, thousands of white fanatics stormed Congress in Washington, where the electoral college proved her defeat.

In the 20th century, as a way to avoid the catastrophe of the white race announced by Charles Pearson, the word race was replaced by communism. Semantic castling is so effective that it will outlive generations of misfit critics, unpatriotics, and all manner of radical left-wing extremists. In Latin America, the more radical extreme left was also an inevitable collateral effect of imperial power. Neither Cuba nor Venezuela nor any other pro-independence experience would have been what they were and what they are without the persistent and profound intervention of Washington and the megacorporations from the north. The extreme right however, from the military dictatorships to the sheltered democracies, also justified in the reaction against the reaction, too. Theodore Roosevelt had put it in writing in 1897: “the democracy of this century needs no more justification for its existence than the simple fact that it has been organized so that the white race will have the best lands in the New World.” Rich whites, to be more precise.

Now in the United States, the events present and to come will move the political spectrum a bit to the left, which, due to the generational change, was already going in that direction before the conservative reaction led by Trump. Trump will not win the support of the Pentagon because of a functional difference between the US and Latin American armies. They have always been complementary: that of the United States is in charge of the international level and those of the Third World of domestic matters, not fighting any war with other armies but repressing popular demands within their countries.

In the United States, popular and progressive movements were central to its most profound social changes, from the abolition of slavery, the struggle for labor rights, the women’s vote, to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s and 1970s ( as we recalled above, these movements were also frequently hijacked by the reaction of the wounded power). The extreme right, on the other hand, is the permanent reaction in favor of the masters, of those above, almost always led by the same slaves and foremen from below. Now, in the United States, as in Europe and Latin America, the extreme right is a collateral manifestation of social and political power that, with the frustration of its powerless members, creates a social instability that becomes a threat to them. interests of the power they serve. Suddenly, Wall Street and the dominant corporations cry out for the “restoration of order.” Unpredictability is the second biggest enemy of investors. Unpredictability is the second biggest enemy of investors.

By Jorge Majfud

Translated by Matthew M. Wilinski

The far right and the extreme rights

América Latina, hoy y los años por venir


Por Dimitris Givis para


Entrevista con Jorge Majfud: América Latina, hoy y los años por venir


  1. ¿Cómo evalúa usted la situación actual de América Latina en términos generales?

América Latina tuvo una de sus mejores décadas de su historia, aproximadamente entre 2005 y 2015, la que coincidió con un giro político de sus gobiernos electos hacia la izquierda con diversos grados de cambio y estilos de gobiernos. Faltaron muchas reformas (educación, infraestructura) pero se redujo la pobreza como nunca antes. Aunque el precio de las comodities ayudó, es falso que esto explique por sí solo la bonanza esa década, ya que en el pasado hubo mayores bonanzas de las exportaciones de materias primas con un efecto contrario: a medida que crecía el PIB crecía también la pobreza y la marginación. Sin embargo, el retorno de la región a la derecha conservadora y neoliberal se debe a (1) un contexto mundial (nuevos nacionalismos medievales y descontento del Primer mundo con la Globalización y las democracias liberales) y (2) el despertar de la vieja cultura colonialista, la tradición del hacendado, del peonaje, y una mentalidad militarista propia de la larga historia de dictaduras y otros abusos tradicionales.

Esta reacción de la derecha tribalística (amplificada por las leyes propias de las redes sociales) no es otra cosa que una reacción a un proceso histórico mayor, reiniciada siglos atrás, hacia la liberación de las mayorías marginales (negros, mujeres, homosexuales, pobres de todo tipo). Se trata de una reacción iniciada en Europa y Estados Unidos por su pérdida de poder relativo y por su pérdida de autoestima (cultural y racial) y por el cambio de roles (de invasores reales a supuestos invadidos, de victimarios a victimizados). Es, también, una reacción diseñada por la elite multimillonaria que es capaz de convencer hasta los esclavos que, de no ser por ella, todos estaríamos peor y no se hubiese inventado ni la rueda ni el cero.

  1. ¿Se podría decir que la reacción de esa derecho ha perdido su momento en América Latina demostrando la incapacidad de las políticas neoliberales para obtener un respaldo popular o es demasiado temprano para sacar ese tipo de conclusiones?

JM: En parte sí, es una reacción que ha perdido fuerza, pero al matrimonio de conservadores y neoliberales aún le queda algunos años en el poder político (Brasil, por ejemplo) y muchas décadas en la mentalidad de la clase dirigente tradicional latinoamericana sostenidas por sus tradicionales servidores. Lo que Malcom X llamaba “los negros de la casa”. Las raíces clasistas y autoritarias, el odio por los pobres, el desprecio por los negros y los indios en América Latina son tan difíciles de extirpar como el racismo, el sentido de superioridad racial y la paranoia armamentística en Estados Unidos.

  1. ¿Cómo podrían los movimientos sociales y sus posibles nuevas tácticas darles alguna esperanza al pueblo latinoamericano, considerando el retroceso de los gobiernos progresistas en el continente? ¿Qué perspectivas o posibilidades les ve usted?

JM. Casi todos los progresos sociales que ocurrieron en Estados Unidos en el siglo XX se debieron a los demonizados grupos de resistencia a la Guerra de Vietnam en los años 60s. Hoy los estadounidenses han aprendido a ser mucho más dóciles y, por eso, el 0,1 por ciento más rico puede continuar secuestrándole más riqueza al resto de la sociedad sin que haya reacciones significativas. Pero una reacción histórica es cuestión de tiempo.

En América Latina no es diferente, aunque en ese continente no se imprime el dólar ni sus países tienen cientos de bases militares alrededor del mundo para presionar, intimidar y cerrar buenos negocios. Pero sus múltiples movimientos populares, muchos continuadores de una antigua tradición de resistencia indígena, sean de resistencia (como en Ecuador) o de organización política (como en Uruguay) son no sólo una barrera para los abusos del poder sino, también, la razón de cualquier conquista popular. Todo lo que cae desde arriba es sólo anestesia social.

  1. ¿Qué dilemas le plantean las próximas elecciones en Argentina, Uruguay y Bolivia?

JM: En mi modesta opinión, el caso argentino es el más claro: es urgente detener las políticas neoliberales que, a través del actual presidente Macri y sus creyentes, empezaron por desestabilizar la sociedad imponiéndoles el pago de casi todo el esfuerzo social, subiendo los precios de los servicios básicos a fuerza de insensibilidad exitista, quebrando el tejido social y, como consecuencia, arruinando la misma economía nacional que los neoliberales se jactan de conocer muy bien; endeudando un país y la generación siguiente con el viejo y maldito recurso de los préstamos del FMI, sin siquiera lograr una reversión de la catástrofe, sino el agravamiento de la deuda y de la pobreza colectiva.

En cuanto a Uruguay, por ahora el objetivo es continuar resistiendo un contexto regional prolongado de recesiones, de crisis sociales, de violencia civil, de narcotráfico. Al mismo tiempo, resistir y evitar el regreso de los salvadores neoliberales que ya quebraron el país en el 2001, en sintonía con otros neoliberales más agresivos, como la Argentina de Carlos Menem. Uruguay debe, también, evitar las tentaciones militaristas, las que afirman saber cómo resolver cada problema a los tiros y a las patadas, tal como propuso en Brasil el capitán apologista de las pasadas dictaduras militares, Jair Bolsonaro. Brasil, el eterno país del futuro, ya tuvo una década dorada gracias a un presidente sindicalista, sin titulo de doctor o de general, y eso no lo soportan las viejas elites, acostumbradas a humillar y oprimir a los de abajo.

En el caso de Bolivia, Evo Morales es uno de los presidentes más exitosos de América del Sur, como lo fuera Rafael Correa en Ecuador, y por eso la gran prensa mundial casi nunca habla de él sino de Nicolás Maduro. Evo tiene mucho que corregir de sus administraciones anteriores, como por ejemplo no creerse imprescindible. Sin embargo, la idea de que “Evo es un dictador” porque es el clásico líder latinoamericano que se enamora del poder, deja de lado la consideración de hechos simples como que Franklin D. Roosevelt fue presidente de Estados Unidos cuatro veces consecutivas, o que Angela Merkel en Alemania o Benjamín Netanyahu en Israel han sido reelectos múltiples veces y el centro del mundo nunca se atrevería a llamarlos autoritarios y, mucho menos, dictadores. En la narración hegemónica de la realidad está el germen del autoritarismo, del colonialismo y del racismo que, por sutil, no deja de ser menos efectivo y menos brutal.

  1. ¿Cómo evalúa usted las políticas neoliberales que fueran impuestas sobre América latina y que aún predominan en países como Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Colombia y otros? ¿Podemos decir que el neoliberalismo ha fallado en el continente latinoamericano?

 JM: La idea de fracaso es como la idea de éxito. Todo depende del propósito de cada uno. El neoliberalismo no ha fracasado en el sentido de que ha impuesto sus objetivos en muchas partes del mundo, especialmente desde el trabajo de hormiga que el profesor de la Universidad de Chicago, Milton Friedman, comenzó en los años 50s para contrarrestar el “socialismo” que sacó a Estados Unidos de la Depresión. En América Latina el gran experimento fue Chile: se acosó al gobierno socialista de Salvador Allende (como se hizo con Irán en 1953, con Guatemala en 1954, con Cuba en los 60s) hasta destruir su economía. Una vez instalado en su lugar el general Augusto Pinochet, un dictador de perfil Nazi, los campeones del neoliberalismo no tuvieron ninguna resistencia para hacer y deshacer. Como ocurriese con dictaduras anteriores en otros países, Estados Unidos inundó ese país con créditos y ayudas económicas y morales para que tuviese éxito y así mostrar al mundo un buen ejemplo. Es el mismo método que se sigue usando en diversas partes del mundo: acoso a cualquier opción al capitalismo salvaje y ayuda ilimitada a sus aduladores.

Obviamente, desde el punto de vista de la población y de las promesas de sus sacerdotes, el neoliberalismo ha fracasado repetidas veces, con una frecuencia que asombra y no habla bien de una parte significativa de la población que lo sufre y lo apoya con fanatismo.

15 de octubre 2019

Συνέντευξη με τον Χόρχε Μαχφούντ , καθηγητή λατινοαμερικανικής λογοτεχνίας και διεθνών σπουδών στο πανεπιστήμιο Τζακσονβιλ


Στη Λατινική Αμερική το μεγάλο πείραμα ήταν η Χιλή


** Στη Λατινική Αμερική, η ταξικότητα, ο αυταρχισμός, το μίσος για τους φτωχούς, η περιφρόνηση για τους μαύρους και τους ινδιάνους, είναι τόσο δύσκολο να καταργηθούν, όπως είναι ο ρατσισμός, η αίσθηση της φυλετικής υπεροχής, και η παράνοια των όπλων στις ΗΠΑ.

Τη συνέντευξη πήρε
ο Δημήτρης Γκιβίσης

Ποια είναι η γενική εικόνα που έχεις για τις εξελίξεις στην Λατινική Αμερική;
Η Λατινική Αμερική είχε μία από τις καλύτερες δεκαετίες στην ιστορία περίπου μεταξύ 2004 και 2014, που συνέπεσε με μια πολιτική στροφή προς τα αριστερά με ποικίλους βαθμούς αλλαγών και μορφών κυβερνήσεων. Απέτυχαν σε πολλές μεταρρυθμίσεις (εκπαίδευση, υποδομή), αλλά πολλά πολιτικά δικαιώματα προστατεύθηκαν από νέους νόμους, και η φτώχεια μειώθηκε όσο ποτέ πριν. Αν και η υψηλή τιμή των εμπορευμάτων βοήθησε, είναι λάθος να το αποδίδουμε αυτό μόνο στην περίοδο της ανθηρής οικονομίας λόγω των μεγάλων εξαγωγών, καθώς στο παρελθόν υπήρχαν μεγαλύτερες τέτοιες περίοδοι με το αντίθετο αποτέλεσμα: καθώς τα ΑΕΠ των χωρών αυξήθηκαν, αυξήθηκαν επίσης η φτώχεια και η περιθωριοποίηση. Τώρα, η επιστροφή της περιοχής στις συντηρητικές και νεοφιλελεύθερες πολιτικές οφείλεται πρώτον σε ένα νέο παγκόσμιο πλαίσιο (νεομεσαιωνική ρητορική, εθνικισμοί, και δυσαρέσκεια τόσο με την παγκοσμιοποίηση όσο και με τις φιλελεύθερες δημοκρατίες στον Πρώτο Κόσμο), και δεύτερον στην αφύπνιση της παλιάς αποικιοκρατικής κουλτούρας, της παράδοσης του γαιοκτήμονα και των εργατών γης, και μιας παλιάς μιλιταριστικής νοοτροπίας, χαρακτηριστική της μακράς ιστορίας της δικτατορίας και του ξένου παρεμβατισμού στο όνομα της «εθνικής ασφάλειας». Αυτή η αντίδραση της φυλετικής δεξιάς πτέρυγας, ενισχυμένη από τους νόμους των ΜΜΕ, δεν είναι παρά μια αντίδραση σε μια μεγαλύτερη ιστορική διαδικασία, στην απελευθέρωση των περιθωριοποιημένων πλειοψηφιών (μαύροι, γυναίκες, ομοφυλόφιλοι, φτωχοί). Πρόκειται για μια αντίδραση που ξεκίνησε στην Ευρώπη και στις ΗΠΑ για την απώλεια της σχετικής εξουσίας τους και της αυτοεκτίμησής τους (πολιτιστική και φυλετική), και την αλλαγή των ρόλων (από εισβολείς σε κατακτημένους, από θύτες σε θύματα). Είναι επίσης μια αντίδραση που χρησιμοποιείται από τις ελίτ των δισεκατομμυριούχων, οι οποίοι είναι ικανοί να πείσουν ακόμα και τους σκλάβους ότι αν δεν ήταν αυτοί θα ήμασταν όλοι χειρότερα, και ούτε ο τροχός ούτε το παραμικρό θα είχαν εφευρεθεί.

Θέμα χρόνου

Θεωρείς ότι η δεξιά αντεπίθεση έχει χάσει τη δυναμική της στη Λατινική Αμερική;
Εν μέρει, ναι, είναι μια αντίδραση που έχει χάσει τη δύναμή της. Αλλά ο ετερόκλητος γάμος συντηρητικών και νεοφιλελεύθερων, θρησκειών και εμπόρων, έχει ακόμα αρκετά χρόνια στην πολιτική εξουσία (π.χ. στη Βραζιλία), και πολλές δεκαετίες στη νοοτροπία των παραδοσιακών λατινικοαμερικανικών αρχουσών τάξεων, και έχει ριζώσει σε ένα σημαντικό τμήμα των ανθρώπων. Είναι αυτό που ο Μάλκολμ X αποκάλεσε «the House Negro» (σημ: είναι ένας ιστορικός όρος για τον σκλάβο σπιτιού αφρικανικής καταγωγής). Στη Λατινική Αμερική, η ταξικότητα, ο αυταρχισμός, το μίσος για τους φτωχούς, η περιφρόνηση για τους μαύρους και τους ινδιάνους, είναι τόσο δύσκολο να καταργηθούν, όπως είναι ο ρατσισμός, η αίσθηση της φυλετικής υπεροχής, και η παράνοια των όπλων στις ΗΠΑ.

Μπορούν σήμερα τα κοινωνικά κινήματα και οι νέες χειραφετητικές πρακτικές να ξαναδώσουν την ελπίδα στους λαούς της Λατινικής Αμερικής, απέναντι στην εξάντληση του κρατικού προοδευτισμού;
Σχεδόν όλη η κοινωνική πρόοδος που σημειώθηκε στις ΗΠΑ στον 20ο αιώνα, οφειλόταν στις δαιμονοποιημένες ομάδες αντίστασης στον πόλεμο του Βιετνάμ τη δεκαετία του ‘60. Σήμερα οι Αμερικανοί έχουν μάθει να είναι πιο υπάκουοι και, ως εκ τούτου, το πλουσιότερο 0,1% μπορεί να συνεχίζει να απαγάγει περισσότερο πλούτο από την υπόλοιπη κοινωνία χωρίς σημαντικές αντιδράσεις. Αλλά μια ιστορική απάντηση είναι θέμα χρόνου. Στη Λατινική Αμερική δεν είναι διαφορετικά, αν και δεν μπορεί να εκτυπώσει δολάρια, ούτε να έχει εκατοντάδες στρατιωτικές βάσεις σε όλο τον κόσμο, για να πιέζει, να εκφοβίζει, και να κλείνει καλές συμφωνίες. Όμως τα πολυάριθμα λαϊκά κινήματα, όπως στον Ισημερινό, και οι πολιτικές οργανώσεις, όπως στην Ουρουγουάη, δεν αποτελούν μόνο εμπόδιο στις καταχρήσεις της εξουσίας, αλλά και ο λόγος για το κάθε λαϊκό επίτευγμα. Μόνο η βροχή και η κοινωνική αναισθησία πέφτουν φυσικά από πάνω.

