Whatever

This is truly the last time I shall comment on Israel, promise.

* * *

I've truly tired of this country, as I'm sure many others have. As far as I'm concerned, if there is a single nation on earth truly capable of starting World War III out of sheer truculence and a piss-poor attitude, it is the Jewish state. It is amazing how not only Israeli leaders but Israeli citizens (and untold millions of supporters around the world), too, cannot conceive of said country doing harm to anyone. It doesn't matter that we now begin seeing, especially through the work of what are called The New (Israeli) Historians, that the state in question was founded upon planned ethnic cleansing. And it doesn't matter when a UN panel -or any other panel, for that matter- headed by a respected Jewish jurist finds Israeli leaders to have acted like war criminals: fuck it!, Israel can do whatever it wishes, and always hide behind the "we're defending ourselves" bullshit they've been uttering since 1948. And I say it's bullshit because, if it were true, the Jewish state would at least make an effort, which it never has, to not provoke or, worst, not start every war it's ever been involved in.

It is fast becoming an academic question whether or not those who founded and, since '48, ran Israel sought to ethnically cleanse the land, or to make a Palestinian state inviable. For even if we don't see a purely Jewish state (which, let's face it, is not an ethnic question, since Judaism is a religion, not a race or ethnicity), Palestinian statehood and Palestinian dignity are now (and have arguably been for a long time) an impossibility. Even if the US and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe, were to withdraw their financial and military support; and even if Arab (and Iranian) leaders were to somehow magically become even merely competent, Palestine and Palestinians are fucked (and it would be wise to mention the share of blame one can lay at Palestians' doorstep for their current state of affairs, since the leaders they have followed, whether optionally or not, either consisted of Nazi sympathizers, gangsters, religious fanatics, or those who were/are simply too bewildered to a decent job).

Eventually, most Arab states will be bribed into peace with Israel, very much like what happened with Egypt and Jordan. It won't, of course, be a real peace; the peace that Egypt and Jordan have with the Jewish state will only exist as long as these Arab states are ruled with an iron fist. But it will be enough for the Western world to congratulate itself endlessly and for Israelis to fool themselves into believing that they were indeed always looking for peace, and that it was those goddamn fucking sand niggers that continuously kept postponing the dream.

Like I said, whatever; I'm gonna go write about Michael Bolton or something, it'll be much more productive than commenting on a fixed game with inevitable results. So fuck Israel and the US for it's blind, unwavering support, fuck the Arab world for being so incredibly incompetent and inert, and a symbolic candle to Palestinians, who are fucked beyond return.

Ebeneezer, Conspiracy Theories, and Misunderstanding Occam's Razor

Ebeneezer, a very good friend of mine, is probably one of the more interesting people I know. He is, first of all, bright and clever -always a welcome combination (or not). Moreover, he is a man of extreme talent, ever ready to learn something new, whether in music, technology, or cooking fish. He has also studied political science, history, and psychology whilst in college and when completing his masters, but for some reason hates discussing any of these topics. Be it some dinner conversation on Brazil's future or some musing (at, say, a bar) on the political economy, Ebeneezer, for whatever reason, dislikes (or so he tells us) discussing these or similar matters.

He also gets extremely annoyed when someone does indeed start discussing history, political science, or psychology and says that a certain event has taken place for something other than the simplest of reasons. (This would be Neezer's insistence on Occam's Razor, though he's getting the definition wrong, as most people do, confusing topicality with simplicity). Like when I insist that the latest war in Iraq began for reasons other than messianism (i.e., bringing Jesus and free markets to those heathen Muslim protectionists for the sake of all civilization). According to him, these are conspiracy theories and therefor ridiculous.

Like many, many others, my friend of old assumes that there are no conspiracies, that people do not get together and conspire to do a, b, or c. Funny and tragic at the same time: being from Brazil, he should understand that not only do many conspiracy theories exist, but some of them are no longer theories, such as Globo Television attempting to defraud the 1982 Rio de Janeiro elections for Governor. To Ebeneezer, this would be absurd: never would Globo's owner, Roberto Marinho, do such a thing! Never would he have such power! Then again, there's that BBC documentary from 1993, Beyond Citizen Kane, which Globo had courts prohibit from circulating in Brazil, and the very helpful book on Globo by V.C Brittos and C.R.S. Bolaño, which detail (beyond doubt, in my opinion) just how powerful Marinho was and Globo continues to be. Ebeneezer would do well to check out these sources, but something tells me he won't.

