La identidad mexicana y regia

«No habrá risa, excepto la risa triunfal cuando se derrota a un enemigo. No habrá arte, ni literatura, ni ciencia. Cuando seamos omnipotentes no necesitaremos más ciencia. No habrá ya distinción entre la belleza y la fealdad. Todos los placeres serán destruidos. Pero siempre, no lo olvides, Winston, siempre habrá el afán de poder, la sed de dominio, que aumentará constantemente y se hará cada vez más sutil. Siempre existirá la emoción de la victoria, la sensación de pisotear a un enemigo indefenso. Si quieres hacerte una idea de como será el futuro, figúrate una bota aplastando un rostro humano… incesantemente».

1984, O’Brien, p. 202.

George Orwell

En el proceso mediático y político de los Estados Unidos ha surgido como tema el racismo, expresado en los exabruptos de Donald Trump. La reacción popular y de los medios de comunicación ha sido la de considerar a Trump como un loco irresponsable y la obligada referencia al nazismo. Tal planteamiento pasa por alto que Trump no hace más que articular el sentir de por lo menos parte del pueblo gringo. Ignora también la endeble posición moral del gobierno mexicano, que no solo propicia con su corrupción e ineficiencia la pobreza endémica, sino que también permite y propicia un verdadero infierno para los hermanos centroamericanos que entran a México ilegalmente.

Los argumentos y expresiones de Trump se pudieran utilizar verbatim en reversa, ya que las políticas y acciones de los Estados Unidos provocan la crisis que empujan a los campesinos hacia El Norte: en plena justicia se puede exigir que los culpables paguen las consecuencias de sus actos. Sin embargo, la realidad de las asimetrías de poder dictan que los patos no le tiran a las escopetas.

La frontera México-Estados Unidos, o México-Centroamérica, es un accidente histórico que nada tiene de natural y que no es un argumento  moralmente válido para negar el libre tránsito de gente que tiene arraigo ancestral en tierras americanas.

La probada metodología de alcohólicos anónimos ha establecido la práctica de que el primer paso para solucionar un problema es reconocer su existencia. México nunca podrá superar las contradicciones fundamentales que han inhibido su desarrollo por siglos sin antes reconocerlas plenamente.

Dice Héctor Pérez Martínez (Pérez-Martinez, 2014), en su biografía de Cuauhtémoc, que La Conquista es un hecho consumado, relevante como elemento formador de México como país mestizo: tal planteamiento supone la cauterización de heridas que todavía en el tercer mileno destilan pus. Si bien es cierto que la población mexicana es mestiza, caracterizar a México como país mestizo es una simplificación que ignora la realidad de varios Méxicos distintos y contra puestos: en una perspectiva mínima, el criollo, el mestizo, y el americano. Decía Paz en El Laberinto de la soledad (Paz, 2015):

«En nuestro territorio conviven no sólo distintas razas y lenguas, sino varios niveles históricos. Hay quienes viven antes de la historia; otros, como los otomíes, desplazados por sucesivas invasiones, al margen de ella. Y sin acudir a estos extremos, varias épocas se enfrentan, se ignoran o se entre devoran sobre una misma tierra o separadas apenas por unos kilómetros. Bajo un mismo cielo, con héroes, costumbres, calendarios y nociones morales diferentes, viven «católicos de Pedro el Ermitaño y jacobinos de la Era Terciaria». Las épocas viejas nunca desaparecen completamente y todas las heridas, aun las más antiguas, manan sangre todavía. A veces, como las pirámides precolombinas, que ocultan casi siempre otras, en una sola ciudad o en una sola alma se mezclan y superponen nociones y sensibilidades enemigas o distantes.»

Aparte de la dificultad fundamental de caracterizar las etnias de los pueblos o naciones, el termino mestizo es un término impreciso, ya que no indica el grado de mestizaje. Si nos vamos por la regla de una solo gota de sangre para perder la «pureza blanca,» el termino no es útil porque el 100% de la población no es etnicamente pura. De acuerdo con el INEGI, en México, la distribución étnica varía dependiendo de la ubicación y el nivel socio económico: el 61% de la población es mestiza, El 28% esta compuestos por etnias nativas de México, y un 10% son europeos, árabes, asiáticos, etc. Me imagino que la situación debe ser similar en otros países hispanoamericanos. Mexicano no es una etnia, solo una denominación política.

México, como todos los países  americanos, es nación apenas convencionalmente y resultado de accidentes históricos. Sin embargo, basta que alguien cruce la frontera para que se plante su mexicanidad por el mismo y por los otros.

La misconcepción fundamental sobre México es que es un país homogéneo. Este es un punto que confunde a los mismos mexicanos: México es un país heterogéneo cuya imagen nacional se ha forjado mediáticamente. Las imágenes prototípicas de México son las del cine y televisión: Un país charro; el país amigo; el hogar de narcotraficantes. Recientemente la imagen es la de un lugar sumido en la violencia. Como todo estereotipo, los de México tienen algo de razón, pero ningún lugar real es una caricatura.

El nacionalismo mexicano surge realmente después de la revolución de principios del siglo XX. Anteriormente, la conciencia de una nacionalidad mexicana se daba solo a nivel de la clase intelectual, pero no existía verdaderamente a nivel popular. Esto es una de las razones por la cual Estados Unidos pudo apropiar territorio técnicamente mexicano con mucha facilidad.

En las clases de historia, o en las series de televisión, la conquista de México es un evento entre mexicanos y españoles, cuando el México actual es, por lo menos en parte, Español. Uno de mis hermanos vivió en España y en una ocasión, un gachupin le comento:Mis abuelos conquistaron México. A lo que respondió mi hermano: No, mis abuelos conquistaron México, los tuyos se quedaron aquí.

 Lo “indio” para el mexicano tiene una connotación negativa, y se usa “indio, india” constantemente para ofender. Algunos mexicanos se burlan y niegan el arquetipo de “la indita ignorante” o del “Peladito”, a otros les molesta sobremanera esa manera de presentarnos ante el mundo. Un caso ilustrativo es Yalitza Aparicio, a quien la BBC describe no como la actriz mexicana, sino como la indígena que protagonizó la película por casualidad y ahora es candidata a mejor actriz en los premios de Hollywood.

México como país, en términos del PIB, no es un país pobre, pero la distribución de la riqueza es muy desigual, y aunque existe una clase media con un nivel de vida equiparable al de países desarrollados, existe en medio de una gran pobreza de la mayoría de la población. Por ejemplo, gente de clase media presume a los extranjeros la disponibilidad de servicios domésticos, sirvientas y jardineros, de bajo costo.

Hay un desempate entre el México que se muestra en la televisión mexicana y la realidad. El México televisivo es un México blanco, moderno, de clase media. Este México existe en realidad, como islotes de prosperidad, en un mar de miseria.

Yo nací y fui criado en Monterrey, Nuevo León. Mis raíces familiares en Nuevo León, el Nuevo León histórico que comprende lo que hoy en día es Texas, Coahuila, Nuevo León y Tamaulipas, se remontan por lo seguro a por lo menos cuatro generaciones. Por mis venas corre sangre americana, así que puedo afirmar con contundencia que soy un mexicano con raíces americanas milenarias. Por otro lado tengo ancestros sefarditas, portugueses, alemanes, e ingleses. Sin embargo, mi conocimiento de las culturas y las lenguas maternas es nulo, culturalmente tengo muy poco que ver con la América precolombina. Sé algunos hechos aislados sobre los mexicas y la conquista, y prácticamente nada sobre las tribus americanas del norte que fueron exterminadas por mis abuelos. El carácter de la cultura neolonesa tradicional es eminentemente sefardita: palabras como huerco, comidas como el cabrito y las tortillas de harina, gusto por limones e higos, el acordeón, la circuncisión.

Los sefarditas llegaron a nuestras montañas y desiertos en busca de la libertad religiosa. Vinimos en busca de la tierra prometida. Nuestros orígenes judíos han sido olvidados en la conciencia popular: porque manifestar abiertamente el judaísmo significaba en los tiempos coloniales ser quemado vivo o ahorcado por la Inquisición, cuanto mayor el rango, mayor el riesgo. Con el tiempo, practicar el judaísmo implicaba ser excluido por parientes y vecinos, que se habían convertido en fervientes católicos.

Entiendo porque rusos y neoyorquinos claman con vehemencia que Palestina les pertenece. El pillaje, cuando la escala es lo suficientemente grande, se convierte en botín de guerra, y patrimonio legítimo de la Nación y el Pueblo. Los hechos son los hechos e Israel existe.

La cultura sefardita tradicional se ha venido diluyendo bajo el embate de la migración continua. Ya muy poco gente en Monterrey es de raíces norteñas. La cultura tradicional ha sido substituida por un paquete mediático de carne asada, cerveza,y fútbol como marcador de identidad. A la población regia se le ha dividido en dos grupos de acuerdo al equipo de fútbol que cada cual ve regularmente en la tele, o ocasionalmente en el estadio. En una ocasión estaba en el taller esperando que me entregaran mi carro, cuando el vecino, con animo de socializar, me comenta que la semifinal iba a estar muy buena. Al notar un dejo de extrañeza en mi rostro, me aclara que “la semifinal” se refería al “americano,” y como concesión amigable me dice: «ah, es que a ti te gusta el fútbol ¿verdad?» Le digo que en realidad no sigo los torneos deportivos e insiste: «¿es que ves el béisbol?» Le digo que no, y como último intento me comenta que las ofertas del buen fin van a estar muy buenas. Cuando le pregunto que cuando era el “buen fin,” la conversación termina. No me sentí para nada “superior” o “intelectual,” más bien añoroso de cuando me dejaba interesar en esos eventos.

Soy egresado de la universidad estatal, y por lo tanto, tigre autentico, universitario. Se pude objetar que mi condición felina es un accidente social, histórico, y geográfico, pero es una realidad incontrovertible que me da derecho a reclamar el epíteto con propiedad. La expresión alere flammam veritatis es parte de mi acervo moral. Aunque no ando comprando ni camisetas, ni boletos sobre costeados para eventos publicitarios, tampoco me siento superior a los conformes que compran el paquete. Cada uno que llene sus vacíos a su gusto y competencia.

Admiro a autores como Eduardo Galeano, Juan Villoro, o, el mismo Carlos Monsiváis, que tratan del fútbol como tema relevante y estético. Como dice Monsiváis, si me da envidia de los que se involucran, pero lo que no se aprende de niño, ya de grande no se domina. Sin embargo, la tendencia es que los elementos orgánicos de la cultura popular se van perdiendo y quedan solo las marcas, los iconos. Forma sin contenido. A partir de la Segunda Guerra Mundial el fútbol creció como fenómeno de masas porque los equipos sublimaban las identidades tribales del barrio y la nación. En el Monterrey de los 50s, 60s, y 70s, los aficionados al fútbol, todos, jugaban en el equipo de su barrio y el uniforme que se ponían era el de su equipo. Ponerse el uniforme del equipo profesional era incluso una falta de respeto.

