lunes, 12 de octubre de 2015
sábado, 10 de octubre de 2015
...opens certain doors
All profound distraction opens certain doors. You have to allow yourself to be distracted when you are unable to concentrate.
Julio Cortazar
Around the Day in Eighty Worlds
Julio Cortazar
Around the Day in Eighty Worlds
Noam Chomsky on George Orwell, the Suppression of Ideas and the Myth of American Exceptionalism
In a Democracy Now! special, we spend the hour with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author and institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than half a century. Chomsky has written more than 100 books, including his latest, "Because We Say So," a collection of his monthly columns. On Saturday, Chomsky spoke before a sold-out audience of nearly 1,000 people at The New School’s John L. Tishman Auditorium in New York City. In a speech titled “On Power and Ideology,” he discussed the persistence of U.S. exceptionalism, Republican efforts to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal, and the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations.In a Democracy Now! special, we spend the hour with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author and institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than half a century. Chomsky has written more than 100 books, including his latest, "Because We Say So," a collection of his monthly columns. On Saturday, Chomsky spoke before a sold-out audience of nearly 1,000 people at The New School’s John L. Tishman Auditorium in New York City. In a speech titled “On Power and Ideology,” he discussed the persistence of U.S. exceptionalism, Republican efforts to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal, and the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations.
AMY GOODMAN: Today, in a Democracy Now! special, we spend the hour with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author and institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than half a century. Noam Chomsky has penned more than a hundred books; his newest, Because We Say So, a collection of his columns.
On Saturday, Chomsky spoke before a sold-out audience of nearly 1,000 people at The New School’s Auditorium here in New York City. Chomsky discussed the persistence of U.S. exceptionalism, Republican efforts to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal and the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations. Professor Chomsky also explained why he believes the U.S. and its closest allies, namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are undermining prospects for peace in the Middle East. His speech was titled "On Power and Ideology."
NOAM CHOMSKY: The role of concentrated power in shaping the ideological framework that dominates perception, interpretation, discussion, choice of action, all of that is too familiar to require much comment. Tonight I’d like to discuss a critically important example, but first a couple of words on one of the most perceptive analysts of this process, George Orwell.
In a speech Saturday at The New School in New York, Noam Chomsky explained why he believes the U.S. poses the greatest threat to world peace. "[The United States] is a rogue state, indifferent to international law and conventions, entitled to resort to violence at will. … Take, for example, the Clinton Doctrine—namely, the United States is free to resort to unilateral use of military power, even for such purposes as to ensure uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources—let alone security or alleged humanitarian concerns. And adherence to this doctrine is very well confirmed and practiced, as need hardly be discussed among people willing to look at the facts of current history." Chomsky also explained why he believes the U.S. and its closest allies, namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are undermining prospects for peace in the Middle East. "When we say the international community opposes Iran’s policies or the international community does some other thing, that means the United States and anybody else who happens to be going along with it."
AMY GOODMAN: We spend the hour with MIT professor, author, activist, political dissident, Noam Chomsky. Over the weekend, he spoke to a packed audience at The New School here in New York City.
NOAM CHOMSKY: The former Republican Party has now become a "radical insurgency" that’s abandoned parliamentary politics. I’m quoting two highly respected, very conservative political commentators, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. And in fact, they may succeed in increasing sanctions, and even secondary sanctions on other countries, and carry out other actions that could lead Iran to opt out of the deal with the United States—with the United States, that is. That, however, need not mean that the agreement is nullified. Contrary to the way it’s sometimes presented here, it’s not a U.S.-Iran agreement. It’s an agreement between Iran and what’s called P5+1, the five veto-holding members of the Security Council plus Germany. And the other participants might agree to proceed—Iran, as well. They would then join China and India, which have already been finding ways to evade the U.S. constraints on interactions with Iran. And in fact, if they do, they’ll join the large majority of the world’s population, the Non-Aligned Movement, which all along has vigorously supported Iran’s right to pursue its nuclear programs as a member of the NPT. But remember that they are not part of the international community. So when we say the international community opposes Iran’s policies or the international community does some other thing, that means the United States and anybody else who happens to be going along with it, so we can dismiss them. If others continue to honor the deal, which could happen, the United States will be isolated from the world, which is not an unfamiliar position.