As Noam Chomsky once observed (actually, he did so many times, since he is incredibly repetitive), a lot of folks, usually from sectors of the establishment, like to dismiss any notion that several individuals might conspire against the public good as, again, conspiracy theories. They do so with disgust, a frown or menacing look on their faces. So when we suggest Florida's Secretary of State, Kathleen Harris, helped steal the 2000 election for George W. Bush, it's a conspiracy theory. When it is pointed out that wars are started to increase corporate profits, (amongst other reasons, obviously) we're lunatics, the kind of people that think no one ever landed on the moon. When it is suggested that the American Media purposefully presents the Israel-Palestine conflict in a very biased fashion, with an obvious favoritism towards the Jewish State, we're crazy, prone to hateful "anti-semitic" propaganda (the quotes are due to the fact that anti-semitic is used in a mistaken fashion in the US and much of the world, implying that only Jews are Semites). And, of course, the latest episode recently seen in the news showing a willingness by some of its major participants to conspire against the public good is the latest financial crisis, with Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke continuously cheating the American public out of hundreds of billions, soon to be trillions of dollars to help out banks, financial institutions, and other major corporations that, since the eighties (at least), have been making one outrageous mistake after another, creating a shitball of ill-conceived choices that has ultimately led us to the present state of things -that, my friends, is just hippie Marxist ranting.

I'm sure Neezer would simply read a post like this and piss all over it, since it is presumably full of crap: to my good friend, Iraq was but a series of debacles born of dumbfounding incompetence, oil was never a real issue; Globo and its (thankfully) now-defunct owner Marinho aren't/weren't as powerful or mean-spirited as they are/were made out to be; the 2000 US Presidential election was never stolen, it was simply organization incompetence at work; wars are started with a dynamic all their own (very true), but never due to private interests (laughable); Israel just chanced into unbridled, unquestioning support from the American government and population; and Paulson and Bernanke would never act out of naked self-interest or to shamelessly help out their rich finance mates. In Ebeneezer's magical world, when something doesn't happen in a vacuum, we can always understand events as people fucking up or getting really lucky; otherwise, the explanation's faulty. There are no class interests, folks don't conspire, people don't scheme.

Again, it would be funny were it not tragic; it's like a brilliant mind going to waste. Ultimately, I understand complaints that the lament I just uttered in this post is without importance, for indeed it is; actually, this post is here just so I can tell Ebeneezer, should he ever again make fun of my "tendency to believe in conspiracy theories", that he can go fuck himself, with evidence provided. But all kidding aside, I do hope that this post might help my ever-talented, ever-skeptical good friend and bandmate to see the world is actually more complicated than his misreading of Occam's Razor would have him believe.

Obs. 1: Neezer, in case you're wondering: yes, I love you, and for trashing you I owe you a nice single malt and a blowjob, though I guess you'll only want the former.

Obs. 2: The video concerning the American Media's bias towards Israel is quite revealing but I can't embed it; I strongly urge the reader to see it, though, it brings to light issues with which many are not familiar.

Laços de Família

O que mais me traz arrepios em blogs, especialmente quando em sites de relacionamento, é o tom confessionário de alguns deles, quando seus/suas autores(as) nos contam de suas últimas compras, suas últimas fodas e o quão verbalmente abusivo era o técnico de tênis que tinham aos quinze anos. É uma puta duma chatice e, além de ser um grande indicador da solidão da nossa sociedade dita pós-moderna, é uma maneira de certificar-se de que tal solidão permaneça intocada, não tratada.

Uma pena, já que aqui vai uma confissão.

Sou, como os dois ou três leitores deste blog bem sabem (beleza aí, Marquinhos? Certo aí, Pots?), um hipócrita: reclamo da miopia das pessoas quando estas não enxergam além do Capital, do Estado e de Deus, mas o faço do extremo conforto de Capital acumulado pela minha família (um computador bacanão, livros e revistas mil, etc.).  Enfim, sou (meio que) um bostão, não tenho muita envergadura moral para reclamar do jeito que reclamo, mas penso ser muito pior fazer de conta que um defeito de personalidade (o meu seria um gritante conformismo) me impeça de perceber algumas realidades por aquilo que são (ou, para usar a terminologia marxista, não ser refém de uma eventual falsa consciência, apesar de tal conceito ser, sim, bastante contestável).

Por exemplo, ter dinheiro no Brasil não significa que você automaticamente é ladrão, i(a)moral, de direita, etc. Pode-se até ser o que os franceses chamam de gauche-caviar (que é o meu caso, diga-se de passagem), mas mesmo isso não implica que devamos aceitar o conservadorismo, ou o reacionarismo; não vejo porque falhas de caráter como as que tenho deveriam fazer-me automaticamente me filiar ao DEM.

