Disinformation Regarding Syria and Putin

There is an impressive amount of dubious information circulating in both Brazilian and global media regarding the situation unfolding in Syria. Everything indicates that this disinformation is part of an enduring and well-developed plan on the part of a notorious enemy of this Arab nation - Israel. It involves artful dissemination of a deformed, hostile political image of Syria (an ally of Iran), rapidly adhered to by the United States and its European puppets, a little unsophisticated when compared with Israeli strategists. It should be noted that nothing happens in the Middle East that could affect Israel in some way without the knowledge of its information and security agencies (the word “security” being used here in its most wide-ranging sense).

American and European interests, without the slightest ethical concern or sense of justice, distort the reality of a country and its leader, Bashar Assad, describing him as an “enemy” of his own people. They intend to reach this objective through mere daily repetition, counting on receptive, poorly-informed ears and eyes. Up to now they have been successful, given that, unlike its opponents, Syria does not have access to a rich and powerful media or the international press. Most editors of magazines and newspapers are not willing to risk contradicting their bosses.

At the present time, solely Putin courageously defends the Syrian president who studied to be a peaceful ophthalmologist, but ended up as the successor of his father, when his brother (chosen to take the place of his father in the future) died in an automobile accident. For reasons of filial duty, he abandoned medicine and, with the passage of time, came to be marked as the “killer” of his own people, much to the convenience of his enemies. In highly complex, multifaceted political situations, there is always some kind of material available to describe politicians according to “customer” preference.

Assad a “killer”, why? Because, with evident risk to his own life (remember the lynching of Gaddafi?), he defends his mandate as president of Syria, elected in two referendums (2000 and 2007) and an election (2010)? “Killer”, because he defends the sovereignty of his country? Because he refuses to renounce his post, obeying his aforementioned foreign enemies? “Killer”, because an unknown percentage of Syrian citizens, in the vast and vague “Arab Spring”, generically demanded more democracy in the always highly unstable Middle East?

Ask yourself: prior to mass international “hostilization” and the economic siege against Bashar Assad, by the USA and its discrete political advisor, Israel, did the Americans, by chance, show any concern for consulting the Syrian population in order to ascertain whether the majority were in favor of Assad’s exit? If such a question had been asked, the evidence indicates that the reply would be negative.

By the way, in Brazil, which is now home to thousands of Syrian refugees, two or three institutes dedicated to public opinion polls would do well to consult these refugees regarding their degree of approval or rejection of Assad before his opponents “require” his exit in the name of democracy. Of course it is clear that now, after all hell has broken loose in the country, nobody wants to remain in Syria any longer. Not due to fear of Assad, but fear of what will happen after he is gone.
I would even go so far as to say that if the Syrians who are currently in chaotic flight throughout the world, fleeing from the terrifying Islamic State, were asked whether they lived relatively happily during the government of Bashar Assad, prior to the “Arab Spring”, the reply would be favorable to the “tyrant”. This is due to the fact that the “tyrant” had been driving the country in the direction of modernity and secularism, separating state and religion and progressively diminishing the significant influence of the most negative aspect of Islamism. This religion also has a spiritually comforting positive side, although it has lately shown an irrational, intolerant and pitiless facet. This is represented by the so-called Islamic State or ISIS, the simple mention of which sends a shiver down the spine of more sensitive people.

It is known that, in the not so distant past, Catholics and Protestants killed one another in Europe. This came to a definitive end many decades ago. Today, in terms of violence, the notorious Islamic State outclasses all the most violent religions of the past added together. No other uses such a practice as slow decapitation with a knife, sometimes wielded by fanaticized children, as already reported and shown on television.

The terror spread by ISIS is so deep-rooted that hardened military men, of all countries, are afraid to become involved in ground combat with these terrorists. The explanation is simple: in normal, more or less “civilized” wars, captured soldiers are under the protection of international treaties, preserving their lives and physical integrity. This does not occur in the case of the Islamic State. Prisoners of war can be decapitated or summarily executed with a shot in the back of the head, or even something worse. If surrounded, they would prefer to kill themselves prior to the onset of their own personal martyrdom. It is surprising that, according to recent reports, Russian veterans who fought in East Ukraine have volunteered to assist the Syrian army, on the ground, in the fight against the Islamic State, which does not hide its intent to terrorize.