That’s also the background for the other element of Obama’s—what’s called Obama’s legacy, his other main foreign policy achievement, the beginning of normalization of relations with Cuba. On Cuba, the United States has been almost totally isolated for decades. If you look, say, at the annual votes in the U.N. General Assembly on the U.S. embargo, they’re rarely reported, but the U.S. essentially votes alone. The last one Israel joined. But, of course, Israel violates the embargo; they just have to join, because have to join with the master. Occasionally, the Marshall Islands or Palau or someone else joins. And in the hemisphere, the United States has been totally isolated for years. The main hemispheric conferences have foundered because the United States will simply not join the rest of the hemisphere in the major issues that are discussed. Last one in Colombia, the two major issues were admitting Cuba into the hemisphere—U.S. and Canada refused, everyone else agreed—and the U.S. drug war, which is devastating Latin America, and they want to get out of it, but the U.S. and Canada don’t agree. Now that’s actually the background for Obama’s acceptance of steps towards normalization of relations with Cuba. Another hemispheric conference was coming up in Panama, and if the United States had not made that move, it probably would have been thrown out of the hemisphere, so therefore Obama made what’s called here a noble gesture, a courageous move to end Cuba’s isolation, although in reality it was U.S. isolation that was the motivating factor.
Noam Chomsky is a world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author and institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than half a century. Chomsky has written more than 100 books, including his latest, "Because We Say So," a collection of his monthly columns. After his speech on Saturday at The New School, he took questions from the audience.
NOAM CHOMSKY: So, "How has the United States supported radical Islam?"
As I mentioned, just as Britain did before it. I won’t comment on the British rule, but if you want to learn about it, there’s quite a good book on it by a very good British diplomatic historian, Mark Curtis, who discusses in detail, going back to the documentary record, how England, Britain supported radical Islam during its period of dominance. The U.S. has done it always. The major center of radical Islam, extremist radical Islam, is Saudi Arabia, unquestionably. They are the source of the Wahhabization of the region, which Patrick Cockburn points out is one of the major developments of the modern era. Who’s the main supporter of Saudi Arabia? You are. You know, that’s where your tax dollars go. It’s been for a long time. Right now tens of billions of dollars of arms being sent under Obama, but it goes way back.
In fact, the strong U.S. relation with Israel developed out of this. The United States and Israel had close relations, but not unusual, through the 1950s and early '60s. That changed in 1967. What happened in 1967? Israel performed a huge service to the United States and its Saudi Arabian ally. Saudi Arabia has been and remains the center of extremist, radical, fundamentalist Islam, with offshoots in the jihadi movements and so on, including ISIS. At the time, the center of secular nationalism was Nasser's Egypt, and there was a conflict between the two of them. In fact, they were at war. They were at war in the Yemen at the time. Israel administered a very serious blow to secular nationalism. It devastated the Egyptian army and Syria, and it saved Saudi Arabia and offered a great boon to the United States. And, in fact, if you check back, it’s at that time that the unusual—in fact, unique—relationship between Israel and the United States developed.
And in fact it continues after that. I could give more examples if there was time. But that has been a consistent pattern. There are a few exceptions here and there. So sometimes the United States has supported secular Islamic states. The most extreme and interesting example is Saddam Hussein, who was greatly loved by the Reagan administration and by the Bush I administration. I could give you the details, but they were so supportive of Saddam Hussein that he was even given a gift that otherwise only Israel has been granted, no other country. He was permitted to attack a U.S. naval vessel, killing a couple of dozen American sailors, and to get away with it with just a tap on the wrist. Israel had done the same thing in 1967. Saddam Hussein did it in 1987. And the friendship for Saddam Hussein was so enormous that he was granted that right. And that was a secular state. In fact, George Bush number one even invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the United States for advanced training in nuclear weapons production. That’s a pretty supportive relationship. So there are cases where the United States has supported secular Islam, but typically it’s radical Islam that has been the beneficiary of U.S. support, like Britain before it.
AMY GOODMAN: Today, in a Democracy Now! special, we spend the hour with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author and institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than half a century. Noam Chomsky has penned more than a hundred books; his newest, Because We Say So, a collection of his columns.
