Cosas tan obvias que me da miedo decirlas

Modernity is a moving target. It is drifting constantly, because it is the progressive implementation of its insane premises, which are freedom, equality and relativism. These premises were born in Protestantism, where they were called Sola Fide, universal priesthood and Sola Scriptura, respectively.

No wonder Protestantism mixed well with modernity: they have the same basic concepts. Modernity is the secularization of Protestantism.

But, as modenity was innovating more and more while trying to implement freedom, equality and relativism, it was a matter of time that Modernity started adopting principles that were incompatible with Christianity, such as gay marriage. Then, it was time to decide.

Since the America state was founded on modernity over a Christian population, the good jobs demanded to be faithful to the official ideology, that is, modernity. Upper middle class did that and discarded Christianity.

What was the alternative? I dared to say that some progressive initiative in my job was not a good idea bwcause I wanted to be faithful to God and I am now unemployed. See how it works?

In fact, it would be more accurate to say that Protestantism is the first form of Modernity. As Modernity drifted away from Christianity, there was a first form, which were the first Protestant churches, such as the Luteran Church. The second wave was the Puritan churches, which increased equality, because there were no bishops, etc . The third step was the Enlightenment, as implemented by the Founding Fathers. Then the social gospel, socialdemocracy, political correctness and wokeness.

Each step is more and more freedom and equality and less Christianity. While Modernity was compatible with Protestant Christianity, there was cross-polinization between both. But in fact, America had been founded on modernity and Christianity was subordinate. It only thrived while it was compatible with modernity.

«Modernity is a moving target»

I presume you mean philosophical modernity?

Well, I meant philosophical modernity, yes. Jefferson and the woke belong to philosophical modernity, but they don’t have the same ideas. Philosophical modernity is the locigal development of the ideas of freedom, equality and relativism. In this aspect, the woke are more coherent the Jefferson. Jefferson said that all men were equal while having slaves. The fact is that equality is absurd and its logical development brings new levels of absurdity.

But, of course, technological modernity is also constantly changing, no doubt about it.

In fact, I don’t see «philosophical modernity» as a good term. I prefer to speak about «liberalism», «progressivism» or «the Enlightenment religion/ideology». Modernity comes from modern, which is only a term that means «recent things». This is too vague and not accurate enough. Scholasticism was modern in the 13th century and, today, there are modern societies that have nothing to do with liberalism (say, tribes in Afghanistan.

In fact, modernity is a term which have the myth of progress embedded in it. If someone opposes it, it is against modernity (meaning: «it is against progress, he wants to return to the Stone Age»). I prefer to use a neutral term.

For «technological modernity», I prefer to use «technological progress». I don’t believe in the myth of progress, with exception of technology, where progress is obvious.

The core problem of Protestantism is its intellectual instability hence it inability to maintain cohesion. But remember, instability goes both ways. Protestantism has an ability to become more rigorous and more lax.

Yes, Sola Scriptura gives Protestantism its instability. So it COULD become more rigorous and more lax. But, in the long term, Protestantism has the tendency to get more lax. Why?

Because Protestantism does not live in a vacuum. There are forces that go in a direction of making the human society more lax:

– Entropy, which favors a more lax environment. A rigorous society is a state of low entropy so it needs effort to maintain. A lax society does not require any effort. The same way you need effort in the winter to heat your cold home but you don’t need effort for your hot home to get cold. Second law of thermodynamics.

– Human instincts, which are programmed for the Paleolithic and try to return to the Paleolithic. Original sin and all that. This is why virtue is so difficult and vice is so easy and tempting.

– Philosophical modernity (liberalism), which tends to make Protestantism (and everything else) more lax.

The instability of Protestantism allows it to succumb to these forces more easily than other ideologies and religions.

Having said that, Protestantism is not the only factor here. Technological progress produces wealth that removes material obstacles to laxity.

«Modernity is the secularization of Protestantism.»

How is a Baptist fundamentalist a «modern»?

Of course, he is a modern. He is not a modern compared to the woke, but he is a modern compared to a traditional Catholic or Orthodox. Modernity is a moving target, as I said.

I am not an expert about Baptism fundamentalism. So I copy from the Internet. Please, feel free to explain me about Baptism fundamentalism beliefs.

«The beliefs are mainly Baptist and fundamentalists.[8] They refuse any form of ecclesial authority other than that of the local church. »

Well, this is a modern attitude. Only modernity rejects authority and hierarchy, which is present in all societies and religions in history, with no exception. This is derived from the Lutheran idea of universal priesthood, which is secularized as «equality».

«Great emphasis is placed on the literal interpretation of the Bible as the primary method of Bible study.»

Another modern attitude. Traditional views on the interpretation of the Bible were that only authorities should interpret the Bible and they could be interpreted it metaphorically (see Ireneus and Saint Augustine about the interpretation of Genesis). This is also derived from universal priesthood and Sola Scriptura (which is called «relativism» in modern times: every man has his own truth).

«Baptists believe that faith is a matter between God and the individual (religious freedom). To them it means the advocacy of absolute liberty of conscience.»

It couldn’t get more modern than that. Individualism, liberty of conscience and religious freedom are radically modern concepts and unimaginable in non-modern societies, in any time in history and in any religion.

«And what does the secularisation of Catholicism look like. Looking at some of the Pew Research figures in the U.S. the Catholics aren’t exactly pushing back the secular tide.»

But you are mixing three different topics.

First topic: Modernity is the secularization of Protestantism. Or, better, Protestantism is the first form of Modernity. This is a topic that is independent from the secularization of Catholicism. We were talking about Protestantism, not about Catholicism.

Second topic: What does the secularization of Catholicism looks like?

Third topic: Is Catholicism effective against secularization?

About the first topic, I have written long comments and nothing I have said has to do with Catholicism. It is a topic about the ORIGIN of modernity, not about a strategy to fight against it. My thesis is that Modernity is a byproduct of Protestantism and, even if Catholicism was Satan’s work, this wouldn’t change a bit my reasoning. I have not said that Catholicism or Protestantism is good or bad. I am only trying to describe the situation.

About the second topic, the secularization of Catholicism is the abandonment of Catholicism, whether totally or partially («Cafeteria Catholicism» where you pick and choose the beliefs you want to follow). Because traditional Catholicism cannot be secularized, you have to adopt Protestant values (such as liberty of conscience) to secularize Catholicism. In fact, after Council Vatican II, Catholicism is a mixture of Protestantism and traditional Catholicism.

This won’t be easy to explain. English is not my native language.

The upward mobility of the bourgeoisie doomed the Ancient Regime, where rulers were the absolute kings, the nobles and the Church. The bourgeois wanted to rule so they needed an ideology against traditional Catholicism, which favored hierarchy, the divine right of kings, the traditional customs and laws. In short, the Ancient Regime.

In the Protestant countries, it was easier. They had Sola Scriptura, so they could invent new versions of Christianity that were more in line with equality. You see an evolution to Puritan versions of Protestantism, where there were no bishops or hierarchy. This is the first form of Modernity. In «Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America», you see that Massachusetts Puritan were egalitarians and they reacted with horror when some nobles tried to go to Massachussetts to rule over them. Quakers are a completely modern movement.