A razão, então, pela qual contesto as opiniões de muitos membros de meus familiares: o conservadorismo socio-econômico e religioso destes me é nojento, verdadeiramente escroto, em descompasso com os tempos (exceto, claro, no Brasil, onde insistimos em viver num eterno passado). Enquanto o bonde da história transporta-nos a possibilidade do multiculturalismo, do pluralismo, de um maior entendimento com O Outro, meus familiares (há, claro, nobres exceções) insistem em ser classistas, racistas, xenófobos, avessos a outras religiões que não o Judaísmo, belicistas e reacionários; ao leitor que não acreditar em mim, resta-me apenas estender um convite a um jantar ou em minha residência ou na de minha avó, curiosamente a duas quadras de onde moro.

Melhor exemplo não há do que Kleison (nome fictício). Kleison é um homem culto, lido, tem fundos, maravilhosa família, etc. Não é um ser qualquer, um daqueles filósofos de poltrona que ao ler uma reportagem sobre espiões na Super Interessante decreta-se pronto a chefiar a CIA (ou, nos dias de hoje, a Abin). Formado em Direito pela PUC-SP (ainda uma das melhores escolas no Brasil para tal disciplina), Kleison certamente é bem versado naquilo que é, pela maioria das sociedades do Ocidente e muitas do Oriente, aceito como certo e errado, moral e imoral (ética, claro, é outro papo).

Mas Kleison vê o mundo não através das possibilidades que este oferece, e sim pelo prisma do medo do Outro e, portanto, daquilo que ele deseja que o mundo deixe de oferecer. Afim de explicar, vale a pena verificar suas escolhas ideológicas para com a política no Brasil.

Primeiro, a aceitação cega daquilo que a Grande Imprensa (ou a "mídia nativa", como a denomina Mino Carta) diz ser a Verdade. E como é integrante da Classe A, a Revista Veja é sua fonte de Verdade;  o fato de a revista em questão ser claramente golpista não importa, já que ele mesmo participaria de um golpe contra o governo Lula (mais acerca disto em seguida); o fato de a revista em questão ser fonte do jornalismo mais chulo hoje visto no Brasil (clicar aqui e aqui para meros dois exemplos) não só não o impressiona como não registra, para começo de conversa.

Depois, um ódio visceral e absolutamente irracional para com o PT. Agora, vale aqui uma ressalva: não resta dúvida, ao meu ver, que o PT não só tornou-se um partido igual aos outros partidos grandes do Brasil (corrupto, sem ideologia ou projeto político, unicamente preocupado com a manutenção do poder), como é infinitamente mais desapontador em seu esfalecimento do que foi, por exemplo, o PSDB já que, a certa altura do campeonato, chegou a representar uma grande possibilidade de mudança. Mas isso Kleison não vê: ao invés, cínico, enxerga o fracasso retumbante do PT no simples fato de que todo e qualquer partido precisa ser, no Brasil, corrupto. Como disse Oscar Wilde, "the cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing", e Kleison cabe certinho nesta descrição, portanto ignorando qualquer projeto de um Brasil melhor que provenha de um partido político. Ele dirá que, por hora, tal projeto é possível através do PSDB, mas ignora que tal partido, nos 8 anos em que esteve no poder, agiu de maneira idêntica àquela do PT recente, com a exceção de que, respaldados pela mídia nativa (para isso, ver O Consenso Forjado, de Francisco Fonseca), não sofreram escrutínio em demasia quando compravam votos para reeleger Fernando Henrique Cardoso ou quando sumiam com as centenas de bilhões de dólares provenientes das privatizações dos anos 90.

Grande parte deste grotesco cinismo de Kleison (e tantos outros membros de minha família) tem sua origem no mais absoluto classismo e racismo. Não é aceitável, ao ver destes, que um ex-metalúrgico nordestino que, por bem ou por mal, representa, de alguma maneira, os pobres (e, portanto, muitos não-brancos e, pior, não-judeus!) seja Presidente da República, que tenha em suas mãos, por exemplo, o poder para com o Orçamento da União. Se ele foi o Presidente que mais ajudou a tornar os ricos mais ricos; se foi ele o presidente que mais favoreceu as instituições financeiras no Brasil, nada disso importa, pois Lula é (e, para a grande maioria de meus familiares, nunca deixará de ser) um sujeito pobre (pecado #1), analfabeto (pecado #2), proletário (pecado #3) e, independente do que hoje fala o presidente, de esquerda (pecado #4).