Does any fool imagine that, with the deposition and flight of Assad (he will have to flee rapidly, if he does not want to be killed in the cruelest of manners), Syria will suddenly begin to enjoy true democracy? Is it really to be believed that there will be gentlemanly power sharing between the “moderate” Syrian opposition, “gentle” Al-Qaeda combatants, “amiable” members of the Islamic State, American soldiers, Israeli advisors, the Kurds, Hezbollah fighters and everything else imaginable in that region known for its “tolerance”? For the United States, Syria would be an Iraq in triplicate, which it would not be able to govern. For this reason, it is going to regret the bad guidance received. A further, confused American mire in overseas policy is foreseeable if the rendition of Assad occurs.

With regard to the Syrian opposition, every country, irrespective of whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy, has an opposition, that’s normal. Did the opposition by any chance represent the majority of the population prior to the “Arab Spring”? Nobody knows. From that which I am able to deduce, through reasonable daily accompaniment of what is happening in the world, the answer appears to be no. There had been no formal or informal poll of the degree of internal approval of Assad at the time. Would his approval rating have been 70% or 80%? Did the Obama administration by any chance concern itself with this small detail before concluding and deciding that Assad “had to go”, violating the sovereignty of a country?

The stated US intent of forced installation of an American-style democracy in Syria (extremely dependent upon campaign financing) cannot be allowed to prevail over the right of self-determination of peoples. Regions of the planet differ greatly in terms of history, tradition, religion, political habits, use of violence, etc. And it cannot be alleged that it would not have been possible to conduct such a prior survey in Syria, via referendum, because Assad was a “dictator” and would  falsify its results. The USA did not give Syria any chance to provide evidence of sufficient support on the part of the population before the opposition, financed, trained and armed by the CIA, went on the attack.
Modern public opinion polls, conducted by specialized entities, are impressively precise, with a margin of error of 3%. Would it not have been essential for a referendum to be held by the “suspect” Syrian government. The Obama administration had no interest in knowing, even informally, about the preference of the population. Perhaps because there was a high risk of the poll showing that Syrians would prefer to live as they had lived to date, without exchanging the certain for the dubious. If the specialized poll had shown that opposition to the government did not attain 20%, this would have been too much of an impediment to the plan to use force to remove Assad from power. They would have had to invent another reason.

All the evidence indicates that the hidden goal of toppling Assad is that of isolating Iran, that true ally of Arab Palestine, which cannot achieve the status of a country because this is not in the interest of Israel. The far-right Israeli government does not turn against Assad because he is a dictator. Although if Syria came to enjoy full democracy, with continued support for Iran, it would be attacked. However, being a “hardened” regime, this is better for the United States and Israel, given that worldwide public opinion always have an aversion towards dictatorships or semi-dictatorships.

Furthermore, other questions can be put to those who demand the renouncement or downfall of Bashar Assad. These questions are the following: were Afghanistan and Iraq better places after the invasion led by the United States? Only someone who is out of his mind and a liar would say yes. Was Libya a pacified and prosperous country after the fall of Gaddafi? It was much worse, with widespread anarchy, the Arab African country disintegrating into tribal fighting. Did Egypt, after the fall of Mubarak, by any chance become a model democratic country, respecting the result of the only presidential election? No. The elected president, Mohamed Morsi, was deposed and condemned to death by the military because he had incited the population, in a public square, to disobey the armed forces, which did not want to accept the decision of the ballot boxes.

Another more theoretical question: does the USA, solely due to the fact that it is the greatest power on the planet, have the right to say who stays or goes in the government of any country? Is the far from modest idea of North-American “exceptionalism” an order (as Obama seems to intend) or solely a good example to be followed, voluntarily, by other countries, considering the advantages of an authentic non-corrupt democracy? With regard to this, experience has shown to date that the American administration approves or disapproves governments with democratic weaknesses according to American interests at the time. For example, it never tried to depose Pinochet in Chile. Much to the contrary.