Για τις εκλογές σε Βολιβία, Αργεντινή και Ουρουγουάη

Ποια είναι τα διλήμματα που αναδύονται ενόψει των σημερινών εκλογών στη Βολιβία, και αυτών της επόμενης Κυριακής στην Αργεντινή και την Ουρουγουάη;
Κατά τη γνώμη μου, η περίπτωση της Αργεντινής είναι η πιο ξεκάθαρη: επείγει να σταματήσουν οι νεοφιλελεύθερες πολιτικές, που με τον σημερινό πρόεδρο επιχειρηματία και τους πιστούς του αποσταθεροποίησαν την κοινωνία στο όνομα της «υπευθυνότητας και του ρεαλισμού», αυξάνοντας τις τιμές των βασικών κοινωνικών υπηρεσιών, συγχέοντας μια χώρα με μια ιδιωτική επιχείρηση, σπάζοντας τον κοινωνικό ιστό, και καταστρέφοντας την ίδια την οικονομία που οι νεοφιλελεύθεροι καυχώνται ότι γνωρίζουν πολύ καλά: επιστροφή στο ΔΝΤ, αστρονομικό χρέος που θα πληρωθεί από την επόμενη γενιά, αυξανόμενη φτώχεια. Όσον αφορά την Ουρουγουάη, προς το παρόν, ο στόχος είναι να συνεχιστεί η αντίσταση σε ένα παρατεταμένο περιφερειακό πλαίσιο ύφεσης, κοινωνικών κρίσεων, πολιτικής βίας, και διακίνησης ναρκωτικών. Ταυτόχρονα, να αντέξει και να αποφύγει την επιστροφή των ίδιων νεοφιλελεύθερων σωτήρων που διέλυσαν τη χώρα το 2001, σε συμφωνία με άλλους πιο επιθετικούς νεοφιλελεύθερους, όπως την Αργεντινή του Κάρλος Μένεμ. Η Ουρουγουάη πρέπει επίσης να αποφύγει τους μιλιταριστικούς πειρασμούς, που ισχυρίζονται ότι γνωρίζουν πως να λύσουν το κάθε πρόβλημα μόνο φωνάζοντας και πυροβολώντας, όπως πρότεινε στη Βραζιλία ο Ζαΐρ Μπολσονάρο, ο θαυμαστής των στρατιωτικών δικτατοριών. Όσον αφορά τη Βολιβία, ο Έβο Μοράλες είναι ένας από τους πιο επιτυχημένους προέδρους της Νότιας Αμερικής, όπως ήταν στον Ισημερινό ο Ραφαέλ Κορέα, και αυτός είναι ο λόγος για τον οποίο τα μεγάλα παγκόσμια μέσα ενημέρωσης δεν μιλάνε σχεδόν ποτέ για αυτόν, παρά μόνο για τον Νικολάς Μαδούρο. Ο Έβο έχει πολλά να διορθώσει από τις προηγούμενες διοικήσεις του, όπως το να μη θεωρεί τον εαυτό του απαραίτητο. Ωστόσο, η ιδέα ότι «ο Έβο είναι δικτάτορας», επειδή είναι ο κλασσικός ηγέτης της Λατινικής Αμερικής που επανεκλέγεται πολλές φορές, παραβλέπει το γεγονός ότι ο Φραγκλίνος Ρούσβελτ ήταν πρόεδρος των ΗΠΑ για τέσσερις συνεχόμενες θητείες, και ότι η Άνγκελα Μέρκελ στη Γερμανία ή ο Μπενιαμίν Νετανιάχου στο Ισραήλ έχουν επανεκλεγεί επίσης πολλές φορές. Το κέντρο του κόσμου δεν θα τολμούσε ποτέ να τους αποκαλέσει αυταρχικούς και, πόσο μάλλον, δικτάτορες. Αυτό είναι το ηγεμονικό αφήγημα, όπου υπάρχει ο πραγματικός αυταρχισμός.

Έχοντας υπόψη τα αποτελέσματα των νεοφιλελεύθερων πολιτικών που εφαρμόστηκαν στην περιοχή, και συνεχίζονται σε Αργεντινή, Χιλή, Βραζιλία, Κολομβία κλπ, μπορούμε να πούμε ότι ο νεοφιλελευθερισμός απέτυχε στη Λατινική Αμερική;
Η ιδέα της αποτυχίας είναι σαν την ιδέα της επιτυχίας. Όλα εξαρτώνται από τον σκοπό του καθενός. Ο νεοφιλελευθερισμός δεν έχει αποτύχει, με την έννοια ότι έχει επιβάλει τους στόχους του σε πολλά μέρη του κόσμου, ειδικά αφότου το έργο του Μίλτον Φρίντμαν ξεκίνησε στη δεκαετία του ‘50 για να εξουδετερώσει τον «σοσιαλισμό» που έβγαλε τις ΗΠΑ από την ύφεση. Στη Λατινική Αμερική το μεγάλο πείραμα ήταν η Χιλή: η σοσιαλιστική κυβέρνηση του Σαλβαδόρ Αλιέντε παρενοχλήθηκε, όπως έγινε με το Ιράν το 1953, τη Γουατεμάλα το 1954, την Κούβα τη δεκαετία του ΄60, κλπ, μέχρι την καταστροφή της οικονομίας της. Αυτό είχε προγραμματιστεί πολύ πριν ο Αουγκούστο Πινοσέτ, ένας ναζί – δικτάτορας, γίνει ο πρωταθλητής του νεοφιλελευθερισμού. Όπως συνέβη και με τις προηγούμενες δικτατορίες, για παράδειγμα τη Βραζιλία, οι ΗΠΑ πλημμύρισαν τη χώρα με πιστώσεις και οικονομικά και ηθικά βοηθήματα, ώστε να πετύχει και έτσι να δείξουν στον κόσμο ότι είναι ένα καλό παράδειγμα. Είναι η ίδια μέθοδος που χρησιμοποιείται ακόμα σε διάφορα μέρη του κόσμου: παρενόχληση της οποιασδήποτε επιλογής απέναντι στον άγριο καπιταλισμό, και απεριόριστη βοήθεια στους κόλακές του. Προφανώς, από την άποψη του πληθυσμού και των υποσχέσεων των κηρύκων του ο νεοφιλελευθερισμός έχει επανειλημμένα αποτύχει, με μια συχνότητα και επανάληψη που εκπλήσσει, και δεν εκφράζει σωστά ένα σημαντικό μέρος του πληθυσμού που υποφέρει και τον υποστηρίζει με φανατισμό.

Σημ: Ο Χόρχε Μαχφούντ γεννήθηκε στην Ουρουγουάη, και είναι ένας από τους σημαντικότερους συγγραφείς μιας νέας γενιάς λατινοαμερικάνων διανοούμενων. Έχει εκδώσει διάφορα βιβλία, αρκετά από αυτά σε συνεργασία με συγγραφείς όπως ο Ζοζέ Σαραμάγκου, ο Εδουάρδο Γκαλεάνο, ο Σλαβόι Ζίζεκ, και ο Μάριο Βάργκας Λιόσα, μεταξύ άλλων.

The Latin American Migration Crisis Was Born Out of Greed and Myths About Race

published on Thursday, September 12, 2019

In Unwanted People, historian Aviva Chomsky’s essays explore the roots of this violent history.

For more than a century, Latin American governments have promoted a model of national development based on land privatization and privileging the interests of foreign investors rather than the rights of workers; policies that in fact promoted economic growth without development. In many cases, this kind of economic growth instead increased inequality and poverty. Democratic or dictatorial governments implemented these policies by hook or by crook, which often forced the people to choose between renouncing their rights or submitting to the brutality of power concretized in armies who served the creole oligarchy in the name of “national security” against foreign invaders. In such armies, often the most deprived individuals were the most zealous and violent guardians of the privileges of others.

This domestic and national economic policy was concretely connected to the interests of international corporations. The social structure in which creole elites of the postcolonial era served the ruling classes mirrored the relationship between the indigenous nobility who served the Spanish crown. In the 20th century, such power lodged itself in traditional commodities-export ruling classes and transnational foreign companies, which were often supported by direct interventions from superpower governments. Despite repeated attempts to prove otherwise, Latin American history cannot be understood without taking into account the history of U.S. interventions, from the Monroe Doctrine (1823) to the dozens of U.S. military interventions in Latin America. The latter includes the annexation of more than half of the Mexican territory in mid-19th century, a long list of military interventions leading to the dramatic establishment of bloody puppet dictators throughout the 20th century, which left hundreds of thousands murdered, and the destruction of democracies such as Guatemala or Chile in the name of freedom and democracy. Large multinational corporations, such as the United Fruit Company in Central America, Pepsi Cola in Chile and Volkswagen in Brazil, motivated or supported many of these coups d’état. The dominant creole classes in turn supported the overthrow of legitimate governments because they stood to gain more from the export business of cheap natural resources than from the internal development of their nations.

The extreme violence that resulted directly from these social inequities generated internal displacements and international migrations, especially to the United States, the world hegemonic economy. Yet many immigrants arrived in a country that denied them the same individual rights that had been withheld from them in their home countries. As Aviva Chomsky illustrates in her new book, Unwanted People: Histories of Race and Displacement in the Americas, the United States’ history of racially motivated class stratification and anti-labor policy dovetailed with the shape that the country’s immigration took in the 1960s.

Unwanted People presents a selection of historian Aviva Chomsky’s writings, which explores the roots of these problems from the concrete perspective of groups who have experienced the effects of this violent history. Chomsky’s work is always incisive and challenging. Each text dismantles modern myths about Latin American immigration, U.S. history, and the labor movement. Specifically, she highlights popular superstitions about immigration that are exacerbated by international reporting and the “master narratives” that have been consolidated by a strategic forgetting, both from U.S. and Latin American perspectives. Chomsky brings these challenges to the dominant narratives of colonial history to bear on topics ranging from the United States’ global and colonial economy to an analysis of the colonial history of Africa in the movie Black Panther.

In “The Logic of Displacement” and “A Central American Drama,” Chomsky analyzes two apparently different realities that are nevertheless connected by their subterranean logics. The historical displacement of Afro-Colombians, she argues, has been caused not only by racism but also by the logic of economic convenience. Chomsky questions the historical explanation of La Violencia in Colombia (initiated with the murder of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán in 1948) as a simple dichotomy, “liberal versus conservative,” and reviews the interests of the white Catholic elite of Antioquia over Afro-Colombian regions, rich in natural resources. Thus, in Colombia there is a case similar to that of others on the continent: the internal displacement of rural, indigenous or afro-descendant communities for economic reasons (gold, platinum, wood) is executed “voluntarily” through the purchase of property accompanied by violence inflicted by paramilitary groups, which functioned as an extralegal arm and ally of the armies and the governments of Latin American countries.

Leftist guerrilla groups emerged as a counter to the paramilitary groups that represented the typically conservative right interests of the government. These also served largely as an excuse for military and paramilitary violence. Although it could be argued that the guerrilla groups’ amplification of regional violence also played a role in the displacement of people, Chomsky argues that displacement was not one of their objectives, as it was in the case of paramilitaries, who furthered the interest of the big businesses laying claim to the land and its natural resources. Meanwhile, the impunity of those in power contributed dramatically to the scale of this movement’s violence.

Neoliberal economic policies combined with an increasingly militarized southern United States border had an impact on Central American migration and was the direct result of United States foreign policy.

Internationally, displacement was not always due to direct military actions, but it was always the result of economic forces. The United States increased control of immigration, especially immigration of the displaced poor, as a solution to the increased migration that resulted from years of interventionist foreign policy. The Mexican-American border, which had been permeable for centuries, became a violent wall in 1965, forcing job seekers to avoid returning to their homes in the south as they used to do. This reality was aggravated by the policies and international treaties of the new neoliberal wave of the 1990s, such as NAFTA, which financially ruined the Mexican peasants who could not compete with the subsidized agriculture of the United States. Meanwhile, U.S. conservatives attacked leftist guerrilla and community groups, such as the Zapatistas in southern Mexico, who resisted such policies.

Neoliberal economic policies combined with an increasingly militarized southern United States border had an impact on Central American migration and was the direct result of United States foreign policy. In Chomsky’s words:

“U.S. policies directly led to today’s crises in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Since Washington orchestrated the overthrow of the reformist, democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, it has consistently cultivated repressive military regimes, savagely repressed peasant and popular movements for social change, and imposed economic policies including so-called free trade ones that favor foreign investors and have proven devastating to the rural and urban poor.”

As Chomsky rightly points out in her book They Take Our Jobs! And 20 Other Myths about Immigration (2007), it is no coincidence that when racial discrimination became politically incorrect in the 1960s, it was replaced in the law and in the political and social discourse by national discrimination. This, coupled with the fact that Mexicans and other Latin American immigrants were no longer returning to their countries because of widespread violence, made the new border policies even more dangerous and sometimes deadly for both migrant workers and those fleeing political and social violence, mostly people from the Northern Triangle of Central America.

This sequence of historical events has countless consequences in the present. However, politicians, major media, and U.S. citizens only see the faces of children, men and women speaking a “foreign language” (though, of course, Spanish is older than English in the United States). Political and news discourse represents immigrants as “invading” cities to take advantage of the services and benefits of American democracy, which strips immigration politics of its historicity. It is a false logic that turns workers into idlers, imagines welfare abusers when in fact immigrants sustain the care economy with their labor and their taxes, and sees the victims of neocolonial trade policies as invading criminals. In a recent interview with Aviva Chomsky about the current myths that dominate the social narrative in the United States today, she explains:

“I’d say there are two [myths]: one, that immigrants are criminals, and two, that immigrants come here to take advantage of the United States. In a way, these are connected—by turning immigrants into ‘bad hombres,’ Trump helps to erase history and the disasters that U.S. policy has helped to create in the countries that immigrants are currently fleeing, especially in Central America.”

Unwanted People, a collection of Aviva Chomsky’s writings, approaches complex discussions about race, labor, and immigration in the United States from the more nuanced perspective of a historian. Often conversations about immigration center on the subject of labor, and yet, as Chomsky illustrates in the essays collected in her new book, labor in the United States has its own troubled history. With a focus on New England, and especially Boston, Chomsky connects the history of labor struggles dating back to the 19th century to modern-day discussions about race and immigration. By uncovering hidden histories that challenge the dominant narratives about the working class, Chomsky reveals the importance of discussing racial justice alongside economic justice. Rather than participating in the shrill and polarizing rhetoric of political and media hype, Chomsky invites us to look to the economic and political history that has led up to this point. As Chomsky points out, “Until we are able to acknowledge and understand the past, we will not be able to act in the present for a better future.”

This article was produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute. It is an adapted excerpt from the foreword by Dr. Sarah Parker and Jorge Majfud to the new book by Aviva Chomsky, Unwanted People (University of Valencia Press, 2019).


Dr. Sarah Parker is an associate professor in the English department at Jacksonville University. She holds a PhD in comparative literature from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. She is the author of numerous scholarly articles and book chapters on topics ranging from the history of medicine to French feminist theory.


Jorge Majfud

Jorge Majfud is a Uruguayan American writer and an associate professor at Jacksonville University.



Aviva Chomsky Cover 2

Why the Government’s Hunt for the Migrant Poor Is a Perfect Distraction From the Real Problems of Our Time

Published on Thursday, August 15, 2019 by 

This article was produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

The powerful old men who rule the world have an existential advantage, which is that they won’t live to see the fruits of their hate and greed.

Immigrants not only don’t vote but likewise their economic power and ability to shape the media narrative are irrelevant. (Photo: Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)

In June of 2019, President Donald Trump announced the scheduling of raids for hunting down illegal immigrants in the 10 biggest cities in the United States, which commenced on July 14. The fact that big cities were selected rather than big farms, which are unable to gather their harvests without illegal immigrants, most probably stems from a phenomenon that I have pointed out before, which is that in the United States, minorities (blacks, Latinos, Asians) are politically underrepresented, not just because illegal immigrants don’t vote but also because the votes from citizens of those groups are worth several times less than a white vote in a low-populated ultraconservative state, all of which calls into question the supposedly democratic nature of the entire political and electoral system, not to mention the economic and financial system: one citizen, one vote.

For historical reasons associated with the marginalization of land ownership and because of present-day necessities, minorities are concentrated in large cities in the service sector. They reside in the most populous states, each of which has as many senators as any sparsely populated state. Since the 19th century, such largely rural states have been conservative bastions. To come up with the same population as California (40 million) or New York (20 million), which are two progressive bastions known for being more receptive to all kinds of immigrants, it’s necessary to add together the populations of more than 10 conservative states (the gigantic state of Alaska has a population of less than 1 million people). Nonetheless, each of these large states possesses only two senators, while a dozen conservative and thinly populated states possess 24. Texas is the inverse exception but not according to its internal dynamics.

An accurate representation of this structural reality must also include, among other characteristics, the fact that so-called populist governments quite often strive to make a big splash with spectacular and symbolic decisions when they might have done the same thing in a more discreet way. Leftist populist movements tend to play this same card with more powerful antagonists, which is what empires of various stripes are. Right-wing populist movements tend to play the same card by attacking and demonizing the governments of poor countries when the latter get the idea of toying with independence, or by going after the most defenseless sectors in a society such as poor immigrants or workers. Immigrants not only don’t vote but likewise their economic power and ability to shape the media narrative are irrelevant.

In the case of right-wing populism, which is an expression of elite interests misleadingly conflated with the frustrations of the working class who are manipulated into directing their vigilante fury at the undesirables below their socioeconomic level, we can at least say that it’s a kind of cowardice raised to an exponential degree. Without even considering that post-humanist fanatics (fanatics are those working-class people who defend elite interests against their own interests, not those elites who simply defend their own interests) tend to wave the diverse and contradictory flag of the cross at the same time they rend their garments and thump their chests while claiming to be the followers of Jesus, a man who preached about indiscriminate love and surrounded himself with marginalized people. He who was crucified alongside two other criminals by the imperial power of the day and the always necessary local collaborators.