Tengo una hija que en su vida ha visto un partido de fútbol; ni por televisión, ni mucho menos en vivo en un estadio. Un día, cuando estaba en el jardín de niños me pregunto si en la casa éramos “tigres” o “rayados.” Me sorprendió la pregunta y le propuse ir a ver un partido. La idea no me desagradaba, después de todo un padre siempre anda buscando escusas para convivir con su hija. Pero me dijo que no le interesaba en lo más mínimo. Me explico que una comisión de profesionales había visitada la escuela para promocionar sus marcas y que al día siguiente todos tenían que ir uniformados o de uno o del otro equipo, que si yo no tenia predisposición, que ella se consideraba “rayada” y que quería una camiseta para ponérsela en la escuela. Me indigno el que la escuela se prestara a tan descarada promoción comercial, pero entiendo que la afiliación forzada como parte de la identidad del regiomontano es aceptada por una mayoría tan contundente, que la excepción no es solo inconcebible, sino antisocial.

En el caso de los Tigres, debo confesar que si me deja un mal sabor de boca que la insignia universitaria sea apropiada por una empresa privada para fines meramente comerciales. En sus orígenes el Club Tigres era verdaderamente universitario, en el sentido de los jugadores era estudiantes de la UANL. Ya ni siquiera estamos en los tiempos en que los jugadores eran muchachos de la localidad. Ahora la mayoría son extranjeros, profesionales del espectáculo si ningún nexo real ni siquiera con México, ya no digamos la universidad. El uniforme actual, cuajado de referencias comerciales, nada tiene que ver con los valores de la universidad.

Mi postura ante la cultura popular no es tan nítida como la de Monsiváis, sino más bien ambigua. Yo si he estado en un estadio y si le he echado porras a la selección. Ahora me entretengo en otras cosas, pero la euforia de los éxitos asumidos por el vulgo no deja de tener su encanto. ¿Qué de veras no queda otra que aceptar todo empaquetado?, ¿hasta la pertenencia? Tal vez.

Otro baluarte de la cultura pseudoregia es la carne asada como símbolo de identidad . Es un tema relevante mundialmente, porque, mientras el consumo de carne de res es la opción menos eficiente de alimentación en términos de calidad alimenticia e impacto ambiental, al mismo tiempo este consumo se relaciona con estilo de vida y estatus social aspiracional.

En Nuevo León, los pueblos originarios fueron exterminados y substituidos por migrantes tlaxcaltecas y judíos conversos. Entonces, los origines culturales e históricos de la carne asada hay que buscarlos en esos grupos. Pero el concepto se ha desvirtuado y cambiado por otra cosa. Desde la segunda mitad del siglo veinte, la carne asada se ha promovido como marcador de identidad; el regio ranchero, ultra masculino, que se pasa el día bebiendo cerveza, comiendo carne asada, y viendo fútbol por televisión, preferentemente en el bar. Parte del éxito de este concepto es que la gran mayoría de la población actual es migrante, y toma los símbolos promovidos por los medios de comunicación como una manera fácil y practica de integrarse. En los sesentas, una carne asada era un evento especial y no se conseguían versiones callejeras de carne asada. La carne asada solo se podía consumir en las casas de los que la sabían preparar, gente con lazos familiares en la ganadería, o en restaurantes especializados donde la carne asada no era una comida rápida, más bien al contrario. La versión popular eran los tacos de bistec, cortes baratos fritos en aceite en estufas de gas. Pero debido a una fuerte y continua promoción de las cerveceras y los comercializadores de carne, la carne asada al carbón se ha vuelto un evento rutinario y extendido sobre manera.

Aunque es complicado hacer un análisis por taco consumido, el impacto agregado del consumo de carne y carbón es dramático y evidente. Es necesario identificar las dinámicas sociales y mercadológicas que fomentan este comportamiento y proponer contra medidas.

Paz, O. (2015). El laberinto de la soledad. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Pérez-Martinez, H. (2014). Cuauhtémoc, vida y muerte de una cultura. México: CONACULTA.

«No habrá risa, excepto la risa triunfal cuando se derrota a un enemigo. No habrá arte, ni literatura, ni ciencia. Cuando seamos omnipotentes no necesitaremos más ciencia. No habrá ya distinción entre la belleza y la fealdad. Todos los placeres serán destruidos. Pero siempre, no lo olvides, Winston, siempre habrá el afán de poder, la sed de dominio, que aumentará constantemente y se hará cada vez más sutil. Siempre existirá la emoción de la victoria, la sensación de pisotear a un enemigo indefenso. Si quieres hacerte una idea de como será el futuro, figúrate una bota aplastando un rostro humano... incesantemente».

1984, O'Brien, p. 202.

George Orwell
En el proceso mediático y político de los Estados Unidos ha surgido como tema el racismo, expresado en los exabruptos de Donald Trump. La reacción popular y de los medios de comunicación ha sido la de considerar a Trump como un loco irresponsable y la obligada referencia al nazismo. Tal planteamiento pasa por alto que Trump no hace más que articular el sentir de por lo menos parte del pueblo gringo. Ignora también la endeble posición moral del gobierno mexicano, que no solo propicia con su corrupción e ineficiencia la pobreza endémica, sino que también permite y propicia un verdadero infierno para los hermanos centroamericanos que entran a México ilegalmente.

Los argumentos y expresiones de Trump se pudieran utilizar verbatim en reversa, ya que las políticas y acciones de los Estados Unidos provocan la crisis que empujan a los campesinos hacia El Norte: en plena justicia se puede exigir que los culpables paguen las consecuencias de sus actos. Sin embargo, la realidad de las asimetrías de poder dictan que los patos no le tiran a las escopetas.

La frontera México-Estados Unidos, o México-Centroamérica, es un accidente histórico que nada tiene de natural y que no es un argumento  moralmente válido para negar el libre tránsito de gente que tiene arraigo ancestral en tierras americanas.

La probada metodología de alcohólicos anónimos ha establecido la práctica de que el primer paso para solucionar un problema es reconocer su existencia. México nunca podrá superar las contradicciones fundamentales que han inhibido su desarrollo por siglos sin antes reconocerlas plenamente.

Dice Héctor Pérez Martínez (Pérez-Martinez, 2014), en su biografía de Cuauhtémoc, que La Conquista es un hecho consumado, relevante como elemento formador de México como país mestizo: tal planteamiento supone la cauterización de heridas que todavía en el tercer mileno destilan pus. Si bien es cierto que la población mexicana es mestiza, caracterizar a México como país mestizo es una simplificación que ignora la realidad de varios Méxicos distintos y contra puestos: en una perspectiva mínima, el criollo, el mestizo, y el americano. Decía Paz en El Laberinto de la soledad (Paz, 2015):

«En nuestro territorio conviven no sólo distintas razas y lenguas, sino varios niveles históricos. Hay quienes viven antes de la historia; otros, como los otomíes, desplazados por sucesivas invasiones, al margen de ella. Y sin acudir a estos extremos, varias épocas se enfrentan, se ignoran o se entre devoran sobre una misma tierra o separadas apenas por unos kilómetros. Bajo un mismo cielo, con héroes, costumbres, calendarios y nociones morales diferentes, viven "católicos de Pedro el Ermitaño y jacobinos de la Era Terciaria". Las épocas viejas nunca desaparecen completamente y todas las heridas, aun las más antiguas, manan sangre todavía. A veces, como las pirámides precolombinas, que ocultan casi siempre otras, en una sola ciudad o en una sola alma se mezclan y superponen nociones y sensibilidades enemigas o distantes.»
Aparte de la dificultad fundamental de caracterizar las etnias de los pueblos o naciones, el termino mestizo es un término impreciso, ya que no indica el grado de mestizaje. Si nos vamos por la regla de una solo gota de sangre para perder la "pureza blanca," el termino no es útil porque el 100% de la población no es etnicamente pura. De acuerdo con el INEGI, en México, la distribución étnica varía dependiendo de la ubicación y el nivel socio económico: el 61% de la población es mestiza, El 28% esta compuestos por etnias nativas de México, y un 10% son europeos, árabes, asiáticos, etc. Me imagino que la situación debe ser similar en otros países hispanoamericanos. Mexicano no es una etnia, solo una denominación política.

México, como todos los países  americanos, es nación apenas convencionalmente y resultado de accidentes históricos. Sin embargo, basta que alguien cruce la frontera para que se plante su mexicanidad por el mismo y por los otros.

La misconcepción fundamental sobre México es que es un país homogéneo. Este es un punto que confunde a los mismos mexicanos: México es un país heterogéneo cuya imagen nacional se ha forjado mediáticamente. Las imágenes prototípicas de México son las del cine y televisión: Un país charro; el país amigo; el hogar de narcotraficantes. Recientemente la imagen es la de un lugar sumido en la violencia. Como todo estereotipo, los de México tienen algo de razón, pero ningún lugar real es una caricatura.

El nacionalismo mexicano surge realmente después de la revolución de principios del siglo XX. Anteriormente, la conciencia de una nacionalidad mexicana se daba solo a nivel de la clase intelectual, pero no existía verdaderamente a nivel popular. Esto es una de las razones por la cual Estados Unidos pudo apropiar territorio técnicamente mexicano con mucha facilidad.

En las clases de historia, o en las series de televisión, la conquista de México es un evento entre mexicanos y españoles, cuando el México actual es, por lo menos en parte, Español. Uno de mis hermanos vivió en España y en una ocasión, un gachupin le comento:Mis abuelos conquistaron México. A lo que respondió mi hermano: No, mis abuelos conquistaron México, los tuyos se quedaron aquí.

 Lo “indio” para el mexicano tiene una connotación negativa, y se usa “indio, india” constantemente para ofender. Algunos mexicanos se burlan y niegan el arquetipo de “la indita ignorante” o del “Peladito”, a otros les molesta sobremanera esa manera de presentarnos ante el mundo. Un caso ilustrativo es Yalitza Aparicio, a quien la BBC describe no como la actriz mexicana, sino como la indígena que protagonizó la película por casualidad y ahora es candidata a mejor actriz en los premios de Hollywood.

México como país, en términos del PIB, no es un país pobre, pero la distribución de la riqueza es muy desigual, y aunque existe una clase media con un nivel de vida equiparable al de países desarrollados, existe en medio de una gran pobreza de la mayoría de la población. Por ejemplo, gente de clase media presume a los extranjeros la disponibilidad de servicios domésticos, sirvientas y jardineros, de bajo costo.

Hay un desempate entre el México que se muestra en la televisión mexicana y la realidad. El México televisivo es un México blanco, moderno, de clase media. Este México existe en realidad, como islotes de prosperidad, en un mar de miseria.

Yo nací y fui criado en Monterrey, Nuevo León. Mis raíces familiares en Nuevo León, el Nuevo León histórico que comprende lo que hoy en día es Texas, Coahuila, Nuevo León y Tamaulipas, se remontan por lo seguro a por lo menos cuatro generaciones. Por mis venas corre sangre americana, así que puedo afirmar con contundencia que soy un mexicano con raíces americanas milenarias. Por otro lado tengo ancestros sefarditas, portugueses, alemanes, e ingleses. Sin embargo, mi conocimiento de las culturas y las lenguas maternas es nulo, culturalmente tengo muy poco que ver con la América precolombina. Sé algunos hechos aislados sobre los mexicas y la conquista, y prácticamente nada sobre las tribus americanas del norte que fueron exterminadas por mis abuelos. El carácter de la cultura neolonesa tradicional es eminentemente sefardita: palabras como huerco, comidas como el cabrito y las tortillas de harina, gusto por limones e higos, el acordeón, la circuncisión.