Happily or unhappily, Bashar Assad has found assistance that perhaps makes precarious survival possible for him: the “quasi-tyrant” Vladimir Putin — a head of state also widely judged unfairly with respect to his defects and qualities. He has his defects, as in the case of all other heads of state and government, without exception, but he does not abandon defenseless peoples victimized by injustice. It should always be remembered that Putin is openly assisting Syria because its leader, Assad, is being attacked and asked for help. Such an action is legitimized by International Law. To the contrary of the USA and its “friends” (with no opinion of their own), which are interfering in Syria with the precise intent of bringing down the government, without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council. Everyone knows that the “moderate” opposition is trained, armed and financed by the CIA, as amply disclosed in the media. 

Putin is widely criticized because he supposedly “invaded Ukraine” and “took possession” of Crimea. In fact, he only complied with the explicit desire (as demonstrated by a referendum and formal request) of the inhabitants of Crimea of Russian origin, most of whom speak Russian. Putin did not close his ears and eyes to the appeal made by thousands of Ukrainians. What he did in Crimea is what the USA would do in Mexico, if thousands of blond, English-speaking Mexicans of American origin, living at the American border, were to ask for assistance and American citizenship when faced with a Mexican government hostile to their American origin. It should also be noted that Viktor Yanukovich, the president-elect of Ukraine and favorable to Russia, was forcibly removed from power not long before the inhabitants of Crimea asked Putin for Russian citizenship. At this point, mention should again be made of that old maxim of political philosophy: is it not that supreme political power lies in the people?

In their articles, newspaper columnists, almost always with surnames of Hebrew origin, usually label Putin, patriotically, as a “wily fox”, striving for personal prestige. If he is a fox, he is a fox that shows consistency and solidarity with the forgotten and humiliated Palestinian people, the distant origin of the confused mess that the Middle East has become.  Al Qaeda is a by-product of the Palestinian situation and it is Al Qaeda that gave rise to the Islamic State.

A few days ago, I read an interesting analogy on the Internet of what happened regarding the large number of Jews who sought a home in Palestine: imagine a hotel in flames (anti-Semitic Europe in the 1930s); a Jewish guest, on the third floor of the hotel, finds himself on the balcony, cornered and terrified, expecting that he will soon burn to death; the only alternative is to jump from the balcony, as it is impossible to wait for the arrival of the fire brigade; he decides to take a risk and jump, with eyes closed, and by chance falls on a passer-by (a Palestinian), who ended up with various broken bones but saved (although involuntarily) the life of the Jew, breaking his fall.

The Jew, only slightly hurt, leaves, happy to be alive and, months later, receives a visit from the Palestinian who, rather crippled, arrives on crutches and asks for compensation as it is almost impossible for him to work. The Jew says that he cannot help him because he did not act with deliberate intent to cause harm, stating that he could not be required to stay on the balcony and burn to death, simply in order to avoid being a nuisance to a possible passer-by. The Palestinian argues that he did not set fire to the hotel. The Jew becomes irritated, saying that he also did not set fire to the hotel. This tragic discussion has lasted for more than half a century. And the Palestinian still continues to walk on crutches, dragging himself along in a miserable life, full of restrictions, whereas the jumper with no parachute proudly exhibits his efficiency and wealth to the world. Seeing this on his ancient television, the Palestinian, crippled and resentful, only murmurs: “He should be ashamed of himself with so much wealth...”.

For how long? Until the world, very stupid and with little imagination, concludes the following: firstly, that Palestine is too small to be home to two nations that came into being in such different ways; secondly, that the African continent, for example, is immense and, in territorial terms, is capable of absorbing more than one hundred Palestines; thirdly, that Obama and the rich countries would do better if they promoted the innovative and ultimately problem-solving idea of using part of the territory of Africa (through negotiation with some African country) in order that part of the Palestinian population (or Jewish population) may be able to live, work and progress there, relieving semi-arid Palestine which, the way things are going, could lead to a third world war. After 60 years of tension, a solution to the problem is ever more distant.