Different studies (Derek Epp and Enrico Borghetto) have shown that the greater the social and economic differences separating elites from the working class, the greater the media coverage given to problems related to immigration and crime. This is just as much the case in prominent countries as in peripheral ones, in rich ones as in poor ones. One other characteristic must be added, one that even shows up in papers written by university students. The debate (or perhaps more accurately “social verbalization”) is laid out with its axiom and corollary from the very beginning when it is presented as “the immigration problem” rather than “the challenge” or “the great immigration opportunity.”

Although President Donald Trump lost the election in 2016, he made it to the White House because of an electoral system invented for protecting Southern slaveholding states in the 18th century (today, liberal states like California need twice as many votes as the Southern states they subsidize through taxes to get an electoral vote) and characterized by racist discourse, as in Europe, barely disguised by the eternal and cowardly excuse of legality, which, as I’ve already analyzed previously, has historically been promoted and respected when doing so was convenient for the groups holding power. The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program is another example: designed to favor Irish immigrants in the late 1980s (the least welcome immigrants throughout the 19th century before becoming “white” in the 20th century), suddenly it was considered absurd and inconvenient when politicians realized the law favors mostly non-white immigrants. Of course, there are a few notable and heroic exceptions to this rule, like the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965; these exceptions and examples of social progress have been always thanks to demonized people fighting for social justice. Racism is neither created nor destroyed. It is only transformed.

The date July 14, 2019, which marked the start of a round of raids on illegal immigrants, is an arbitrary one but is consistent with the fascist psychology that loves untimely and symbolic decisions taken against any specific working-class group that has been demonized as “the others,” such as everyday Jews, everyday Muslims, everyday immigrants. Of course, not just any illegal immigrant but rather the poorest, most desperate and with the darkest skin. The other illegal immigrants, if they are white, go unnoticed. Or if they are white women, they can even become the First Lady in spite of the fact that her parents were (by free choice and because it was required for registering as “mountain climbers”) members of the communist party in some European country. Further proof is that immigrants do the work that the nation’s citizens refuse to do.

Tribalism, the fascist, racist misogynistic horde and disgust for the equal rights of others—all of these will pass away. We don’t know when, but I’m convinced that it’s a global reaction to everything that has been accomplished in this sense, whether how little or how much, in the last few centuries. And it’s an entirely expected pretext for a worsening conflict between those who are increasingly fewer and have increasingly more and those who are increasingly numerous and feel but don’t understand that they are being pushed aside and, in the best-case scenarios, are being turned into docile, grazing consumers. It’s a historic process that cannot be perpetuated, that will explode in an uncontrolled catastrophe nobody wants, not even those at the top who are so accustomed to expanding their zones of influence during each controlled crisis, such as the one that will come in 2020.

The powerful old men who rule the world have an existential advantage, which is that they won’t live to see the fruits of their hate and greed. That’s why they don’t care about anything in the long run, even though they say the exact opposite over and over. This is especially true if they think they’ve managed to buy a penthouse in the kingdom of the Lord by virtue of paying alms and praying five minutes per day with their heads bowed. For them and for the working class, “time is money.” This is a myth that can only be busted by considering that no mountain of gold can buy them additional time. Since they can’t amass time, they instead amass gold while destroying the lives of the weakest and most desperate—of the youngest who far and away have more time than gold. It’s a sin for which they won’t be forgiven.


JM, August 2019.

This article was produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Immigration, History, Politics, and the Latino Vote

2019 Lectures




January 30, 2019 4:30 pm McKee 113 


WCU Humanities Initiative

WCU welcomes Uruguayan-American scholar and author Jorge Majfud. 

In the first event, Dr. Majfud will join Dr. Benjamin Francis-Fallon (WCU History) in a panel about Immigration and the evolution of the Latino Voting Bloc in the US. 

Join us also the following day, when Dr. Majfud will engage in a dialogue with Dr. Alberto Centeno-Pulido (WCU World Languages) about immigration, racism, and the role of intellectuals in the public sphere as explorers of the human experience.

alberto3 (1)



For more information, contact Alberto Centeno-Pulido at




War of the Pigs and tribal politics

Jorge Majfud

Translated by  Fausto Giudice Фаусто Джудиче فاوستو جيوديشي


To distract attention from the global assault by 0.1 percent of the world’s population, we have a growing War of the Pig (Diary of the War of the Pig, novel by Bioy Casares, 1969, engL 1972) but extended to the most diverse extremes the Argentine novelist ever imagined: young against old, whites vs.  blacks, Latinos vs.  Anglos, fat vs.  skinny, truckers and miners vs.  university students, beer drinkers vs.  abstainers, vegans vs.  vegetarians and vegetarians vs.  carnivores, feminists of the first wave vs.  Instagram feminists and vs.  men, machistas vs.  feminists, men vs. women, lesbians vs. heteros and heteros vs. gays, Ford drivers vs. Chevrolet drivers, bearded Harley-Davidson bikers vs. beardless professors, third-generation vs. first-generation immigrants, gun lovers and Saturn believers vs. Uranus believers. Good haters vs. bad haters (another untranslatable word defecated in the centre of the world for consumption by the periphery).

At the beginning of this century (still with some optimistic faith in a new form of radical, direct democracy of a “disobedient society” liberated from its great leaders and from the manipulations of the financial aristocracy) we began to publish on the return of “The Mental Frontiers of Tribalism” (2004, tribal, in the European sense of the word, because the “wild tribes” I found in Africa were the most civilized and peaceful people I’ve ever known in my life), about the new “Culture of Hatred” (2006) and about the possible return of Western monsters (“The Slow Suicide of the West”, 2002) such as fascism, arrogance and intolerance towards “the other”. The most recent article “The own opinion and other banalities” (2015), then read as satire, is now a reality: machines can easily opine on everyone based on their consumption habits or on their social, racial position, etc.

But we can still speculate that all that medieval mentality that has been installed in the world can be just a reaction to a major historical movement, deepened in the sixties or, in the worst case, a historical cycle in itself that has come to stay for many years. (I don’t believe that much in the latter. Most likely in a few decades we will be talking about a reaction from those from below. We haven’t crossed the inevitable break line yet and it’s not going to be pleasant for anyone.

The new interactive media have not helped significantly to know the other better (the other individual, the other culture) but, probably, the opposite.

Why? What happened?

Many years ago, with an outside view from within the great power, we were surprised that in the United States one could guess a person’s political affiliation just by looking at her face, seeing her walk, without the need for her to say a word. That apparent absurdity is currently the fashion trend in the world.

We did not foresee that one of the repressed monsters to which we had referred before that moment and which define us as human beings, opposed to altruism, to the search for justice and coexistence, would be strengthened thanks to the same interactive media. I am referring to the blind ego, to the need to feel superior to the rest at any price, to the “Trump syndrome” in everyone as an illusory source of pleasure (not happiness) that only causes more anxiety and frustration.

In other words, it is the politics of the aforementioned tribes (nationalisms) and micro tribes (social bubbles). Many times, bubbles prefabricated by the culture of consumption.

From this atomization of politics and society into tribes, into microbubbles, our global culture has become increasingly toxic, and hatred of the other into one of the common factors that organizes it. Hate and inevitable frustration exacerbated by the struggle for social recognition, by the five-minute fame, by the desire to become viral thanks to some frivolity, by the need for “visibility”, the old word and obsession of USAmerican culture before it was adopted as its own and natural by the rest of the world. (A few months ago, a Uruguayan congresswoman, Graciela Bianchi, not a millennial but an older woman, defended herself in front of an Argentine journalist questioning her statements by saying that she had “a lot of visibility” in her country.)

But since not all individuals can be famous, “influencers” (much less when the individual no longer exists, when it is a flat, standard, repeated entity with minimal variations that each one considers fundamental), the need for individual recognition is projected in a larger group, in the tribe, in the irrational nationalist or racial feelings where the fury for a flag of a country or for the flag of a football club hardly differs but in scale. Thus, if even an individual named Donald Trump, a millionaire who has become president of the most powerful country in the world, needs to humiliate and degrade the rest in order to feel superior, it is not difficult to imagine what goes through the grey muscle of millions of other less fortunate abstainers.

The humanist idea of equality-in-diversity, the paradigm that most recently defined the Modern Era (apart from reason and secularism) and which was an absurd novelty until the 18th century, has suddenly lost much of its prestige.

Although it may seem absurd, people get tired of peace, they get tired of justice, they get tired of solidarity. That is why they need, from time to time, a great conflict, a catastrophe, in order to put aside again “the rage and pride” a la Oriana Fallaci, that toxin of the individual, of the race, of the tribe, of the group in front of  an enemy and to return to worry for the values of justice and the collective survival.

For this reason, certain periods of world peace and solidarity are possible, but humanity itself is doomed to self-destruction, sooner or later. Human nature is not content with discharging its most primitive energies in football stadiums, in presidential elections, but needs to humiliate, rape and kill. If others do it in its name and with a beautiful flag, so much the better.

History will continue to be written in the eternal struggle of power against justice, but moral arrogance, selfishness, individual or collective, will always have the sword of Damocles in their hand. The novel The City of the Moon, published late in 2009, was a clear metaphor for the world that came after this new medievalism in which we are slowly sinking as Calataid sank in the desert sands while its members hated each other in sects that considered themselves the moral reserve of the world.

No, nothing we see now was a surprise of history.

La guerre au cochon et la politique tribale

par Jorge Majfud

Translated by  Fausto Giudice Фаусто Джудиче فاوستو جيوديشي

Pour détourner l’attention de l’assaut mondial du 0,1 % de la population mondiale, nous avons une guerre au cochon  croissante (
Journal de la guerre au cochon , roman de Bioy Casares de 1969) mais étendue aux extrêmes les plus divers que le romancier argentin ait jamais imaginé : les jeunes contre les vieux, les blancs contre les noirs, les Latinos contre les Anglos, les gros contre les maigres, les camionneurs et les mineurs contre les étudiants, les buveurs de bière contre les abstinents, les vegans contre les végétariens et les végétariens contre les carnivores, les féministes de première vague contre les féministes Instagram contre les hommes, les machinistes contre les féministes, les hommes contre les femmes, les lesbiennes contre les hétérosexuels et les hétérosexuels contre les gays, les conducteurs de Ford contre les conducteurs de Chevrolet, les barbus Harley-Davidson contre les professeurs imberbes, les immigrés de la troisième génération contre les ceux de la première génération, les amoureux des armes et les adeptes de Saturne contre les adeptes d’ Uranus. Les bons haïsseurs contre les mauvais haïsseurs (“haïsseurs”, haters en anglais, un autre mot intraduisible déféqué dans le centre du monde pour consommation dans  la périphérie).

Au début de ce siècle (avec encore une certaine foi optimiste  en une nouvelle forme de démocratie radicale, directe, d’une “société désobéissante” libérée de ses grands dirigeants et des manipulations de l’aristocratie financière), nous avons commencé à publier sur le retour des “Frontières mentales du tribalisme” (2004, tribal, au sens européen du terme, parce que les “tribus sauvages” que j’ai rencontrées en Afrique étaient la chose ce que j’ai connu de plus civilisé et de plus pacifique dans ma vie), sur la nouvelle “Culture de la haine” (2006) et sur le retour possible des monstres occidentaux (“Le lent suicide de l’Occident”, 2002) comme le fascisme, l’arrogance et l’intolérance envers “l’autre”. L’article le plus récent “L’opinion propre et autres banalités” (2015), lu alors comme une satire, est désormais une réalité : les machines peuvent facilement se faire une opinion sur chaque individu en fonction de ses habitudes de consommation ou de sa position sociale, raciale, etc.

Mais on peut encore spéculer sur le fait que toute cette mentalité médiévale qui s’est installée dans le monde n’est peut-être qu’une réaction à un grand mouvement historique, approfondi dans les années soixante ou, dans le pire des cas, à un cycle historique en soi qui est venu pour rester pendant de nombreuses années (je ne crois pas beaucoup à cette dernière hypothèse. Il est fort probable que dans quelques décennies, nous parlerons d’une réaction de ceux d’en bas. Nous n’avons pas encore franchi la ligne de fracture inévitable et ce ne sera agréable pour personne).

Les nouveaux médias interactifs n’ont pas beaucoup aidé à mieux connaître l’autre (l’autre individu, l’autre culture) mais, probablement, le contraire.

Pourquoi ? Que s’est-il passé ?

Il y a de nombreuses années, avec un point de vue extérieur de l’intérieur de la grande puissance, nous avons été surpris qu’aux USA, on puisse deviner l’affiliation politique d’une personne simplement en regardant son visage, en la voyant marcher, sans qu’elle ait besoin de dire un mot. Cette absurdité apparente est actuellement la tendance à la mode dans le monde.

Nous n’avions pas prévu que l’un des monstres refoulés auxquels nous avions fait référence auparavant et qui nous définissent comme des êtres humains, opposés à l’altruisme, à la recherche de la justice et de la coexistence, serait renforcé par les mêmes médias interactifs. Je fais référence à l’ego aveugle, au besoin de se sentir à tout prix supérieur aux autres, au “syndrome de Trump” chez chaque individu comme une source illusoire de plaisir (et non de bonheur) qui ne fait que provoquer plus d’anxiété et de frustration.

En d’autres termes, c’est la politique des tribus susmentionnées (les nationalismes) et des microtribus (les bulles sociales). Souvent, des bulles préfabriquées par la culture de la consommation.

De cette atomisation de la politique et de la société en tribus, en microbulles, notre culture globale est devenue de plus en plus toxique, et la haine mutuelle est devenue un des facteurs communs qui l’organisent. La haine et l’inévitable frustration exacerbée par la lutte pour la reconnaissance sociale, pour la gloire de cinq minutes, pour le désir de devenir viral grâce à une quelconque frivolité, pour le besoin de “visibilité”, un vieux mot et une vieille obsession de la culture yankee avant d’être adoptés comme siens et naturel par le reste du monde. (Il y a quelques mois, une députée uruguayenne du nom de Graciela Bianchi, pas une née avec le siècle mais déjà âgée, s’est défendue contre les questionnements d’un journaliste argentin sur le fondement de ses propos en affirmant qu’elle avait “beaucoup de visibilité” dans son pays.)

Mais comme tous les individus ne peuvent pas être célèbres,  des “influenceurs” (encore moins lorsque l’individu n’existe plus, lorsqu’il s’agit d’une entité plate, standard, répétée avec des variations minimales que chacun considère comme fondamentales), le besoin de reconnaissance individuelle se projette dans un groupe plus large, dans la tribu, dans les sentiments nationalistes ou raciaux irrationnels où la furie pour un drapeau de pays ou pour un drapeau de club de foot ne varie guère sinon en ampleur. Ainsi, si même un individu nommé Donald Trump, un millionnaire qui est devenu président du pays le plus puissant du monde, a besoin d’humilier et de dégrader les autres pour se sentir supérieur, il n’est pas difficile d’imaginer ce qui passe par le muscle gris de millions d’autres personnes moins fortunées qui ne boivent pas.

L’idée humaniste de l’égalité-dans-la-diversité, le paradigme qui a récemment défini l’ère moderne (en dehors de la raison et de la laïcité) et qui était une nouveauté absurde jusqu’au XVIIIe siècle, a soudainement perdu beaucoup de son prestige.

Même si cela peut paraître absurde, les gens en ont assez de la paix, de la justice, de la solidarité. C’est pourquoi ils ont besoin, de temps en temps, d’un grand conflit, d’une catastrophe, pour mettre de côté “la rage et l’orgueil » fallaciens [d’Oriana Fallaci, NdT], cette toxine de l’individu, de la race, de la tribu, du groupe en fonction d’un ennemi et se soucier à nouveau des valeurs de justice et de survie collective.

Pour cette raison, certaines périodes de paix et de solidarité mondiales sont possibles, mais l’humanité elle-même est condamnée à l’autodestruction, tôt ou tard. La nature humaine ne se contente pas de déployer ses énergies les plus primitives dans les stades de football, lors des élections présidentielles, mais doit humilier, violer et tuer. Si d’autres le font en son nom et avec un beau drapeau, tant mieux.

L’histoire continuera à s’écrire dans l’éternelle lutte du pouvoir contre la justice, mais l’arrogance morale, l’égoïsme, individuel ou collectif, auront toujours l’épée de Damoclès dans leurs mains. Le roman La Cité de la Lune, publié tardivement en 2009, était une métaphore claire du monde qui a suivi ce nouveau médiévisme dans lequel nous sombrons lentement comme Calataid sombre dans les sables du désert tandis que ses membres se haïssent mutuellement dans des sectes qui se considèrent la réserve morale du monde.

Non, rien de ce que nous voyons maintenant n’était une surprise dans l’histoire.


Le faux dilemme du patriotisme

Translated by  Fausto Giudice Фаусто Джудиче فاوستو جيوديشي

Au cours de mes années comme professeur dans diverses universités aux USA, j’ai eu des étudiants dans mes classes qui poursuivaient des carrières militaires. Marines, aviateurs et toutes sortes de futurs membres de l’élite de l’armée US. Ce groupe est minoritaire dans les universités non militaires (généralement pas plus de quatre pour cent). En tant que professeur conseiller, on m’a parfois affecté  des ex-combattants des guerres d’Afghanistan et d’Irak (celle-la même que, depuis janvier 2003, depuis l’Espagne, nous dénonçions dans différents médias comme un crime international et à l’origine de la future crise usaméricaine). Ces jeunes, dont beaucoup souffrent du SSPT (Syndrome de stress post-traumatique), m’ont confié leurs expériences, leurs frustrations et même leurs fanatismes, dont certains se retrouvent dans mes romans, sous d’ autres noms et dans d’autres histoires.