«Quakers seek to experience God directly […] Quakerism is a way of life, rather than a set of beliefs. It has roots in Christianity and many Quakers find the life and teachings of Jesus inspirational, but we have no creed. […] Our inner experience leads us to be committed to equality, peace, simplicity and truth; all of which we try to live out in our lives.»

It does not get more modern than that.

My point is that the flexibility of Protestantism allowed Protestant countries to abandon Christianity little by little, step by step. It was a progressive movement and not universal. Some sects secularized and abandoned Christianity, other remained closer to Christianity. So there was a split in ideology:

– Liberalism, as the secularization of Protestantism.

– Classical Protestantism, as the traditional form of Protestantism.

These two branches of the same movement influenced each other and coexisted, until Modernity moved so far away from Christianity (gay marriage) that was impossible to coexist. Then, the upper middle classe rejected Protestantism and embraced Liberalism.

Catholicism couldn’t do that. It couldn’t reject the dogmas, especially after the Council of Trent. So it couldn’t drift away from Christianity little by little, step by step. It was all-or-nothing. So the first strategy of the Catholic Church was to resist, reject liberalism (what you call «philosophical modernity»). Félix Sardà y Salvany wrote a book called «Liberalism is a sin» .

Meanwhile, revolutionaries in Catholic countries rejected completely Catholicism and adopted Liberalism from Protestant countries. So it was more traumatic in Catholic countries. The revolutionaries fought against the Church: they couldn’t invent new forms of Christianity that were more and more liberal, such as in the States.

Even when revolutionaries won the political power (after the bourgeois revolutions), most people remained Catholic and they didn’t secularized. When the secularization came (20th century) was an abandonment of Catholicism and a complete adoption of Liberalism (that is, secularized Protestantism). It was not a slow drifting away from the Church for centuries. The generation of the parents was Catholic and the generation of their children were not Christian at all. In Spain, this process happened during the 80s and in Ireland during the 90s. As a Spanish guy, I lived the completely Catholic society of my childhood and the completely atheistic society of today. This was fast. I lived a process that took centuries in other countries.

So Catholicism is unable to secularize in the same way Protestantism has done. To secularize Catholicism is to abandon Catholicism. Joe Biden is a Catholic Only in Name, as many Catholics. While Protestantism could secularize little by little and some sects could retain parts of traditional Christianity, because they were more flexible, until a point where Modernity was so absurd and anti-Christian that this could not be done any more.

Looking at some of the Pew Research figures in the U.S. the Catholics aren’t exactly pushing back the secular tide. Catholic membership hasn’t made Joe Biden a paragon of traditionalism. The lion’s share of «conservative pushback» is being done by the Evangelicals.

Agree with that. But this was not my point. My point is that the origin of Modernity is the secularization of Protestantism. In fact, Protestantism is the earliest form of Modernity. And this is completely unrelated. I never said that Catholicism is better than Protestantism to fight current versions of Modernity (or the other way around). I was making a historic point about the origins.

The key issue is the relationship of faith to Grace. And it’s my opinion that certain strands of Protestantism are Graced. Mainline Protestantism isn’t. (It may have been at one time.)

This is a matter of opinion and I don’t have any bad will against Protestants, who I regard as my brethren in faith. And my text has been very long. I don’t want to give my opinion, which would require to write more and more. It’s enough.

Excellent essay. Since the so-called Enlightenment, Western culture has tried to based their society on impossible things, on squared circles. Even with the huge amount of wealth that has protected us against a quick collapse, this has produced all kinds of absurd ideologies. Libertarianism is one of them.

Libertarianism is only the logical consequence of one of these absurdities proposed by the Enlightenment. Please, read this sentence:

«The political system should be based on freedom. Nobody can impose his will on other people and everybody is free to do anything he wants, except crimes or similar. And your freedom ends when other person’s freedom starts».

I can almost feel the approval of most of you and good vibes that have flooded the brain of many of you. Well, congratulations, you have been brainwashed to believe such an obvious absurdity, as absurd as there may be married bachelors. Western civilization is the story about how to protect this kind of nonsense in real life without nobody noticing what is front of their eyes.

No political system can be based on freedom, because the freedom of a person is the lack of freedom of another person. Your freedom to divorce is the lack of freedom of your spouse and children to have a stable family. The freedom of trans of living life as a woman is the lack of freedom of everybody else not to lie. The freedom of gays not to be discriminated when buying a cake is the lack of freedom of a Christian baker not to betray his beliefs while baking a cake.

There is only a way to have complete freedom. Go to a mountain and stay away from society. If you live in society, your freedom is the lack of freedom of someone else. So there is no political system that can be founded on freedom, the same way there is no road with only a left side and no right side. This is why libertarianism is absurd and the Western political tradition is too.

What any political system does is to prioritize some freedoms and restrict other freedoms based on some set of values, that is, some morality. So there are not political systems that are freer than another ones. They prioritize different freedoms.

So a Christian political system (which does not exist anymore) would prioritize the freedom of the Christian baker to bake according their beliefs, because it is based on Christian values and prioritizes Christian freedoms. A progressive political system would prioritize the freedom of gays of buying any cake without discrimination, because it is based on progressive values and prioritizes progressive freedoms.

That is to say, «freedom» is a smokescreen. The values are the ones that decide how a society works. Any conflict has a «freedom» part and a «lack of freedom» part. So you can justify any political decision looking at the freedom part and disregarding the «lack of freedom» part. Of course, we are protecting the freedom of Christian bakers of following their beliefs! Of course, we are protecting the freedom of gays of not being discriminated!

Are Muslim political systems less free than ours? I don’t think so. They privilege freedoms like women having the freedom not to work, men having stable families, children having stable families, people living the Muslim religion without being forced all kinds of degeneracy upon them, which are not available in our society. Of course, this means restricting other freedoms, but this is unavoidable.

How did we end up creating a myth for our society that it is obviously impossible? You can discuss whether Christ is Son of God or Mohammed the Prophet of Allah… but these beliefs are POSSIBLE. «We live in a political system based on freedom» is impossible and it is obvious that it is impossible. It is like saying your society is based on a squared circle.

The history tell us how. The bourgeois wanted to take the political power from the nobles (the aristocrats). The ideological justification of the nobles and the Ancien Regime, as any other sane political system, was based on duty, hierarchy and tradition. The bourgeois used three false values that were the opposite: freedom (the opposite from duty), equality (the opposite from hierarchy) and progress (the opposite from tradition).

They didn’t believe them. The Founding Fathers waxed lyrically about the equality of men while having slaves and producing a political system where only people with property could vote. For the bourgeois, the meaning of liberty was «we don’t want the rules of the Ancien Regime: we want our own rules». The meaning of equality was «we are not less than the nobles. We can have power». The meaning of progress was «we have to trash the old Ancien Regim and move to the future, that is, us having power»

However, the bourgeois revolutions won and the incoherent concepts of liberty and equality and the false concept of progress were enshrined as the new gods of the new religion. They were put in constitutions, laws and textbooks and the population was brainwashed to accept them, even if they are completely absurd. (I have only spoken of liberty here, but equality is also incoherent and progress is false).

