domenica 27 maggio 2012

Ancora l'industria dell'indignazione

La traduzione ceca, per la quale ringrazio i giovani comunisti del KSM, è l'occasione per ripubblicare il testo su L'industria dell'indignazione e per riflettere - anche alla luce del modo in cui vengono presentate le notizie provenienti da Hula - sul comportamento dei media nella preparazione della guerra alla Siria [DL].

Průmysl zloby a přípravy války
Domenico Losurdo

Industria dell’indignazione e preparativi di guerra
Domenico Losurdo

2 commenti:

Anonimo ha detto...

Dear professor Losurdo
It's indeed never too much to call the attention to the tremendous, sinister role that the media has played and continues to play in promoting endless West-inspired wars all over the world, aiming at “regime change” and always promoting “human rights”, blablabla…
It seems to me that one other aspect worth mentioning is how much colonialism-based categories, such as the alleged importance of religious divides for “the natives”, continue to have if we see the world through western lenses, even “western left” lenses. As an example of that, consider please this article by Patrick Cockburn:
It’s not only the Pilates-like tone from one traditionally on “the left” that strikes the reader, but rather, I dare say, and in this particular case, the author’s attachment to the typical categories of traditional colonial administration, even if he recognizes the interpellation by an “anti-government human rights activist”:
“Why do you foreigners harp on about differences between our minorities? (…) The French said we would fight each other when they left Syria, but nothing happened. We Syrians stick together whatever governments say about our divisions.”
But indeed, in case attachment to religious divides denotes skepticism towards the nation-state and even nostalgia vis-à-vis colonialism, is it the blatantly “anti-western” Assad government that should be blamed, or get to be suspect number one? Or is it rather the pro-western and indeed West-armed and West-trained armed opposition? “Cui bono? Who benefits…”, as Patrick Henningsen puts it, here:
But concerning this interesting piece by Patrick Henningsen, and besides the debunking of “religious-tribal” official Western story (minute 1:30-2:10), consider also what he says by minute 4:00 to 5:10, please. Citizen journalism is in a never-ending relationship of tension with corporate media. The oppressed constantly turn the Empire’s arms against the very Empire… and this one, course, afterwards strikes back under new forms. It’s a seemingly never-ending process.
Ah, but obviously Henningsen is fully right when he points the finger into who really has been playing the ethnic-religious divisive cards. Who benefits from it? Surely not Damascus! Surely not Assad!
But the important here is to underline the fact that indeed swords are always two-hedged. We don’t have to remain “cyber-fools”, as you yourself have put it more than once. Something that should probably be reminded to Giulietto Chiesa: who along these years has done a lot of excellent work, no doubt about that, but alas seems to me excessively deterministic (and so pessimistic) in his analysis, in the debate with you and Stefano.
History is definitely not over! In case Chiesa means he is persuaded that the minds of the Empire’s inner circles are already made up concerning the intention of promoting a war against Iran, well, in that case thanks for warning us. But the factual outcome of historical processes is not previously written, and bottom line it’s up to us. It remains up to us!
Saudações cordiais.
Lisboa, 29 de Maio de 2012,
João Carlos Graça

Chinaski ha detto...

Le menzogne più audaci ormai non sono propinate da Repubblica o il Corriere ma da bloggers venduti e professori universitari marci, ecco a voi un esempio di tutto questo scempio. Rispondiamo a queste menzogne con i loro strumenti, scriviamo ancora di più e diffondiamo ancora di più le idee di chi è contro il potere. Boicottiamo questo blog:
Matteo de Notaris