Dans mes cours sur l’Amérique latine, j’essaie de ne pas manquer les événements les plus importants de l’histoire des Amériques, largement ignorés par le grand public et même par les étudiants universitaires eux-mêmes. Des événements où le rôle joué par les USA a souvent été, comme toute personne modérément informée le sait, pathétique : la dépossession des territoires indiens ET Mexicains, les interventions sanglantes dans les pays des Caraïbes et d’Amérique centrale pour défendre les grandes entreprises internationales, l’arrogance et le racisme explicite, l’installation ou le soutien à des dictatures sanglantes partout, la répression des mouvements populaires, la destruction de démocraties comme au Guatemala et au Chili, le soutien au terrorisme d’État ou aux terroristes renversés, comme les Contras du Nicaragua (les fameux  “Combattants de la liberté” de Reagan), les assassinats de religieux, d’ouvriers, de paysans, de syndicalistes, de journalistes et d’intellectuels sous différents prétextes par des mafiosi formés dans des institutions comme l’École des Amériques ou par leurs soldats, qui ont obéi à l’ordre de nettoyer les toilettes de leurs supérieurs et d’assassiner un village de suspects. Et un long, long etcetera.

Malgré les récits populaires que chaque pays répète jusqu’à la nausée, de l’endoctrinement toujours sous-jacent du Nous-sommes-les-bons-les-autres-sont-les-méchants, ces jeunes, chaque fois qu’ils ont été confrontés à la dure réalité documentée et prouvée des faits historiques, ont toujours été respectueux. Du moins en classe. Respectueux d’une manière que l’on trouve rarement chez les Latino-Américains des élites dirigeantes traditionnelles des différentes républiques bananières du Sud ou des classes subalternes qui ont soutenu toutes sortes d’atrocités contre leurs propres peuples, toujours au nom de quelque prétexte, selon le moment historique : Nègres marrons, Indiens saouls, pauvres feignants, ouvriers parasites, domestiques putes, prêtres communistes, intellectuels marxistes, and so on.

Une fois, un de ces ex-combattants de l’armée US m’a proposé d’écrire un essai sur Ernesto Che Guevara. Je lui ai donné le feu vert, comme il ne pouvait en être autrement face à la demande d’un étudiant intéressé à faire des recherches, mais il ne s’est jamais présenté à mon bureau pour discuter du projet. Lorsque le délai a expiré, il est apparu et m’a dit, avec le ton de quelqu’un qui parle très sérieusement :

« Bien que cela n’ait aucune importance académique, je dois vous dire que je suis anticommuniste et que je n’ai jamais aimé Ernesto Guevara. Mes amis à Miami disent que c’était un assassin. Mais si j’avais été guatémaltèque ou bolivien dans les années 1960, je n’ai aucun doute que j’aurais rejoint la guérilla du Che ».

Il a laissé sa dissertation sur la table et il est parti.

Il serait presque impossible pour un Latino-américain d’être capable d’une telle ouverture. Les Latino-Américains ont tendance à être plus fanatiques. Parce que le colonisateur n’a pas besoin d’être un fanatique pour défendre ses intérêts. Le colonisé, quelqu’un qui défend sa propre oppression jusqu’à la mort, oui.

Ici, aux USA, j’ai rencontré de nombreux Latino-Américains (heureusement pas la majorité) prétendant avoir échappé à une dictature communiste (qui, dans l’histoire de l’Amérique latine, sont de rares exceptions par rapport à la riche et séculaire tradition des dictatures capitalistes) où ils ne pouvaient s’exprimer librement. Dès que vous dites quelque chose qui ne leur plait pas, ils vous invitent à quitter le pays de la Liberté et à vous installer au Venezuela. Une mentalité intolérante et autoritaire qui en dit long sur la réalité qu’ils sont censés avoir laissé derrière eux. Comme cette autre étudiante qui n’a pas aimé quand j’ai dit que le FBI considérait Posada Carriles comme un terroriste dangereux, parce que son grand-père cubain avait aussi travaillé pour la CIA et vivait aussi à Miami (en fait, le grand-père suivait mes cours sur son téléphone, comme l’étudiante elle-même me l’avait avoué).

Une fois, un de mes étudiants latino-américains m’a lancé une de ces questions typiques qui sont comme des petits chevaux de Troie.

« D’après ce que j’ai compris, dit-il, vous êtes un citoyen uruguayen et un citoyen américain. Vous avez la double nationalité. Ma question est : en cas de guerre entre l’Uruguay et les USA, quel pays défendriez-vous ? »

La question était révélatrice. Elle révélait un ensemble bien connu de préceptes idéologiques qui sont souvent manipulés à la perfection par les politiciens et tous ceux qui croient qu’un pays est un monolithe idéologique, une secte, une armée, une équipe de football. J’ai entendu des questions semblables dans d’autres pays, assénées comme un marteau, sur les Juifs, les musulmans et tous ceux qui sont perçus comme binationaux.

Mon élève, que j’apprécie en tant que personne, dans son uniforme kaki des Marines, cet après-midi-là, a souri, comme s’il venait de faire échec et mat.

Je me suis limité à lui répondre qu’il était très facile de répondre à la question, même si on y répondait toujours mal quand on y répondait.

« En tant que citoyen des deux pays, ce dilemme ne produit aucun conflit en moi. Dans un cas hypothétique (et absurde) de guerre entre l’Uruguay et les USA, je n’hésiterais pas à me mettre du côté de la vérité et de la justice, c’est-à-dire de ceux qui, à mon avis, ont raison. Je défendrais qui a raison dans la dispute. De cette façon, je leur rendrais un service à tous les deux, même s’il serait modeste et sûrement non pertinent. À l’un pour avoir défendu sa raison et son droit, et à l’autre pour avoir résisté à son erreur ».

Le garçon a dit qu’il comprenait. Qui sait ? Je ne suis pas si optimiste à propos d’autres personnes qui ont déjà fossilisé des convictions comme celle du “patriotisme” et d’autres prestigieuses fictions lacrymogènes. Des citoyens honnêtes et d’autres, qui ont été endoctrinés depuis l’âge préscolaire à donner plus d’importance à un chiffon coloré qu’à la vérité et à la justice.



Featured articles

© Rafat Alkhateeb / Cartoon Movement

乌拉圭裔美国作家豪尔赫·马杰夫(Jorge Majfud)认为,如今关于所谓“移民危机”的争论具有种族主义的成分。这种模式在不同的法律、叙事和实践中不断重现,数个世纪以来一直如此。 在以史实举例说明之后,他指出人们在这场激烈的争论中忽略的一个问题,即今天有50万欧洲人在美国非法居住,而在墨西哥非法居住的美国人则有100万之众。


在我的课堂上,我总是努力澄清观点与事实之间的区别。这既是一项基本规则,亦是一个十分简单的智力练习,但是在启蒙时代之后,我们便疏于进行这项练习了。2005年在课堂上,我注意到有一些学生提出某观点“是正确的,因为我相信它”,而且他们并不是在开玩笑。从那时起,我便开始十分注意这个显而易见的问题。也是从那时起,我便注意到越来越明显的将物理学与形而上学混淆的趋势( 然而哲学家阿维罗伊在一千年前便澄清了这一问题),即将信仰作为至高无上的标准,而忽略与信仰相反的一切事实。这一想法起源于美国南部的教堂。
























联合国在马拉喀什启动协作网络,支持会员国解决移民问题(link is external)



العنصرية لا تحتاج لوجود عنصريين لاثباتها

Featured articles
العنصرية لا تحتاج لوجود عنصريين لاثباتها

«خارطة جدية للعالم»
© Rafat Alkhateeb / Cartoon Movement

إن النقاش حول ما نسميه “أزمة الهجرة” له بعد عنصري. فهو نمط يعيد نفسه باستمرار في قوانين وحكايات وممارسات مختلفة، حيث حصل ذلك على مدى قرون وفقا لما ذكره الكاتب الأوروغواياني الأمريكي خورخي ماجفود. ويشير الكاتب من خلال رحلة استكشافية عبر التاريخ الى وجود صمت تام حيال النقاش الساخن ذاته، عن أي ذكر لنحو نصف مليون مهاجر أوروبي يعيشون بصورة غير شرعية في الولايات المتحدة ومليون أميركي آخر يعيشون بصورة غير قانونية في المكسيك.

خورخي محفوظ

من التمارين الفكرية البسيطة التي نحن مدينون بها في عصر ما بعد التنوير والتي اعتبرها من المهام الأساسية عند إلقاء المحاضرات هو عملية التمييز بين الحقيقة والرأي. فقد أصبحت مهووسا حيال بعض الأمور الواضحة عندما لاحظت في سنة 2005 أن بعض الطلاب كانوا يجادلون بأن شيئًا ما «صحيح لأنني أؤمن به» – وهم لم يكونوا يمزحون. فمنذ ذلك الحين والشك ينتابني في أن مثل هذا التكييف الفكري، مثل الخلط بين الفيزياء والميتافيزيقيا (كما أوضحه ابن رشد قبل ألف عام تقريبا) – والذي أصبح عاما بعد عام مهيمنا بشكل متزايد (الإيمان كمعيار أعلى، بغض النظر عن كل الأدلة على العكس) –  ترجع أصوله الى الكنائس المهيبة في جنوب الولايات المتحدة.

لكن التفكير النقدي لا ينطوي على مجرد تمييز الحقائق من الآراء، فمحاولة تعريف الحقيقة يكفي. حيث ان فكرة الموضوعية في حد ذاتها تنبع من منظور واحد ومن عدسة واحدة وأي شخص يعرف أنه بعدسة واحدة أو فيديو واحد يتم التقاط جزء واحد فقط من الواقع، والذي غالباً ما يكون غير موضوعي أو يستخدم لتشويه الواقع لمصلحة الموضوعية المفترضة.

لسبب ما، يبدي الطلاب اهتماما كبيرا للآراء أكثر من الحقائق. فقد يكون السبب هو الاعتقاد الخرافي بأن الرأي المستنير هو نتاج آلاف الحقائق، وهذه فكرة خطيرة ، ولكن لا يمكننا التنصل والهروب من مسؤوليتنا في إبداء رأينا عند الحاجة. فكل ما يمكننا فعله وما يجب علينا القيام به هو أن نلاحظ أن المصادر المطلعة لا تزال تشكل رأياً يجب اختباره أو تحديه.

وجهة نظر

ذات يوم، ناقش الطلاب فرار قافلة تضم 5000 أمريكي من أمريكا الوسطى (من بينهم ألف طفل على الأقل) هروبا من العنف الدائر متجهين إلى الحدود المكسيكية الامريكية. في حين أمر الرئيس الامريكي دونالد ترمب بإغلاق الحدود واصفا هؤلاء الفارين بـ«الغزاة». وفي 29 أكتوبر 2018، غرد ترامب قائلا: «هذا غزو لبلدنا، والعساكر بانتظاركم!».  وهذا التمركز العسكري على الحدود وحده كلف الولايات المتحدة حوالي 200 مليون دولار.

وبما أن أحد طلابي أصرّ على معرفة رأيي، اتخذت الجانب الأكثر إثارة للجدل كبداية للتعبير. وكانت ملاحظتي أن هذا البلد، الولايات المتحدة، قد تأسس على خوف من الغزو، ولم يعرف سوى عدد قليل من الأشخاص كيفية استغلال هذا الضعف، مع عواقب مأساوية. فربما يكون جنون الشك هذا قد جاء مع الغزو الإنجليزي عام 1812، ولكن لو نتمعن في التاريخ نجد أن الولايات المتحدة لم تتعرض عمليا للغزو على أراضيها – باستثناء هجمات 11 سبتمبر 2001، وتلك على بيرل هاربور الذي كان في ذلك الوقت قاعدة عسكرية على أراض أجنبية، وقبل ذلك في بداية القرن العشرين الهجوم الذي قام به شخص يمتطي حصانا يدعى بانشو فيلا. لكن الولايات المتحدة تخصصت بالفعل في غزو دول أخرى منذ تأسيسها – فقد استولت على الأراضي الهندية، ثم نصف المكسيك، لإعادة تثبيت العبودية من تكساس إلى كاليفورنيا. كما تدخلت بشكل مباشر في شؤون أمريكا اللاتينية لقمع الاحتجاجات الشعبية ودعم الديكتاتوريات الدموية – كل ذلك باسم الدفاع والأمن، وكانت تدخلاتها مصحوبة دائما بعواقب مأساوية.

ولهذا فإن الفكرة بأن بضعة آلاف من الفقراء على الأقدام سيغزون أقوى بلد في العالم هي ببساطة مزحة من العيار الثقيل، وكذلك كانت هذه المزحة بنفس الثقل بالنسبة لبعض المكسيكيين على الجانب الآخر لِيتبنوا نفس الخطاب الموجه الذي ينطوي على كراهية الأجانب والذي تم توجيهه إليهم – مما تسبب بنفس الإساءات التي عانى منها الاخرين.

وجهة نظر نقدية

ذكرت في السياق ذاته أن الدافع العنصري كان حاضرا بالاضافة الى جنون الشك الأساسي.

وقال أحد الطلاب: «لست بحاجة لأن تكون عنصريا للدفاع عن الحدود».

وبالفعل لاحظت صحة ذلك، فأنت لست بحاجة إلى أن تكون عنصريًا للدفاع عن الحدود أو القوانين. فللوَهلة الأولى، نجد أن البيان لا يقبل الجدل، ومع ذلك، لو أخذنا بعين الاعتبار التاريخ والسياق المعاصر الأكثر اتساعا، فإن نمطًا عنصريًا صريحًا يظهر لنا جليا وعلى الفور.

ففي نهاية القرن التاسع عشر، كتب الروائي الفرنسي أناتول فرانس: «القانون في مساواته المهيبة، يحرم الأغنياء والفقراء على حد سواء من النوم تحت الجسور والتسول في الشوارع وسرقة الخبز». فليس من المهم أن تكون من النخبة لكي تدعم ثقافة طبقية اقتصادية. ولست بحاجة إلى أن تكون متحيزًا جنسيًا لنشر أكثر أشكال التمييز الجنسي شيوعًا.  فكل ما يتطلبه الأمر هو الانخراط في ممارسات ثقافية معينة والتعبير عن دعمك لبعض القوانين أو غيرها.

لقد قمت برسم صورة هندسية على اللوح وسألت الطلاب عنها، أجاب الجميع أنهم رأوا مكعبًا أو صندوقًا. لم تخرج الاختلافات الأكثر إبداعًا عن فكرة الأبعاد الثلاثية، في حين أن ما رسمته في الواقع لم يكن أكثر من ثلاثة دالات على هيئة شكل سداسي. فبعض القبائل في أستراليا لاترى نفس الشكل بأبعاده الثلاثة بل بالأحرى تراه على هيئة شكل ثنائي الأبعاد، فنحن نرى ما نعتقده وهذا ما نسميه بالموضوعية.

ازدواجية المعايير

عندما خرج الرئيس أبراهام لينكولن منتصرا من الحرب الأهلية الأمريكية (1861-1865)، وضع حدًا لديكتاتورية مائة عام، والتي حتى يومنا هذا يسميها الجميع بـ«الديمقراطية». فبِحلول القرن الثامن عشر، كان العبيد السود يشكلون أكثر من خمسين في المائة من السكان في ولايات عدة مثل ساوث كارولينا – في حين لم يكونوا مواطنين أمريكيين ولم يتمتعوا حتى بالحد الأدنى لحقوق الإنسان. وقبل عدة سنوات من حكومة لينكولن، اقترح كل من العنصريين والمناهضين للعنصرية حلاً «لمشكلة الزنوج» وذلك من خلال إعادتهم إلى هاييتي أو أفريقيا، حيث انتهى الأمر بالعديد منهم إلى تأسيس دولة ليبيريا (أحد طلابي، أدجا، هو من عائلة قادمة من هذا البلد الأفريقي). قام الإنجليز بنفس الشيء ل«تخليص» إنجلترا من السود. ولكن في ظل حكم لينكولن أصبح السود مواطنين، وكانت إحدى الأساليب لتقليصهم وجعلهم أقلية هي تصعيب عملية التصويت (مثل فرض ضريبة على الاقتراع) و أيضًا من خلال فتح حدود البلاد للهجرة.

لا يزال تمثال الحرية الذي أهداه الشعب الفرنسي إلى الشعب الأمريكي للاحتفال بالذكرى المئوية لإعلان الاستقلال سنة 1776، يبكي بشفاه صامتة: «أعطني حشودك المتجمعة المتعبة الفقيرة التواقة الى التنفس بحرية». وبهذه الطريقة، فتحت الولايات المتحدة أذرعها لموجًات من المهاجرين الفقراء. بالطبع، كانت الغالبية العظمى من البيض الفقراء. حيث عارض الكثيرون قدوم الإيطاليين والإيرلنديين لأنهم كاثوليك من ذوي البشرة الحمراء. ولكن كان ينظر إليهم على أنهم أفضل من السود. ولم يكن السود قادرين على الهجرة من أفريقيا، والسبب في ذلك ليس فقط لأنهم أبعد كثيرًا من الأوروبيين، ولكن أيضًا لأنهم كانوا أكثر فقراً، ولم تكن هناك أية طرق شحن ليصلوا بها إلى نيويورك. في حين كان لدى الصينيين فرص أكثر للوصول إلى الساحل الغربي،  ولكن سُن قانون في عام 1882 يمنعهم من المجيء لمجرد كونهم صينيين.