Los sefarditas llegaron a nuestras montañas y desiertos en busca de la libertad religiosa. Vinimos en busca de la tierra prometida. Nuestros orígenes judíos han sido olvidados en la conciencia popular: porque manifestar abiertamente el judaísmo significaba en los tiempos coloniales ser quemado vivo o ahorcado por la Inquisición, cuanto mayor el rango, mayor el riesgo. Con el tiempo, practicar el judaísmo implicaba ser excluido por parientes y vecinos, que se habían convertido en fervientes católicos.

Entiendo porque rusos y neoyorquinos claman con vehemencia que Palestina les pertenece. El pillaje, cuando la escala es lo suficientemente grande, se convierte en botín de guerra, y patrimonio legítimo de la Nación y el Pueblo. Los hechos son los hechos e Israel existe.

La cultura sefardita tradicional se ha venido diluyendo bajo el embate de la migración continua. Ya muy poco gente en Monterrey es de raíces norteñas. La cultura tradicional ha sido substituida por un paquete mediático de carne asada, cerveza,y fútbol como marcador de identidad. A la población regia se le ha dividido en dos grupos de acuerdo al equipo de fútbol que cada cual ve regularmente en la tele, o ocasionalmente en el estadio. En una ocasión estaba en el taller esperando que me entregaran mi carro, cuando el vecino, con animo de socializar, me comenta que la semifinal iba a estar muy buena. Al notar un dejo de extrañeza en mi rostro, me aclara que “la semifinal” se refería al “americano,” y como concesión amigable me dice: «ah, es que a ti te gusta el fútbol ¿verdad?» Le digo que en realidad no sigo los torneos deportivos e insiste: «¿es que ves el béisbol?» Le digo que no, y como último intento me comenta que las ofertas del buen fin van a estar muy buenas. Cuando le pregunto que cuando era el “buen fin,” la conversación termina. No me sentí para nada “superior” o “intelectual,” más bien añoroso de cuando me dejaba interesar en esos eventos.

Soy egresado de la universidad estatal, y por lo tanto, tigre autentico, universitario. Se pude objetar que mi condición felina es un accidente social, histórico, y geográfico, pero es una realidad incontrovertible que me da derecho a reclamar el epíteto con propiedad. La expresión alere flammam veritatis es parte de mi acervo moral. Aunque no ando comprando ni camisetas, ni boletos sobre costeados para eventos publicitarios, tampoco me siento superior a los conformes que compran el paquete. Cada uno que llene sus vacíos a su gusto y competencia.

Admiro a autores como Eduardo Galeano, Juan Villoro, o, el mismo Carlos Monsiváis, que tratan del fútbol como tema relevante y estético. Como dice Monsiváis, si me da envidia de los que se involucran, pero lo que no se aprende de niño, ya de grande no se domina. Sin embargo, la tendencia es que los elementos orgánicos de la cultura popular se van perdiendo y quedan solo las marcas, los iconos. Forma sin contenido. A partir de la Segunda Guerra Mundial el fútbol creció como fenómeno de masas porque los equipos sublimaban las identidades tribales del barrio y la nación. En el Monterrey de los 50s, 60s, y 70s, los aficionados al fútbol, todos, jugaban en el equipo de su barrio y el uniforme que se ponían era el de su equipo. Ponerse el uniforme del equipo profesional era incluso una falta de respeto.

Tengo una hija que en su vida ha visto un partido de fútbol; ni por televisión, ni mucho menos en vivo en un estadio. Un día, cuando estaba en el jardín de niños me pregunto si en la casa éramos “tigres” o “rayados.” Me sorprendió la pregunta y le propuse ir a ver un partido. La idea no me desagradaba, después de todo un padre siempre anda buscando escusas para convivir con su hija. Pero me dijo que no le interesaba en lo más mínimo. Me explico que una comisión de profesionales había visitada la escuela para promocionar sus marcas y que al día siguiente todos tenían que ir uniformados o de uno o del otro equipo, que si yo no tenia predisposición, que ella se consideraba “rayada” y que quería una camiseta para ponérsela en la escuela. Me indigno el que la escuela se prestara a tan descarada promoción comercial, pero entiendo que la afiliación forzada como parte de la identidad del regiomontano es aceptada por una mayoría tan contundente, que la excepción no es solo inconcebible, sino antisocial.

En el caso de los Tigres, debo confesar que si me deja un mal sabor de boca que la insignia universitaria sea apropiada por una empresa privada para fines meramente comerciales. En sus orígenes el Club Tigres era verdaderamente universitario, en el sentido de los jugadores era estudiantes de la UANL. Ya ni siquiera estamos en los tiempos en que los jugadores eran muchachos de la localidad. Ahora la mayoría son extranjeros, profesionales del espectáculo si ningún nexo real ni siquiera con México, ya no digamos la universidad. El uniforme actual, cuajado de referencias comerciales, nada tiene que ver con los valores de la universidad.



Mi postura ante la cultura popular no es tan nítida como la de Monsiváis, sino más bien ambigua. Yo si he estado en un estadio y si le he echado porras a la selección. Ahora me entretengo en otras cosas, pero la euforia de los éxitos asumidos por el vulgo no deja de tener su encanto. ¿Qué de veras no queda otra que aceptar todo empaquetado?, ¿hasta la pertenencia? Tal vez.

Otro baluarte de la cultura pseudoregia es la carne asada como símbolo de identidad . Es un tema relevante mundialmente, porque, mientras el consumo de carne de res es la opción menos eficiente de alimentación en términos de calidad alimenticia e impacto ambiental, al mismo tiempo este consumo se relaciona con estilo de vida y estatus social aspiracional.

En Nuevo León, los pueblos originarios fueron exterminados y substituidos por migrantes tlaxcaltecas y judíos conversos. Entonces, los origines culturales e históricos de la carne asada hay que buscarlos en esos grupos. Pero el concepto se ha desvirtuado y cambiado por otra cosa. Desde la segunda mitad del siglo veinte, la carne asada se ha promovido como marcador de identidad; el regio ranchero, ultra masculino, que se pasa el día bebiendo cerveza, comiendo carne asada, y viendo fútbol por televisión, preferentemente en el bar. Parte del éxito de este concepto es que la gran mayoría de la población actual es migrante, y toma los símbolos promovidos por los medios de comunicación como una manera fácil y practica de integrarse. En los sesentas, una carne asada era un evento especial y no se conseguían versiones callejeras de carne asada. La carne asada solo se podía consumir en las casas de los que la sabían preparar, gente con lazos familiares en la ganadería, o en restaurantes especializados donde la carne asada no era una comida rápida, más bien al contrario. La versión popular eran los tacos de bistec, cortes baratos fritos en aceite en estufas de gas. Pero debido a una fuerte y continua promoción de las cerveceras y los comercializadores de carne, la carne asada al carbón se ha vuelto un evento rutinario y extendido sobre manera.



Aunque es complicado hacer un análisis por taco consumido, el impacto agregado del consumo de carne y carbón es dramático y evidente. Es necesario identificar las dinámicas sociales y mercadológicas que fomentan este comportamiento y proponer contra medidas.


Paz, O. (2015). El laberinto de la soledad. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Pérez-Martinez, H. (2014). Cuauhtémoc, vida y muerte de una cultura. México: CONACULTA.

Yusuf Islam

El día domingo 10 de abril en la tarde, alrededor de las 18:00 horas, al estar leyendo sobre
psicología positiva me encontré de manera reiterada con referencias a la canción On The Road To
Find Out, de Cat Stevens, ahora Yusuf Islam. Antes de continuar con la historia debo hacer un
paréntesis y hacer una remembranza. Cuando estaba en primer año de facultad tuve un
compañero que tenía un auto, y en su auto un equipo de sonido 8-track: Los 8-track eran unos
cartuchos de cinta enormes comparados con los casetes pero en esos años eran lo moderno. Me
sentaba con mi amigo Luis en su carro y escuchábamos música que para mí era desconocida.
Recuerdo en particular Let it be de los Beatles, pero sobre todo cartucho tras cartucho de la música
de Cat Stevens. Total, que volviendo al 2016, al ver la referencia al bardo, busque la canción de
buscando por el camino en YouTube, y termine escuchando a Yusuf por horas: Canciones como
Bitter Blue, Can’t Keep It In, , Don’t Be Shy, Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood (es de los Animals pero es muy apropiada para Yusuf), Father and son, If you want to sing out, In The End, LADY
D’ARBANVILLE, Miles From Nowhere, Morning has broken, Peace Train, The First Cut Is The Deepest, Where do the children play, Wild World.

Para mí fue un gozo escuchar esa música, no solo por la empatía cognitiva con las letras y música de Yusuf Islam, sino también porque me remitió a mis tiempos de estudiante universitario.

El día domingo 10 de abril en la tarde, alrededor de las 18:00 horas, al estar leyendo sobre
psicología positiva me encontré de manera reiterada con referencias a la canción On The Road To
Find Out, de Cat Stevens, ahora Yusuf Islam. Antes de continuar con la historia debo hacer un
paréntesis y hacer una remembranza. Cuando estaba en primer año de facultad tuve un
compañero que tenía un auto, y en su auto un equipo de sonido 8-track: Los 8-track eran unos
cartuchos de cinta enormes comparados con los casetes pero en esos años eran lo moderno. Me
sentaba con mi amigo Luis en su carro y escuchábamos música que para mí era desconocida.
Recuerdo en particular Let it be de los Beatles, pero sobre todo cartucho tras cartucho de la música
de Cat Stevens. Total, que volviendo al 2016, al ver la referencia al bardo, busque la canción de
buscando por el camino en YouTube, y termine escuchando a Yusuf por horas: Canciones como
Bitter Blue, Can’t Keep It In, , Don’t Be Shy, Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood (es de los Animals pero es muy apropiada para Yusuf), Father and son, If you want to sing out, In The End, LADY
D’ARBANVILLE, Miles From Nowhere, Morning has broken, Peace Train, The First Cut Is The Deepest, Where do the children play, Wild World.

Para mí fue un gozo escuchar esa música, no solo por la empatía cognitiva con las letras y música de Yusuf Islam, sino también porque me remitió a mis tiempos de estudiante universitario.