On Saturday, Chomsky spoke before a sold-out audience of nearly 1,000 people at The New School’s Auditorium here in New York City. Chomsky discussed the persistence of U.S. exceptionalism, Republican efforts to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal and the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations. Professor Chomsky also explained why he believes the U.S. and its closest allies, namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are undermining prospects for peace in the Middle East. His speech was titled "On Power and Ideology."
NOAM CHOMSKY: The role of concentrated power in shaping the ideological framework that dominates perception, interpretation, discussion, choice of action, all of that is too familiar to require much comment. Tonight I’d like to discuss a critically important example, but first a couple of words on one of the most perceptive analysts of this process, George Orwell.
In a speech Saturday at The New School in New York, Noam Chomsky explained why he believes the U.S. poses the greatest threat to world peace. "[The United States] is a rogue state, indifferent to international law and conventions, entitled to resort to violence at will. … Take, for example, the Clinton Doctrine—namely, the United States is free to resort to unilateral use of military power, even for such purposes as to ensure uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources—let alone security or alleged humanitarian concerns. And adherence to this doctrine is very well confirmed and practiced, as need hardly be discussed among people willing to look at the facts of current history." Chomsky also explained why he believes the U.S. and its closest allies, namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are undermining prospects for peace in the Middle East. "When we say the international community opposes Iran’s policies or the international community does some other thing, that means the United States and anybody else who happens to be going along with it."
AMY GOODMAN: We spend the hour with MIT professor, author, activist, political dissident, Noam Chomsky. Over the weekend, he spoke to a packed audience at The New School here in New York City.
NOAM CHOMSKY: The former Republican Party has now become a "radical insurgency" that’s abandoned parliamentary politics. I’m quoting two highly respected, very conservative political commentators, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. And in fact, they may succeed in increasing sanctions, and even secondary sanctions on other countries, and carry out other actions that could lead Iran to opt out of the deal with the United States—with the United States, that is. That, however, need not mean that the agreement is nullified. Contrary to the way it’s sometimes presented here, it’s not a U.S.-Iran agreement. It’s an agreement between Iran and what’s called P5+1, the five veto-holding members of the Security Council plus Germany. And the other participants might agree to proceed—Iran, as well. They would then join China and India, which have already been finding ways to evade the U.S. constraints on interactions with Iran. And in fact, if they do, they’ll join the large majority of the world’s population, the Non-Aligned Movement, which all along has vigorously supported Iran’s right to pursue its nuclear programs as a member of the NPT. But remember that they are not part of the international community. So when we say the international community opposes Iran’s policies or the international community does some other thing, that means the United States and anybody else who happens to be going along with it, so we can dismiss them. If others continue to honor the deal, which could happen, the United States will be isolated from the world, which is not an unfamiliar position.
That’s also the background for the other element of Obama’s—what’s called Obama’s legacy, his other main foreign policy achievement, the beginning of normalization of relations with Cuba. On Cuba, the United States has been almost totally isolated for decades. If you look, say, at the annual votes in the U.N. General Assembly on the U.S. embargo, they’re rarely reported, but the U.S. essentially votes alone. The last one Israel joined. But, of course, Israel violates the embargo; they just have to join, because have to join with the master. Occasionally, the Marshall Islands or Palau or someone else joins. And in the hemisphere, the United States has been totally isolated for years. The main hemispheric conferences have foundered because the United States will simply not join the rest of the hemisphere in the major issues that are discussed. Last one in Colombia, the two major issues were admitting Cuba into the hemisphere—U.S. and Canada refused, everyone else agreed—and the U.S. drug war, which is devastating Latin America, and they want to get out of it, but the U.S. and Canada don’t agree. Now that’s actually the background for Obama’s acceptance of steps towards normalization of relations with Cuba. Another hemispheric conference was coming up in Panama, and if the United States had not made that move, it probably would have been thrown out of the hemisphere, so therefore Obama made what’s called here a noble gesture, a courageous move to end Cuba’s isolation, although in reality it was U.S. isolation that was the motivating factor.