حسب فهمي، كانت هذه طريقة خفية وقوية لإعادة تشكيل التركيبة السكانية، وهذا ما يسمى بالتكوين السياسي والاجتماعي والعنصري للولايات المتحدة. فالعصبية الحالية حول التغيير في الشكل ليست أكثر من استمرار لهذا المنطق القديم نفسه. إن لم يكن الأمر كذلك، فما هو الشي المشين في كونك جزءًا من مجموعة أقلية أو أن تكون مختلفًا عن الآخرين؟

لست بحاجة إلى أن تكون عنصريا…

من الواضح أنك إذا كنت شخصًا صالحًا وكنت تؤيد تطبيق القوانين بشكل صحيح، فهذا لا يجعلك عنصريًا. فأنت لست بحاجة إلى أن تكون عنصريًا عندما يكون كل من القانون والثقافة عنصريين. ففي الولايات المتحدة، لا أحد يحتج على المهاجرين الكنديين أو الأوروبيين، وينطبق الأمر نفسه على أوروبا وحتى في المخروط الجنوبي لأمريكا الجنوبية [المنطقة الجنوبية لأمريكا اللاتينية، التي يسكنها بشكل أساسي أحفاد الأوروبيين]. لكن الجميع قلقون من السود والأشخاص المختلطين من الجنوب. لأنهم ليسوا بيضا و «جيدين» ولكنهم فقراء و «سيئيين». ففي الوقت الراهن، يعيش ما يقرب من نصف مليون مهاجر أوروبي بشكل غير قانوني في الولايات المتحدة ولا أحد يتحدث عنهم، كما لا يتحدث أحد حول كيف يعيش مليون مواطن أمريكي في المكسيك، والعديد منهم بصورة غير شرعية.

بإبعاد دريعة الشيوعية على أنها السبب (أيا من تلك الدول، التي تعاني من فشل مزمن والتي قدم منها المهاجرون، كانت شيوعية) دعونا مرة أخرى نقوم بمراجعة المبررات العرقية والثقافية التي سبقت حقبة الحرب الباردة. يُنظر الى جميع العاملين ذوي البشرة الداكنة على أنهم مجرمون بدلا من فرص للتنمية المتبادلة، حتى قوانيين الهجرة ذاتها مشبعة بالخوف من العمال الفقراء. وبالفعل، فأنت لست بحاجة إلى أن تكون عنصريًا لدعم القوانين وحدود أكثر أمنًا، ولا تحتاج إلى أن تكون عنصريا لتنشر وتدعم نموذجًا عنصريًا وطبقيًا قديمًا، بينما نملأ أفواهنا بترهات حول الرحمة والنضال من أجل الحرية والكرامة الإنسانية.

لمزيد المعلومات:

مؤتمر مراكش الحكومي الدولي 2018 لاعتماد الميثاق العالمي للهجرة الآمنة والمنظمة والمنتظمة

حكومات العالم تعتمد الاتفاق العالمي للهجرة لمنع المعاناة والفوضى(link is external)

مراكش… الأمم المتحدة تطلق شبكة تعاونية لدعم الدول الأعضاء في إدارة الهجرة(link is external)

رابطة المدن الأمريكية لمكافحة العنصرية والتمييز


خورخي محفوظ

أستاذ في الأدب الأمريكي اللاتيني والدراسات الدولية بجامعة جاكسونفيل في فلوريدا، في الولايات المتحدة. ساهم خورخي محفوظ، وهو كاتب امريكي اوروغواياني مشهور، بانتظام في وسائل الإعلام الدولية، كما ألف العديد من الروايات بما في ذلك ملكة أمريكا، كرايسس اند تيكيلا، بالاضافة الى عدة مقالات

Le racisme n’a pas besoin des racistes

Notre sélection
Le racisme n’a pas besoin des racistes

« La nouvelle carte du monde »
© Rafat Alkhateeb / Cartoon Movement

Le débat sur ce qu’on appelle la crise migratoire a une composante raciale qui se répète constamment dans différentes lois, discours et pratiques depuis des siècles,  selon l’écrivain uruguayen-américain Jorge Majfud. Après un détour par l’histoire, riche en enseignements, il rappelle à quel point le million et demi d’immigrants blancs qui vivent illégalement aux États-Unis ou au Mexique sont absents de ce débat houleux.

Jorge Majfud

Dans mes cours, je distingue toujours clairement les faits des opinions, c’est un principe, un exercice intellectuel très simple auquel nous contraint l’ère actuelle de refus des Lumières. Cette évidence a commencé à m’obséder en 2005, quand j’ai découvert que certains de mes étudiants affirmaient qu’« une chose est vraie parce que j’y crois », et ils ne disaient pas cela pour rire. Depuis, je me suis demandé si ce conditionnement intellectuel, cette confusion entre physique et métaphysique, dissipée il y a près de 1 000 ans par Averroès, et qui s’impose chaque année davantage ‒ la foi comme valeur suprême, contre toute réalité ‒ ne trouvait pas sa source dans les imposantes églises du sud des États-Unis.

Mais la pensée critique est bien plus complexe que la distinction des opinions et des faits.  Qu’on se contente d’essayer de définir un fait. La notion même d’objectivité, paradoxalement, procède d’une seule perspective, d’un seul objectif ; or chacun sait qu’avec l’objectif d’un appareil photo ou d’une caméra on n’obtient qu’une partie de la réalité, laquelle, bien souvent, est subjective ou utilisée pour déformer la réalité en prétendant à l’objectivité.

Pour une raison ou pour une autre, les étudiants s’intéressent donc plutôt aux opinions qu’aux faits. Peut-être à cause de la croyance superstitieuse qu’une opinion informée est une synthèse de milliers de faits. Idée périlleuse. Pourtant nous sommes bien obligés de donner notre opinion quand on nous la demande. La seule chose que nous pouvons – et devons – faire dans ce cas est de rappeler qu’une opinion, même éclairée, reste une opinion, qu’il faudra prouver ou réfuter.

Une opinion

L’autre jour, les étudiants discutaient de la caravane des 5 000 ressortissants d’Amérique centrale (dont au moins un millier d’enfants) en marche vers la frontière des États-Unis, fuyant la violence de leurs pays. Le président Donald Trump avait ordonné la fermeture des frontières, qualifiant d’« envahisseurs » ces immigrants pauvres en quête d’asile. Il s’indignait dans un tweet du 29 octobre 2018 : « C’est une invasion de notre pays et notre armée vous attend ! » L’envoi de militaires aux frontières a coûté aux États-Unis la bagatelle de 200 millions de dollars.

Un des étudiants ayant insisté pour que je donne mon avis, j’ai attaqué par le côté le plus controversé : ce pays, les États-Unis, est fondé sur la peur d’une invasion, et une poignée de personnes ont toujours su exploiter cette faiblesse, avec des conséquences tragiques. Peut-être cette paranoïa est-elle née lors de l’invasion anglaise de 1812, mais l’histoire nous dit pourtant que le territoire américain est toujours resté inviolé (si l’on excepte les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, l’attaque de Pearl Harbor en 1941 ‒ une base militaire à Hawaï, territoire étranger à l’époque ‒ et avant cela, au tout début du XXe siècle, la brève incursion d’un Mexicain à cheval nommé Pancho Villa). En revanche, le pays s’est spécialisé dans l’invasion depuis sa fondation : conquête des terres indiennes, puis de la moitié du territoire mexicain depuis le Texas, pour rétablir l’esclavage, jusqu’en Californie ; intervention directe dans les affaires intérieures de l’Amérique latine, en réprimant les mouvements populaires et en appuyant des dictatures sanglantes, tout cela au nom de la défense et de la sécurité. Avec, toujours, des conséquences tragiques.

Par conséquent, l’idée que quelques milliers de marcheurs pauvres vont envahir le pays le plus puissant du monde n’est qu’une plaisanterie de mauvais goût. Comme est de mauvais goût le fait qu’une poignée de Mexicains de l’autre côté de la frontière adoptent ce discours xénophobe, infligeant à d’autres les violences qu’ils ont eux-mêmes subies.

Vision critique

Dans le courant de la conversation, j’ai mentionné, en passant, qu’outre une paranoïa injustifiée, ce débat contenait une composante raciale.

« You don’t need to be a racist to defend the borders », a rétorqué un étudiant. Certes, ai-je répondu. Nul besoin d’être raciste pour défendre les frontières ou les lois. À première vue, l’énoncé semble irréfutable. Mais si on considère l’histoire et le contexte actuel au sens large, un schéma ouvertement raciste saute aussitôt aux yeux.

À la fin du XIXe siècle, le romancier français Anatole France écrivit : « La loi, dans un grand souci d’égalité, interdit aux riches comme aux pauvres de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain ». Nul besoin d’être élitiste pour défendre une culture de classe. Nul besoin d’être sexiste pour reproduire le sexisme le plus abject. La plupart du temps, il suffit de perpétuer, sans aucun sens critique, certaines pratiques culturelles, ou de défendre une loi quelconque.

J’ai dessiné au tableau une figure géométrique et je leur ai demandé ce qu’ils voyaient. Tous ont répondu : un cube, une boîte… Même les réponses les plus créatives ne sortaient pas de l’idée de tridimensionnalité, alors que je n’avais dessiné que trois losanges réunis en hexagone. Certaines tribus australiennes n’auraient perçu cette même image qu’en 2D. Nous voyons ce que nous pensons et appelons cela l’objectivité.

Deux poids, deux mesures

En sortant victorieux de la guerre de Sécession (1861-1865), le président Abraham Lincoln a mis fin à une dictature centenaire qu’on continue d’appeler « démocratie ». Au XVIIIe siècle, les esclaves noirs représentaient plus de la moitié de la population dans des États comme la Caroline du Sud, mais ils n’étaient pas considérés comme des citoyens américains, ni comme des êtres humains pouvant jouir d’un minimum de droits. Bien avant Lincoln, des racistes et des antiracistes ont proposé de résoudre le « problème des Noirs » en les « renvoyant » en Haïti ou en Afrique, où beaucoup d’entre eux ont fini par fonder le Libéria, d’où est originaire la famille d’Adja, une de mes étudiantes. Les Anglais ont procédé de la même façon pour « nettoyer » l’Angleterre de ses Noirs. Or sous Lincoln, les Noirs sont devenus des citoyens, et une façon de les réduire à une minorité a été non seulement de les empêcher d’aller voter (par exemple en leur imposant une taxe), mais aussi d’ouvrir les frontières à l’immigration.

La Statue de la Liberté, don des Français à l’occasion du centenaire de la Déclaration d’indépendance américaine de 1776, continue de proclamer de ses lèvres closes : « Donne-moi tes pauvres, tes exténués, tes masses innombrables aspirant à vivre libres… » En effet, les États-Unis ont accueilli des vagues d’immigrants pauvres. Bien entendu, des pauvres blancs, dans leur écrasante majorité. Beaucoup se sont opposés à l’arrivée des Italiens et des Irlandais parce qu’ils étaient roux et catholiques. Mais ils valaient quand même mieux que les Noirs. Les Noirs ne pouvaient pas émigrer d’Afrique, non seulement parce qu’ils étaient plus éloignés des côtes américaines que les Européens, mais surtout parce qu’ils étaient bien plus pauvres que ces derniers et qu’il n’y avait quasiment pas de voies maritimes les reliant à New York. Les Chinois étaient mieux placés pour atteindre la côte ouest, et c’est sans doute pour cette raison qu’une loi a été votée en 1882, pour leur interdire l’entrée du simple fait qu’ils étaient Chinois.

C’est ainsi, selon moi, qu’on a, avec beaucoup de subtilité et d’efficacité, remodelé la démographie, autrement dit la composition politique, sociale et raciale des États-Unis. La nervosité provoquée actuellement par une modification de ces proportions ne fait que suivre la même logique. Sinon, quel mal y aurait-il à appartenir à une minorité, à être différent des autres ?

Nul besoin d’être raciste…

Bien sûr, si vous êtes un homme de bien et que vous êtes favorable à ce que les lois s’appliquent comme prévu, ce n’est pas cela qui fait de vous un raciste. Nul besoin d’être raciste quand les lois et la culture le sont déjà. Aux États-Unis, personne ne proteste contr is external)e les immigrants canadiens ou européens. C’est la même chose en Europe, et même dans le Cône Sud [région la plus australe de l’Amérique latine, peuplée majoritairement par des descendants d’Européens]. Mais tous s’inquiètent des Noirs et des métisses du Sud. Parce qu’ils ne sont pas blancs, et donc « bons », mais pauvres, et donc « mauvais ». Il y a actuellement près d’un demi-million d’immigrants européens illégaux aux États-Unis. Personne n’en parle, comme personne ne mentionne le million d’Américains vivant au Mexique, pour la plupart illégalement.

L’excuse du communisme n’ayant plus cours (aucun de ces États chroniquement défaillants d’où proviennent les migrants n’étant communiste), il ne nous reste plus que les excuses raciales et culturelles d’avant la Guerre froide. Dans tout travailleur à la peau sombre, on voit un criminel, non une possibilité de développement mutuel. Les lois sur l’immigration sont prises de panique à la vue de travailleurs pauvres.

C’est vrai, nul besoin d’être raciste pour défendre les lois et exiger le renforcement des frontières. Nul besoin d’être raciste pour reproduire et consolider le vieux modèle raciste et de classe, tout en ayant la bouche pleine de compassion et de défense de la liberté et de la dignité humaine.

Lire également

Conférence de Marrakech : pour des migrations plus sûres et plus dignes

Conférence sur les migrations : l’ONU souligne la vulnérabilité des jeunes en mouvement(link is external) (Marrakech, Maroc, 10-11 décembre 2018)

États-Unis : un enfant migrant ne doit pas être séparé de sa famille(link is external), selon le Bureau des droits de l’homme de l’ONU

Coalition des villes américaines contre le racisme et la discrimination

Jorge Majfud

Professeur de littérature latino-américaine et d’études internationales à l’université de Jacksonville, aux États-Unis, Jorge Majfud est un écrivain uruguayen-américain de renom, à qui nous devons notamment les romans La reina de América (La reine d’Amérique), Crisis et Tequila, ainsi que des essais comme Una teoría política de los campos semánticos (Une théorie politique des champs sémantiques). Il collabore régulièrement avec différents médias internationaux.

The old tale of corruption

The political narrative that justifies any option as a way to end corruption is as old as politics and as old as narrative. In Latin America, it’s a classic genre. It’s only possible to repeat it generation after generation as if it were a novelty thanks to the short memory of the people.

But this narrative, which only serves to consolidate or restore the power of a certain social class, focuses exclusively on minor corruption, such as when a politician, a senator or a president receives ten thousand or half a million dollars to bestow favors upon a large company. Rarely does a poor man offer half a million dollars to a politician to give him a retirement income of five hundred dollars a month.

He who pays a politician a million dollars to increase his company’s profits is corrupt, and the poor devil who votes for a candidate who buys him the tiles for the roof of his house in skid row is corrupt also.

But those who do not distinguish between the corruption of ambition and the corruption of those who desperately seek to survive are themselves even more corrupt. As the Mexican nun Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz said at the end of the seventeenth century, before she was crushed for her insubordination by the powers-that-be of that era:

Who is more to blame,

though either should do wrong?

She who sins for pay

or he who pays to sin?

Rarely do accusations of corruption refer to legal corruption. It does not matter if, thanks to a democracy proud of respecting the rules of the game, ten million voters contribute a hundred million dollars to a politician’s campaign and two millionaires contribute only ten million, a tip, to the same candidate. When that politician wins the election, he will have dinner with one of the two groups, and it is not necessary to be a genius to guess which one.

It does not matter if later on those gentlemen get the congress of their respective countries to pass laws that benefit their businesses (tax cuts, deregulation of wages and investments, etc.) because they will not need to violate any law, the law that they themselves wrote, unlike a damned thief who does not rob ten million honest and innocent citizens but rather just two or three poor workers who will only feel anger, rage and humiliation because of the plundering they witness and not because of the robbery they fail to perceive.

In spite of everything, we can still observe even greater corruption, greater than illegal corruption and greater than legal corruption. It is that corruption which lives in the collective unconsciousness of the people and comes from no other source but the persistent corruption of social power that, like a persistent dripping, eats away at rock over the years, over the centuries.

It is the corruption that lives in the same people who suffer from it, in that tired man with chapped hands or another worn down one with university degrees, in that suffering woman with dark circles under her eyes or in that other lady with a stuck-up nose. It is that same corruption that goes to bed and gets up with each of them, every day, to reproduce in the rest of their family and their friends, like the flu, like Ebola.

It is not simply the corruption of a few individuals who accept easy money for the mysterious shortcuts of the law.

No, it is not just the corruption of those in power, but instead that invisible corruption that lives as a virus feeding off the frustration of those who seek to put an end to corruption with old methods that have themselves proven to be corrupt.

Because corruption is not only when someone gives or receives illicit money, but also when someone hates the poor because they receive alms from the state.