Original en inglés aquí

El concepto de derechos fue inventado por los teólogos católicos de la Edad Moderna como una forma de expresar la moralidad objetiva. Luego, fue adoptado por la Ilustración, por la filosofía y el derecho producidos por las revoluciones burguesas y luego por las Naciones Unidas y por todo el mundo.

Aunque soy católico y creo en la moralidad objetiva, creo que el concepto de derechos ha sido una de las peores ideas en la historia de la humanidad. El problema es que es un lenguaje que ofusca la realidad moral por lo que es propenso a la manipulación. Por lo tanto, se ha utilizado para manipular a los occidentales para destruir su propia civilización.

Así como el lado izquierdo de un objeto no puede existir sin el lado derecho, no puede haber derechos sin deberes. Mi derecho a la vida es el deber de todos los demás de no matarme. Si tengo derecho a mi propiedad privada, todos los demás tienen el deber de no usar esta propiedad sin mi permiso. Y así sucesivamente.

Las culturas antiguas y las culturas no occidentales expresaron la moralidad en términos de deberes: «No matarás». Las culturas occidentales modernas expresan la moralidad en términos de derechos: «Tienes derecho a la vida». Pero la segunda forma es manipuladora.

Primero, en esta segunda forma, se diluye la responsabilidad del deber. Si digo “No tirarás basura”, está claro que eres tú quien no debe tirar basura en el espacio público. Si digo «Tienes derecho a un espacio público limpio», no está claro de quién es la responsabilidad. Tal vez yo pueda tirar toda la basura que quiera y sea responsabilidad del gobierno limpiar ese desastre. Entonces, el lenguaje de los derechos permite que cada uno eluda su responsabilidad y que el gobierno tenga cada vez más poder porque tiene que «garantizar los derechos de los ciudadanos». Es una receta para la anarcotiranía.

Peor aún, dado que todo derecho viene con una obligación (un deber), el lenguaje de los derechos impone una obligación mientras suena como que no se imponen obligaciones. Entonces, si tengo derecho a divorciarme, es deber de mi esposa y de mis hijos aceptar que han perdido a su familia, a su esposo y a su padre. Si lucho por «el derecho al divorcio», la gente se engaña pensando que solo hay cosas buenas (las personas en matrimonios infelices pueden ser libres) sin tener en cuenta los costos.

De igual manera, si lucho por “el derecho a la educación pública gratuita”, se silencia el costo de mantener esa educación pública. Tal vez un hombre trabajador está pagando por el derecho a que jóvenes irresponsables se dediquen a las fiestas y a las drogas. Parece como si los derechos tuvieran sólo beneficios y no tuvieran costos.

Por eso los derechos se han ido multiplicando drásticamente. Cada vez que alguien quiere algo de la sociedad puede decir «¡Es mi derecho!» y obligar a otras personas a asumir los costos de hacer realidad este deseo. Entonces, si soy un transexual y quiero que todos me digan que soy una mujer, puedo reformularlo como «Tengo derecho a mi identidad».

Esto está expresado de una manera que parece que no se imponen obligaciones a nadie. Pero este supuesto derecho obliga a todo el mundo a mentir frente a una persona ridícula. Si digo «como inmigrante sin papeles, tengo derecho a la educación y la salud pública», esto oculta los costos de brindar esta educación y salud.

En resumen, el lenguaje de los derechos es un arma de las personas que intentan imponer los costos de su comportamiento a toda la sociedad. Un arma de parasitismo. Por eso los derechos siguen multiplicándose. Además, la clase de los gerentes se aprovecha de los nuevos derechos porque son ellos los que gestionan estos derechos. Entonces, por cada inmigrante ilegal con derechos, por cada familia rota por el derecho al divorcio, hay un trabajador social que vota por la izquierda y trabaja con estos inmigrantes y familias rotas. Políticos, funcionarios públicos, trabajadores del departamento de recursos humanos, etc. se ganan la vida o obtienen poder en base a estos supuestos derechos. Este es un segundo parasitismo.

El socialista John Peters Humphrey, director de la División de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas, escribió el primer borrador de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos de 1948 (que son sólo los Diez Mandamientos de una nueva religión sin Dios: la religión progresista). Poco antes de que se adoptara la Declaración, escribió en su diario. “Lo que necesitamos es algo así como la moral cristiana sin tonterías”. Para él, «las tonterías» eran los dogmas cristianos: «Dios, Jesús, la expiación de los pecados, etc.».

Lo que hemos visto es que es imposible tener una moral pública sin «las tonterías» (ya sea que «las tonterías» sean dogmas cristianos, musulmanes, confucianos, etc.). Cuando la sociedad occidental era cristiana y la ley se basaba en la moral cristiana, la lista de derechos era clara para todos: los derechos derivados de la Biblia y la tradición cristiana. Incluso si eres ateo, puedes admitir que esta es una moralidad que ha resistido la prueba del tiempo, por lo que no tiene absurdos. [Las moralidades religiosas han sido seleccionadas durante miles de años para seguir la ley natural, que es el mínimo necesario para que una sociedad funcione.] Entonces, no, no tienes derecho a ser no-binario porque «Dios creó al hombre a su imagen, a imagen de Dios los creó, varón y hembra los creó» (Génesis 1, 27). Esto es un dogma, por lo que es indiscutible.

Si no hay algo divino e indiscutible (ya sean dogmas cristianos, musulmanes, etc.) que sea el fundamento de la sociedad , cualquiera puede pretender que su deseo es un derecho hasta ahora oprimido y, si cuenta con el respaldo suficiente de los poderes fácticos , puede lograr este llamado «derecho», pasando el costo a todos los demás. Es decir, el parasitismo no tiene límites y la sociedad muere, asesinada por un millón de parásitos. Es eso lo que vemos en nuestra sociedad. Entonces, sí, prefiero «las tonterías», sin dudarlo.

[Nota: Alguien podría decir que la Constitución u otro texto similar (como la Declaración de Derechos Humanos) podría desempeñar el mismo papel que los dogmas religiosos en limitar la lista de derechos, pero se ha visto en la práctica que no es así. Por ejemplo, en Estados Unidos, los derechos se han ido multiplicando a pesar de que la Constitución no ha cambiado desde hace cientos de años. Incluso se ha interpretado que derechos como el matrimonio homosexual o el movimiento trans estaban implícitos en la Constitución. Y la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos sólo ha hecho que crear más y más derechos: los Derechos del Niño, los Derechos del Migrante, los derechos sexuales y reproductivos…

Se necesita algo tan fuerte como un dogma religioso para producir el suficiente rechazo entre la mayoría que permita oponerse a la minoría de  oportunistas que reclaman nuevos supuestos derechos. De otra manera, tienes una minoría fanática y activa contra una mayoría apática y pasiva, por lo que los nuevos supuestos derechos se implantan siempre.]

I lost this text twice because of computer problems. I am writing this for the third time. I hope this time I can finish it. I know that I am late to the party and I apologize.