Noam Chomsky is a world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author and institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than half a century. Chomsky has written more than 100 books, including his latest, "Because We Say So," a collection of his monthly columns. After his speech on Saturday at The New School, he took questions from the audience.
NOAM CHOMSKY: So, "How has the United States supported radical Islam?"
As I mentioned, just as Britain did before it. I won’t comment on the British rule, but if you want to learn about it, there’s quite a good book on it by a very good British diplomatic historian, Mark Curtis, who discusses in detail, going back to the documentary record, how England, Britain supported radical Islam during its period of dominance. The U.S. has done it always. The major center of radical Islam, extremist radical Islam, is Saudi Arabia, unquestionably. They are the source of the Wahhabization of the region, which Patrick Cockburn points out is one of the major developments of the modern era. Who’s the main supporter of Saudi Arabia? You are. You know, that’s where your tax dollars go. It’s been for a long time. Right now tens of billions of dollars of arms being sent under Obama, but it goes way back.
In fact, the strong U.S. relation with Israel developed out of this. The United States and Israel had close relations, but not unusual, through the 1950s and early '60s. That changed in 1967. What happened in 1967? Israel performed a huge service to the United States and its Saudi Arabian ally. Saudi Arabia has been and remains the center of extremist, radical, fundamentalist Islam, with offshoots in the jihadi movements and so on, including ISIS. At the time, the center of secular nationalism was Nasser's Egypt, and there was a conflict between the two of them. In fact, they were at war. They were at war in the Yemen at the time. Israel administered a very serious blow to secular nationalism. It devastated the Egyptian army and Syria, and it saved Saudi Arabia and offered a great boon to the United States. And, in fact, if you check back, it’s at that time that the unusual—in fact, unique—relationship between Israel and the United States developed.
And in fact it continues after that. I could give more examples if there was time. But that has been a consistent pattern. There are a few exceptions here and there. So sometimes the United States has supported secular Islamic states. The most extreme and interesting example is Saddam Hussein, who was greatly loved by the Reagan administration and by the Bush I administration. I could give you the details, but they were so supportive of Saddam Hussein that he was even given a gift that otherwise only Israel has been granted, no other country. He was permitted to attack a U.S. naval vessel, killing a couple of dozen American sailors, and to get away with it with just a tap on the wrist. Israel had done the same thing in 1967. Saddam Hussein did it in 1987. And the friendship for Saddam Hussein was so enormous that he was granted that right. And that was a secular state. In fact, George Bush number one even invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the United States for advanced training in nuclear weapons production. That’s a pretty supportive relationship. So there are cases where the United States has supported secular Islam, but typically it’s radical Islam that has been the beneficiary of U.S. support, like Britain before it.
S.:https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2525257348096362362#editor/target=post;postID=8556721181366677788
domingo, 4 de octubre de 2015
De la nuit éclatante au firmament fatal
La lune mince verse une lueur sacrée,
Comme une jupe d'un tissu d'argent léger,
Sur les masses de marbre où marche et croit songer
Quelque vierge de perle une gaze nacrée.
Pour les cygnes soyeux qui frôlent les roseaux
De carènes de plume à demi lumineuse,
Sa main cueille et dispense une rose neigeuse
Dont les pétales font des cercles sur les eaux.
Délicieux désert, solitude pâmée,
Quand le remous de l'eau par la lune lamée
Compte éternellement ses échos de cristal,
Quel coeur pourrait souffir l'inexorable charme
De la nuit éclatante au firmament fatal,
Sans tirer de soi-même un cri pur comme une arme?
Comme une jupe d'un tissu d'argent léger,
Sur les masses de marbre où marche et croit songer
Quelque vierge de perle une gaze nacrée.
Pour les cygnes soyeux qui frôlent les roseaux
De carènes de plume à demi lumineuse,
Sa main cueille et dispense une rose neigeuse
Dont les pétales font des cercles sur les eaux.
Délicieux désert, solitude pâmée,
Quand le remous de l'eau par la lune lamée
Compte éternellement ses échos de cristal,
Quel coeur pourrait souffir l'inexorable charme
De la nuit éclatante au firmament fatal,
Sans tirer de soi-même un cri pur comme une arme?