Tendo isso em mente, qualquer vitória do presente governo no âmbito social e político é mera obra do acaso. Logo, qualquer bom sinal proveniente do Bolsa Família é ou vitória exclusiva de Ruth Cardoso, criadora do programa, ou resultado de altos preços de commodities. Nunca o programa em questão (cuja mera existência, diga-se de passagem, considero vergonhosa para o País como um todo) pode ter obtido sucesso pelo esforço daqueles que o promovem, planejam e executam. Pior: nos é dito que o Bolsa Família e péssimo para o Brasil porque faz com que seus beneficiados não queiram trabalhar. Que o Bolsa Família paga muitas vezes menos de R$100 para quem faz parte dele, ou que o dito "efeito preguiça" seja uma lenda fundada mais em ódio de classe do que em dados empíricos, é obviamente irrelevante, já que pelo menos no discurso que ouço de minha família a uns vinte-e-poucos anos, lugar de pobre é ou servindo ao rico ou na cadeia. (Quem quiser maiores informações a respeito do programa pode verificar este artigo do Le Monde Diplomatique Brasil ou, se tiver tempo, pesquisar os dados relevantes através das fontes usadas pelo autor do artigo como, por exemplo, a PNAD.)

Para completar este ódio, similar àquele visto em 1984 quando os habitantes da Oceania vilificam Goldstein, traidor-mor do Partido, é sempre divertido verificar que qualquer defesa das vitórias do presente governo é imediatamente atacado com alguma interjeição do tipo "petista de merda!", ou "pára de ler panfleto do PT, caralho!". É uma impossibilidade até física para meus familiares imaginarem que dar mérito ao governo Lula por suas conquistas não implica automaticamente apoio incondicional ao governo, ou que não haja sérias ressalvas para com o mesmo (atitude esta similar a incapacidade de muita gente na esquerda brasileira de dar mérito aos governos Itamar Franco e FHC por conta de suas políticas econômicas, por exemplo, que têm indubitáveis qualidades). Exemplo disto é a atitude de Kleison junto ao já mencionado Mino Carta, editor de Carta Capital: um vendido, segundo meu tio, simplesmente porque Carta declarou abertamente seu apoio a Lula em 2002 e 2006. Carta fez o que a vasta maioria da grande imprensa do primeiro mundo faz, ao dar o apoio de sua revista a um político candidato a presidente/primeiro-ministro (nunca vi Kleison falar mal da Economist por abertamente apoiar Barack Obama). Mas, visto que a nossa Grande Imprensa nunca divulga abertamente seu apoio aos seus candidatos (quase sempre de direita), a atitude de Carta o transforma em bandido. Seria risível se, mais uma vez, não estivéssemos falando de alguém com diploma universitário e pelo menos algum treinamento em lógica (Kleison, afinal, é advogado).

Eu poderia, sem exagero, transformar este post em dissertação: poderia falar da hipocrisia de Kleison (e, aliás, de quase toda minha família) quando se trata do conflito Israelo-Palestino, onde os israelenses estão sempre certos, respeitem eles ou não o direito internacional. Se os israelenses querem ocupar Gaza ou a Cisjordânia, não só podem como devem; se um palestino reagir e for morto junto a sua família, é mais um terrorista que se foi. É uma cegueira ideológica violenta, pois já se trata de doutrina: judeus são sempre perfeitos e sempre vítimas, e o fato que o mundo (ou, como insisto em dizer, o bonde da história) acredita cada vez menos neste discurso nefasto simplesmente quer dizer que há 6-e-alguma-coisa bilhões de anti-judeus por aí, obrigando nós pobres coitados judeus a aceitar e permitir que Israel tenha mais de 200 ogivas nucleares e colonize qualquer território que bem entender; devemos, no final das contas, tratar Israel (e, claro, os EUA) como um time de futebol, e a ela nos dedicarmos de maneira absolutamente irracional, como corintianos que choram no estádio quando seu time cai para a Segunda Divisão.