I disagree with Z about his philosophical materialism. The fact that rights are not physical (so future alien archeologists cannot discover rights in the remains of human civilization) does not mean that they don’t exist. Future alien archeologist wouldn’t discover Math theorems or your ideas, sensations and emotions in the remains of human civilization. This does not mean that Math does not exist or that you haven’t had ideas, sensations and emotions.

The concept of rights was invented by Catholic theologians of the Modern age as a way to express objective morality. Then, it was adopted by the Enlightenment, by the philosophy and law produced by the bourgeois revolutions and then by the United Nations and by everyone.

Although I am a Catholic and I believe in objective morality, I think the concept of rights has been one of the worst ideas in the history of humanity. The problem is that it is a language that obfuscates moral reality so it is prone to manipulation. So it has been used to manipulate Western people to destroy their own civilization.

The same way the left side of an object cannot exist without the right side, there can be no rights without duties. My right to life is everyone else’s duty not to kill me. If I have a right to my private property, everybody else has the duty of not using this property without my permission. And so on and so forth.

Ancient cultures and non-Western cultures expressed morality in terms of duties: «Thou shalt not kill». Modern Western cultures express morality in terms of rights: «You have a right to live». But the second way is manipulative.

First, in this second way, the responsibility of the duty is muddled. If I say «Thou shalt not litter», it is clear that it is you who should not throw garbage in the public space. If I say «You have a right to a clean public space», it is not clear whose is the responsibility. Maybe I can throw all the garbage I want and it is the government’s responsibility to clean this mess. So the language of rights allows everybody to shirk his responsibility and the government to get more and more power because it has to «guarantee the rights of the citizens». It is a recipe for anarcho-tyranny.

Even worse, since every right comes with an obligation (a duty), the language of rights imposes an obligation  while sounding that no obligation is imposed. So If I have a right to divorce, it is the duty of my wife and my children to accept that they have lost their family and their husband and father. If I fight for «the right to divorce», people are fooled that only good things are involved (people in unhappy marriages can be free) while disregarding the costs.

The same way, if I fight for «the right to a free public education», the cost of maintaining this public education is silenced. Maybe a hardworking man is paying for entitled kids to party and do drugs. It seems as if rights had only benefits while no having any costs.

This is why rights have been multiplying drastically. Every time somebody wants something from society can say «It is my right!» and force other people to bear the costs of making this wish come true. So, if I am a tranny and want everybody to tell me  that I am a woman, I can rephrase it as «I have a right to my identity».

The thing is phrased in a way that seems that no obligations are imposed on everybody. But this forces everybody to lie in front of a laughable person. If I say «as an undocumented worker, I have a right to public education and health», this hides the costs of providing this education and health.

In short, the language of rights is a weapon of people trying to impose the costs of their behavior upon the entire society. A weapon of parasitism. This is why rights keep on multiplying. In addition, the managerial class takes advantage from new rights because they are the ones that manage these rights. So, for every illegal immigrant with rights,  for every broken family because of the right to divorce, there is a social worker who votes for the Left and works with these immigrants and broken families. Politicians, civil servants, human resources officers make a living or get power based on rights.

The socialist John Peters Humphrey, director of the United Nations Human Rights Division, wrote the first draft of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which are only the Ten Commandments of a new godless religion: the progressive religion).  Shortly before the Declaration was adopted, he wrote in his diary. “What we need is something like the Christian morality without the tommyrot”. For him, «the tommyrot» was «God, Jesus, the atonement, etc.».

What we have seen it is that it is impossible to have public morality without» the tommyrot» (whether «the tommyrot» is Christian, Muslim, Confucian, etc.). When Western society was Christian and the law was based on Christian morality, the list of rights were clear to everyone: the rights derived from the Bible and Christian tradition. Even if you are an atheist, you can admit that this is a morality that has stood the test of time so it has no nonsense. So, no, you don’t have a right to be a non-binary because » God created man in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them» (Genesis 1, 27) .

If there is not something divine that is the foundation of society (whether is Christian, Muslim, etc.), everybody can claim that his wish is a right that has been oppressed until now and, if he has enough backing from the powers that be, he can achieve this so-called «right», passing the cost to everybody else. That is, the parasitism has no bounds and the society dies, killed by a one million parasites. Which is why we see in our society. So, yes, give me «the tommyrot», every time.

Original en inglés más abajo.

El último párrafo es sobresaliente y estoy totalmente de acuerdo. Lo he compartido con mi familia.

Habiendo dicho eso, quería dar una perspectiva más matizada. En antropología, las sociedades se clasifican entre sociedades de alta confianza y sociedades de baja confianza. Resulta que soy de una sociedad de alta confianza en Europa y he vivido en una sociedad de baja confianza en América Latina durante más de dos décadas. He leído sobre el tema y se lo he explicado a mis alumnos.

Desde el principio, la sociedad humana está compuesta por dos niveles de confianza. Hay un ambiente de alta confianza en la tribu, el clan, la familia extensa y los amigos. Hay un entorno de baja confianza fuera de esta burbuja. Por eso las sociedades primitivas solo hacen negocios dentro de la tribu y salir fuera de la tribu es querer ser estafado. Yasir Arafat lo expresó hermosamente cuando dijo: «Con mis enemigos, hago las paces. Con mis amigos, hago negocios». No se puede confiar en un extraño para hacer negocios. Podría estafarte.

Cuando hice un negocio importante (censurado) aquí en América Latina, todo se hizo dentro de la burbuja de alta confianza. Mi abogado era uno de los amigos de la infancia de mi esposa. El vendedor y su abogado eran conocidos de mi jefe. Y verificamos cada detalle con profesionales que conocemos o que fueron recomendados por alguien que conocemos. Esta es una red de confianza. No puedes confiar en ningún extraño porque la gente está buscando formas de estafarte todo el día.

La sociedad occidental no es así. Échale la culpa a la Edad Media. La Iglesia Católica prohibió el matrimonio entre primos por lo que desaparecieron las tribus. El feudalismo impulsó la familia nuclear. La Ilustración y la Revolución Industrial fomentaron el individualismo. Así que la gente tenía que confiar unos en otros para hacer negocios. Esto se hizo porque a las personas se les enseñó a ser morales al tratar con extraños. Este fue un éxito rotundo porque la economía se disparó y superó a Asia como la primera economía del mundo. Si puedes hacer negocios con extraños y puedes confiar en ellos, hay un nuevo mundo de posibilidades.

Esto fue bueno mientras duró. Se necesitaban dos cosas: un alto nivel de moralidad y mantener a los extranjeros de sociedades de baja confianza fuera del país. Cuando esas cosas desaparecieron, la sociedad occidental (tanto europea como estadounidense) inició su transición hacia una sociedad de baja confianza, como las del Tercer Mundo.

Cuando viví en Houston hace unos 12 años, fui testigo de una sociedad en transformación. Vi a muchos estadounidenses que querían estafarme. Por otro lado, había comportamientos que admiraba por la gran confianza que implicaban. Recuerdo que el cartero dejaba los paquetes en la puerta de mi casa por la mañana y yo llegaba a casa por la noche. Todo el mundo podía tomarlos, pero nadie lo hacía durante un día entero. No intentes esto en ningún otro país del mundo.