Paul Valéry
Même Féerie
sábado, 3 de octubre de 2015
Me pregunto
Me pregunto si las estrellas se iluminan con el fin de que algún día, cada uno pueda encontrar la suya.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
El principito
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
El principito
lunes, 28 de septiembre de 2015
domingo, 27 de septiembre de 2015
Preocúpate del sentido y
Preocúpate del sentido y los sonidos se preocuparán de sí mismos.
Lewis Carroll
Alicia en el país de las maravillas
How the World Views US ‘Clown Show’
Some Americans may be amused by the “clown show” that is modern U.S. politics, particularly the Republican presidential race. But the crude insults and gross bigotry are seen around the world, reducing the appeal of democracy and turning more people against the U.S., notes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.
By Paul R. Pillar
The U.S. political class and political system in effect grant a lot of leeway and a lot of tolerance to excesses of American politicians, including excesses exhibited during election campaigns. There is little consistency and almost no principle in determining which comments by candidates come to be considered as campaign-crippling gaffes and which do not. Much gets said that does not cripple a campaign but which a majority of decent Americans, if they carefully thought about it, would probably agree is unreasonable, untrue, mean, inflammatory, bigoted, or extreme.
The tolerance comes partly from an acceptance that, oh well, politicians will be politicians, and that especially during a race for a party’s nomination extreme things will be said to appeal to the angriest and most active part of a party’s base and will not necessarily endure during a general election campaign let alone once the winner takes office. It comes partly from a quest for even-handedness, especially among the press, involving a supposed need to give equal respect to every position expressed merely because it is expressed, regardless of the unreasonableness of its content.
And it comes partly from how much all of us who are political junkies (which includes to varying degrees a large proportion of the U.S. population) are entertained by the spectacle. This last factor has been especially at work this year with the phenomenon that is Donald Trump, who first came to be known to most Americans primarily as an entertainer. What is extreme and unreasonable gets treated as harmless fun.
Essays can and should be written on how the fun isn’t really harmless even when confining our perspective to the United States — about how this sort of crude followership rather than the exercise of true leadership by contenders in political races is a race to the bottom when it comes to reason and decency, and how it encourages a further lowering of political and moral standards among the America public as a whole and not just in the portions of the electorate that are the main targets of the crude appeals. But what may be even more likely to be overlooked is the effect such discourse has on perceptions overseas.
American politics unfortunately has not been stopping at the water’s edge, in at least a couple of respects. One, which we saw recently with opposition to the nuclear agreement with Iran, involves how much domestic politics complicates and impedes the making and implementation of U.S. foreign policy.
Another involves foreign governments and publics forming impressions about the United States and about Americans based on what they see and hear going on in American politics, including the crazy and disgusting aspects of it. Globalization and modern mass communications have made this second factor more important and more inescapable than ever.
Every indication of dysfunction in U.S. politics diminishes in foreign eyes the reliability and trustworthiness of the United States as a partner and leader in world affairs. Foreigners just got another such indication with the resignation of the speaker of the House of Representatives because members of his own party considered him insufficiently obdurate and too willing to work cooperatively with others.
Beyond the general picture of dysfunction are more specific hateful or prejudicial positions that some politicians get away with taking, which leads foreigners to conclude reasonably that such views must be shared by much and even most of the American public. This greatly harms the image of America as an open and tolerant land and the substantial soft power that has flowed from it.
The problem has been most acute in recent years, though by no means limited to, the frequent indications of Islamophobia. It is bad enough when impressions are conveyed to foreigners by the words and actions of Koran-burning pastors or religiously biased army generals. It has become even worse with leading (according to opinion polls) candidates for the presidential nomination of one of the two major U.S. political parties appearing to go along with statements that “We have a problem in this country — it’s called Muslims” or stating themselves (notwithstanding Article VI of the U.S. Constitution) that a Muslim should never be president of the United States.
The deleterious effects in majority Muslim countries of such postures taken by U.S. politicians are multiple. The belief that the United States as a whole is out to persecute or subjugate Muslims gets entrenched, making it that much harder for the United States to win trust and get accomplished what it wants to accomplish in those parts of the world. Foreign governments, sensitive to their own public opinion, find it politically harder to cooperate with the United States. The motivations for anti-U.S. extremist violence grow stronger, and thus the probability of such violence increases.