Poor countries of East Africa with coastlines bordering the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, for example, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique, which are terribly lacking in jobs and resources, could be interested in “selling” — that is to say “negotiating” — a smaller delimited part of their extensive territory for installation of an overseas Jewish or Palestinian “province”.

This “implant” in Africa, freely negotiated and paid for by the international community, will make it possible for the conceding or “selling” African country to achieve enormous relief from its customary shortages, developing its economy, creating jobs, etc. 
Barack Obama, with this bold idea, just as promising as the recent “Trans-Pacific Partnership”, would resolve the Palestinian impasse which, in the final analysis, is a physical and territorial problem rather than a religious one. It would be the crowning jewel of his administration, if only for the idea and initiation of its planning.

Who knows? Maybe Putin, this consistent little man, being more audacious than his American equivalent, could come to cogitate this possibility. Of course, a concrete solution would still take time, due to the complexity of the objective in question, but the interested parties (Palestinians and Jews, Europeans and Americans) would at least know that there is a possible encouraging future on the horizon. Instead of spending their time hating and killing one another and planning revenge, both Jews and Palestinians would occupy themselves conducting studies, visiting Africa and contacting African governments. Whoever acts first, Obama, Putin or Angela Merkel, enhancing this idea, would deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. Even two.

This suggestion, perhaps subject to ridicule, is no so absurd as it seems: prior to independence, was Brazil not “part” of Portugal? Were the English colonies in North America not “part” of England? Was Spanish America not a Spanish “implant” in the New World? The difference between yesterday and a possible tomorrow lies in the fact that yesterday, new lands were conquered and colonized with gunpowder and blood. Now it would be achieved with visits by engineers, geologists and diplomats, discussing the costs and details of drawing up treaties. They would use measurements, set squares and pens rather than grenades and machine guns.

However, the whole process would be closely accompanied by the United Nations, as it is well known that, in all negotiations, there is a tendency for abuse of the less astute party.

(13-10-2015)

Veríssimo, readings, etc.

A good charge by Luis Fernando Veríssimo was published in the Brazilian newspaper “O Estado de S. Paulo" on Sunday, September 13, 2015, and titled "The Brazil Family".  In it, a father-in-law, talking to his son-in-law, tries to convince him that the printed book is still better than the eBook: — "A book does not need a power source, does not depend on softwares or passwords, and is always ready to be read anytime... “— when the young man interrupts him: —”So where is the fun in that?"

The "fun" in this new technology lies in the fast manipulation of a sophisticated and colorful “toy”. The content of the information does not matter as much as the sentences being very short, thus excusing any critical reflection from the toy’s owner.

I think the writer Luis Fernando Veríssimo is one of the most lucid thinking heads of Brazil. He is worshiped by his readers, as well as being a great character.  I have never read or heard anyone criticizing him - he is a national unanimity. From what I have read in the media, at one point he was even sought out to occupy a chair at the Brazilian Academy of Letters (ABL). However, in his authentic modesty, Veríssimo gently thanked being remembered by the Academy but declined the honor. He allegedly said that the ABL would not be his "turf".

I believe he refused the aforementioned honor because as an academic — it is certain he would have been elected — his naturally playful and irreverent spirit would be somewhat inhibited and would not fit seamlessly with the seriousness of the Academy. Such refusal is something rare in Brazil - many people would pay a lot of money to become an academic "immortal", if it was possible to pay to be bestowed with such a privilege.

Writers or actors who are comically inclined tend to see people and the world as more comical. Their associations of ideas tend almost automatically to the caricature expressed in words. With such preference it is only natural they occupy most of their time of rest reading comical texts, which then pile up in their subconscious, just waiting for a provocation. 

With this natural inclination to the continuous mental "record" of news and amusing facts, there can be only one result: the interpretation of the world as a vast "comedy".  As it indeed is, in a philosophical view of our civilization, at the same time advanced in technology but tragically ridiculous in human coexistence: wars and more wars, theft and more theft, crimes and more crimes, lies and hypocrisy at all levels. Balzac knew what he was doing when he chose "The human comedy" as a title for one of his works.