Entonces, ¿es la causa de los problemas mentales vivir en una sociedad de baja confianza? No me lo parece. Vivo en una sociedad de baja confianza y la gente es psicológicamente más sana que los estadounidenses (aunque mucho más pobre). Creo que la causa es la destrucción de la familia y las relaciones cercanas, debido al capitalismo, la inmigración, el divorcio, la promiscuidad, etc. Si Estados Unidos se fuera a convertir en una sociedad de baja confianza, debería volver al modo de dos capas: una capa de alta confianza con familiares y amigos y una capa de baja confianza con todos los demás.

Pero la burbuja de alta confianza ha sido destruida en Estados Unidos en la atomización de la sociedad bajo el ideal de «libertad», por lo que muchas personas solo viven en un infierno de baja confianza, con poca o ninguna relación cercana. Esto es completamente destructivo desde el punto de vista psicológico, porque las relaciones cercanas son las que nos nutren.

Este es «el conflicto entre el sistema y nuestra naturaleza». Nuestra naturaleza quiere sentirse conectada y amar. Nuestro sistema nos quiere como individuos atomizados. Nuestra sociedad es hostil a nuestra existencia.

Original en inglés

The last paragraph is outstanding and I wholeheartedly agree. I have shared it with my family.

Having said that, I wanted to give a more nuanced perspective. In anthropology, societies are classified between high-trust societies and low-trust societies. I happen to be from a high-trust society in Europe and have lived in a low-trust society in Latin America for more than two decades. I have read about the topic and explained the topic to my students.

From the beginning, human society is composed by two trust levels. There is a high-trust environment in the tribe, clan, extended family and friends. There is a low-trust environment outside of this bubble. This is why primitive societies only make business inside the tribe and going outside the tribe is wanting to be scammed. Yasir Arafat expressed it beautifully when he said: “With my enemies, I make peace. With my friends, I do businesses”. You cannot trust a strange to do business. He could scam you.

When I did an important business (redacted) here in Latin America, everything was done inside the high-trust bubble. My lawyer was one of my wife’s childhood friends. The seller and his lawyer were acquaintances of my boss. And we verified every detail with professionals who we know or that were recommended by somebody we know. This is a network of trust. You cannot trust any stranger because people is looking for ways to scam you all the day long.

Western society is not this way. Blame it to the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church forbade the marriage between cousins so tribes disappeared. Feudalism powered the nuclear family. The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution fomented individualism. So people had to trust each other to do businesses. This was done because people were taught to be moral with dealing with strangers. This was a resounding success because the economy skyrocketed and surpassed Asia as the first economy of the world. If you can do business with strangers and can trust them, there is a whole new world of possibilities.

This was good while it lasted. It needed two things: a high standard of morality and keeping the strangers from low-trust societies outside the country. When those things disappeared, the Western society (both Europe and US) started its transition to a low-trust society, like the ones in the Third World.

When I lived in Houston about 12 years ago, I witnessed a society in transformation. I saw many US people wanting to scam me. On the other hand, there were behaviors that I admired because of the high trust involved. I remember the postman leaving the packages at the door of my house in the morning and I got home in the evening. Everybody could take them but nobody did for an entire day. Don’t try this in any other country in the world.

So is the cause of the mental problems living in a low-trust society? I don’t think so. I live in a low-trust society and people are more psychologically sane than American people (although much poorer). I think the cause is the destruction of the family and close relationships, because of capitalism, immigration, divorce, promiscuity, etc. If America was going to become a low-trust society, it should revert to the two layers mode: a high-trust layer with family and friends and a low-trust layer with everybody else.

But the high-trust bubble has been destroyed in America in the atomization of society under the ideal of “freedom” so many people only live in a hell of low-trust, with few or no close relationship. This is completely destructive from a psychological point of view, because close relationships is what nourish us.

This is “the conflict between the system and our nature”. Our nature wants to feel connected and love. Our system wants us as atomized individuals. Our society is hostile to our existence.

Una respuesta a un comentario sobre una idea de Steiner sobre que «el misticismo (las experiencias místicas) es suprimir los propios pensamientos y, por lo tanto, se reduce a sentimientos y que es por eso que el misticismo occidental es un apoyo al materialismo moderno».

Original en inglés aquí

Siento ser descortés de nuevo, pero esto no me parece correcto. No soy fanático de la espiritualidad del misticismo, pero esto parece una tergiversación. […]

Durante años, he pensado que muchas de tus publicaciones son comentarios al libro «The Master and His Emissary». Realmente creo que te beneficiarías inmensamente si lo lees, porque tus ideas son similares. Es un libro largo pero hay algunos resúmenes en The Orthosphere para empezar.

El libro explica que hay dos formas de entender la realidad: la del hemisferio izquierdo es una mirada centrada en la lógica, el lenguaje, las ideas, la coherencia, dividir la realidad y analizarla. Esto es lo que activamos en todas las actividades intelectuales: como leer, pensar sobre ideas, escribir, etc. El monólogo interior [esas palabras que oímos en nuestro interior] es parte de esto.

El hemisferio derecho ve la realidad de una manera holística [global y no dividida] y no lingüística. Se enfoca en la correspondencia con la realidad en lugar de la coherencia entre diferentes ideas. Contemplar un cuadro o un paisaje sin monólogo interior es un ejemplo. Escuchar música clásica sin tratar de entenderla y analizarla. El misticismo. Esto puede producir sentimientos (como lo hacen los pensamientos lógicos del hemisferio izquierdo) pero no es un conjunto de sentimientos.

Ambos hemisferios son parte del neocortex y son diferentes de los sentimientos, que están mediados por partes más primitivas del cerebro (el sistema límbico).  (Advertencia: soy dualista: no creo que la mente se reduzca al cerebro, pero el cerebro influye en la mente También creo que estoy dando una vista simplificada y hay muchos detalles, pero esto es un comentario, no un libro)

La tesis del libro es que el hemisferio derecho alguna vez fue dominante y se llamaba al hemisferio izquierdo para resolver problemas intelectuales. Esto lo veo en los viejos campesinos de mi país: no piensan mucho, contemplan mucho más.

Pero la civilización occidental ha sido la historia del golpe de Estado del hemisferio izquierdo al hemisferio derecho. Ves la creciente importancia del hemisferio izquierdo a lo largo del tiempo. Santo Tomás de Aquino es más «cerebral» que San Agustín, en el que se ve la sed de Dios mientras que Tomás de Aquino se lee como un libro de texto (él practicaba la contemplación personal ante la Eucaristía pero no refleja esto en sus textos, por lo que los dos hemisferios están separados mientras estaban más integrados en San Agustín).

Entonces, el hemisferio izquierdo se separa de la realidad y del hemisferio derecho, rechaza la contemplación, crea un mundo virtual y piensa que es el mundo real. La llamada Ilustración piensa que «todos los hombres son iguales», por ejemplo. Entonces, en nuestros tiempos, puedes ser etiquetado como un delincuente de odio si denuncias lo que está ante tus ojos, en lugar del mundo virtual creado por el hemisferio izquierdo de nuestros intelectuales, en el que el género es fluido.