Politicians who like to appeal to the baser sentiments of a political base ought to think hard about such consequences. If they nonetheless continue such appeals, they ought to be condemned for doing so and voters ought to reject them, decisively.
Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)
S.:https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/26/how-the-world-views-us-clown-show/
miércoles, 23 de septiembre de 2015
September 21, 1976: Chilean Exile Orlando Letelier Is Assassinated in Washington, DC
Repression for the majorities and ‘economic freedom’ for small privileged groups are in Chile two sides of the same coin.”
By Richard Kreitner
(...)
The economic policies of the Chilean junta and its results have to be placed in the context of a wide counter-revolutionary process that aims to restore to a small minority the economic, social, and political control it gradually lost over the last thirty years….
In such a context, concentration of wealth is no accident, but a rule; it is not the marginal outcome of a difficult situation—as they would like the world to believe—but the base for a social project; it is not an economic liability but a temporary political success. Their real failure is not their apparent inability to redistribute wealth or to generate a more even path of development (these are not their priorities) but their inability to convince the majority of Chileans that their policies are reasonable and necessary. In short, they have failed to destroy the consciousness of the Chilean people. The economic plan has had to be enforced, and in the Chilean context that could be done only by the killing of thousands, the establishment of concentration camps all over the country, the jailing of more than 100,000 persons in three years, the closing of trade unions and neighborhood organizations, and the prohibition of all political activities and all forms of free expression. While the “Chicago boys” have provided an appearance of technical respectability to the laissez-faire dreams and political greed of the old landowning oligarchy and upper bourgeoisie of monopolists and financial speculators, the military has applied the brutal force required to achieve those goals. Repression for the majorities and “economic freedom” for small privileged groups are in Chile two sides of the same coin. There is, therefore, an inner harmony between the two central priorities announced by the junta after the coup in 1973: the “destruction of the Marxist cancer” (which has come to mean not only the repression of the political parties of the Left but also the destruction of all labor organizations democratically elected and all opposition, including Christian-Democrats and church organizations), the establishment of a free private economy and the control of inflation a la [Milton] Friedman. It is nonsensical, consequently, that those who inspire, support or finance that economic policy should try to present their advocacy as restricted to “technical considerations,” while pretending to reject the system of terror it requires to succeed.
S.:http://www.thenation.com/article/september-21-1976-chilean-exile-orlando-letelier-is-assassinated-in-washington-d-c/
domingo, 13 de septiembre de 2015
viernes, 11 de septiembre de 2015
miércoles, 9 de septiembre de 2015
Mentir o morir
David Trueba
El vómito ciudadano ante sus dirigentes ha obligado a tomar medidas, lentas, pero saludables con respecto a los refugiados.
No estamos habituados a mirar la vida desde la perspectiva de la desesperación. Pero estar tocados por la suerte no nos tiene que hacer olvidar que ese lugar existe y está muy poblado. Cuando el escritor Céline, en su relato del naufragio humano titulado Viaje al fin de la noche,escribió aquello de que la verdad es una agonía que nunca termina, se colocaba en esa perspectiva y concluía que la única opción de supervivencia se resumía en mentir o morir. Mentirnos a nosotros mismos se convierte en un consuelo, y así nuestros Gobiernos, como entes superiores, nos mienten a nosotros mismos para tranquilizar conciencias por institución interpuesta. Lo raro en la crisis de los refugiados sirios de estas últimas semanas es que parte de la población europea le ha gritado a sus Gobiernos que no estaban dispuestos a aceptar la mentira un segundo más. Y entonces los Gobiernos se han visto obligados a cambiar el paso. Sucede siempre cuando la mentira es tan intragable que obliga a vomitar a los ciudadanos.