I have a personal example about preferred choices of certain readings. Concluding that the knowledge of the English language would increase my general culture – something that has always attracted me much more than the Science of the Law - I decided, when I was already a sixty-year-old retired judge, to learn English through the most pleasant method: reading jokes and anecdotes in this language, with the help of a dictionary. I must have read over 1,000 jokes. I achieved my language goal, i.e., being able to read in English, despite not having the same talent for speaking the language due to the lack of practice. Nevertheless, a corner of my mind was permanently "contaminated" by the mischievous virus of comedy.

As the time passed – and it still does - the following phenomenon occurred: every time I talk to someone, even about serious matters, whenever I hear a fact, word or sentence which reminds me of an especially clever or nonsensical joke, the uncalled for remembrance makes me miss some seconds of whatever my interlocutor is saying. That, of course, forces me to try to fill the missing gaps with conjectures about what the person might have said – something that distracts me even more and forces me to ask him or her to please repeat what they have just said. In these occasions, I usually pretend to be a little bit deaf, or else very worried about some other serious private subject, as I naturally cannot say that the disease of his mother-in-law (which he has just reported to be in a very mournful mood) reminded me of a great joke of mothers-in-law.

Nobody has complete control over his own mind. We can control our tongue brake, our fingers on the keyboard, our hand using a pen, but never the spontaneous flow of ideas. I guess after this confession I will never be able to ask anyone to repeat something to me in a conversation, as now that the truth has been revealed my interlocutor may very well reply, annoyed - "Was the joke at least good?"

 Veríssimo, as well as being very clever, has a fantastic supply of general information in at least two languages, English and Portuguese (I dare say he is fluent in Spanish and French too). Therefore, he is able to arrange with superior ingenuity his huge mass of scattered information, which is just lying there, waiting for connections. When he was very young, he lived in the USA, which has enabled him to be at ease in the most loaded with information language in the world.

There are currently more Chinese people speaking English than Americans speaking their own language — an amazing fact which is explained by the enormous population of China. Neither Mandarin nor Cantonese combined can provide the same volume of knowledge as the English language can.

The only (and dangerous) restriction I can make regarding the aforementioned writer — "one should not play with fire" — is the fact that he is a huge jazz enthusiast. As someone who knows almost nothing about jazz, I wonder if jazz is by any chance the equivalent of modern art, in which the painter does not need to know how to draw. I guess I should buy a jazz CD - if there are any available — in order to try to understand his enthusiasm for that apparently very messy sound.

Anyway, the comedy of Veríssimo is not only intelligent: it also never resorts to vulgarity. I stress that fact because the humor or style of a comic may sometimes, despite showing great levels of intelligence, have a flaw: a steady abuse of swear words and sexual descriptions, which may offend more sensitive ears, especially those of women.

A lady at a party shall, out of mere politeness, hear the first verbal atrocities and then depart as soon as possible, claiming some urgent matters. In these cases, they usually do not even wait for the end of the anecdote, which may be clever but is hindered by the generic stench of the subject. Therefore, due to the vulgarity of the joke she may lose the thread of narrative and its surprising (and perhaps smart) conclusion.

This limitation of the humorist who is almost exclusively pornographic is perhaps due to a limited supply of information. He lacks a stock of "good material", a supply large enough to extract the sparse "gold" out of the best humor. Such comic will have, of course, an audience, usually restricted to men of calloused noses. Such comedians would of course never be invited to join the ABL - or any other academy of the most remote town, for that matter.

Why am I agreeing with Veríssimo? Because his charge reveals that the computer technology is not, in fact, helping much to enhance the culture and sensibility of our people, Brazilian people.

 Especially the youngsters who — shaped by advertising — are more interested in consuming goods and services, attending nightclubs, dressing well and watching soccer. Not even playing soccer, but most of the time only roaring, swearing and shouting names. Not to mention the constant clashes among football supporters, using slats and iron bars. Not to mention the terrible spectacle of teenage girls rolling on the floor — the uglier girl always fiercer than the prettier one —, contending lovers with fisticuffs, nail scratching and tug of hair.

Many young people are certainly disgusted with their disadvantages and the bad economic situation they inherited — especially when compared to the "spoiled rich brats".  Hence, they do not have great hopes for their future through study, which is rarely free when of good quality.