Benoit Talleu

El 13 de enero de 2013, Benoit Talleu de 17 años de edad, fue orador en la Marcha por la Familia que organizó La Manif Pour Tous en París, Francia. Habló en nombre de la Asociación para los Niños Adoptados.
He aquí su discurso completo:
“Hola a todos. Soy Benoit Talleu y tengo 17 años de edad. Nací en Vietnam, pero me adoptaron desde bebé. Mis padres adoptaron 7 niños y yo soy el mayor.
Estoy en la lucha contra el “matrimonio para todos”, junto con la Asociación para Niños Adoptados, porque estoy harto de escuchar que muchos hablan de la adopción, como si lo más importante no fuéramos los adoptados.
Si preguntas a los adoptados qué quieren, ellos solo tienen una respuesta: ¡un papá y una mamá! “Papi y mami” son palabras que un huérfano conoce y cuando es adoptado, sueña con usar esas palabras. Los niños en adopción sueñan con sus futuros padres. Los imaginan. Desde lo más profundo de su ser, ellos esperan a papá y mamá. ¡Y son esos niños los que deben ser escuchados!
Debemos decirlo claro, un huérfano NECESITA un papá y una mamá. En cambio, la pareja QUIERE un niño, y entre “necesitar” y “querer”, hay mucha diferencia.
La adopción no es para “hacer” papás y mamás. No es un remedio para las parejas estériles. La esterilidad no hace NECESARIA la adopción. La adopción no es para que los adultos se sientan bien. ¡No somos un remedio para la esterilidad! ¡No somos medicinas! ¡No estamos aquí para consolarte por no tener hijos! ¡No somos un premio! ¡No somos un derecho! No hables como si tuvieras derecho a nosotros. ¡Eso es violentar nuestra identidad!
Nuestra madre biológica tuvo la valentía de confiarnos a un orfanatorio. Eso no quiere decir que seamos objetos. Ella pudo estar en una situación dramática, probablemente estaba sola, tal vez no había papá. Ella no pudo hacerlo. Pero eso no es un insulto para nosotros.
Dar a parejas del mismo sexo “el derecho a nosotros” ¡Traiciona la confianza de nuestra madre biológica! El huérfano necesita un papá y una mamá. Eso no es discriminar a las parejas gay. ¡No tiene nada que ver! Es más simple que eso: ¡Todos nacemos de un hombre y una mujer!.. ¡Y los adoptantes deben ser un hombre y una mujer!
Escuchamos a personas que dicen: “Vivir con una pareja gay es mejor que ser huérfano” Escuchen lo que tengo que decir al respecto: Esa afirmación rebosa de deshonestidad. ¡Hay decenas de miles de parejas hombre/mujer que esperan poder adoptar!
Otros dicen, “una pareja gay es mejor que nada”. ¡Eso es estremecedor y homofóbico! ¡Lo mejor para un niño es un papá y una mamá! No me cansaré de repetirlo.
Decir que un huérfano no merece tener mamá, es cruel e injusto. Decir que un huérfano no merece tener papá, es cruel e injusto. ¡Es una crueldad y una injusticia! ¡Es atentar contra la igualdad de la niñez!
La inseminación y la renta de úteros se contempla en la ley del matrimonio gay.
Cada vez será más común ver niños de la inseminación y la renta de vientres. Nosotros decimos ¡No a la inseminación artificial ni al alquiler de vientres! ¡No a la adopción por parejas del mismo sexo! Los gays pueden estar enamorados, no lo dudo, ¡pero eso no cambia las necesidades de un niño!
Muchos dicen “oh, las cosas han evolucionado”, “tantos países han aceptado el matrimonio gay”, pero nosotros somos un gran nación y una gran democracia. La ley del matrimonio gay es puro egoísmo. La ley debe velar por los más débiles, ¡No por el capricho de los fuertes! Los padres son para el niño, no al revés.
Francia es la nación de los derechos humanos, es la nación de los derechos del niño. ¡Somos la nación donde los niños tienen derechos! ¡No donde los niños son un derecho!
Señor presidente, le recuerdo a usted, escúchenos, los huérfanos somos los que importamos en todo esto. Los niños, los huérfanos y los adoptados.
¡Gracias y movilicémonos!
¡Por nosotros!
¡Por nuestros papás y mamás!
¡Por la familia!

El 13 de enero de 2013, Benoit Talleu de 17 años de edad, fue orador en la Marcha por la Familia que organizó La Manif Pour Tous en París, Francia. Habló en nombre de la Asociación para los Niños Adoptados.
He aquí su discurso completo:
“Hola a todos. Soy Benoit Talleu y tengo 17 años de edad. Nací en Vietnam, pero me adoptaron desde bebé. Mis padres adoptaron 7 niños y yo soy el mayor.
Estoy en la lucha contra el “matrimonio para todos”, junto con la Asociación para Niños Adoptados, porque estoy harto de escuchar que muchos hablan de la adopción, como si lo más importante no fuéramos los adoptados.
Si preguntas a los adoptados qué quieren, ellos solo tienen una respuesta: ¡un papá y una mamá! “Papi y mami” son palabras que un huérfano conoce y cuando es adoptado, sueña con usar esas palabras. Los niños en adopción sueñan con sus futuros padres. Los imaginan. Desde lo más profundo de su ser, ellos esperan a papá y mamá. ¡Y son esos niños los que deben ser escuchados!
Debemos decirlo claro, un huérfano NECESITA un papá y una mamá. En cambio, la pareja QUIERE un niño, y entre “necesitar” y “querer”, hay mucha diferencia.
La adopción no es para “hacer” papás y mamás. No es un remedio para las parejas estériles. La esterilidad no hace NECESARIA la adopción. La adopción no es para que los adultos se sientan bien. ¡No somos un remedio para la esterilidad! ¡No somos medicinas! ¡No estamos aquí para consolarte por no tener hijos! ¡No somos un premio! ¡No somos un derecho! No hables como si tuvieras derecho a nosotros. ¡Eso es violentar nuestra identidad!
Nuestra madre biológica tuvo la valentía de confiarnos a un orfanatorio. Eso no quiere decir que seamos objetos. Ella pudo estar en una situación dramática, probablemente estaba sola, tal vez no había papá. Ella no pudo hacerlo. Pero eso no es un insulto para nosotros.
Dar a parejas del mismo sexo “el derecho a nosotros” ¡Traiciona la confianza de nuestra madre biológica! El huérfano necesita un papá y una mamá. Eso no es discriminar a las parejas gay. ¡No tiene nada que ver! Es más simple que eso: ¡Todos nacemos de un hombre y una mujer!.. ¡Y los adoptantes deben ser un hombre y una mujer!
Escuchamos a personas que dicen: “Vivir con una pareja gay es mejor que ser huérfano” Escuchen lo que tengo que decir al respecto: Esa afirmación rebosa de deshonestidad. ¡Hay decenas de miles de parejas hombre/mujer que esperan poder adoptar!
Otros dicen, “una pareja gay es mejor que nada”. ¡Eso es estremecedor y homofóbico! ¡Lo mejor para un niño es un papá y una mamá! No me cansaré de repetirlo.
Decir que un huérfano no merece tener mamá, es cruel e injusto. Decir que un huérfano no merece tener papá, es cruel e injusto. ¡Es una crueldad y una injusticia! ¡Es atentar contra la igualdad de la niñez!
La inseminación y la renta de úteros se contempla en la ley del matrimonio gay.
Cada vez será más común ver niños de la inseminación y la renta de vientres. Nosotros decimos ¡No a la inseminación artificial ni al alquiler de vientres! ¡No a la adopción por parejas del mismo sexo! Los gays pueden estar enamorados, no lo dudo, ¡pero eso no cambia las necesidades de un niño!
Muchos dicen “oh, las cosas han evolucionado”, “tantos países han aceptado el matrimonio gay”, pero nosotros somos un gran nación y una gran democracia. La ley del matrimonio gay es puro egoísmo. La ley debe velar por los más débiles, ¡No por el capricho de los fuertes! Los padres son para el niño, no al revés.
Francia es la nación de los derechos humanos, es la nación de los derechos del niño. ¡Somos la nación donde los niños tienen derechos! ¡No donde los niños son un derecho!
Señor presidente, le recuerdo a usted, escúchenos, los huérfanos somos los que importamos en todo esto. Los niños, los huérfanos y los adoptados.
¡Gracias y movilicémonos!
¡Por nosotros!
¡Por nuestros papás y mamás!
¡Por la familia!

toda la humanidad

Beirut y París: Historia de dos ataques terroristas

Por: Belén Fernández

Publicado 16 noviembre 2015

Cuando llegó la noticia de los ataques terroristas en París, que en última instancia dejaron más de 120 muertos, el Presidente estadounidense, Barack Obama calificó la situación como «desgarradora» y un asalto «a toda la humanidad».

Esa simpatía presidencial estuvo notablemente ausente el día anterior cuando los ataques terroristas en Beirut dejaron más de 40 muertos. Como era de esperar, los medios de comunicación Occidentales y los medios sociales fueron mucho menos vocales sobre la masacre en el Líbano.

Este contenido ha sido publicado originalmente por teleSUR bajo la siguiente dirección:
http://www.telesurtv.net/opinion/Beirut-y-Paris-Historia-de-dos-ataques-terroristas-20151116-0036.html.

Beirut y París: Historia de dos ataques terroristas


Por: Belén Fernández

Publicado 16 noviembre 2015


Cuando llegó la noticia de los ataques terroristas en París, que en última instancia dejaron más de 120 muertos, el Presidente estadounidense, Barack Obama calificó la situación como "desgarradora" y un asalto "a toda la humanidad".

Esa simpatía presidencial estuvo notablemente ausente el día anterior cuando los ataques terroristas en Beirut dejaron más de 40 muertos. Como era de esperar, los medios de comunicación Occidentales y los medios sociales fueron mucho menos vocales sobre la masacre en el Líbano.

Este contenido ha sido publicado originalmente por teleSUR bajo la siguiente dirección:
http://www.telesurtv.net/opinion/Beirut-y-Paris-Historia-de-dos-ataques-terroristas-20151116-0036.html.

Anti-Muslim Bigotry

Tolerance is an intractable term.  Should we tolerate the intolerant, the racist, or the violent? Who decides who’s who, who’s what? Words used in complex social situations have always a degree of double-speak; there is a disconnection between what we think we mean and our actual thinking.
Tolerance (http://www.tolerance.org/ ) is supposed to be about letting those different from us be themselves, but in practice is about pretending that we are different from ourselves. To always have a favorite football team as an essential part of our identity? Even in this limited sense, one has to be careful; it might not be healthful to display the wrong loyalty in the wrong bar.
Mass attitudes towards the other are influenced by the Media. For instance, many Serbian communities believed that the western media portrayed a negative image of the Serbian people during the NATO bombing in Kosovo and Serbia (http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/tolerance ).
it is easy to protest
when the bombs fall miles from the fridge
yet, we are still afraid
a trip to Disney World on the line
so what hundred children massacred a day
better to have less terrorists, right?

Few political terrorists in recent history took as much care to articulate their ideological influences and political views as Anders Behring Breivik did. The right-wing Norwegian Islamophobe.  One of the most remarkable aspects of the manifesto is the extent to which its European author quoted from the writings of figures from the American conservative movement (http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/08/americas-breivik-complex-how-state-terror-electrifies-the-islamophobic-right ). Many of the American writers who influenced Breivik spent years churning out calls for the mass murder of Muslims, Palestinians and their left-wing Western supporters. American Islamophobes simply sit back from the comfort of their homes and cheer as American and Israeli troops — and their remote-controlled aerial drones — leave a trail of charred bodies from Waziristan to Gaza City.
While Israel has sought to insulate itself from the legal ramifications of its attacks on civilian life by deploying elaborate propaganda and intellectual sophistry (witness the country’s frantic campaign to discredit the Goldstone Report), and the United States has casually dismissed allegations of war crimes as any swaggering superpower would (after a US airstrike killed scores of Afghan civilians, former US CENTCOM chief David Petraeus baselessly claimed that Afghan parents had deliberately burned their children alive to increase the death toll), the online Islamophobes who inspired Breivik tacitly accept the reality of Israeli and American state terror.
In American and Israeli society, Professional Terrorism is acceptable, whereas Amateur Terrorism is absolutely the world’s greatest evil (http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/gallup-poll-jews-and-christians-way-more-likely-than-muslims-to-justify-killing-civilians/ ).  Amateur Terrorism provides the justification for Professional Terrorism (this even though it is usually almost always the case that Professional Terrorism started the cycle of violence).  Those who have the capability to carry out Professional Terrorism have absolutely no need to resort to Amateur Terrorism since the former is so much more effective in killing civilians than the latter.
Public Policy Polling asked Republicans if they would want to bomb the fictional town of Agrabah in Disney’s Aladdin movie (http://www.loonwatch.com/2015/12/30-percent-of-republicans-want-to-bomb-aladdins-hometown-agrabah/ ).
These are the results:
Support bombing Agrabah  …………………………30%
Oppose bombing Agrabah  …………………………13%
Not sure ……………………………………………………57%
In sharp contrast with Americans who identify themselves with other faith groups (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-no-justification-violence.aspx ), Muslim Americans are more likely to say military attacks on civilians are never justified (78%) than sometimes justified (21%). Respondents from other faith groups, particularly Mormon Americans, are more likely to say military attacks are sometimes justified than never justified. The opinions of Americans who don’t identify themselves with any religion are more in line with those of Muslim Americans, but they are also more divided.
Gallup analysts (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx ) tested correlations between the level at which populations say these attacks are “sometimes justified” and a number of independent indicators, and they found human development and societal stability measures are most strongly related.
Residents of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states are slightly less likely than residents of non-member states to view military attacks on civilians as sometimes justified, and about as likely as those of non-member states to say the same about individual attacks.