El misticismo tiene como objetivo desconectar el hemisferio izquierdo por un tiempo para disfrutar de la perspectiva holística [global] del hemisferio derecho. Es como cerrar los ojos para concentrarse en escuchar música. Esto es más necesario porque, en nuestras vidas, el hemisferio izquierdo tiene el control total y se requiere mucho esfuerzo para que no ahogue la perspectiva del hemisferio derecho. No se trata de sentimientos, aunque puede producir sentimientos, como lo hacen las ideas. Se trata de la comprensión holística de la realidad.

Para ti, Steiner y yo, que somos gente «cerebral», esto es muy difícil. Reconozco que me cuesta mucho contemplar, detener mi monólogo interior, mi análisis de las cosas. Puedo mantenerlo sólo durante unos segundos. No sé tú pero tu actividad espiritual parece ser escribir en cuadernos, pensar en ideas, etc. Eso no tiene nada de malo, pero hay otras formas de espiritualidad y no debemos rechazar lo que no podemos entender o replicar.

Entonces, ¿por qué el misticismo oriental es un apoyo a nuestro materialismo nihilista moderno? La palabra clave es «oriental». Si quieres misticismo, no tienes que viajar a culturas que son las más ajenas a la cultura occidental. Tienes misticismo en la tradición cristiana. En la Edad Media, tenemos varios ejemplos de místicos cristianos en los que podemos basarnos. Después, tenemos a Santa Teresa de Jesús, San Juan de la Cruz y más. Incluso el misticismo sufí del Islam está más cerca de casa que la espiritualidad oriental.

La razón es que el budismo es nihilista en su esencia, de la misma manera que lo es el materialismo. El budismo surge en una época de decadencia, como la nuestra. El budismo niega a los dioses como irrelevantes, no cree que se pueda lograr la felicidad (por lo que el único objetivo es la eliminación del sufrimiento), no cree que las personas individuales sean reales, por lo que el único objetivo es huir de la realidad (que no es real) y dejar de existir, diluyéndose en un nirvana. Solo hay un concepto no nihilista, que es la Realidad Última, el Absoluto, pero todo lo demás es nihilista. El nihilismo del budismo alcanza sus límites en el budismo zen, donde la Realidad Última es la Nada.

El budismo es simplemente un nihilismo no materialista [no cree que sólo exista la materia en la realidad]. Es el nihilismo cuando no crees en el materialismo. De hecho, no es compatible con nuestro nihilismo materialista moderno, debido a la diferencia de opiniones sobre el materialismo.

Por eso debe adaptarse a los modos de pensamiento occidentales. Si tienes el budismo y eliminas la doctrina no materialista, entonces la contemplación pasa DE ser una forma de conectarte con la Realidad Última A ser una técnica psicológica para obtener paz mental. Es por esto que el budismo se convierte en pensamiento New Age, mindfulness u otras adaptaciones materialistas para usarlo en nuestro contexto occidental. Nunca ves el budismo en forma pura. La «espiritualidad oriental» utilizada en Occidente debería llamarse «adaptaciones materialistas occidentales a la espiritualidad oriental».

Pero no debemos tirar al bebé con el agua del baño. El hecho de que las adaptaciones materialistas occidentales al misticismo oriental estén equivocadas y apoyen el materialismo no significa que todos los misticismos lo hagan. Por eso creo que Steiner está equivocado en este tema.

Sorry to be impolite again, but this does not seem right to me. I am no fan of mysticism spirituality but this seems a misrepresentation. I don’t know if you are going to publish this comment, but you said the other day that you read all the comments. I have written it only for you.

For years, I have thought that many of your posts are comments to «The Master and His Emissary » book. I really think that you would benefit immensely if you read it, because your ideas are similar. It is a long book but there are some summaries at the Orthosphere to begin with.

The book explains that there are two ways of understanding reality: the left hemisphere’s way is a view focused on logic, language, ideas, coherence, dividing the reality into pieces and analyzing it. This is what we activate in all these intellectual activities: such as reading, thinking about ideas, writing, etc. The inner monologue is part of this.

The right hemisphere sees reality in an non-linguistic, holistic way and focuses on correspondence instead of coherence between different ideas. Contemplating a picture or a landscape without inner monologue is an example. Listening to classical music without trying to understand it and analyze it. Mysticism. This can produce feelings (as logical thoughts do) but it is not a set of feelings.

Both hemispheres are part of the neocortex and are different from feelings which are mediated with more primitives parts of the brain – the limbic system (disclaimer: I am a dualist: I don’t think that mind reduces to the brain, but the brain influences the mind. I also think that I am giving a simplified view and there are a lots of caveats, but this is a combox, not a book)

The thesis of the book is that the right hemisphere was once dominant and the left hemisphere was called to solve intellectual problems. I see this in the old peasants of my country: they don’t think much, they contemplate a lot more.

But Western civilization has been the history of the coup d’état of the left hemisphere to the right hemisphere. You see the increasing importance of the left hemisphere throughout the time. Aquinas is more brainy than St. Augustine, where you see the thirst for God but Aquinas reads like a textbook (he had personal contemplation before the Eucharist but he does not reflect this in his texts, so the two hemispheres are separated while they were more integrated in Saint Augustine).

Then, the left hemisphere separates itself from reality and the right hemisphere, rejects contemplation, creates a virtual world and thinks it is the real world. The so-called Enlightenment thinks «all men are equal», for example. Then, in our times, you can be labelled a hate criminal if you report what is before your eyes, instead of the virtual world created by the left hemisphere of our intellectuals, where gender is fluid.

Mysticism aims at disconnecting the left hemisphere for a while to enjoy the holistic perspective of the right hemisphere. It is like closing your eyes to concentrate on listening to music. This is more necessary because, in our lives, the left hemisphere has total control and it takes a lot of effort for it not to drown the perspective of the right hemisphere. It is not about feelings, although it can produce feelings, as ideas do. It is about the holistic understanding of reality.

For you, Steiner and me, who are «brainy» people, this is very difficult. I admit I find it very difficult to contemplate, to stop my inner monologue, my analyzing of things. I can maintain it only for a few seconds. I don’t know about you but your spiritual activity seems to be writing in notebooks, thinking about ideas, etc. Nothing wrong with that, but there are other ways to spirituality and we should not reject what we cannot understand or replicate.

Then, why is Eastern mysticism a support to our modern nihilistic materialism? The key word is «Eastern». If you want mysticism, you don’t have to travel to cultures that are the most alien to Western culture. You have mysticism in the Christian tradition. In the Middle Ages, we have several examples of Christian mystics we can rely on. Afterwards, we have Saint Teresa of Avila, Saint John of the Cross and more. Even the Sufi mysticism of Islam is closer to home than Eastern spirituality.