Poderia também falar de seu preconceito para com homossexuais, como quando disse que Foucault era um devasso, um perverso, simplesmente porque buscava uma maior liberdade sexual para as pessoas. Chegou, inclusive, a dizer que a minha curiosidade para com o pensador francês era parecida com a curiosidade que tantos tinham pelas idéias de Hitler nos anos 20 e 30; seria gozado se, em sua absurda ignorância, não fosse triste. Digo desde já que considero Foucault um interessante historiador e, enquanto filósofo, um masturbador que algumas vezes acertou em suas descrições e considerações.  Mas Kleison, um tanto homofóbico e machista, já não consegue aceitar a busca do autor de História da Sexualidade por maior liberdade porque este era gay e morreu devido à AIDS. É aquele velho papo que o comportamento devasso dos viados (sic) trouxe o HIV ao mundo, mas que sempre ignora que a guetoização, assim por dizer, de um grupo de pessoas pode nos levar a desconsiderar a verdadeira natureza de um evento como a AIDS. Hoje, vemos que AIDS afeta gente em geral, e que a homofobia de pessoas como Ronald Reagan nos impediu de começar mais cedo a busca pelo entendimento da doença e um possível tratamento em âmbito internacional.

Enfim, poderia aqui escrever ad infinitum sobre Kleison e seu conservadorismo. Aliás, sobre ele e tantos familiares meus. Escrevo, na verdade, porque acho lamentável ver-me cercado por pessoas bem mais inteligentes e capazes do que eu que insistem em serem reacionários da pior espécie, aquela que o faz para não se avaliar ou reavaliar. Vejo aqueles mais próximos a mim insistirem no ódio, no preconceito, no mesmo tipo de atitude que, na pior das hipóteses, pode levar a exatamente o tipo de comportamento coletivo sobre o qual alguns deles tanto se obcecam: o nazismo. A vida inteira escutei que devemos recordar do holocausto promovido pelos nacionais-socialistas alemães, que é tão fácil repetir aqueles terríveis anos; mesmo assim, vejo em Kleison e tantos outros entes queridos o mesmo tipo de pensamento, a mesma atitude que ajudou Hitler, Himmler, Hydrich e tantos outros a não só obterem poder como também usá-lo para fins dos mais cruéis e desumanos. Quando no colégio, um professor de história, Jeff Lippman, perguntou ao final de um filme sobre campos de concentração se qualquer um de nós poderia fazer o que fizeram os alemães. Na hora, ingênuo, respondi que não, mas vejo em minha própria família que ser nazista, tornar-se cruel e indiferente, é demasiado fácil.

Now that the Masturbation is Over

The last year or so of US elections has been the biggest circle jerk I've seen in my entire life; the willingness of otherwise sane and reasonable people, both in the US and abroad, to treat Barack Obama as God's gift to humanity was frightening. It is perfectly understandable that after eight years of G.W. Bush, people should look forward to some sort of shift (or change, as Obama followers/worshippers kept repeating for the past year or so), but this blind devotion, this reckless following of the man's every move and every word, should be of some concern.

Especially because we must not forget that Obama is now the president-elect not of Mali or Bhutan, but of the United States of America. We've already seen what this entails when we were still in the Democratic primaries, and both Obama and Hillary Clinton went to grovel at the feet of Israel (represented, it would seem, by AIPAC) -here is a transcript of Obama's speech to the organization. It is surreal (or is it unreal?) how every presidential candidate since 1967 (the date the Israelis proved "useful" to the US in keeping them frisky Arabs in their place) has had to pledge alligiance and undying support, right or wrong, to Israel. That said country's intentions towards those whose territories it occupies might be most sinister, or that the country regularly proves to be incredibly biggoted and indifferent to others' cultures or feelings, is apparently irrelevant. Of course, Obama might have been lying (or something to that effect) when pledging his eternal love for Israel over AIPAC's watchful eyes; perhaps he is sane enough to realize the US is the one country that can force the Israelis to go for peace by simply not paying for their present attitudes. Here's hoping that's true, not just for the sake of Palestinians or Iranians, but for the sake of Israelis, too (after all, as Eric Alterman pointed out, Israel is much more than the conflict we see on TV or read about in irrelevant blogs such as this one).

But Israel is one part of the problem: already, Obama plans to focus on Afghanistan -soon to become his own Vietnam, as such a war is, at least according to America's British allies, unwinnable (and if not unwinnable, too costly). If his plan for change is to leave Iraq (quite sensible) and fight the Taliban (utterly useless and stupid), then his followers and worshippers are in for a surprise. As a general prediction (something I'm not particularly good at), it might be wise for Obama's legions to realize his strategies for foreign policy, though not as awful as those of G.W. Bush, are no great improvement over the mistakes America has been committing since the end of the Cold War.