En la Europa de los tirones de orejas económicos ha aparecido un bloque insumiso a la caridad, fortalecido por la esencia nacionalista, que sostiene que el maltrato a los refugiados es la única opción real. Países que consideran, desde las más altas instancias, que la solidaridad se terminó con ellos mismos y ahora toca la mano dura con quienes llegan 15 minutos después de que se agotara la bondad. Son países que llamaron a la puerta de Europa y cuando entraron decidieron cerrar por dentro. Pero una de las líneas mayores de cinismo ha sido pronunciada por David Cameron cuando ante las imágenes de un niño ahogado en la costa ha reconocido que como padre se ha sentido impresionado y eso le ha hecho variar su política inflexible. Aprovechemos la alta cotización del niño muerto en la bolsa de gestos solidarios. Corramos a salvar alguna vida antes de que se agote la mecha y nos quedemos sin niños ahogados con que abrir en portada.
El vómito ciudadano ante sus dirigentes ha obligado a tomar medidas, lentas, pero saludables con respecto a los refugiados. Queda una indefinición en el aire, porque las políticas de reagrupamiento familiar, cuya dureza inhumana se cobró desde el Canadá la vida del niño de la foto, son también el escollo diario para desgarros familiares en nuestro país. Conviene no emocionarse demasiado con los gestos y legislar desde una mínima humanidad que levante un poco el listón desde el que comenzamos a mentirnos a nosotros mismos.
F.:http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/09/07/opinion/1441654042_633682.html
lunes, 7 de septiembre de 2015
El nombre de una estación de tren...
Visto en Flick.com
En una estación de tren de Rosario (Argentina).
domingo, 6 de septiembre de 2015
Demande-t-on à une île qui elle est?
(....)
Ouvre mon nom.
Ouvre le livre.
Le bonheur que l'on éprouve à aimer n'est pas, forcément, lié à un amour heureux. Il est besoin d'amour.
Dans le miroir de ma salle de bain, je vis apparaître un visage qui aurait pu être le mien mais dont il me semblait découvrir, pour la première fois, les traits.
Visage d'un autre et, cependant, si familier.
Groupant mes souvenirs, je retrouvais, à travers lui, l'homme avec lequel on me
confound mais dont je suis seul à savoir que, de tout temps, il fut, pour moi, un étranger. Brusquement, le visage disparut et le miroir,
ayant perdu sa raison d'être, ne refléta plus que le pan de mur, lisse et blanc, qui lui faisai face.
Page de verre et page de pierre, dialoguant
entre elles, solitaires et complices.
Le livre n'a point d'origine.
Jeune est le monde au regard de l'éternité et
si vieux, au regard de l'instant.
Demande-t-on à une île qui elle est?
La mer la flatte et l'étourdit.
Un jour, elle l'engloutira.
Fixée à rien. Fixée à l'eau.
"Comment vois-tu la liberté? - demanda le
disciple à son maître. "Telles, puet-être, deux ailes téméraires se
débattant, au ciel, désespérément contre le vent", répondit le maître.
Et il ajouta : "Reste à savoir, cependant, si --
comme tu l'as supposé aussi -- ces ailes sont bien celles d'un frêle oiseau de passage."
"Et si elles n'etaient pas les ailes du frêle oiseau? -- reprit le disciple.
"Plus juste -- dit, alors, le maître -- serait la comparison.
"L'image de la liberté serait le vent."
Chaque vérité œuvre pour sa vérité.
Modeste contribution à la Vérité universelle.
Notre foi en elle, la soutient.
...toutes ces petites vérités qui viennent miner l'idée que nous pourrions avoir d'une véritée unique.
-- Ce sont des fourmis -- pensais-je -- creu-
sant, imperturbables, leurs trous.
D'un écrou de mouvement, ne fais pas un
écrou de serrage.
"La vérité n'existe pas afin de permettre, sans
doute, à nos vérités d'exister," disait-il.
Et il ajoutait : "Le soleil une fois couché, dans
le vide espace céleste, scintillent, pour nos yeux levés, des myriades d'étoiles.
Ô solitude de chacune d'elles."
Nous errons dans la mort, éclairés par nos
vérités insistantes.
Immuable et juste est la loi. Moins sûre d'elle-
même, la justice.
Impossible à cerner est, peut-être, la Vérité.
S'efforcer de l'exprimer, c'est, souvent, faire
fausse route.
Déloyal, malgré lui, est le premier mot.
La vérité comme voie et non point comme voix?
Je crois. Je trace.
Lumière. Lumière.
"La vérité est un mot imprononçable," disait-il.