 “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”
Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade .
A common complaint among non-Muslims is that Muslim religious authorities do not condemn terrorist attacks. The complaints often surface in letters to the editors of newspapers, on phone-in radio shows, in Internet mailing lists, forums, etc. A leader of an evangelical Christian para-church group, broadcasting over Sirius Family Net radio, stated that he had done a thorough search on the Internet for a Muslim statement condemning terrorism, without finding a single item.
Actually, there are lots of fatwas and other statements issued which condemn attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, they are largely ignored by newspapers, television news, radio news and other media outlets. Possibly because Islamic terrorists keep killing innocent civilians.
A 2007 Pew Research Center study of several nations throughout the Muslim world showed that opposition to suicide bombing in the Muslim world is increasing, with a majority of Muslims surveyed in 10 out of the 16 of the countries responding that suicide bombings and other violence against civilians is “never” justified, though an average of 38% believe it is justified at least rarely. Opposition to Hamas was the majority opinion in only 4 out of the 16 countries surveyed, as was opposition to Hezbollah.[5] The Pew Research Study did not include Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria in the survey, although densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Bangladesh were included.
Per the 2013 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers in what are known as “price tag” attacks. These Jewish terrorists attacked Palestinian civilians causing physical injuries to 93 of them and also vandalized scores of mosques and Christian churches.
An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims. In actuality, 42 percent of terror attacks were carried out by Latino-related groups, followed by 24 percent perpetrated by extreme left-wing actors.
And as a 2014 study by University of North Carolina found, since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans. In that same time period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered (PDF).
Muslim man was attacked by Piro Kolvani who decided he had to drive from Florida to New York to beat on a Muslim (Kolvani was inspired by the NY Post front covers). Kolvani viciously attacked Sarker Haque, who stated, “I never saw a situation like that. Not even after 9/11.”
Yet, the conflict is not about religion nor race, but power (in the sociopathic sense) and resources. Human activity is not driven by justice but by power. In a way, justice is the right of the strong. One thing is rationalizations used to justify actions, and another, real social and psychological motives behind. These ulterior motives are not necessary explicit or even conscious.
All three religions   – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam – in conflict share the same core barbaric Bronze Age believes sated in the Hebrew Bible, and all pick and choose what’s convenient to their respective social order. Whether one is consider a Christian or a Muslim is more an accident of geography or ethnicity, than a reflection of actual belief.   That is, religion is mainly a marker of cultural identity.
Israel, for all the talk about being a Jewish state is in practice rather secular. Although the idea of a vibrant queer community in Israel, reputed birthplace of the biblical condemnation of same-sex relations, may seem far-fetched, Israel today is one of the world’s most progressive countries in terms of equality for sexual minorities. Politically, legally, and culturally, the community has moved from life at the margins of Israeli society to visibility and growing acceptance (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/homosexuality-in-israel/ ).
Many Israelis are not Semitic (http://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html ). While Ashkenazi Jews have a long tradition in Judaism, they cannot claim a bloodline from David, which is a mythological figure anyway (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/davidjer.html ).
The scourge of Islamic fundamentalism is a monster created by the same people crying wolf (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/the-islamic-state/ ).
The modern Islamic fundamentalist movements have their origins in the late 19th century. The Wahhabi movement, an Arabian fundamentalist movement that began in the 18th century, gained traction and spread during the 19th and 20th centuries. During the Cold War following World War II, some NATO governments, particularly those of the United States and the United Kingdom, launched covert and overt campaigns to encourage and strengthen fundamentalist groups in the Middle East and southern Asia. These groups were seen as a hedge against potential expansion by the Soviet Union, and as a means to prevent the growth of nationalistic movements that were not necessarily favorable toward the interests of the Western nations. By the 1970s the Islamists had become important allies in supporting governments, such as Egypt, which were friendly to U.S. interests. In many cases the military wings of these groups were supplied with money and arms by the U.S. (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/religion-and-terrorism/ ).

Regardless of the machinations behind the current crisis in the Middle East, its effects will unsettle the whole World, including the US and Europe (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-roots-of-the-migration-crisis-1441995372 ). The Syrian refugee disaster presents a dilemma to the West. A massive influx of refugees into any country compromises its social and economic stability but the crisis cannot be ignored in humanitarian and practical grounds. Furthermore, the rise of religious fundamentalism (of all flavors: Christian, Muslim, or Jewish) is a treat to the long term viability of modern society.
Humans are social animals and it’s our natural instinct to be emphatic with others. It’s natural for us to bond by kinship. Unfortunately the same tribal instinct hampers our ability to recognize the essential and vital global brotherhood of man. We cling to nationality, religion, and many artificial walls we build around us that compromise our chances for long term survival.
We must overcome our fears and reach out for peace. To live or die together is the choice.

The xenophobic policies offered up by Republicans in the wake of the Paris and Beirut attacks are simply jaw-dropping:

  • Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz suggested bombing innocent civilians in the Middle East.2
  • Twenty-six Republican governors have vowed, without any legal authority, to block Syrian refugees from their states.3
  • Presidential candidate Jeb Bush joined Cruz in proposing that we block Syrian refugees based on religion — admitting Christian but not Muslim refugees.4
  • The House passed a bill this week requiring the FBI director, the secretary of Homeland Security and the director of National Intelligence to personally sign off on every refugee from Syria or Iraq.5
These policies are especially offensive in light of the fact that there is legislation that Congress could pass right now to actually reduce gun violence. The Senate could:
  • Close the terror gap by allowing the Department of Justice to block guns sales to anyone on the terror watch list. Between 2004 and 2014, more than 2,000 people on the list purchased guns in the U.S.
  • Close the loophole that allows people to buy guns without undergoing background checks through private sales, at gun shows and online. An estimated 40 percent of all firearms transferred in the U.S. are transferred by unlicensed individuals not required to conduct background checks on buyers.6
  • Ban convicted domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if that individual has access to a firearm.7
  • Prohibit the manufacture of assault weapons and large capacity magazines for civilian use.
If Republicans really want to protect Americans, it’s clear what they need to do: break their blind allegiance to the NRA and pass gun control legislation. But they’ll never act unless we force them. Can you add your voice today?
Tell Senate Republican leaders: Act to make us safer and pass real gun control legislation. Click the link below to sign the petition:
Thanks for standing up to the NRA today,
Heidi Hess, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Add your name:
Sign the petition ►
References:
  1. Closing the Terror Gap in Gun Background Checks,” Everytown for Gun Safety, July 21, 2015.
  2. Judd Legum, «In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civilian Casualties’,» ThinkProgress.org, November 13, 2015.
  3. Sarah Frostenson and Dara Lind, “Here’s a map of every state refusing to accept Syrian refugees,” Vox.com, November 18, 2015.
  4. Amy Davidson, “Ted Cruz’ Religious Test for Refugees, New Yorker, November 16, 2015.
  5. Camila Domonoske, “House Votes To Increase Security Checks On Refugees From Iraq, Syria,” NPR, November 19, 2015.
  6. Universal Background Checks & the “Private” Sale Loophole Policy Summary ,” Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, September 10, 2015.
  7. Gabby Gifford, National Domestic Violence Prevention Leaders Applaud New House Legislation to Keep Guns out of the Hands of Abusers,” Americans for Responsible Solutions, July 22, 2015.

The House of Representatives voted for a bill that would shut the door in the faces of refugees who are fleeing violence in Syria and other locations.  That same day, hearings in the House and Senate focused on the need to “keep America safe” – suggesting that our country was not brave enough to help those who are victims of violence.

Some in the House stood up for refugees and voted against the anti-refugee bill, but far too many supported it.  Please write to your Representative now.  

As faith communities gather this weekend, we encourage you to stand up to the fear and hate that is rampant in this moment of heightened anti-Muslim bigotry as you’ve undoubtedly seen expressed on social media and cable news, and by governors and Presidential candidates.  Many faith groups and denominations have distributed statements and resources, and NRCAT will continue to update this resource list.  These include messages of welcome to refugees of all faiths, and talking points that can be used for sermons and prayers.  If you have a resource that should be added, please email me.

Finally, please consider reaching out to a local mosque or refugee resettlement center.  You might send a note of support, make arrangements for a joint service project, plan an interfaith vigil, or volunteer to help resettle refugees in your community.

Sincerely,

T.C. Morrow
Director of Finance & Operations
Staff for NRCAT’s Addressing Anti-Muslim Bigotry Program


Tolerance is an intractable term.  Should we tolerate the intolerant, the racist, or the violent? Who decides who’s who, who’s what? Words used in complex social situations have always a degree of double-speak; there is a disconnection between what we think we mean and our actual thinking.
Tolerance (http://www.tolerance.org/ ) is supposed to be about letting those different from us be themselves, but in practice is about pretending that we are different from ourselves. To always have a favorite football team as an essential part of our identity? Even in this limited sense, one has to be careful; it might not be healthful to display the wrong loyalty in the wrong bar.
Mass attitudes towards the other are influenced by the Media. For instance, many Serbian communities believed that the western media portrayed a negative image of the Serbian people during the NATO bombing in Kosovo and Serbia (http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/tolerance ).
it is easy to protest
when the bombs fall miles from the fridge
yet, we are still afraid
a trip to Disney World on the line
so what hundred children massacred a day
better to have less terrorists, right?