The reason is that Buddhism is nihilistic at core, the same way as materialism is. Buddhism rises in an age of decadence, like ours. Buddhism denies gods as irrelevant, does not think that happiness is achievable (so the only goal is the elimination of suffering), does not think that individual persons are real so the only goal is to flee from reality (which is not real) and stop existing in a nirvana. There is only one non-nihilistic concept, which is the Ultimate Reality, the Absolute, but everything else is nihilistic. The nihilism of Buddhism reaches its limits in Zen Buddhism, where the Ultimate Reality is Nothing.

Buddhism is simply a non-materialist nihilism. It is nihilism when you don’t believe in materialism. In fact, it is not compatible with our modern materialist nihilism, because of the difference of opinions in materialism. This is why it is adapted to Western modes of thought. If you have Buddhism and take the non-materialist doctrine, then contemplation goes FROM being a way to connect to Ultimate Reality TO being a psychological technique to get peace of mind. This is why Buddhism is converted into New Age thinking, mindfulness or other materialist adaptations to use it in our Western context. You never see Buddhism in pure form. «Eastern spirituality» used in the West should be called «Western materialist adaptations to Eastern spirituality».

But we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fact that Western materialist adaptations to Eastern mysticism are wrong and support materialism does not mean that every mysticism does it. This is why I think Steiner is wrong in this topic.

Per aclarir-me a mi mateix, he escrit un resum del que jo pense que està passant en la guerra d’Ucraina, a data del 16 d’abril de 2022, que us compartisc per si us interessa.

És arriscat analitzar una guerra mentre s’està produint (i encara més arriscat predir el futur), perquè «en una guerra la primera víctima és la veritat». Un ha d’intentar distingir la veritat en mig de la propaganda dels dos bàndols. D’ací uns vint anys sabrem exactament el que ha passat en esta guerra, però este és el meu millor esforç de resumir el que crec que passa.

En resum, Rússia està guanyant la guerra militar contra Ucraina, està perdent la guerra propagandística, està resistint en la guerra econòmica global i està perdent en la guerra d’aliances global. Les conseqüències d’esta guerra seran grans per al futur. Però anem per parts.

L’aspecte militar

En l’aspecte militar, Rússia ha començat amb menys forces que les que té. Només 10-20% de les forces de Rússia s’han usat en Ucraina (senyal que Rússia reserva  la resta de forces per a un conflicte més gran, que pareix cada dia més probable). Les forces russes en Ucraina són com la meitat de les forces ucrainianes. Amb forces inferiors a les ucrainianes, ha aconseguit desactivar a l’exèrcit ucrainià que no ha tingut cap iniciativa ofensiva important des del començament de la guerra.

La primera estratègia russa d’una victòria ràpida ha fracassat, però així són les guerres: els plans no sobreviuen el contacte amb la realitat. A pesar de les sancions i de la continua ajuda d’Estats Units a Ucraina (no només amb material militar, sino amb intel·ligència i inclús soldats), Rússia pareix ben posicionada per guanyar esta guerra en Ucraina. Vorem com va la batalla de l’Est d’Ucraina,  que s’està preparant, per reevaluar esta conclusió.

Si puc aventurar una opinió, Rússia es quedarà part d’Ucraina, bé de forma directa o bé amb un estat satèlit (o una combinació dels dos). Com a mínim, això inclourà el Donbàs, la costa del mar d’Azov, fent un pont de terra fins a Crimea. No sé si inclourà Odessa arribant fins a Transnístria. Però puc estar equivocat.

L’aspecte propagandístic

Per compensar aquest bon posicionament de Rússia, Estats Units està portant una guerra propagandística, que està guanyant en Occident de forma aclaparadora. Per començar ha censurat tots els mitjans russos i en Youtube tots els canals que es desvien de la línia oficial d’Estats Units, encara que siga només en un aspecte. Després, per tots els mitjans occidentals, es dedica a divulgar el mateix missatge, que ve directament del Pentagon o de la Casa Blanca (els mitjans no oculten això).

Només hi ha un missatge en tots els mitjans, no importa el país, no importa si els mitjans són de dretes o esquerres. Estem arribant a nivells de propaganda com els que té Cuba o tenia la Unió Soviètica, on només hi havia un únic missatge i la discrepància no estava permitida (amb l’excepció de tots els mitjans que no poden censurar en Internet). Al que discrepa se li diu traidor o que està a favor de Putin, de la guerra i dels morts, de la mateixa manera que tota persona  que discrepava en la Unió Soviètica o Cuba o estava boig o era un agent americà que anava contra la pàtria.

En la primera fase de la propaganda, el missatge principal era «els ucrainians estan guanyant». Cada tanc rus que els ucrainians explotaven eixia en totes les cadenes com una gran victòria (com si no fora normal en una guerra que les dos parts tingueren baixes). S’ha arribat a presentar imatges de videojocs en la tele espanyola com imatges de la guerra. Mai no eixien les baixes ucrainianes, excepte que es pugueren presentar com «crims de guerra». Com que, comparant amb vint anys de guerra en Afganistan, Putin no va guanyar la guerra en dos mesos, el missatge era «Putin ha fracassat perquè no ha aconseguit conquistar un país del tamany d’Espanya en dues setmanes».

Pareix que este missatge no és sostenible, així que s’ha passat a una segona fase de la propaganda, on el missatge és «Rússia està produint atrocitats, està matant a civils per pur sadisme i està cometent tot tipus de crims de guerra». Que després es demostre que estos crims han sigut un muntatge no importa, la població occidental no s’entera d’això. Putin i Rússia s’han convertit en el dimoni en Occident. Els russos gasten material militar i arrisquen als seus soldats i a la seua estratègia només per tal de matar a civils desarmats sense cap objectiu militar, només perquè als russos els encanta fer mal i obtenen un immens plaer de vore a civils morint.

Els russos s’han convertit en els jueus del règim nazi: ja no són considerats humans, sinó uns dimonis que només volen fer mal pel pur plaer de fer-ho. En Occident, els governs roben els seus estalvis a russos particulars que no tenen res a vore amb Putin, perquè tots els russos són roïns, per ser russos. (Imagina que Espanya declarara la guerra a un altre país i a tu et robaren els estalvis que tens en l’estranger, només per ser espanyol)

En Rússia, la gent ha vist esta dimonització i la població recolza a Putin en un percentatge espectacular. Pensen que la guerra és contra Rússia i que l’objectiu d’Occident és sotmetre, conquistar i saquejar a Rússia, la qual cosa és veritat (estos són plans que venen des de molt lluny: ja tenen dècades i estan per escrit, però esta és una altra història)

L’aspecte econòmic

Les sancions han fet mal a Rússia però no ha sigut un mal enorme, perquè Russia és un país amb moltes matèries primeres i un deute extern baix. El ruble s’ha enfortit. Les prohibicions de divises estan fent més mal a Occident, perquè s’està creant un sistema monetari alternatiu al dòlar, en el qual ja estan interessats Xina, India i Aràbia Saudita.

Les sancions han fet més mal al poble d’Estats Units (no a les èlits econòmiques que estan per darrere de Biden) i, sobretot, arruinaran Europa. Pareix que l’objectiu de les èlits americanes és implantar el Nou Ordre Mundial on uns pocs tindran tota la propietat i, per a això, Europa (i Ucraina) és un peó que es pot sacrificar. Els líders europeus segueixen servilment la política d’Estats Units en comptes de defensar els interessos europeus.