Worry also stems, again concerning Obama's inexhaustable supply of blind devotees, from the man's choice in cabinet, from keeping Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense to making Robert Rubin a part of the economics team for the White House. If by change he simply means not being as bad as Bush, great, he's well on his way; real change in this particular matter, however, seems to be a rather distant dream. This again brings us back to what being the President of the USA means and entails, and one can't seriously expect any drastic, shocking change to come about in a country as conservative and as addicted to the status quo as America.

To see just how conservative America and Americans are, it would be wise to consider another side of the election, which is where a sizeable portion of the citizenry chose to formally declare through the vote that gays and lesbians (and, in some places, unmarried people in general) are lesser citizens. Not only this, but a whopping 48% of the popular vote went to John McCain; and considering the past eight years and said candidate's brutally incompetent campaign (not to mention his choice of VP in Sarah Palin, of whom we have "shocking" new revelations), 48% of the popular vote indicates a huge amount of people that still buy the shtick, the nonsense that emanates from the Republican "information" machine, from the party being all about smaller government and less taxes to its ideals being about success for all and love of family. 48% of the popular vote is, at this point in time, frightening.

But we must be realistic: Obama's election is a huge victory for America, even if the man turns out to be as much of a lie as Bill Clinton was. A black man (or, still in some parts of the country, a nigger) being elected to the nation's top political post is nothing short of dazzling, a victory not only of common sense but of Justice, social and otherwise. It is now almost possible to believe once again that the United States is a land of opportunity for all, that it is indeed a country of greatness. It might have been important that Obama's message won, were it not shameless propaganda, but it is of paramount importance that he won; between having a walking victory for civil rights, an individual both calm and serene, in the White House, as opposed to a war-mongering shit who trades in fear and masturbates to the Cold War: it might be wise to go with the former. It is also safe to say that if McCain had taken the vote (or shall we say Palin, for McCain is quasi-senile and about to exit, stage left, from some form or other of cancer), any hope of America becoming halfway decent again could have been tossed in the shitter for good. Thankfully, we can use the shitter for other purposes.

I sincerely do hope Obama's campaign message materializes into something other than crude, disgusting propaganda, and I do hope that he might help make a better America not just for Americans but for the whole world as well. It is high time someone stepped into the Oval Office and took the United States from being a rogue country, a danger to civilization itself, and made it into the dream we've always wanted to believe the US might be. It is worrisome that he has stepped into office with such blind devotion following his every move, his every word, but it can't be too much to hope (yes, that word again) that such devotion might prove well-founded in the end. Caution is called for because being President of the United States more often than not entails preventing change rather than promoting it, and it is essentially this notion which makes Obama worship worrisome. But if the man does turn out to be the agent of change he (and his fans) professes to be and tranforms the US from an agent of agression to an agent of peace; and from a country of inequality and religious fanaticism to a land of economic and social justice and tolerance, then we are in for a truly wondrous and happy surprise. May it be so.

Back From the Holy Land

In response to Marcos's comments on my post "Trip to the Holy Land":

1) The Monthly Review is a pretty decent publication: it's authors write well, back themselves up, and serve a clearly-stated editorial line. The magazine's been around for some thirty years, it's founders were two well-known economists (Sweezy and Huberman), and many of its writings seem vindicated on economics (our current meltdown) and Israel (given PM Olmert's latest statements and what Israel must do to obtain peace).

2) I criticize Brazil and the US just as much, probably more. Israel is just that much worst because it is automatically suppose to be a Saintly nation, its people innocent of any wrong-doing, and all of us Jews are apparently to stand by its side right or wrong. It's annoying, and these old men from São Paulo are exactly the type of fascist assholes that get on my nerves. And the reason I started this blog is to give my nerves a break.

Mini Trip to the Holy Land, continued

My post "On Jews and Being Jewish" also mentioned the conflict between religious and secular sectors of Israeli society. The following post from MuzzleWatch clarifies this a great deal.

Mini-Trip to the Holy Land

As stated in a previous post, I've been termed self-loathing because, amongst other reasons, I:

1. Don't consider myself Jewish, and
2. Don't like Israel. At all.

As for item 1, it is explained, to a certain degree, in the post I mentioned ("On Jews and Being Jewish"). As for item 2, well, the evidence just seems to mount, year after year, as to why Israel is not the victim it always claims to be. One example amongst many -and the many can be found in the link to the If Americans Knew website I've put on my blog- is this one, where the Israelis are planning a renewal of Jaffa by simply expelling its Palestinian residents.

A few years back, if someone told me that I was a self-hating Jew for doubting Israel, I would've been a bit shaken. However, as I keep reading about the state of Israel, I become surer by the day that if not supporting what said state does means I hate myself, then so be it.