Few political terrorists in recent history took as much care to articulate their ideological influences and political views as Anders Behring Breivik did. The right-wing Norwegian Islamophobe.  One of the most remarkable aspects of the manifesto is the extent to which its European author quoted from the writings of figures from the American conservative movement (http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/08/americas-breivik-complex-how-state-terror-electrifies-the-islamophobic-right ). Many of the American writers who influenced Breivik spent years churning out calls for the mass murder of Muslims, Palestinians and their left-wing Western supporters. American Islamophobes simply sit back from the comfort of their homes and cheer as American and Israeli troops — and their remote-controlled aerial drones — leave a trail of charred bodies from Waziristan to Gaza City.
While Israel has sought to insulate itself from the legal ramifications of its attacks on civilian life by deploying elaborate propaganda and intellectual sophistry (witness the country’s frantic campaign to discredit the Goldstone Report), and the United States has casually dismissed allegations of war crimes as any swaggering superpower would (after a US airstrike killed scores of Afghan civilians, former US CENTCOM chief David Petraeus baselessly claimed that Afghan parents had deliberately burned their children alive to increase the death toll), the online Islamophobes who inspired Breivik tacitly accept the reality of Israeli and American state terror.
In American and Israeli society, Professional Terrorism is acceptable, whereas Amateur Terrorism is absolutely the world’s greatest evil (http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/gallup-poll-jews-and-christians-way-more-likely-than-muslims-to-justify-killing-civilians/ ).  Amateur Terrorism provides the justification for Professional Terrorism (this even though it is usually almost always the case that Professional Terrorism started the cycle of violence).  Those who have the capability to carry out Professional Terrorism have absolutely no need to resort to Amateur Terrorism since the former is so much more effective in killing civilians than the latter.
Public Policy Polling asked Republicans if they would want to bomb the fictional town of Agrabah in Disney’s Aladdin movie (http://www.loonwatch.com/2015/12/30-percent-of-republicans-want-to-bomb-aladdins-hometown-agrabah/ ).
These are the results:
Support bombing Agrabah  …………………………30%
Oppose bombing Agrabah  …………………………13%
Not sure ……………………………………………………57%
In sharp contrast with Americans who identify themselves with other faith groups (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-no-justification-violence.aspx ), Muslim Americans are more likely to say military attacks on civilians are never justified (78%) than sometimes justified (21%). Respondents from other faith groups, particularly Mormon Americans, are more likely to say military attacks are sometimes justified than never justified. The opinions of Americans who don’t identify themselves with any religion are more in line with those of Muslim Americans, but they are also more divided.
Gallup analysts (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx ) tested correlations between the level at which populations say these attacks are “sometimes justified” and a number of independent indicators, and they found human development and societal stability measures are most strongly related.
Residents of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states are slightly less likely than residents of non-member states to view military attacks on civilians as sometimes justified, and about as likely as those of non-member states to say the same about individual attacks.
 “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”
Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade .
A common complaint among non-Muslims is that Muslim religious authorities do not condemn terrorist attacks. The complaints often surface in letters to the editors of newspapers, on phone-in radio shows, in Internet mailing lists, forums, etc. A leader of an evangelical Christian para-church group, broadcasting over Sirius Family Net radio, stated that he had done a thorough search on the Internet for a Muslim statement condemning terrorism, without finding a single item.
Actually, there are lots of fatwas and other statements issued which condemn attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, they are largely ignored by newspapers, television news, radio news and other media outlets. Possibly because Islamic terrorists keep killing innocent civilians.
A 2007 Pew Research Center study of several nations throughout the Muslim world showed that opposition to suicide bombing in the Muslim world is increasing, with a majority of Muslims surveyed in 10 out of the 16 of the countries responding that suicide bombings and other violence against civilians is “never” justified, though an average of 38% believe it is justified at least rarely. Opposition to Hamas was the majority opinion in only 4 out of the 16 countries surveyed, as was opposition to Hezbollah.[5] The Pew Research Study did not include Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria in the survey, although densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Bangladesh were included.
Per the 2013 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers in what are known as “price tag” attacks. These Jewish terrorists attacked Palestinian civilians causing physical injuries to 93 of them and also vandalized scores of mosques and Christian churches.
An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims. In actuality, 42 percent of terror attacks were carried out by Latino-related groups, followed by 24 percent perpetrated by extreme left-wing actors.
And as a 2014 study by University of North Carolina found, since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans. In that same time period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered (PDF).
Muslim man was attacked by Piro Kolvani who decided he had to drive from Florida to New York to beat on a Muslim (Kolvani was inspired by the NY Post front covers). Kolvani viciously attacked Sarker Haque, who stated, “I never saw a situation like that. Not even after 9/11.”
Yet, the conflict is not about religion nor race, but power (in the sociopathic sense) and resources. Human activity is not driven by justice but by power. In a way, justice is the right of the strong. One thing is rationalizations used to justify actions, and another, real social and psychological motives behind. These ulterior motives are not necessary explicit or even conscious.
All three religions   – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam – in conflict share the same core barbaric Bronze Age believes sated in the Hebrew Bible, and all pick and choose what’s convenient to their respective social order. Whether one is consider a Christian or a Muslim is more an accident of geography or ethnicity, than a reflection of actual belief.   That is, religion is mainly a marker of cultural identity.
Israel, for all the talk about being a Jewish state is in practice rather secular. Although the idea of a vibrant queer community in Israel, reputed birthplace of the biblical condemnation of same-sex relations, may seem far-fetched, Israel today is one of the world’s most progressive countries in terms of equality for sexual minorities. Politically, legally, and culturally, the community has moved from life at the margins of Israeli society to visibility and growing acceptance (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/homosexuality-in-israel/ ).
Many Israelis are not Semitic (http://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html ). While Ashkenazi Jews have a long tradition in Judaism, they cannot claim a bloodline from David, which is a mythological figure anyway (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/davidjer.html ).
The scourge of Islamic fundamentalism is a monster created by the same people crying wolf (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/the-islamic-state/ ).
The modern Islamic fundamentalist movements have their origins in the late 19th century. The Wahhabi movement, an Arabian fundamentalist movement that began in the 18th century, gained traction and spread during the 19th and 20th centuries. During the Cold War following World War II, some NATO governments, particularly those of the United States and the United Kingdom, launched covert and overt campaigns to encourage and strengthen fundamentalist groups in the Middle East and southern Asia. These groups were seen as a hedge against potential expansion by the Soviet Union, and as a means to prevent the growth of nationalistic movements that were not necessarily favorable toward the interests of the Western nations. By the 1970s the Islamists had become important allies in supporting governments, such as Egypt, which were friendly to U.S. interests. In many cases the military wings of these groups were supplied with money and arms by the U.S. (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/religion-and-terrorism/ ).
Regardless of the machinations behind the current crisis in the Middle East, its effects will unsettle the whole World, including the US and Europe (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-roots-of-the-migration-crisis-1441995372 ). The Syrian refugee disaster presents a dilemma to the West. A massive influx of refugees into any country compromises its social and economic stability but the crisis cannot be ignored in humanitarian and practical grounds. Furthermore, the rise of religious fundamentalism (of all flavors: Christian, Muslim, or Jewish) is a treat to the long term viability of modern society.
Humans are social animals and it’s our natural instinct to be emphatic with others. It’s natural for us to bond by kinship. Unfortunately the same tribal instinct hampers our ability to recognize the essential and vital global brotherhood of man. We cling to nationality, religion, and many artificial walls we build around us that compromise our chances for long term survival.
We must overcome our fears and reach out for peace. To live or die together is the choice.



The xenophobic policies offered up by Republicans in the wake of the Paris and Beirut attacks are simply jaw-dropping:

  • Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz suggested bombing innocent civilians in the Middle East.2
  • Twenty-six Republican governors have vowed, without any legal authority, to block Syrian refugees from their states.3
  • Presidential candidate Jeb Bush joined Cruz in proposing that we block Syrian refugees based on religion — admitting Christian but not Muslim refugees.4
  • The House passed a bill this week requiring the FBI director, the secretary of Homeland Security and the director of National Intelligence to personally sign off on every refugee from Syria or Iraq.5
These policies are especially offensive in light of the fact that there is legislation that Congress could pass right now to actually reduce gun violence. The Senate could:
  • Close the terror gap by allowing the Department of Justice to block guns sales to anyone on the terror watch list. Between 2004 and 2014, more than 2,000 people on the list purchased guns in the U.S.
  • Close the loophole that allows people to buy guns without undergoing background checks through private sales, at gun shows and online. An estimated 40 percent of all firearms transferred in the U.S. are transferred by unlicensed individuals not required to conduct background checks on buyers.6
  • Ban convicted domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if that individual has access to a firearm.7
  • Prohibit the manufacture of assault weapons and large capacity magazines for civilian use.
If Republicans really want to protect Americans, it’s clear what they need to do: break their blind allegiance to the NRA and pass gun control legislation. But they’ll never act unless we force them. Can you add your voice today?
Tell Senate Republican leaders: Act to make us safer and pass real gun control legislation. Click the link below to sign the petition:
Thanks for standing up to the NRA today,
Heidi Hess, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Add your name:
Sign the petition ?
References:
  1. Closing the Terror Gap in Gun Background Checks,” Everytown for Gun Safety, July 21, 2015.
  2. Judd Legum, "In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civilian Casualties’," ThinkProgress.org, November 13, 2015.
  3. Sarah Frostenson and Dara Lind, “Here's a map of every state refusing to accept Syrian refugees,” Vox.com, November 18, 2015.
  4. Amy Davidson, “Ted Cruz’ Religious Test for Refugees, New Yorker, November 16, 2015.
  5. Camila Domonoske, “House Votes To Increase Security Checks On Refugees From Iraq, Syria,” NPR, November 19, 2015.
  6. Universal Background Checks & the “Private” Sale Loophole Policy Summary ,” Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, September 10, 2015.
  7. Gabby Gifford, National Domestic Violence Prevention Leaders Applaud New House Legislation to Keep Guns out of the Hands of Abusers,” Americans for Responsible Solutions, July 22, 2015.


The House of Representatives voted for a bill that would shut the door in the faces of refugees who are fleeing violence in Syria and other locations.  That same day, hearings in the House and Senate focused on the need to “keep America safe” – suggesting that our country was not brave enough to help those who are victims of violence.

Some in the House stood up for refugees and voted against the anti-refugee bill, but far too many supported it.  Please write to your Representative now.  

As faith communities gather this weekend, we encourage you to stand up to the fear and hate that is rampant in this moment of heightened anti-Muslim bigotry as you’ve undoubtedly seen expressed on social media and cable news, and by governors and Presidential candidates.  Many faith groups and denominations have distributed statements and resources, and NRCAT will continue to update this resource list.  These include messages of welcome to refugees of all faiths, and talking points that can be used for sermons and prayers.  If you have a resource that should be added, please email me.

Finally, please consider reaching out to a local mosque or refugee resettlement center.  You might send a note of support, make arrangements for a joint service project, plan an interfaith vigil, or volunteer to help resettle refugees in your community.