Per implantar este Nou Ordre Mundial (llegir el llibre sobre este tema de Klaus Schwab – president del Foro Econòmic Mundial), tant amb l’excusa del covid com de la guerra ucrainiana, es destrossa la moneda global (el dòlar, del qual s’imprimeixen bitllets com si s’acabara el món), s’acaba amb la confiança en l’ordre monetari mundial (es confisquen les propietats de la gent que no li agrada als governs, tant russos com camioners que protesten en Canadà), es trenca la cadena de subministres (covid, sancions) i s’encareix l’energia (les sancions). Tot això produeix inflació, escasessa i inestabilitat, així com el fet que el poble és cada vegada més pobre i els super-rics són cada vegada més rics. Però el poble aplaudeix perquè està immers en propaganda i perquè se li tira la culpa de les conseqüències d’estos actes a tots excepte a les èlits occidentals.

Al final, pareix que tornarem a dos blocs econòmics: el bloc del dòlar (Estats Units+Europa+Japó+paisos aliats, en el qual s’intentarà implantar el Nou Ordre Mundial, aquell de «no poseerás nada y serás feliz») i un bloc rival de Rússia, Xina i paisos aliats, que intentarà fer comerç amb un ordre econòmic alternatiu que s’està creant (amb monedes que no són el dòlar i usant alternatives al SWIFT i a les targetes de c`rèdit occidental). També és probable que hi haja paisos no aliniats, que no vulguen ser part de cap dels dos blocs i comercen amb ells, com en la Guerra Freda.

L’aspecte d’aliances

Putin està perdent quant a les aliances globals. Va iniciar la guerra perquè l’OTAN no s’expandira cap a Ucraina (i, segurament, ho aconseguirà). Però ara Finlàndia i Suècia han expressat la seua decisió d’entrar a l’OTAN. Encara que estan més lluny de Moscou que Ucraina, Finlàndia té una llarga frontera amb Rússia. La guerra ha unit a Europa amb Estats Units, l’ha allunyat de Rússia i ha desbaratat el gasoducte Nordstream II (que haguera fet a Europa més depenent de Rússia i haguera fet més irrellevant a Ucraina).

Putin va caure en la trampa d’Estats Units d’iniciar la guerra. Després d’anys de vore com el govern d’Ucraina massacrava als pro-russos del Donbàs (a banda de prohibir l’oposició), hauria d’haver esperat a que Ucraina iniciara. Com documents proven, Estats Units havia programat esta guerra i només provocava a Rússia per iniciar-la. Ara Putin és qui ha iniciat la guerra i això ha fet unir-se a Europa en contra d’ell.

Sobre el futur

Com que Xina segueix recolzant a Rússia, això vol dir que els dos blocs econòmics del que he parlat també seran dos blocs militars. En resum, pareix que tornem a l’època de la Guerra Freda. En comptes de capitalisme contra comunisme, tenim que la lluita serà el globalisme dels grans capitals (USA, Europa) contra el nacionalisme econòmic (Xina, Rússia). Xina és el gran vencedor d’esta guerra, com ho ha sigut del Covid.

El món unipolar que va aparéixer després de la caiguda del bloc soviètic (amb una sola potència americana) serà remplaçat per un món multipolar, amb vàries potències (en conflicte entre elles). Esta és la situacio normal de la humanitat: els moments unipolars són escassos en la història de la humanitat, després de la caiguda de l’Imperi Romà.

El nostre bloc occidental es caracteritzarà cada vegada més per un empobriment de la població i una desaparició de la classe mitjana, ofegada a impostos, mentre les èlits econòmiques tenen mil formes d’evitar-los i s’enriqueixen encara més.

En el tema de les llibertats, avançarem cap al totalitarisme. Cada vegada serà més difícil expressar una opinió diferent a l’opinió oficial. El que discrepa serà caracteritzat com un malvat i obligat a callar. La censura en Internet serà cada vegada més forta. Cada vegada tindrem menys llibertat financera: el poder ens dirà cada vegada més que hem de fer amb els diners que ens deixa després d’impostos i ens els llevarà si ens apartem de la línia oficial. Els diners digitals seran l’extrem d’això. Una vegada desaparega els diners en efectiu, la tirania serà total i impossible d’evitar.

El sistema econòmic al que anem en Occident no pot anomenar-se capitalisme ni comunisme clàssic. Pareix una versió del feixisme: les grans empreses ho dominaran tot i l’Estat només serà un servidor d’elles que farà que el poble se sotmeta als interessos de les grans empreses . El feixisme és una espècie de comunisme corporatiu i pareix que és això al que anem.

Quant a Ucraina, a curt terme, la batalla estarà en l’Est d’Ucraina. Però no es descarta una escalada a una guerra més àmplia, que és cada vegada més probable.

Si un mira el que ens ha portat a esta guerra, veiem un patró que s’està repetint. Putin diu que alguna cosa és inacceptable, protesta, amenaça, diu que es va cap al desastre … i no fa res. Així ha estat durant anys, mentre que l’OTAN no creia les seues amenaces i intensificava l’ajuda militar a Ucraina, perquè en realitat Putin no feia res i ningú creia les seues amenaces. Fins que Zelensky va anunciar que Ucraina anava a aconseguir armes nuclears i Putin va arribar a la conclusió (certa o falsa) que no hi havia una altra opció que invadir i escalar.

Encara que Putin és pintat com un boig en els mitjans occidentals, és una persona terriblement freda, calculadora, planificadora i callada. Es tot cervell. Li costa molt d’arrancar, però, quan arranca, arranca. No fa res que no haja planificat molt, però s’ho calla tot fins a l’últim segon.  Si jo estiguera en una habitació amb Putin, jo no estaria gens tranquil, per molt calmat i amable que estiguera Putin.

Ara s’està repetint el patró. Occident posa sancions a Rússia…Putin no fa res, més que amenaçar. Occident envia material militar a Ucraina…Putin no fa res, més que amenaçar. Finlàndia i Suècia diuen que entraran en l’OTAN… Putin amenaça i no fa res. Putin no ha posat sancions a Occident ni ha contestat a les accions d’Occident: només amenaça mentre els altres ataquen a Rússia. Els altres pensen que Putin no pot contestar a estos atacs, com ho pensaven abans que començara la guerra.

Jo no em fiaria un pèl que, quan arribe a la conclusió que és el millor moment, Putin contra-ataque. Podem acabar amb una guerra nuclear.

Jo intentaria no escalar la situació, però pareix que les èlits occidentals han decidit anar fins al final en esta guerra, perquè saben que els desastres els pagarem nosaltres (el poble, especialment el d’Ucraina) i no ells. Volen sotmetre a Rússia (canviar a Putin per un servidor del globalisme) i després anar contra Xina, de forma que dominen tot el món. Això és impossible, però estes èlits estan emborratxades de poder i es pensen invencibles. Nosaltres pagarem molt amargament el seu orgull i el nostre borreguisme.