On Jews and Being Jewish

Supposedly, I'm Jewish. However, something tells me there's no such thing as "Jewish" as much as Hebrew, say. What there is is Jews, or the Jewish religion. And religion, as I have expressed earlier, is shit. I have no qualms in being egalitarian, so to speak, in holding in contempt not only "my" religion, but everybody else's (and I include here the militant atheism of Dawkins and Co.), especially the three religions of the Book, which are particularly hateful and which these days add nothing but ignorance and despair to whatever humanity it is we have left.

However, since the Church made sure that it would be the world's bastion of violence and ignorance for centuries on end; and since Islam has revealed itself to be particularly inept at living in a post-Enlightenment world (hell: it is still, for all practical purposes, stuck in the Middle Ages), Jews have been seen as reasonable, sane, down to earth, different from the other two more "barbaric" religions.

Which is why this makes me smile. Seriously, it makes me smile. It reminds me that not belonging to anything that can be remotely close to this nonsense is a profoundly wise decision, all modesty aside.

It also reminds me that the difference between ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel and ultra-orthodox Muslims in Afghanistan taking or having power, is a matter of timing and historical forces. Concerning the history, we once again have the issue of Judaism having not only faced the Enlightenment but also having learned and matured from it (which is why, up until Hitler, there were so many assimilated Jews in Europe who simply didn't care that they were Jews), which Muslims clearly did not. So, with Israel, we have a violence towards Arabs that many times stems from a series of sources, such as religion itself, ethnicity, and nationalism, whereas the Taliban is not nationalistic in the slightest, though they claim otherwise.

But how long before this small group of ultra-orthodox Jews we see in the article above see their behavior become the norm? It's a walk in the park to find Jews in Israel or the United States who have no issue with Israel being a terrorist state, since the Arabs are non-white/Muslim/choose-your-prejudice (and, for that matter, there seems to be no problem with evangelical Christians on this front, as verified by the US's Republican Party's stance towards Israel). If the Israeli government were to pursue an actual peace plan (with a US green light, of course), it is very likely a civil war would ensue in said state. After all, what would a militaristic soceity, run by warriors and religious hot-heads, do with itself if all of a sudden it were left without its principal enemy?

However (there's always good news somewhere), a growing number of Israelis (as evidenced by the mushrooming local peace movement, led by B'Tselem) and an ever-increasing number of practicing Jews throughout the world are already beginning to question openly what Israel is about, and whether it can ever move past its enmities, real or imagined; whether the state in question will be more than a watchdog for America and a playground for nationalist and religious zealots in its free time. They are finally beginning to realize that you either have a theocracy (Israel is, after all, a Jewish State) or a democracy. There is no meeting point between the two.

It has been suggested that I am self-loathing, principally because I refuse "my" religion (and "my" state, or so it would seem). I cannot comprehend, however, how it is that I and these ultra-orthodox Jews pictured in the Guardian's article share anything in common, save our common humanity, which they seem to utterly despise. But their attitudes are grounded on a doctrine, a doctrine available for anyone to read, for anyone to share or not. I choose not to. I refuse to be identified with people who, at the end of the day, are the real Judaism, the Judaism found in the Torah, the one where women, homosexuals and non-Jews are the scum of the Earth. I don't belong to a Chosen People, unless the chosen are unconditionally you and me, and I can't agree to be amongst those that pick and choose, based on words written by barbarians from thousands of years ago, who they will and will not consider their friends and foes.

Revolta

Fui descrito ontem à noite como revoltado. Senti tons de desaprovação. Então, após meses de inatividade....

Como ilustraram Bakunin e Camus, ser revoltado é ser humano. Mas não confundamos revoltado com revolucionário, nem revoltado com simplesmente bravo. Eu não estou bravo, nem sou grande crente em revoluções. Mas revoltar-se contra esse mar de merda que vejo ao meu redor, permeando a vida pública e vida privada: não vejo isso como nada mais que humano.

Itsván Mészáros certa vez postulou que sofríamos (e continuamos a sofrer) uma crise de subjetividade: não vemos para além do capital. Concordo, mas também não vemos para além do Estado, muito menos de Deus. É uma miopia gritante, sufoca.

Revolto-me contra o que cerceia a liberdade, e essas três instituições acima -Deus, Estado e o Capital- fazem exatamente isso. Ser humano é não aceitar a mediocridade de aceitar. Portanto, revoltar-se.