Sincerely,

T.C. Morrow
Director of Finance & Operations
Staff for NRCAT’s Addressing Anti-Muslim Bigotry Program

Oregon militia

Jan 7, 2016

Mass attitudes towards the other are influenced by the Media. In this day and age of information overload our brains are struggling to keep up with the demands of the digital age. Moreover, the Media is not a neutral player, but an instrument of the power elite.  Thus, we are ripe for the simplifying power of the sound bite and the Media is more than willing to provide us with a boogeyman .
The neat and sharp-focused World offered by the establishment  – where God is on our side, and The Others are evil Muslims and political correct Marxists conspiring to take away our freedom and wealth-  is compelling and comforting; we have the firepower to do what needs to be done.
While the political ideology of the Tea Party is not an exact match of the European fascism of the 1930´s, there are troubling parallels between the events that lead to the Second World War and the circumstances of the early Twenty-First Century. The Tea Party movement shares with Fascism an obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, and victim-hood, as well as compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants embrace a credo of violence and ideology-driven armed militias .
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants:
Thomas Jefferson.
Gun owners tend to be among the political right, and Second Amendment support is a common thread among Tea Party demonstrators. One of the fundamental mantra of them is guns as a mechanism of check and balance against tyranny.   It sounds like sedition.  There is a not only idle talk, there is a trail of actual terrorist activity. The Hutterite militia in Michigan was planning to kill police officers but they had not actually done anything violent before they were arrested, and their ultimate goal was to war against the anti-Christ.  Timothy McVeigh in 1995 blamed the US Government for attacks against American citizens at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
The gun crowd likes to wax eloquent about protecting our natural rights with our weapons when the government becomes unconstitutional, and all other avenues have failed. They see themselves as law abiding insurrects that do not use violence and have confidence in the ballot box, and that that ensure that the government can’t stray too far toward tyranny. Fools playing with fire; a fire that will get us all burned.
In the NRA’s world, we are only free to the extent that our guns allow us to impose our will on others.”
Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign,  “Gun Rights and Political Violence”
More guns were sold in December 2015 than almost any other month in nearly two decades, continuing a pattern of spikes in sales after terrorist attacks and calls for stricter gun-buying laws, according to federal data released on Monday.
The heaviest sales last month, driven primarily by handgun sales, followed a call from President Obama to make it harder to buy assault weapons after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif.
Fear of gun-buying restrictions has been the main driver of spikes in gun sales, far surpassing the effects of mass shootings and terrorist attacks alone, according to an analysis of federal background check data by The New York Times.
During the previous record month, December 2012, President Obama called for new buying restrictions after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Several days ago a group of right wing militiamen stormed a building on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon. The group is engaged in an armed occupation claiming to be opposing the U.S. government for perceived violations of their rights. They have also made the demand that two rancher brothers convicted of arson, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, be released from prison. The 150-man strong occupation force is being led by three of Cliven Bundy’s sons, specifically Ammon Bundy. As you may recall they were engaged in an armed standoff with the F.B.I. in 2014 over a dispute involving cattle grazing land.

The militia men are arguing that they should own public land simply because they feel the government hasn’t been kind to them. Their goal is to build private businesses on the protected land. They’re trying to take away land that is being held in common for their own exploitation of it.

The FBI is leading the investigation into the armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon and says it will work with local and state authorities to seek “a peaceful resolution to the situation.” The White House considers it “a local law enforcement matter,” Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

The Southern Poverty Law Center said in a report on that standoff that the militiamen and the federal land-return movement are part of the same spectrum.

“Anti-government extremists have long pushed, most fiercely during Democratic administrations, rabid conspiracy theories about a nefarious New World Order, a socialist, gun-grabbing federal government and the evils of federal law enforcement,” the center said.

Law enforcement officials said that the occupiers came to the region with a specific goal:

“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers,” Harney County Sheriff David M. Ward said in a statement Sunday. “When in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”

Clownish as such stunts unquestionably are, it bears remembering that the activities of such violent abolitionists as John Brown looked just as pointless in their time; their importance was purely as a gauge of the pressures building toward civil war—and that’s exactly the same reading I give to the event just described. The era of rural and urban guerrilla warfare, roadside bombs, internment camps, horrific human rights violations by all sides, and millions of refugees fleeing in all directions, that will bring down the United States of America is still a little while off yet.

Jan 7, 2016

Mass attitudes towards the other are influenced by the Media. In this day and age of information overload our brains are struggling to keep up with the demands of the digital age. Moreover, the Media is not a neutral player, but an instrument of the power elite.  Thus, we are ripe for the simplifying power of the sound bite and the Media is more than willing to provide us with a boogeyman .
The neat and sharp-focused World offered by the establishment  – where God is on our side, and The Others are evil Muslims and political correct Marxists conspiring to take away our freedom and wealth-  is compelling and comforting; we have the firepower to do what needs to be done.
While the political ideology of the Tea Party is not an exact match of the European fascism of the 1930´s, there are troubling parallels between the events that lead to the Second World War and the circumstances of the early Twenty-First Century. The Tea Party movement shares with Fascism an obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, and victim-hood, as well as compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants embrace a credo of violence and ideology-driven armed militias .
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants:
Thomas Jefferson.
Gun owners tend to be among the political right, and Second Amendment support is a common thread among Tea Party demonstrators. One of the fundamental mantra of them is guns as a mechanism of check and balance against tyranny.   It sounds like sedition.  There is a not only idle talk, there is a trail of actual terrorist activity. The Hutterite militia in Michigan was planning to kill police officers but they had not actually done anything violent before they were arrested, and their ultimate goal was to war against the anti-Christ.  Timothy McVeigh in 1995 blamed the US Government for attacks against American citizens at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

The gun crowd likes to wax eloquent about protecting our natural rights with our weapons when the government becomes unconstitutional, and all other avenues have failed. They see themselves as law abiding insurrects that do not use violence and have confidence in the ballot box, and that that ensure that the government can’t stray too far toward tyranny. Fools playing with fire; a fire that will get us all burned.
In the NRA’s world, we are only free to the extent that our guns allow us to impose our will on others.”
Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign,  “Gun Rights and Political Violence”
More guns were sold in December 2015 than almost any other month in nearly two decades, continuing a pattern of spikes in sales after terrorist attacks and calls for stricter gun-buying laws, according to federal data released on Monday.

The heaviest sales last month, driven primarily by handgun sales, followed a call from President Obama to make it harder to buy assault weapons after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif.
Fear of gun-buying restrictions has been the main driver of spikes in gun sales, far surpassing the effects of mass shootings and terrorist attacks alone, according to an analysis of federal background check data by The New York Times.

During the previous record month, December 2012, President Obama called for new buying restrictions after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Several days ago a group of right wing militiamen stormed a building on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon. The group is engaged in an armed occupation claiming to be opposing the U.S. government for perceived violations of their rights. They have also made the demand that two rancher brothers convicted of arson, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, be released from prison. The 150-man strong occupation force is being led by three of Cliven Bundy’s sons, specifically Ammon Bundy. As you may recall they were engaged in an armed standoff with the F.B.I. in 2014 over a dispute involving cattle grazing land.

The militia men are arguing that they should own public land simply because they feel the government hasn’t been kind to them. Their goal is to build private businesses on the protected land. They’re trying to take away land that is being held in common for their own exploitation of it.

The FBI is leading the investigation into the armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon and says it will work with local and state authorities to seek “a peaceful resolution to the situation.” The White House considers it “a local law enforcement matter,” Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.


The Southern Poverty Law Center said in a report on that standoff that the militiamen and the federal land-return movement are part of the same spectrum.

“Anti-government extremists have long pushed, most fiercely during Democratic administrations, rabid conspiracy theories about a nefarious New World Order, a socialist, gun-grabbing federal government and the evils of federal law enforcement,” the center said.
Law enforcement officials said that the occupiers came to the region with a specific goal:
“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers,” Harney County Sheriff David M. Ward said in a statement Sunday. “When in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”

Clownish as such stunts unquestionably are, it bears remembering that the activities of such violent abolitionists as John Brown looked just as pointless in their time; their importance was purely as a gauge of the pressures building toward civil war—and that’s exactly the same reading I give to the event just described. The era of rural and urban guerrilla warfare, roadside bombs, internment camps, horrific human rights violations by all sides, and millions of refugees fleeing in all directions, that will bring down the United States of America is still a little while off yet.

Should we tolerate the intolerant, the racist, or the violent?

Ottawa cites hate crime laws when asked about its ‘zero tolerance’ for Israel boycotters Blaney’s office cites ‘comprehensive’ hate laws for new zero tolerance plans By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: May 11, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: May 11, … Continue reading

Ottawa cites hate crime laws when asked about its ‘zero tolerance’ for Israel boycotters

Blaney’s office cites ‘comprehensive’ hate laws for new zero tolerance plans

By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: May 11, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: May 11, 2015 10:58 PM ET


Tweets About Israel Land New Jersey Student in Principal’s Office


Tolerance is an intractable term.  Should we tolerate the intolerant, the racist, or the violent? Who decides who’s who, who’s what? Words used in complex social situations have always a degree of double-speak; there is a disconnection between what we think we mean and our actual thinking.

Tolerance (http://www.tolerance.org/ ) is supposed to be about letting those different from us be themselves, but in practice is about pretending that we are different from ourselves. To always have a favorite football team as an essential part of our identity? Even in this limited sense, one has to be careful; it might not be healthful to display the wrong loyalty in the wrong bar.

Tolerance stems from a sated world. In times of plenty, we can afford to be kind to those who are different. We are less threatened when we are comfortable. If our 21st Century standard of living peaks—coincident with a peak in surplus energy (i.e., fossil fuels)—then we may not have the luxury of viewing our social progress as an irreversible ratchet. Hard times revive old tribal instincts: different is not welcome.

Mass attitudes towards the other are influenced by the Media. For instance, many Serbian communities believed that the western media portrayed a negative image of the Serbian people during the NATO bombing in Kosovo and Serbia (http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/tolerance ).

it is easy to protest

when the bombs fall miles from the fridge

yet, we are still afraid

a trip to Disney World on the line

so what hundred children massacred a day

better to have less terrorists, right?

In this day and age of information overload modern society is in a state of data deluge, and our brains are struggling to keep up with the demands of the digital age (https://www.thersa.org/events/2015/01/thinking-straight-in-the-age-of-information-overload/ ). Moreover, the Media is not a neutral player, but an instrument of the power elite.  Thus, we are ripe for the simplifying power of the sound bite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_bite ) and the Media is more than willing to provide us with a boogeyman .

The neat and sharp-focused World offered by the establishment  – where God is on our side, and the others are evil Muslims and political correct Marxists conspiring to take away our freedom and wealth-  is compelling and comforting (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/cultural-marxism/ ); we have the firepower to do what needs to be done.

While the political ideology of the Tea Party is not an exact match of the European fascism of the 1930´s, there are troubling parallels between the events that lead to the Second World War and the circumstances of the early Twenty-First Century (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/fascism/ ).

Robert Paxton says that fascism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism )  is “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

The Tea Party movement shares with Fascism an obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, and victimhood, as well as compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants embrace a credo of violence and ideology-driven armed militias (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-oregon-militia/ ).

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants:

Thomas Jefferson.

For Tea Partiers, the root of knowledge is a bedrock certainty about the Bible. This provides them with clear, absolute answers and that much of what we see on earth is a struggle between good and evil (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/a-conversation-about-gun-control/ ).

The ability of Government to keep the upper hand in the application of force is an important factor in social stability. The primary function of Government is to guarantee the Social Contract. The freedom to engage in seditious activities and Social peace do not mix.

Gun owners tend to be among the political right, and Second Amendment support is a common thread among Tea Party demonstrators. One of the fundamental mantra of them is guns as a mechanism of check and balance against tyranny.   It sounds like sedition.  There is a not only idle talk, there is a trail of actual terrorist activity. The Hutterite militia in Michigan was planning to kill police officers but they had not actually done anything violent before they were arrested, and their ultimate goal was to war against the anti-Christ.  Timothy McVeigh in 1995 blamed the US Government for attacks against American citizens at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

The FBI is leading the investigation into the armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon and says it will work with local and state authorities to seek “a peaceful resolution to the situation.”

President Obama is aware of the Oregon situation, but the White House considers it “a local law enforcement matter,” Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

The Southern Poverty Law Center said in a report on that standoff that the militiamen and the federal land-return movement are part of the same spectrum.

“Anti-government extremists have long pushed, most fiercely during Democratic administrations, rabid conspiracy theories about a nefarious New World Order, a socialist, gun-grabbing federal government and the evils of federal law enforcement,” the center said.