Because corruption is not only when a politician gives a basket of food to a poor man in exchange for his vote, but also when those who do not go hungry accuse those poor people of being corrupt and lazy, as if lazy people did not exist in the privileged classes.

Because corruption is not only when a poor loafer gets a politician or the state to give him alms to devote himself to his miserable vices (cheap wine instead of Jameson Irish whiskey), but also when those in power are convinced and convince others that their privileges were won by them alone and by means of the purest, most finely distilled, most just law, while the poor (those who clean their bathrooms and buy their little mirrors) live off the intolerable sacrifice of the rich, something that only a general or a businessman with an iron fist can put an end to.

Because corruption is when a poor devil supports a candidate who promises to punish other poor devils, who are the only devils that the poor resentful devil knows, because he has crossed paths with them in the street, in bars and at work.

Because corruption is when a mulatto like Domingo Sarmiento or Antonio Hamilton Martins Mourão is ashamed of the blacks in his family and feels infinite hatred for other blacks.

Because corruption is when a self-declared chosen one of God, someone who confuses the fanatical interpretation of his pastor with the multiple texts of a Bible, someone who goes every Sunday to the church to pray to the God of Love, and when he goes outside he throws some coins to the poor. And the next day he marches against the same rights of different people, like gays, lesbians and transgendered people, and does it in the name of morality and of the son of God, Jesus. Yes, the same Jesus who had a thousand opportunities to condemn those same different and immoral people, and never did so, but rather did the exact opposite.

Because corruption is supporting candidates who promise violence as a way to eliminate violence.

Because corruption is believing and fanatically repeating that the military dictatorships that have ravaged Latin America since the nineteenth century and practiced all possible variations on corruption may themselves ever be able to put an end to corruption.

Because corruption is to hate and at the same time accuse everyone else of harboring hatred.

Because corruption is a part of culture and even in the hearts of society’s most honest individuals.

Because the worst corruption is not the kind that makes off with a million dollars but rather the kind that stops our ears to the shrieking cries of history and won’t let us hear them until it is too late.

JM, October 2018.

The old tale of corruption

The political narrative that justifies any option as a way to end corruption is as old as politics and as old as narrative. In Latin America, it’s a classic genre. It’s only possible to repeat it generation after generation as if it were a novelty thanks to the short memory of the people.

But this narrative, which only serves to consolidate or restore the power of a certain social class, focuses exclusively on minor corruption, such as when a politician, a senator or a president receives ten thousand or half a million dollars to bestow favors upon a large company. Rarely does a poor man offer half a million dollars to a politician to give him a retirement income of five hundred dollars a month.

He who pays a politician a million dollars to increase his company’s profits is corrupt, and the poor devil who votes for a candidate who buys him the tiles for the roof of his house in skid row is corrupt also.

But those who do not distinguish between the corruption of ambition and the corruption of those who desperately seek to survive are themselves even more corrupt. As the Mexican nun Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz said at the end of the seventeenth century, before she was crushed for her insubordination by the powers-that-be of that era:

Who is more to blame,

though either should do wrong?

She who sins for pay

or he who pays to sin?

Rarely do accusations of corruption refer to legal corruption. It does not matter if, thanks to a democracy proud of respecting the rules of the game, ten million voters contribute a hundred million dollars to a politician’s campaign and two millionaires contribute only ten million, a tip, to the same candidate. When that politician wins the election, he will have dinner with one of the two groups, and it is not necessary to be a genius to guess which one.

It does not matter if later on those gentlemen get the congress of their respective countries to pass laws that benefit their businesses (tax cuts, deregulation of wages and investments, etc.) because they will not need to violate any law, the law that they themselves wrote, unlike a damned thief who does not rob ten million honest and innocent citizens but rather just two or three poor workers who will only feel anger, rage and humiliation because of the plundering they witness and not because of the robbery they fail to perceive.

In spite of everything, we can still observe even greater corruption, greater than illegal corruption and greater than legal corruption. It is that corruption which lives in the collective unconsciousness of the people and comes from no other source but the persistent corruption of social power that, like a persistent dripping, eats away at rock over the years, over the centuries.

It is the corruption that lives in the same people who suffer from it, in that tired man with chapped hands or another worn down one with university degrees, in that suffering woman with dark circles under her eyes or in that other lady with a stuck-up nose. It is that same corruption that goes to bed and gets up with each of them, every day, to reproduce in the rest of their family and their friends, like the flu, like Ebola.

It is not simply the corruption of a few individuals who accept easy money for the mysterious shortcuts of the law.

No, it is not just the corruption of those in power, but instead that invisible corruption that lives as a virus feeding off the frustration of those who seek to put an end to corruption with old methods that have themselves proven to be corrupt.

Because corruption is not only when someone gives or receives illicit money, but also when someone hates the poor because they receive alms from the state.

Because corruption is not only when a politician gives a basket of food to a poor man in exchange for his vote, but also when those who do not go hungry accuse those poor people of being corrupt and lazy, as if lazy people did not exist in the privileged classes.

Because corruption is not only when a poor loafer gets a politician or the state to give him alms to devote himself to his miserable vices (cheap wine instead of Jameson Irish whiskey), but also when those in power are convinced and convince others that their privileges were won by them alone and by means of the purest, most finely distilled, most just law, while the poor (those who clean their bathrooms and buy their little mirrors) live off the intolerable sacrifice of the rich, something that only a general or a businessman with an iron fist can put an end to.

Because corruption is when a poor devil supports a candidate who promises to punish other poor devils, who are the only devils that the poor resentful devil knows, because he has crossed paths with them in the street, in bars and at work.

Because corruption is when a mulatto like Domingo Sarmiento or Antonio Hamilton Martins Mourão is ashamed of the blacks in his family and feels infinite hatred for other blacks.

Because corruption is when a self-declared chosen one of God, someone who confuses the fanatical interpretation of his pastor with the multiple texts of a Bible, someone who goes every Sunday to the church to pray to the God of Love, and when he goes outside he throws some coins to the poor. And the next day he marches against the same rights of different people, like gays, lesbians and transgendered people, and does it in the name of morality and of the son of God, Jesus. Yes, the same Jesus who had a thousand opportunities to condemn those same different and immoral people, and never did so, but rather did the exact opposite.

Because corruption is supporting candidates who promise violence as a way to eliminate violence.

Because corruption is believing and fanatically repeating that the military dictatorships that have ravaged Latin America since the nineteenth century and practiced all possible variations on corruption may themselves ever be able to put an end to corruption.

Because corruption is to hate and at the same time accuse everyone else of harboring hatred.

Because corruption is a part of culture and even in the hearts of society’s most honest individuals.

Because the worst corruption is not the kind that makes off with a million dollars but rather the kind that stops our ears to the shrieking cries of history and won’t let us hear them until it is too late.

Brazil: The Eternal Country of the Future Trapped in Its Colonial Past

Days before the elections in Brazil, a young Brazilian approached me and said, “God willing, Bolsonaro to win. He is a military man and will end corruption.” I did not want to answer. I esteem this boy as a good person, maybe too young to be anything else. But these two brief sentences summed up several volumes of Latin American history to its present.

Beginning with the obvious: if there were governments and corrupt regimes on the continent, those were the military regimes. First, because every dictatorship is corrupt by definition, and second, because direct robberies were always massive, by denouncing the disappearances, then only to reappear by floating in a river with evidence of torture. It would suffice to mention the most recent investigation into the fortune of General Pinochet, a military leader who accumulated several million dollars in salary as an unelected president, without mention of such details as the thousands killed and many more persecuted during his rule. There were shams of decorated honors for assuming “moral reserve” and for the “bastion of courage” by owning weapons financed by the people’s work, only to later be threatened by their own armies in “bringing order,” by garrison and cemeteries. That same barbaric culture of innumerable generals, soldiers, and scoundrels boasting to be “macho” and valiant fighters, never won or went to any war against other armies, but dedicated themselves to serving the rural oligarchy by terrorizing and threatening their own people. In the coining of a neologism, millions of thugs are now hidden within their new condition of digital cowangry.

This military mentality applied to civil practice and domestic life (deviates from any raison d’être of an army) is a Latin American tradition born prior to the Cold War and long before the new republics were born and consolidated with corruption, deep in hypocritical racism. This is especially true in Brazil, the last country in the continent to abolish slavery. Even Captain Bolsonaro’s vice presidential candidate, General Mourão, a mulatto man like most of his compatriots, is pleased that his grandson contributes to the “branqueamento da raça (whitening of the race).” Have any of us ever crossed paths with this kind of deep racial and social disregard for 90 percent of their own family? The same historical problems permeate in other regions that stand out for their brutality in Central America and the Caribbean.

The second, and less obvious, is the appeal to God. In the same way that the United States replaced Great Britain in its consolidation of Spanish colonial verticality, the Protestant churches did the same with those ultraconservative societies (limitless landowners and silent masses of obedient poor), which had been shaped by the previous hierarchy of the Catholic church. It took some Protestant sects like the Pentecostals and others at least a century more than the dollar and the cannons. The phenomenon probably started in the Sixties and Seventies: those innocent, presumably apolitical, gentlemen, who went door to door talking about God, should have a clear political translation. The paradoxical effect of Christian love (that radical love of Jesus, a rebel who was surrounded by poor and marginal people of all kinds, who did not believe in the chances of the rich reaching heaven, and did not recommend taking the sword but turning the other cheek, who broke several biblical laws such as the obligation to kill adulteresses with stones, who was executed as a political criminal) ended up leading to the hatred of gays and the poor, in the desire to fix everything with shots. Such is the case of medieval candidates like Captain Jair Messias Bolsonaro and many others throughout Latin America, who are supported by a strong and decisive evangelical vote. These people in a trance are watered in sweat and hysterical cries and say they “speak in tongues,” but just speak their disjointed language of political and social hatred in blind fanaticism that God prefers them with a gun in their hands rather than peaceably fighting for justice, respect for the different, and against arbitrary powers.

In the midst of the euphoric golden decade of progressive governments, such as Lula’s, we note two mistakes: naive optimism and the dangers of corruption, and the ramifications of a domino effect because corruption was not a creation of any government, but instead a mark of identity of the Brazilian culture. To name just one more case, this is also the state of affairs in neighboring Argentina.

We must add to all this that the traditional social narrators of a more rancid and powerful Latin America can be found in Maduro’s Venezuela where the equally pathetic opposition is never mentioned. As the example, this is the perfect excuse to continue terrorizing about something that almost all the countries of the continent have lived with since the colony: poverty, economic crises, dispossession, impunity, civil and military violence. So it is Venezuela that is exemplifying Brazilian propaganda and not the Brazil of Lula that took 30 million out of poverty, the one with super entrepreneurs, the one of “Deus é brasileiro (God is Brazilian),” the Brazil that was going away to eat the world and had passed the GDP of U.K.

 It was the perfect alibi: for others to believe that corruption did not have 200 years of brutal exercise but had been created by the last five to 10 years of a pair of leftist governments. On the contrary, these governments were an ideological exception within a deeply conservative, racist, classist, and sexist continent. Everything that now finds resonance from Europe to Latin America, to the United States, abandons the ideals of Enlightenment and plunges neurotically into a new Middle Ages.

We still don’t know whether this medieval reaction of the traditional forces in power is just that; a reaction, or a long historical tendency of several generations that began in the Eighties and stumbled 15 years ago.

For the second round in Brazil, the coalition against Bolsonaro has already launched the slogan: “Juntos pelo Brasil do diálogo e do respeito (Together for Brazil for dialogue and respect).” This motto only goes to show that those who oppose Bolsonaro in Brazil, like those who oppose Trump in the United States, do not understand the new cowangry mentality. The cowangry need to know that there is someone else (not them) who is going to return women to the kitchens, gays to their closets, blacks to work on the plantations, and poor to the industries, that someone is going to throw a bomb in some favela (“dead the dog, dead to the rage”). Someone will torture all who think differently (especially poor blacks, teachers, journalists, feminists, critics, educated people without titles, and other dangerous subversives with foreign ideas, all in the name of God) and in that way, someone will punish and exterminate all those miserable people solely responsible for the personal frustrations of the cowangry


JM, October 2018


Psychopolitics of the scarecrow

Jorge Majfud 

Translated by  Fausto Giudice Фаусто Джудиче فاوستو جيوديشي


President Donald Trump has just announced that, to answer the endless list of books that criticize him (especially books written by his former friends and trusted men, who by now are almost all of them), the White House will publish “a real book”. Obviously, he won’t write it, although, in our time, it wouldn’t be absurd for a person who never reads books to publish a book.

Nor is it a coincidence that his Twitter account (which is the main medium where the president of the world’s biggest power announces the decisions that will affect the rest of the world and where he expresses his mood according to the time of day) is @realDonaldTrump, while obsessively repeating that the rest of the world is fake. The world is fake, except me, who is real.

The psychological pattern is consistent and reveals a dark inverse feeling, similar to that of the homophobia of some men who get excited looking at images of men (according to laboratory tests), similar to the consumption, by a majority of women, of pornography where violence is exerted against women (according to the latest Big Data analysis), or the strict and puritanical public celibacy of rapist priests.

Nor could it be a coincidence that, in its etymology and in some of its archaic uses, the word trump means fake, false, invention, the noise produced by the elephant (don’t forget that the elephant is the symbol of the Republican party) with its trunk, a kind of fart or thrombotic noise without content, or a childish act. Of course, the latter could be an over-interpretation, since we are talking about an individual and not an entire linguistic tradition where the patterns leave little room for doubt. At least that the boy Donald has had some information about his wonderful surname, as much as his own children’s readings.

Nor should it be a coincidence that his youngest son is called Baron Trump, exactly like the character in the children’s novels that Ingersoll Lockwood wrote in the late 19th century about a German character (his father was a German illegal immigrant) called Baron Trump. The character, in addition to initiating his adventures in Russia, being a rowdy and fond of insulting each individual who came across him along the way, boasts of his own intelligence.

Too many coincidences, such as winning the lottery four times.

Nor is it a coincidence that it was Trump who made the term “fake news” fashionable. By action or omission, the big media have always manipulated reality, at least since the nineteenth century (we have already stopped on the case of Edward Bernays and many others) but power always finds a way to dispel doubts by mocking its own methods when they reach a point of maximum suspicion. In 1996, the narrative voice of my first novel said something with which I agree: “There is no better strategy against a true rumor than to invent a false rumor that pretends to confirm it”. The logic of the designed distraction is the same (although, in this case, I understand that it is not intentional but part of the inevitable Darwinian nature of power): it invents a visible enemy of power, that resembles true power and that is in such a way that even the very critics of power end up defending the means of power. In simpler words: design a good scarecrow, distract; call the fake real and the real fake.

This logic is tragically confirmed today: the mass media have always been real in their news and fake in the created reality. By the form and by the selection of real facts, they have always manipulated and continue to manipulate reality, even though they now seem to be the champions of the people, of the peoples, of truth and justice. But for a fake president, a ridiculous person like a scarecrow, someone who became president of the most powerful country in the world with fewer votes than his adversary, thanks to an electoral system inherited from the times of slavery, with a medieval discourse, makes decent and reasonable people take sides on the contrary, that is, by defending the traditional means of real power, now “under attack,” those very people who until not long ago defended, supported or, at least, never criticized criminal actions like the Iraq war or like so many other secret invasions and plots everywhere. With honorable and courageous exceptions, it goes without saying, because in every flock there are black sheep.

Power doesn’t even need to think to be great. It is part of its nature.

When someone obsessively calls himself “real” and everything else “fake,” it is because he is obsessively trying to hide a painfully contrary feeling: a repressed consciousness of not being “real,” of being “fake,” of being Trump. Otherwise, there is no need for a consistently obsessive habit. But Trump is just a scarecrow of power. Pathetic, a dangerous amplifier of popular fears and traumas, yes, but not much more than that.

To the traditional powers (the owners of the decisive capital, of the finances, of the business of war and the peace of the cemeteries, of the physical and moral exploitation of those from below), all that confusion, all that perfect inversion of roles comes as a ring to the finger. As if there were a Darwinian logic in the staging and narrative of the power that permanently adapts to survive. Even placing a scarecrow in the power of the world’s greatest power so that crows and seagulls alike remain stressed with an artefact that insists it is the only real thing in a fake world.


Courtesy of Tlaxcala
Publication date of original article: 11/09/2018
URL of this page :

Psychopolitique de l’épouvantail

Jorge Majfud 

Translated by  Fausto Giudice Фаусто Джудиче فاوستو جيوديشي


Le président Donald Trump vient d’annoncer qu’en réponse à la liste interminable de livres qui le critiquent (en particulier les livres écrits par ses anciens amis et hommes de confiance, qui sont désormais presque tous dans ce cas), la Maison Blanche va publier “un vrai livre », « a real book ». Évidemment, il ne l’écrira pas, même si, à notre époque, il ne serait pas absurde qu’une personne qui ne lit jamais de livres en publie un.

Ce n’est pas non plus une coïncidence si son compte Twitter (qui est le principal média où le président de la plus grande puissance mondiale annonce les décisions qui affecteront le reste du monde et où il exprime son humeur selon l’heure du jour) est @realDonaldTrump, tout en répétant de manière obsessive que le reste du monde est faux. Le monde est faux, sauf moi, qui suis réel.

Le schéma psychologique est cohérent et révèle un sombre sentiment inverse, semblable à celui de l’homophobie de certains hommes qui s’excitent en regardant des images d’hommes (selon des tests de laboratoire), semblable à la consommation, par une majorité de femmes, de pornographie où la violence est exercée contre les femmes (selon la dernière analyse Big Data), ou le célibat public strict et puritain de prêtres violeurs.