Vejo como prova de que a revolta é válida essa guinada patética que o mundo, a partir do final dos anos 70, deu para a direita. Pensou-se que era melhor ter ordem do que justiça. Concluiu-se ser mais desejável financeirizar a economia mundial, transformando o Estado (que de maneira alguma diminuiu de tamanho, vide os EUA) em instrumento subordinado a quem detém controle do capital. Deu no que deu: tirando o Chile de Augusto Pinochet, nenhuma economia neoliberal conseguiu crescimento que não fosse, quando comparado àquele do período do capitalismo denomimado "dourado" (pós-guerra ao primeiro Choque do Petróleo), pífio, dependente sempre de bolhas. Países que tiveram crescimento notável ou eram/viraram social-democratas (Inglaterra, por incrível que pareça) ou usam trabalho escravo (Índia e China, por exemplo).

Além da economia, pensou-se em trocar, como é típico do pensamento da direita, justiça por ordem. E deu no que deu: aumento da criminalidade (em geral, como no Brasil, ou da delinqüência juvenil, como na Grã-Bretanha), do uso de drogas, da gravidez precoces, dos casos de DSTs...

Como notou Orwell, entre outros, o mundo, desde a final da era Vitoriana tem em suas mãos a possibilidade de acabar com a fome, com a miséria, com a necessidade. Curiosamente, cá estamos, com fomes aguçadas pelo mercado (ver, por exemplo, o trabalho de Amartya Sen a respeito da quão eficaz é o mercado, ou o trabalho de Joseph Stiglitz, a respeito da possibilidade econômica da não-intervenção estatal em assuntos fiscais e monetários); uma epidemia que alastra-se mundo afora, em grande parte por causa de conservadorismo derivado de religião; e crises financeiras seríssimas a cada década.

Revolto-me porque não vemos além daquilo que nos impossibilita de ser livre. Quanto a Deus, o já-mencionado Bakunin disse tudo: é o maior algoz da humanidade (a respeito disso, ver o seu livro Deus e o Estado). O Estado existe para si mesmo; é no mínimo ingênuo pensar que ele suprirá as necessidades de alguém a não ser ele próprio. Quanto ao Capital, este trouxe um mundo melhor do que aquele que havia antes dele, mas não trouxe uma sociedade justa. E sem justiça, não há ordem, e sem justiça não há liberdade.

Se aceitar as coisas como são valesse a pena, o Brasil não seria o caos que é hoje, com uma elite nefasta (elite essa da qual faço parte, diga-se de passagem) que acaba com todas as possibilidades de todos os brasileiros e do próprio país. Aceitar as coisas como são deu-nos o mundo que hoje temos: mais perto de uma guerra nuclear, de catástrofes ambientais, mais perto do fim de tudo.

Ser rico, crer em Deus, ou ser burocrata não é desculpa para nada. O desejo de ser rico transformou o EUA no país mais perigoso do mundo; crer em Deus (e tudo que isso implica) fez de Israel um estado racista, assassino e suicida (ó, ironia!); e elevar a burocracia à patamar de divindade fez da China o maior país escravocrata do planeta. Revoltar-se é apenas abrir os olhos para o que está bem em frente do nariz e parar de olhar para a porra do umbigo.

Nota: quando acabarem minhas aulas, escrevo mais.

Our Favorite Uncle, at it Again

So the US got censured by the UN again; this time, the big no-no was waterboarding. And, as usual, it is highly likely the US government, a large portion of its population, and an even bigger swath of its political class don't give a flying fart. After all, we're talking about a country that has sent it's foreign prisoners to Egypt and Syria (yes, Syria) to be "questioned". Human Rights Watch just stated on 1 February that the US and Britain were being hypocritical when it came to dictators, despots, flawed polls, and sending prisoners and such to be tortured abroad. In the meantime,these two bastions of freedom and liberty hear of allies like Russia and Israel doing similar things and turn a blind eye.

No news here, of course, we've known this forever. But not always all of it. So, in the spirit of public service -and isn't that what blogs are supposed to be about- I've posted here a few more sites for my few?/sole?/inexistent? reader(s) to check out. All, of course, with the best intentions. PG-13 stuff, you know...

First up is Rebel Resource, which always has some interesting reading here and there. More interesting, though, are the links to other sites, like the Norman Finkelstein archives. Then there's LeftWatch, which is precisely what one needs when reading not only Rebel Resource but the links located in it as well. It's a good site, well researched, and most of the stuff is thoughtful and well-written.

More important, though, is If Americans Knew, which has been around for some time, now, and been doing, from what I understand, a fairly good job of amassing a substantial amount of information concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Worth a look.

* * *

Carnaval's over. May this have been the last one.