Notwithstanding my flourished writing, I guess if I were a Brazilian teenager nowadays I would think something like the following: — "Life is too short. Jobs are rare and very disputed, even those with very low wages. Stray bullets are as common in the air as killer wasps. Schools are boring, they take years to teach us things that will not give us money and we waste a long time in transit to and from school. What "helps" a little bit is when there is a teacher´s strike, but then it always results in a worse punishment: the compensation of classes during the holiday season".

“Studying and working is such a burden… Attending schools is no longer the path to real “success”.  Just see our former president, a man who does not like to read, had no proper education and, despite all that, became a "doctor honoris causa", fawned over in several European universities. Plus, the final touch in his triumph: the media says he is now a millionaire. After leaving the office of president, he now gives advice to economists with a Harvard doctorate. So why should I spend time listening to lessons that bear no interest to me at all? I know a guy who patiently studied Law but failed the BAR exam five or six times. That possible future lawyer is already thinking of giving up - he has tried to be a taxi driver but not yet succeeded, due the lack of money to buy a license, or something like that.”

My younger and pessimistic philosophizing version would continue:

 — "Did Airton Senna, the Formula One champion, study? No! Has the great soccer player Neymar studied? Also no! If Senna had studied, he might still be alive today, but without the glories he had. Earning now very little money – worst-case scenario, using his driving abilities to deliver pizzas. Neymar, dribbling and kicking, has won the equivalent to several Nobel Prizes — the money part — and that´s only in a month. Furthermore, I must confess: it is very hard for me to concentrate when I have to read something more complicated or too long. I abhor books. Maybe I am too restless. The fact is I cannot concentrate on reading. I know I am not stupid, just practical. Something, in my sight or in my brain, gets me confused and keeps me away from reading more complex subjects”.

After “hearing” the last confession, or catharsis, of the hypothetical Brazilian lad, I would like to suggest, now to the Brazilian legislator some ideas in order to try to increase the interest of the youth in reading more and better.

As this article is already too long, I will be concise from now on, without the previous rambling way of dubious taste or convenience. I do this concisely, forced by the need of brevity in the internet.

In short, I would suggest the following:

1) that the Brazilian Congress publishes a law that allows self-taught people — or people who are educated in private, of any age — to prove they have the knowledge required from all students of the same level and who have studied in schools;

2) that the Government, at all levels, encourages and facilitates to young people with limited resources the treatment at the public health network of any kind of health problem, whether it is visual, hearing or glandular, that might hinder their learning ability (e.g., a lazy thyroid slows down mental processes);

3) if the young people, even technically cured of any physical problems, still reveal difficulties in understanding texts compatible with their level of knowledge, they shall be sent to specialized professionals in learning problems. This is the solution to the so-called functional illiteracy, very common in the world, chiefly in developing countries. 

Let me give you, reader, an example: if someone can read the words of a line with his left eye, but with the right eye he sees "blurry" words  (even with corrective glasses), this inequality of vision — including peripheral — hinders the understanding of what is being read. Thinking this difficulty is related to a lack of intelligence, the person might abandon the book and instead do something else, doubting his own capacity.

 He does not realize that his "lack of concentration" or understanding has its origin in the "bad association" of his left and right eyes. However, there is a very simple "trick" to overcome such problem. If the person uses his good eye — the left one — to take a glance at the right side of the page, or line, before actually reading it, this “glance” will allow him a better comprehension of the text. If the difficulty persists, another glance can be done, without properly reading. By alternating between reading and “glancing”, the person´s peripheral vision shall be improved. Just a little trick which can be useful in special situations. An optometrist, explained to me that when a patient loses an eye in an accident he is instructed to overcome the lack of it by training his other eye, and with time he might be able to read just as well as other readers.

I shall stop here. I admit I am forcing myself to do so. After all the internet is the place of brevity, so I had to cut and file reasonable dissertations about readings, intelligence, politics and related matters. At the end of the day, all questions in this crazy planet are correlated, even if remotely. Perhaps what I have kept on the computer for use in some other occasion is more interesting than what I´ve used here. We shall see. 

 (September 24, 2015)