Ce n’est pas non plus un hasard si, dans son étymologie et dans certains de ses usages archaïques, le mot trump signifie fake, faux, invention, le bruit produit par l’éléphant (n’oublions pas que l’éléphant est le symbole du parti républicain) avec sa trompe, une sorte de bruit de pet ou de trompette sans contenu, ou un acte enfantin. Bien sûr, cette dernière pourrait être une surinterprétation, puisqu’il s’agit d’un individu et non d’une tradition linguistique entière où les schémas laissent peu de place au doute. À moins que le jeune Donald n’ait eu quelques informations sur son merveilleux nom de famille, ainsi que de ses propres lectures d’ enfant.

Ce n’est pas non plus un hasard si son plus jeune fils s’appelle Baron Trump, exactement comme le personnage des romans pour enfants qu’Ingersoll Lockwood a écrits à la fin du 19e siècle sur un personnage allemand (son père était un immigrant illégal allemand) appelé Baron Trump. Le personnage, en plus d’initier ses aventures en Russie, d’être un bagarreur et d’aimer insulter chaque individu qui a croisé son chemin, se vante de sa propre intelligence.

Trop de coïncidences, comme gagner au loto quatre fois.

Ce n’est pas non plus une coïncidence si c’est Trump qui a mis le terme “fausses nouvelles” à la mode. Par l’action ou l’omission, les grands médias ont toujours manipulé la réalité, du moins depuis le XIXe siècle (nous nous sommes déjà penchés sur le cas d’Edward Bernays et de bien d’autres), mais le pouvoir trouve toujours le moyen de dissiper les doutes en se moquant de ses propres méthodes quand elles atteignent un niveau de suspicion maximal. En 1996, lle narrateur de mon premier roman disait une chose avec laquelle je suis d’accord : « Il n’y a pas de meilleure stratégie contre une vraie rumeur que d’inventer une fausse rumeur qui prétend la confirmer ». La logique de la distraction conçue est la même (bien que, dans ce cas, je comprenne qu’elle n’est pas intentionnelle mais qu’elle fait partie de la nature darwinienne inévitable du pouvoir) : elle invente un ennemi visible du pouvoir, qui ressemble au vrai pouvoir et qui est tel que même les critiques du pouvoir défendent les moyens du pouvoir. En d’autres termes : concevoir un bon épouvantail, distraire, appeler le faux vrai et le vrai faux.

Cette logique est tragiquement confirmée aujourd’hui : les médias de masse ont toujours été réels dans leurs informations et faux dans la réalité créée. Par la forme et par la sélection des faits réels, ils ont toujours manipulé et continuent de manipuler la réalité, même s’ils semblent maintenant être les champions du peuple, des peuples, de la vérité et de la justice. Mais qu’un faux président le dise soudain, un ridicule comme un épouvantail, quelqu’un qui est devenu président du pays le plus puissant du monde avec moins de voix que son adversaire, grâce à un système électoral hérité des temps de l’esclavage, avec un discours médiéval, fait que des gens décents et raisonnables prennent parti au contraire, c’est-à-dire en défendant les moyens traditionnels du pouvoir réel, aujourd’hui “attaqués”, ceux-là mêmes qui, jusqu’il n’y a pas si longtemps, défendaient, soutenaient ou, du moins, ne critiquaient jamais des actes criminels comme la guerre en Irak ou comme tant d’autres envahissements et complots secrets partout. Avec des exceptions honorables et courageuses, cela va sans dire, car dans chaque troupeau il y a des brebis galeuses.

Le pouvoir n’a même pas besoin de penser pour être génial. Ça fait partie de sa nature.

Quand quelqu’un se dit obsessionnellement “réel” et tout le reste “faux”, c’est parce qu’il essaie obsessivement de cacher un sentiment douloureusement contraire : une conscience refoulée de ne pas être “réel”, d’être “faux”, d’être Trump. Sinon, il n’est pas nécessaire d’avoir une habitude obsessionnelle constante. Mais Trump n’est qu’un épouvantail de pouvoir. Pathétique, un dangereux amplificateur de peurs et de traumatismes populaires, oui, mais pas beaucoup plus que ça.

Pour les pouvoirs traditionnels (ceux qui contrôlent les capitaux décisifs, les finances, les affaires de guerre et de paix des cimetières, l’exploitation physique et morale de ceux d’en bas), toute cette confusion, toute cette inversion parfaite des rôles sied comme un gant. Comme s’il y avait une logique darwinienne dans la mise en scène et la narration du pouvoir qui s’adapte en permanence pour survivre. Y compris en mettant un épouvantail au pouvoir de la plus grande puissance du monde pour que les corbeaux et les mouettes restent en état de stress face à un artefact qui insiste sur le fait qu’il est le seul truc real dans un monde fake.

Courtesy of Tlaxcala
Publication date of original article: 11/09/2018
URL of this page :

Por que simplesmente não copiamos os Estados Unidos?

Algumas semanas atrás, tive o gosto de visitar a Freie Universitat de Berlin para dar uma palestra e, de passagem, aceitar um velho convite da Deutsche Welle (a televisão pública alemã que costumava ver quando criança, não sem um certo sagrado pavor, com seus programas dedicados a pintores, escultores e todo tipo de gente rara mas fascinante).

O edifício em que atualmente funciona o Lateinamerika-Institut da Freie Universitat foi um projeto de Max Taut e Franz Hoffmann, duas celebridades da Bauhaus. O espírito da escola de Weimar, a única na história moderna, só se sente, e com intensidade comovedora, ao caminhar por seus corredores .

Os nazistas a fecharam nos anos 1930, por considerá-la um reduto de degenerados e mais ou menos isso também pensava Stálin da arte de um comunista chamado Pablo Picasso. Não obstante, enquanto a destrutiva história do Terceiro Reich já morreu, ou quase, a desaparecida Bauhaus ainda vive nas coisas que nos rodeiam. Embora não saibamos.

A viagem de egresso foi esgotadora, como sempre. No moderno aeroporto de Dublin, tive que esperar horas infinitas. Em uma mesa de um café que estava fechado, às 2:30 da madrugada, comecei a ler os jornais no meu velho tablet.

Até que um senhor grisalho que estava passando reconheceu a página de um jornal argentino.

— Argentino? — perguntou.

— Não. Uruguaio.

Mais pra baixo do Brasil e mais ou menos a mesma coisa. Sentou-se na cadeira vazia e se apresentou. Não me lembro de seu nome; naquele momento me debatia entre ir pedir outro capuchino ou dormir sentado.

— Gosto muito do Uruguai — disse, antes de esclarecer quem era e o que pensava da América Latina e do mundo. Embora os uruguaios tenham um governo socialista, ou algo assim, não lhe caia mal. Pelo menos não são corruptos.

Os uruguaios somos o garoto tranquilo da rua.

O homem grisalho era, ou tinha sido, um vereador na província de Buenos Aires. Em menos de uma hora me informou sobre toda a corrupção do governo anterior, da limpeza do atual, das decisões difíceis que tinham que tomar na província e no país para por ordem nas coisas.

— Ontem, o governo anunciou que vai liberar o preço da gasolina para que flutue de acordo com a hora e as localidades. Dessa forma, cada posto de serviço poderá fixar o preço de acordo com a demanda, como nos Estados Unidos. O que você acha?

— Não sei, mais isso de liberar me parece bom.

— O melhor, como sempre, é copiar os estadunidenses. O que você acha do sistema de preços dos combustíveis deles?

— Não sei, repeti, me parece divertido ter que ir de um lado para outro procurando economizar uns centavos. Dá essa sensação de liberdade que a gente tem quando atravessa o Vale da Morte. Lá, parece que funciona.

— Não duvide — disse o homem grisalho —. Nós deveríamos copiar os americanos.

— Algumas coisas. Como PBS, a televisão pública. Ou como os sanitários na Alemanha.

— Como?

Em Berlim os sanitários têm o tanque de água com dois botões. Um botão para cada necessidade. O um e o dois. Assim se economiza água. Vi também no Oriente Médio, faz já um quarto de século. Aprender algumas coisas concretas me parece razoável. Agora, copiar… Copiar literalmente… é um suicídio.

— Não, imagine! Se tivéssemos copiado os ianques muito antes, hoje seríamos como eles!

— Não o fizemos antes? Com resultados diferentes. Contudo isso tem muitas faces. Como por exemplo, a ideia de êxito.

— Não. Não dê muita corda à coisa ou vai ter enjoo.

— Bom. Suponhamos que êxito é ter dinheiro e ser famoso. Mesmo assim, seja qual for, a cópia ignora as características culturais de cada povo, o que faz com que cada cópia seja sempre imperfeita, até mesmo ridícula, e com consequências imprevisíveis.

— Não, não. Você está complicando muito. As coisas são bem mais simples.

— Tá bom, esqueça o anterior. Porém, pense que, para ser um dia tão próspero como os Estados Unidos, a Argentina terá que copiar alguma coisa que Estados Unidos nunca deixarão que copiem.

— Como por exemplo…

— Primeiro, Argentina teria que se converter num Império.

— Ah! Tinha que ser. Esse discursos dos anos 1960. Porém, o mundo mudou.

— Sim, claro, mas nem tanto. O Império estadunidense ainda está aí. Chamemos de hegemonia, para que não se sinta incômodo. Cultura hegemônica, capitais hegemônicos, ideologia da não ideologia, como a do livre mercado…

— Vocês, os esquerdistas (te falo com respeito), se perdem num emaranhado de argumentos.

— Oi… talvez você não tenha acompanhado meu raciocínio, eu não me sinto perdido.

— Puras abstrações. Poderia me dar um exemplo concreto disso que chama imperialismo?

— Vejamos dois. Primeiro, Argentina teria de construir umas cem bases militares em cada continente. Inclusive umas duas ou três em Miami e outras tantas em Oregon. Segundo, o peso argentino deveria ser a divisa global dominante. Percebe que cada vez que os países latino-americanos se veem com problemas econômicos, imprimem ou desvalorizam sua moeda?

— Repúblicas bananeiras.

— Sim, Há umas tantas. Porém, Europa e Estados Unidos não fizeram nada muito diferente. Para sair da crise de 2008, o FED inundou o mundo com um tsunami de dólares. Entre 40 e 50 bilhões desses papeizinhos verdes invadiram o mercado a cada mês, durante muitos anos. Sim, já sei, não é só imprimir. Por isso chamam de “expansão quantitativa”, “compra de bônus”. Houve alguma explosão inflacionária por causa desse “bananismo” monetário? Claro que não. Isso ocorre nos países periféricos. Não no país que possui a divisa global. O desastre é repartido (com o perdão da palavra) globalmente. Sempre me pergunto o que acontece com as poupanças de um humilde trabalhador ou um pequeno empresário, seja na Índia, na Argentina ou na Califórnia, quando o FED imprime mais papel moeda. Não há, por acaso, uma transferência dos valores dessas poupanças para os novos papeizinhos verdes que vão para as mãos de outras pessoas, começando por aqueles que o imprimem? Se não, de onde procede o valor desses novos papeizinhos verdes, uma vez que sequer estão lastreados em ouro?

— Isso, pergunte a um economista.

— Seria melhor. Não obstante, seja qual for a resposta, é evidente que não é tão fácil copiar para ficar parecido. Sempre sobram alguns detalhes, não é?

O homem grisalho suspirou, cansado. Acho que já era umas quatro da madrugada. Levantou-se, comentou algo sobre o Barcelona, Messi, Suárez, de desejou boa viajem, e foi embora arrastando sua mala.


*Jorge Majfud é escritor uruguaio-estadunidense, autor de Crisis e outras novelas. Original da Alainet.


A grande revolução do século XXI

Tradução de André Langer.

Semanas atrás, publicamos algumas breves reflexões sobre “A grande crise do século XXI”. Um problema de menor monta é que nos acusam de sermos dramáticos, grandiloquentes e apocalípticos. Tudo isso é irrelevante, esquecível. Correndo o risco de nos equivocar, como todos, como em tudo, nossa obrigação é proporcionar uma visão geral sobre os problemas mais importantes que podem afetar a humanidade no tempo presente e nos tempos vindouros, embora a essa altura já não estejamos mais caminhando sobre este belo planeta, nem estaremos mais desfrutando desse maravilhoso e tão desvalorizado milagre de estarmos vivos.
Para mim, não há dúvida. A grande crise planetária que a humanidade e o resto das espécies neste planeta enfrentarão continua focada no problema socioecológico. As duas bombas-relógio que indicávamos no artigo anterior (a perigosíssima e insustentável concentração de riqueza, mero sequestro do progresso humano por uma elite financeira, e a próxima aceleração das mudanças climáticas), ambas unidas por um sistema social e econômico baseado no consumo e no desperdício (“A pandemia do consumismo”, 2009), serão detonadas pela próxima grande revolução tecnológica, sem dúvida com um impacto maior do que aquele que a internet produziu.
Refiro-me à Inteligência Artificial.
Há 10 anos, observávamos que “enquanto as universidades conseguem fazer robôs que são cada vez mais parecidos com os seres humanos, não apenas por sua inteligência comprovada, mas agora também por suas habilidades de expressar e receber emoções, os hábitos de consumo estão nos tornando cada vez mais similares aos robôs”. A mesma ideia está no livro Cyborgs (2012), mas vem do meu segundo livro Crítica de la pasión pura (1998).
Obviamente, por “robôs” eu estava me referindo a um conceito que, até então, não tinha o desenvolvimento que tem agora: a inteligência artificial (IA). O tempo confirmou esse pessimismo e me corrigiu em alguns otimismos da mesma época sobre a democracia direta derivada de comunidades online (embora, quem sabe, talvez ainda seja possível).
Atualmente, os robôs estão comendo milhões de empregos e, no entanto, isso não parece ser nada em comparação com a revolução da inteligência artificial. Os robôs só serão perigosos para os trabalhadores se os benefícios de sua eficiência continuarem sendo concentrados nos “donos dos meios de produção” (perdão pela terminologia marxista) e não chegarem aos trabalhadores, que contribuíram com seu trabalho e seus impostos para que todo esse conhecimento pudesse se desenvolver nas universidades.
Os professores não recebem seu salário apenas das mensalidades e dos impostos (no caso das universidades públicas), mas enquanto se dedicam à pesquisa e à especulação, a invenções que deixarão nossos beneficiários sem trabalho, outros (os beneficiários) se curvam sob o sol nos campos, cultivando e colhendo alimentos ou erguendo e abaixando caixas de frutas que depois compramos quase sem esforço em aclimatados supermercados.
Mas nem mesmo os inventores nem os professores que participaram do processo se beneficiaram – nem se beneficiarão – economicamente desses feitos da alta tecnologia como fizeram – e continuarão a fazer – os sequestradores, os “gênios” dos negócios, que, mais do que inventar algo, simplesmente embolsaram os lucros. Como sempre, os donos do dinheiro ganharão mais dinheiro e serão reverenciados pelos avanços de nossas sociedades. Enfim, essas besteiras de que graças ao bom Bill Gates ou a algum outro bilionário, temos internet e computadores, etc.
Voltemos ao ponto central. As Inteligências Artificiais não são como os robôs, meros braços efetivos, mas cérebros implacáveis que já estão sendo usados em grandes companhias e corporações do mundo desenvolvido. Elas quase nunca estão em robôs, como o Terminator, mas em espaços virtuais, o que as torna ainda mais temerárias. Logo serão capazes de entender os seres humanos melhor do que qualquer psicanalista e, obviamente, não precisarão de 20 anos de terapia.
Atualmente, a inteligência artificial já está sendo usada para ler os currículos dos candidatos a emprego e é capaz de selecionar os melhores candidatos com base em previsões: Maria vai renunciar em dois anos; José vai pedir um aumento de salário antes do terceiro ano, etc. É claro que em breve nem Maria nem José serão necessários para cuidar de crianças ou de idosos porque a IA pode fazer isso muito melhor e cometendo menos erros.
O que em princípio pode ser celebrado pelos otimistas por seu inquestionável aumento da repetida, até o aborrecimento, efetividade, tem seu lado tenebroso. Os robôs inteligentes não precisam ser maus para organizar o Mal. Basta que sirvam aos poderosos, como qualquer outra inovação anterior, sejam eles governos despóticos ou megaempresas (despóticas e manipuladoras, como qualquer grande companhia, como mostra a história).
Poderíamos dar cem exemplos, mas, por razões de espaço, consideremos um simples aspecto. Durante milhares de anos, todos nós levamos a nossa privacidade para passear por todos os lugares públicos para onde vamos. Com a inteligência artificial, essa privacidade será automaticamente dissolvida. O reconhecimento facial pode não apenas detectar mentirosos ou a orientação sexual (isso não é especulação; já está acontecendo de forma inadvertida pelo público), mas muito rapidamente qualquer IA poderá determinar em poucos segundos que ideias políticas, sociais, religiosas e sociológicas temos, seja lendo um simples CV [Curriculum Vitae], um texto, um artigo, uma carta ou escaneando o nosso rosto. Não será algo muito difícil de perceber, considerando o que já está sendo feito.
Consequentemente, os dissidentes dessa ordem infinitamente opressiva não terão armas tradicionais, mas armas baseadas em IA ou similares. Elas serão os hackers do futuro e, como no passado, os guerrilheiros idealistas e os criminosos comuns, todos colocados no mesmo saco por aqueles que ostentarão o poder dos deuses (ou dos demônios).
Essa luta terminará em uma negociação pacífica? Bem, isso nunca aconteceu na história, salvo exceções, como o direito a oito horas de trabalho, etc. Em uma restauração violenta da liberdade e dos direitos individuais de todos, mais ou menos como na RevoluçãoFrancesa ou em outros assassinatos? Estarão os indivíduos suficientemente intoxicados pela educação funcional, dócil, acrítica e pela manipulação ideológica e psicológica, de modo que não haja luta pela liberdade ou consciência da opressão? Como em tantos outros períodos da história, serão os escravos os mais fervorosos defensores do sistema escravocrata? Podemos nós, os “velhos antiquados”, dizer algo útil a partir da perspectiva de 2018 para os “libertados” ou os “ultrapassados” de 2040 e 2070?, algo que sirva de advertência para aqueles que estarão imersos na tempestade de seu próprio presente?
Ou, pior, terminará a nossa orgulhosa e arrogante espécie humana em um colapso final?
Ninguém pode ter uma resposta definitiva para nenhuma dessas perguntas. Mas fazê-las e chamar a atenção para os grandes problemas atuais e das gerações futuras é, simplesmente, a nossa obrigação moral.