Law enforcement officials said that the occupiers came to the region with a specific goal:

“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers,” Harney County Sheriff David M. Ward said in a statement Sunday. “When in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”

The gun crowd likes to wax eloquent about protecting our natural rights with our weapons when the government becomes unconstitutional, and all other avenues have failed. They see themselves as law abiding insurrects that do not use violence and have confidence in the ballot box, and that that ensure that the government can’t stray too far toward tyranny. It sounds like fools playing with fire. A fire that will get us all burned.

In the NRA’s world, we are only free to the extent that our guns allow us to impose our will on others.”

Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign,  “Gun Rights and Political Violence”

 

More guns were sold in December 2015 than almost any other month in nearly two decades, continuing a pattern of spikes in sales after terrorist attacks and calls for stricter gun-buying laws, according to federal data released on Monday (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions.html ).

The heaviest sales last month, driven primarily by handgun sales, followed a call from President Obama to make it harder to buy assault weapons after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif.

Fear of gun-buying restrictions has been the main driver of spikes in gun sales, far surpassing the effects of mass shootings and terrorist attacks alone, according to an analysis of federal background check data by The New York Times.

During the previous record month, December 2012, President Obama called for new buying restrictions after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

 

Few political terrorists in recent history took as much care to articulate their ideological influences and political views as Anders Behring Breivik did. The right-wing Norwegian Islamophobe.  One of the most remarkable aspects of the manifesto is the extent to which its European author quoted from the writings of figures from the American conservative movement (http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/08/americas-breivik-complex-how-state-terror-electrifies-the-islamophobic-right ). Many of the American writers who influenced Breivik spent years churning out calls for the mass murder of Muslims, Palestinians and their left-wing Western supporters. American Islamophobes simply sit back from the comfort of their homes and cheer as American and Israeli troops — and their remote-controlled aerial drones — leave a trail of charred bodies from Waziristan to Gaza City.

While Israel has sought to insulate itself from the legal ramifications of its attacks on civilian life by deploying elaborate propaganda and intellectual sophistry (witness the country’s frantic campaign to discredit the Goldstone Report), and the United States has casually dismissed allegations of war crimes as any swaggering superpower would (after a US airstrike killed scores of Afghan civilians, former US CENTCOM chief David Petraeus baselessly claimed that Afghan parents had deliberately burned their children alive to increase the death toll), the online Islamophobes who inspired Breivik tacitly accept the reality of Israeli and American state terror.

In American and Israeli society, Professional Terrorism is acceptable, whereas Amateur Terrorism is absolutely the world’s greatest evil (http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/gallup-poll-jews-and-christians-way-more-likely-than-muslims-to-justify-killing-civilians/ ).  Amateur Terrorism provides the justification for Professional Terrorism (this even though it is usually almost always the case that Professional Terrorism started the cycle of violence).  Those who have the capability to carry out Professional Terrorism have absolutely no need to resort to Amateur Terrorism since the former is so much more effective in killing civilians than the latter.

Public Policy Polling asked Republicans if they would want to bomb the fictional town of Agrabah in Disney’s Aladdin movie (http://www.loonwatch.com/2015/12/30-percent-of-republicans-want-to-bomb-aladdins-hometown-agrabah/ ).

These are the results:

Support bombing Agrabah  …………………………30%

Oppose bombing Agrabah  …………………………13%

Not sure ……………………………………………………57%

In sharp contrast with Americans who identify themselves with other faith groups (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-no-justification-violence.aspx ), Muslim Americans are more likely to say military attacks on civilians are never justified (78%) than sometimes justified (21%). Respondents from other faith groups, particularly Mormon Americans, are more likely to say military attacks are sometimes justified than never justified. The opinions of Americans who don’t identify themselves with any religion are more in line with those of Muslim Americans, but they are also more divided.

Gallup analysts (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx ) tested correlations between the level at which populations say these attacks are “sometimes justified” and a number of independent indicators, and they found human development and societal stability measures are most strongly related.

Residents of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states are slightly less likely than residents of non-member states to view military attacks on civilians as sometimes justified, and about as likely as those of non-member states to say the same about individual attacks.

 “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”

Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade .

In the article “Why are there no condemnations from Muslim sources against terrorists?” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance summarizes:

A common complaint among non-Muslims is that Muslim religious authorities do not condemn terrorist attacks. The complaints often surface in letters to the editors of newspapers, on phone-in radio shows, in Internet mailing lists, forums, etc. A leader of an evangelical Christian para-church group, broadcasting over Sirius Family Net radio, stated that he had done a thorough search on the Internet for a Muslim statement condemning terrorism, without finding a single item.
Actually, there are lots of fatwas and other statements issued which condemn attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, they are largely ignored by newspapers, television news, radio news and other media outlets. Possibly because Islamic terrorists keep killing innocent civilians.

Contrary to common image, many Muslims have spoken out against 9/11,[2][3][4]

A 2007 Pew Research Center study of several nations throughout the Muslim world showed that opposition to suicide bombing in the Muslim world is increasing, with a majority of Muslims surveyed in 10 out of the 16 of the countries responding that suicide bombings and other violence against civilians is “never” justified, though an average of 38% believe it is justified at least rarely. Opposition to Hamas was the majority opinion in only 4 out of the 16 countries surveyed, as was opposition to Hezbollah.[5] The Pew Research Study did not include Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria in the survey, although densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Bangladesh were included.

Per the 2013 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers in what are known as “price tag” attacks. These Jewish terrorists attacked Palestinian civilians causing physical injuries to 93 of them and also vandalized scores of mosques and Christian churches.

An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims. In actuality, 42 percent of terror attacks were carried out by Latino-related groups, followed by 24 percent perpetrated by extreme left-wing actors.

And as a 2014 study by University of North Carolina found, since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans. In that same time period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered (PDF).

Muslim man was attacked by Piro Kolvani who decided he had to drive from Florida to New York to beat on a Muslim (Kolvani was inspired by the NY Post front covers). Kolvani viciously attacked Sarker Haque, who stated, “I never saw a situation like that. Not even after 9/11.”

Yet, the conflict is not about religion nor race, but power (in the sociopathic sense) and resources. Human activity is not driven by justice but by power. In a way, justice is the right of the strong. One thing is rationalizations used to justify actions, and another, real social and psychological motives behind. These ulterior motives are not necessary explicit or even conscious.

All three religions   – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam – in conflict share the same core barbaric Bronze Age believes sated in the Hebrew Bible, and all pick and choose what’s convenient to their respective social order. Whether one is consider a Christian or a Muslim is more an accident of geography or ethnicity, than a reflection of actual belief.   That is, religion is mainly a marker of cultural identity.

Israel, for all the talk about being a Jewish state is in practice rather secular. Although the idea of a vibrant queer community in Israel, reputed birthplace of the biblical condemnation of same-sex relations, may seem far-fetched, Israel today is one of the world’s most progressive countries in terms of equality for sexual minorities. Politically, legally, and culturally, the community has moved from life at the margins of Israeli society to visibility and growing acceptance (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/homosexuality-in-israel/ ).

Many Israelis are not Semitic (http://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html ). While Ashkenazi Jews have a long tradition in Judaism, they cannot claim a bloodline from David, which is a mythological figure anyway (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/davidjer.html ).

The scourge of Islamic fundamentalism is a monster created by the same people crying wolf (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/the-islamic-state/ ).

The modern Islamic fundamentalist movements have their origins in the late 19th century. The Wahhabi movement, an Arabian fundamentalist movement that began in the 18th century, gained traction and spread during the 19th and 20th centuries. During the Cold War following World War II, some NATO governments, particularly those of the United States and the United Kingdom, launched covert and overt campaigns to encourage and strengthen fundamentalist groups in the Middle East and southern Asia. These groups were seen as a hedge against potential expansion by the Soviet Union, and as a means to prevent the growth of nationalistic movements that were not necessarily favorable toward the interests of the Western nations. By the 1970s the Islamists had become important allies in supporting governments, such as Egypt, which were friendly to U.S. interests. In many cases the military wings of these groups were supplied with money and arms by the U.S. (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/religion-and-terrorism/ ).

Regardless of the machinations behind the current crisis in the Middle East, its effects will unsettle the whole World, including the US and Europe (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-roots-of-the-migration-crisis-1441995372 ). The Syrian refugee disaster presents a dilemma to the West. A massive influx of refugees into any country compromises its social and economic stability but the crisis cannot be ignored in humanitarian and practical grounds. Furthermore, the rise of religious fundamentalism (of all flavors: Christian, Muslim, or Jewish) is a treat to the long term viability of modern society.

Humans are social animals and it’s our natural instinct to be emphatic with others. It’s natural for us to bond by kinship. Unfortunately the same tribal instinct hampers our ability to recognize the essential and vital global brotherhood of man. We cling to nationality, religion, and many artificial walls we build around us that compromise our chances for long term survival (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/merry-xmas/ ).

We must overcome our fears and reach out for peace. To live or die together is the choice.


Cómo se engendró el Estado Islámico

Contra lo que pueda parecer, para buscar al culpable de la existencia del Estado Islámico no hay que seguir una pista religiosa, sino ideológica. En 1973 el rey de Afganistán fue derrocado y en 1978 triunfó una revolución marxista, que instauró la separación Religión-Estado, eliminó el cultivo de opio, despojó a las mujeres de la burka y permitió que se educaran. Esta modernización generó entre

Contra lo que pueda parecer, para buscar al culpable de la existencia del Estado Islámico no hay que seguir una pista religiosa, sino ideológica. En 1973 el rey de Afganistán fue derrocado y en 1978 triunfó una revolución marxista, que instauró la separación Religión-Estado, eliminó el cultivo de opio, despojó a las mujeres de la burka y permitió que se educaran. Esta modernización generó entre

Ahmed Mohamed

Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories The Dallas Morning News referred to some comments that emerged in the aftermath of the incident as conspiracy theories, reporting that most of them “cited no evidence, contradicted each other, or clashed with known facts”.[63] … Continue reading

Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories

The Dallas Morning News referred to some comments that emerged in the aftermath of the incident as conspiracy theories, reporting that most of them “cited no evidence, contradicted each other, or clashed with known facts”.[63] Some conservative commentators sought to cast suspicion on Mohamed’s family and Muslim groups that supported Mohamed after his detainment, positing that Mohamed planned to provoke his arrest to embarrass police and speculating the incident was a plot orchestrated by Islamistactivists.[63]

Senior Judicial Analyst for Fox News Channel Andrew Napolitano alleged that the incident was a “purposeful hoax” and asserted that Mohamed did not create a clock but instead dismantled an existing clock and transferred the internals into a pencil box.[64]

After reviewing these theories, The Dallas Morning News wrote: “No theory that The News has reviewed cites any evidence that Ahmed, who routinely brought electronic creations to his middle school and said he wanted to impress high school teachers, planned to get handcuffed and hit the news” and reported that “a police ‘investigation determined the student apparently did not intend to cause alarm bringing the device to school’.”[63] Slate observed that at no point did officials exhibit any concern that the clock was dangerous.[65]

Ahmed Mohamed And Family Demand $15 Million In Damages And Apology From School District

His arrest was a violation of his civil rights, according to his attorneys.

11/23/2015 05:43 pm ET | Updated Nov 23, 2015