N'entrave pas la libre envolée de l'idée. Tu
serais le premier à regretter l'inconséquence de
ton geste.
L'âme est sans retenue.
Le moineau ignore le chien mais il prend garde au chat.
L'oeil rivé à la montre, tremblante attente. Chaque déplacement de l'aiguille te fait
sursauter, car elle te remet en question.
Si capricieux est le futur. Il nous surpendra
toujours. Attendre quoi, sinon la mort? Et nous la redoutons.
Attendre, peut-être, l'oubli de la mort.
Dieu n'est pas dans la réponse. Comme le diamant dans ses reflets, Il est dans la
miroitante question.
Ouvre le livre.
Le bonheur que l'on éprouve à aimer n'est pas, forcément, lié à un amour heureux. Il est besoin d'amour.
Dans le miroir de ma salle de bain, je vis apparaître un visage qui aurait pu être le mien mais dont il me semblait découvrir, pour la première fois, les traits.
Visage d'un autre et, cependant, si familier.
Groupant mes souvenirs, je retrouvais, à travers lui, l'homme avec lequel on me
confound mais dont je suis seul à savoir que, de tout temps, il fut, pour moi, un étranger. Brusquement, le visage disparut et le miroir,
ayant perdu sa raison d'être, ne refléta plus que le pan de mur, lisse et blanc, qui lui faisai face.
Page de verre et page de pierre, dialoguant
entre elles, solitaires et complices.
Le livre n'a point d'origine.
Jeune est le monde au regard de l'éternité et
si vieux, au regard de l'instant.
Demande-t-on à une île qui elle est?
La mer la flatte et l'étourdit.
Un jour, elle l'engloutira.
Fixée à rien. Fixée à l'eau.
"Comment vois-tu la liberté? - demanda le
disciple à son maître. "Telles, puet-être, deux ailes téméraires se
débattant, au ciel, désespérément contre le vent", répondit le maître.
Et il ajouta : "Reste à savoir, cependant, si --
comme tu l'as supposé aussi -- ces ailes sont bien celles d'un frêle oiseau de passage."
"Et si elles n'etaient pas les ailes du frêle oiseau? -- reprit le disciple.
"Plus juste -- dit, alors, le maître -- serait la comparison.
"L'image de la liberté serait le vent."
Chaque vérité œuvre pour sa vérité.
Modeste contribution à la Vérité universelle.
Notre foi en elle, la soutient.
...toutes ces petites vérités qui viennent miner l'idée que nous pourrions avoir d'une véritée unique.
-- Ce sont des fourmis -- pensais-je -- creu-
sant, imperturbables, leurs trous.
D'un écrou de mouvement, ne fais pas un
écrou de serrage.
"La vérité n'existe pas afin de permettre, sans
doute, à nos vérités d'exister," disait-il.
Et il ajoutait : "Le soleil une fois couché, dans
le vide espace céleste, scintillent, pour nos yeux levés, des myriades d'étoiles.
Ô solitude de chacune d'elles."
Nous errons dans la mort, éclairés par nos
vérités insistantes.
Immuable et juste est la loi. Moins sûre d'elle-
même, la justice.
Impossible à cerner est, peut-être, la Vérité.
S'efforcer de l'exprimer, c'est, souvent, faire
fausse route.
Déloyal, malgré lui, est le premier mot.
La vérité comme voie et non point comme voix?
Je crois. Je trace.
Lumière. Lumière.
"La vérité est un mot imprononçable," disait-il.
N'entrave pas la libre envolée de l'idée. Tu
serais le premier à regretter l'inconséquence de
ton geste.
L'âme est sans retenue.
Le moineau ignore le chien mais il prend garde au chat.
L'oeil rivé à la montre, tremblante attente. Chaque déplacement de l'aiguille te fait
sursauter, car elle te remet en question.
Si capricieux est le futur. Il nous surpendra
toujours. Attendre quoi, sinon la mort? Et nous la redoutons.
Attendre, peut-être, l'oubli de la mort.
Dieu n'est pas dans la réponse. Comme le diamant dans ses reflets, Il est dans la
miroitante question.
Edmond Jabès
Angoisse d'une seule fin
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)