JM, 18 Abril 2018


Emma González: quando a masculinidade de Zeus treme


Emma González ou quand ça branle dans le manche viril de Zeus ]

Jorge Majfud

A tradução é de André Langer


Diferentemente de outras chacinas absurdas ocorridas em escolas secundárias dos Estados Unidos, a de Parkland tem sido diferente por provocar uma onda de manifestações em massa em todos os cantos dos Estados Unidos e em várias partes do mundo. O medo: só a juventude estadunidense pode conseguir alguma mudança social neste país, ainda que sejam mudanças apenas tímidas quando comparadas com o terremoto dos anos 60, conquistas que foram, anos mais tarde, quase aniquiladas pela reação conservadora da era Reagan-Thatcher. Ou quase, porque se neste país há mais liberdades individuais do que naquela época, isso se deve a esses demonizados movimentos de resistência social e não a nenhuma das guerras contra um país pequeno e distante.

Os anos sessenta legaram muitas coisas, embora depois tenham sido gradualmente desprestigiados pela reação e pela propaganda conservadora que, segundo todas as pesquisas, aumentou a desproporção da acumulação de riqueza neste país, agora concentrada quase exclusivamente em uma pequena minoria, enquanto dezenas de milhões de trabalhadores e estudantes não têm nada além de dívidas, dezenas de milhares morrem a cada ano por causa das drogas ou do suicídio (morrem mais soldados quando retornam do que nos campos de batalha; eu conheci o drama pessoal de mais de um) e dezenas de milhares morrem por armas de fogo. Nos Estados Unidos, somente as crianças (essas que recebem fuzis nos seus aniversários e os escoteiros promovem como símbolo de liberdade e masculinidade) matam mais pessoas, por acidente, do que todos os terroristas juntos, mas sobre isso não se ouve uma única palavra em nenhum apaixonado debate político.

Se este país nas últimas gerações conseguiu algumas liberdades, não foi por causa dos soldados no Vietnã, como afirma o sagrado clichê, mas se deve àqueles corajosos organizadores de lutas sociais como Luther King ou César Chávez. A Guerra do Vietnã foi miseravelmente perdida e, além de milhões de mortos, não deixou nada de positivo para este país. Menos liberdades e direitos. Por outro lado, a revolução feminista do Ocidente, dos negros no Sul da União e dos diaristas da Califórnia deram, esses sim, resultados concretos, embora hoje estejam na berlinda da última reação, que talvez não seja outra coisa que um punhado de afogados de uma ordem cambaleante.

Um dos rostos visíveis do mais recente movimento é o de Emma González, sobrevivente do massacre de Parkland e filha de exilados cubanos. Emma representa muitos outros cubano-estadunidenses da sua geração, jovens libertados da paranoia e da obsessão pela derrota de Baía dos Porcos, que, em todo caso, precisa conviver com elementos da velha geração, alguns dos quais são considerados terroristas até pelo FBI, mas que, em todo caso, andam livres em Miami.

Um dos poucos escritores e intelectuais que representam este grupo, a escritora Zoe Valdés, referiu-se a Emma González como uma comunista “machorra” (sapatão). A acusação não é nova. Ao longo da história, os grupos mais reacionários, as tradicionais classes dominantes da América Latina e até dos Estados Unidos (eu diria que em menor grau), praticaram o macartismo, segundo o qual qualquer crítico capaz de dizer suas verdades incômodas ao poder dominante é, automaticamente, um comunista. E pouco importa se essas verdades são objetivamente documentadas. Se você disser que o golpe de Estado na Guatemala de 1954 foi orquestrado pela CIA e pela UFC contra um governo democrático, você é comunista. Se você disser o mesmo sobre o Chile em 1973, você é marxista-leninista, etc.

No entanto, os comunistas não precisam ser apontados. Em geral, os comunistas são reconhecidos como tais. Os fascistas, racistas e machistas, por outro lado, não. É preciso adivinhá-los ou deduzi-los de acordo com seus ditos e ações.

Agora, que uma jovem e milhões de jovens marchem por suas vidas e questionem com determinação a religião das armas, que não se encaixem no estereótipo imposto (pré-fabricado e reduzido a uma caricatura) do patriota, nos estreitos limites dos mitos sociais, que não seguem os caminhos traçados pelas vacas sagradas rumo ao matadouro, transforma-os em perigosos comunistas. Mas me parece que esse hábito de rotular de comunista todo crítico inconformado, todo democrata radical, é um pouco exagerado. Miami, por sua vez, está cheia de ex-comunistas que um dia se deram conta, como por uma súbita revelação, do grande negócio (econômico e moral) que era envolver-se na bandeira do vencedor e mudaram de lado ou tornaram-se mais caubóis que John Wayne.

A escassez de recursos intelectuais daqueles que sacam a palavra mágica (comunista) como quem saca um revólver é bem conhecida. Há alguns anos, o pai cubano do senador e candidato à presidência, Ted Cruz, afirmou que a Teoria da Evolução era uma perversão do marxismo. Até mesmo a teoria da mudança climática, que ameaçava os lucros das super-petroleiras, até recentemente era o produto dessas pessoas más.

Esta geração (uma parte significativa) teve a coragem de dizer ‘Chega, basta’. E o disse de forma escandalosa para uma sociedade fanática: “chega de orações e de condolências”. Por isso, devem demonizá-los como comunistas ou perigosos rebeldes, lésbicas ou conspiradores, como nos anos cinquenta os sulistas marchavam com cartazes denunciando a imoralidade dos ativistas com cartazes que diziam que “a integração racial é comunismo” enquanto pediam aos seus governantes para que salvassem a “América cristã”.

Os ataques a Emma revelam certo nervosismo ideológico. (Um candidato republicano a definiu como “lésbica skinhead”. Ela se assume como bissexual. Não é rebelde por ser lésbica, mas por ter a coragem de se assumir como é em uma sociedade hostil e, não poucas vezes, hipócrita.) Emma representa a mudança, não apenas por ser jovem, bissexual e uma incômoda insuportável para a poderosa Associação Nacional do Rifle, mas também por fazer parte de uma geração que pode representar um momento crítico na história deste país e do mundo. Homens e mulheres (sobretudo os homens) escreveram leis e constituições. Homens e mulheres (sobretudo as mulheres) podem e devem reescrevê-las de acordo com as necessidades dos vivos, e não dos mortos.

Nem Zoe Valdés nem ninguém tem autoridade moral para criticar essa corajosa jovem. Todo o resto são clichês da Guerra Fria que a nova geração não engole tão facilmente. São medos próprios dos superpoderes, que não são poderes absolutos e sabem quando um tremor repentino mexe suas bochechas.

Nos próximos anos veremos uma luta existencial da reação da onda neopatriarcal, nacionalista, racista e imperialista (caricatos anos oitenta ainda em ascensão, hoje no poder político), contra uma geração mais jovem, a pé, pronta para resistir às narrativas que escondem os verdadeiros problemas do mundo, disposta a não acreditar em mitos que nem mesmo funcionam, com rebeldia suficiente para dizer algo tão simples como ‘Chega’.

O Caçador de Histórias

Do último livro de Eduardo GaleanoO Caçador de Histórias, publicado após a sua morte a 13 de abril de 2015, retirei estas pequenas histórias.



Num jornal do bairro do Raval, em Barcelona, uma mão anónima escreveu:

O teu deus é judeu, a tua música é negra, o teu carro é japonês, a tua pizza é italiana, o teu gás é argelino, a tua democracia é grega, os teus números são árabes, as tuas letras são latinas.

Eu sou teu vizinho. E ainda me chamas estrangeiro?




De dia, guia-os o sol. À noite, as estrelas.

Não pagam bilhete, e viajam sem passaporte e sem preencher impressos da alfândega nem dos serviços de emigração.

Os pássaros, os únicos que são livres neste mundo habitado por prisioneiros, voam sem combustível de um polo ao outro, tomando o rumo que lhes apetecer e à hora que quiserem, sem pedir licença aos governos que se julgam donos do céu.




O mundo viaja.

Há mais náufragos que navegantes.

Em cada viagem, há milhares de desesperados que morrem sem contemplar a travessia para o paraíso prometido onde até os pobres são ricos e todos vivem em Hollywood.

Não duram muito as ilusões dos poucos que conseguem chegar.




Os conquistadores britânicos ficaram com os olhos esbugalhados de assombro.

Eles provinham de uma nação civilizada, onde as mulheres eram propriedade dos maridos e lhes deviam obediência, como a Bíblia mandava, mas na América foram encontrar um mundo às avessas.

As índias iroquesas e outras revelavam-se suspeitas de libertinagem. Os maridos nem sequer tinham o direito de castigar as mulheres que lhes pertenciam. Elas tinham opiniões próprias e bens próprios, direito ao divórcio e direito de voto nas decisões da comunidade.

Os brancos invasores já não conseguiam dormir em paz: os costumes das selvagens pagãs podiam contagiar-lhes as mulheres.




O que é esse rolinho de carne que espreita por entre as pernas das mulheres? Para que serve?

A ciência não achava resposta, até que se impôs a certeza de que o clítoris era um erro da anatomia feminina. Em 1857, o cientista inglês William Acton sentenciou:

– A mulher recatada não procura o prazer no sexo. Ela só procura comprazer o marido e dar-lhe filhos.

E por essa altura já se tinha demonstrado que o orgasmo feminino era imaginário e desnecessário para o sagrado exercício da maternidade.




No ano de 1832 os poucos índios charrua que haviam sobrevivido à derrota de Artigas foram convidados para assinar a paz, e o presidente do Uruguai, Fructuoso Rivera, prometeu-lhes que iam receber terras.

Quando os charruas estavam bem comidos, bem bebidos e bem adormecidos, os soldados avançaram. Os índios foram esfolados à faca, para não se gastarem balas, e para não se perder tempo em enterros foram lançados ao ribeiro Salsipuedes.

Foi uma cilada. A história oficial chamou-lhe batalha. E de cada vez que nós uruguaianos vencemos um troféu de futebol, celebramos o triunfo da garra charrua.




Nos nossos dias, a ditadura universal do mercado dita ordens bem contraditórias:

Temos de apertar o cinto e temos de baixar as calças.

Os mandatos que vêm de lá de cima do alto do céu não são muito mais coerentes, verdade seja dita. Na Bíblia (Êxodo 20), Deus ordena:

Não matarás.

E no capítulo seguinte (Êxodo 21), o mesmo Deus manda matar por cinco motivos diferentes.




Há já uns séculos que os súbditos se disfarçaram de cidadãos e que as monarquias se preferem chamar repúblicas.

As ditaduras locais, que se dizem democracias, abrem as portas à entrada avassaladora do mercado universal. Neste mundo, reino dos livres, somos todos um só. Mas somos um ou somos nenhum? Compradores ou comprados? Vendedores ou vendidos? Espiões ou espiados?

Vivemos presos entre garras invisíveis, atraiçoados pelas máquinas que simulam obediência e mentem, com cibernética impunidade, ao serviço dos seus patrões.

As máquinas mandam nas casas, nas fábricas, nos escritórios, nos seus escritórios, nas plantações agrícolas, nas minas e nas ruas das cidades, onde nós peões somos incómodos que perturbam o trânsito. E as máquinas mandam também nas guerras, onde matam tanto ou mais que os guerreiros fardados.




No ano de 2003, Samir, um veterano jornalista do Iraque, andava a visitar alguns museus da Europa. Museu após museu, descobria maravilhas escritas na Babilónia, heróis e deuses talhados nas colinas de Nínive, leões que tinham voado desde a Assíria.

Alguém se aproximou, oferecendo ajuda:

Quer que chame um médico?

Engolindo as lágrimas, balbuciou:

Não, por favor. Estou bem.

E depois explicou:

Magoa-me simplesmente ver quanto roubaram e quanto roubarão.

Dois meses depois, as tropas norte-americanas lançaram a sua invasão. O Museu Nacional de Bagdade foi saqueado. Perderam-se

cento e setenta mil obras.




Pai castigador, mãe abnegada, filha submissa, esposa muda.

Como Deus manda, a tradição ensina e a lei obriga:

O filho golpeado pelo pai que foi golpeado pelo avô que golpeou a avó nascida para obedecer,

Porque ontem é o destino de hoje e tudo o que foi continuará a ser.

Mas numa qualquer parede, algures, alguém rabiscará:

Eu não quero sobreviver.

Eu quero viver.




Em 1953, a Câmara Municipal de Lisboa publicou a sua Portaria nº69035:

Verificando-se o aumento de actos atentatórios à moral e aos bons costumes, que dia a dia se vêm verificando nos logradouros públicos e jardins, determina-se à Polícia e à Guarda Florestal uma permanente vigilância das pessoas que procurem frondosas vegetações para a prática de actos que atentem contra a moral e os bons costumes, e estabeleçam-se as seguintes multas:

1º Mão na mão: 2$50

2º Mão naquilo: 15$00

3º Aquilo na mão: 30$00

4º Aquilo naquilo: 50$00

5º Aquilo atrás daquilo: 100$00

Parágrafo único: Com a língua naquilo, 150$00 de multa, preso e fotografado.




Em novembro de 1976, a ditadura militar argentina crivou de balas a casa de Clara Anahí Mariani e assassinou os seus pais.

Dela nunca mais se soube nada, embora desde então figure na Direção de Investigação da Polícia da Província de Bueno Aires, na secção reservada aos delinquentes subversivos.

A sua ficha diz:


Ela tinha três meses de idade quando foi catalogada assim.




Em 1885, Joseph Firmin, negro, haitiano, publicou em Paris um livro de mais de seiscentas páginas, intitulado Sobre a Igualdade das Raças Humanas.

A obra não teve difusão, nem repercussão. Só encontrou o silêncio. Naquele tempo, ainda era palavra santa o dicionário Larousse, que explicava assim o assunto:

Na espécie negra, o cérebro está menos desenvolvido do que na espécie branca.




Lá por volta de 1950 e picos, Las Vegas era pouco mais do que nada. A sua maior atração eram os cogumelos atómicos que os militares ensaiavam por ali perto e que davam espetáculo à assistência, exclusivamente branca, que podia contemplá-lo do alto dos terraços. E também atraíam o público, exclusivamente branco, os artistas negros que eram as grandes estrelas da canção.

Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald e Nat King Cole eram bem pagos, mas só podiam entrar e sair pela porta de serviço. E quando Sammy Davis Jr. mergulhou na piscina, o diretor do hotel mandou mudar a água toda.

 E assim foi até que em 1955 um milionário estreou em Las Vegas aquilo a que chamou o primeiro hotel casino inter-racial dos Estados Unidos. Joe Louis, o lendário pugilista, dava as boas vindas aos hóspedes que já eram brancos e negros; e assim Las Vegas começou a ser Las Vegas. Os donos da aldeia que se transformou no mais famoso paraíso de plástico continuaram a ser racistas, mas tinham descoberto que o racismo não era um bom negócio. Ao fim e ao cabo, os dólares de um negro rico são tão verdes como os outros.



Matar era um prazer, e pouco importava se o finado era veado, pato ou republicano. Mas as perdizes eram a especialidade das caçadas de Francisco Franco.

Num dia de outubro d 1959, o Generalíssimo matou quatro mil e seiscentas perdizes, e assim superou o seu próprio recorde.

Os fotógrafos imortalizaram esta jornada vitoriosa. Aos pés do vencedor jaziam os seus troféus, que cobriam os solos do mundo.




A família Majfud tinha siso afrontada pela ditadura militar uruguaiana, sofrera no cárcere torturas e humilhações, e fora despojada de tudo o que tinha.

Uma manhã, os meninos estavam a brincar num velho carrinho de mão quando se ouviu um tiro. Eles estavam longe. Mas o tiro atravessou os campos de Tacuarembo e então souberam, quem sabe como, quem sabe porquê, que o estampido viera da cama da tia Marta, a mais querida.

Desde essa manhã, Nolo, o mais pequeno da família, pergunta e pergunta-se:

Porque nascemos, se temos de morrer?

Jorge, o irmão mais velho, tenta ajudá-lo.

Procura uma resposta.

Os anos vão passando, como passam as árvores diante da janela do comboio; e Jorge continua à procura da resposta.