Saltar para: Posts [1], Pesquisa [2]

Geopolítica e Política

Lusa - Lusística - Mundial

Geopolítica e Política

Lusa - Lusística - Mundial

António de Oliveira Salazar: O outro retrato

25.06.21 | Álvaro Aragão Athayde


António de Oliveira Salazar/ O outro retrato (Novo prólogo do autor)

Jaime Nogueira Pinto
António de Oliveira Salazar: O outro retrato (Novo prólogo do autor)



É um documento histórico.

É um documento histórico não pelo que diz sobre Salazar mas pelo que diz sobre como, entre Fevereiro-Março de 1961 e Abril-Maio de 1974, aproximadamente, um Grupo de Jovens Universitários Nacional-Sindicalistas Portugueses da Metrópole via a Evolução da Situação.

Riccardo Marchi fala em alguns deles na sua obra Ideias e Percursos das Direitas Portuguesas.

Desse grupo uns adesivaram, outros sumiram, outros, poucos, mantiveram-se coerentes, ideológica ou partidariamente, e politicamente activos.

Jaime Nogueira Pinto, que foi dos poucos que não adesivou nem sumiu, tem feito uma carreira de historiador e de ideólogo na área político-ideológica auto, e hetero, dita “de direita”, signifique isso o que significar.

Não comprei nem li as anteriores edições desta obra, não me lembro porquê, certamente por não as ter considerado interessantes, mas comprei e li esta.

E comprei e li esta edição muito mais pelo Prefácio (o “Novo prólogo do autor” do título) do que por tudo o resto.

Jaime Nogueira Pinto nasceu a 4 de Fevereiro de 1946, está com 75 anos, eu nasci a 28 de Julho 1947 e, como sou cerca de 18 meses mais novo, ainda não fiz os 74.

Estamos ambos velhos e em tempo de balanço.










Biden's Big Ask

24.06.21 | Duarte Pacheco Pereira

Putin-Biden Geneva Summit

Putin-Biden Geneva Summit


The much talked about the US-RF summit in Geneva came and went and yet no commentator so far has ventured to ask a very simple and very necessary question: What was Biden there to ask?

We know that the American side asked for this meeting while the Russians merely agreed, seeing in it a risk-free chance to clear the air and perhaps restore a modicum of international cooperation on key issues such as cybersecurity. Negotiating some major new agreement with the Americans was never the plan: the Russians have decided some time ago that the American side is nedogovorosposóbnaya—non-agreement-capable. If the Americans don't honor the treaties they have already signed, such as the intermediate-range missile treaty or the open skies treaty, what is the point of entering into more agreements with them—for them to also not honor?

On the other hand, a tête-à-tête with Putin was by no means a risk-free endeavor for Biden. The American body public has managed to paint itself into the corner of demanding that its president be "tough on Russia" "Nobody was tougher on Russia than me," quoth Trump recently from the sidelines. Indeed, right after his confab with Putin Biden found himself confronting screechy journalists declaring him at fault for not extracting a confession from Putin for things Putin hadn't done. There is an entire litany of nonsense that Biden was required to recite—the Skripal and Navalny attempted murder, election meddling, hacking attacks, etc.—all unproven and therefore all nonsense—and to all of them the Russians react with a typical Russian gesture of twisting their index fingers at their temples, indicating that the ones who spout such nonsense are non compos mentis. That was a no-win situation for Biden, and yet he took the risk. What for? What was the big prize for him?

One opinion that I have heard voiced is that, given the numerous irregularities during the presidential elections last November, Biden is a bit of a pretender. Indeed, only about half the Americans believe that his presidency is legitimate. And so, according to this theory, he came to Geneva as various Russian princes used to go to visit the Great Khan of the Golden Horde in order to legitimize their reign and receive an official document called, in a mixture of Mongol and Russian, yarlyk na knyazhenye. It was thought that Biden, by calling US and Russia "two great powers," meant to endow himself with the legitimacy he so sorely lacks. But this theory goes against two basic facts: first, Americans, in the main, neither know nor care what the rest of the world thinks; second, Putin has been so vilified in the American mass media that in the public perception he is the enemy rather than the world's other great leader, and no legitimacy can be gained by meeting with him.

In addition to to the basic fact that the Americans asked for the meeting and the Russians magnanimously agreed to it, there is the unmistakable clue of body language. Behold the initial greeting: Putin is dignified and pacific while Biden is bowing and sporting a goofy grin in a clear show of subservience.

Putin’s Satisfaction With Geneva Summit Will Not

Putin and Biden meet
Putin’s Satisfaction With Geneva Summit Will Not Last


Seated together for the cameras, Putin is exuding self-confidence and calm and manspreading while patting his knee—"Come and sit here, little boy!" while Biden's legs are crossed, demure and ladylike, guarding his family jewels, his feet pointed at Putin, his facial expression uncertain.

What is the future of a cyber detente after Biden and Putin’s Geneva summit?

Putin and Biden seated
What is the future of a cyber detente after Biden and Putin’s Geneva summit?


One could be forgiven for thinking that this is the Mickeymousearch of Disneylandia all aquiver at having been granted an audience by the Great Khan of Eurasia!

A great many theories have advanced to explain Biden's motivation, from Biden trying to rally the West by presenting a unified front against Russia to Biden trying to drive a wedge between Russia and China, plus lots of others—all but the most obvious.

It is common knowledge that the ability of the US to continue as a going concern critically depends on its ability to import products in exchange for dollars it can simply print into existence as needed. The reason these worthless dollars are still honored hinges on the dollar's status as a reserve currency—lessened but still significant. And the dollar's status as a reserve currency in turn has much to do with the petrodollar system and the fact that oil-importing countries around the world need to earn or borrow dollars in order to buy oil while oil-exporting countries need to accept dollars as payment even if this is to their economic detriment. Knock out the petrodollar, and the standard of living of the average American plummets by a factor of 10. This is the eventuality which Biden took upon himself to defer by meeting with Putin.

There have been three attempts by oil-exporting nations to stop selling their oil for dollars: by Iraq, Libya and now by Russia. Speaking at the recent St. Petersburg World Economic Forum, Putin, as usual, put it ever so politely and obliquely. Referring to the effect of US sanctions, he said that the US is "sawing through the branch on which it is sitting" and "will eventually tumble." To put some urgency behind the word "eventually," Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov stated that Russia will zero out the dollar portion of its sovereign wealth fund within a month.

«Мы не уходим сознательно, мы вынуждены это делать. Но когда мы это делаем, складывается определённая система наших финансовых отношений с партнёром. Уже вне долларовой зоны.»

"We are not moving away [from the dollar] voluntarily, we are being forced to do it. But when we do so, a certain system of international relations with our partners takes shape—outside the dollar zone."

We know what happened to Iraq and Libya: they got bombed halfway to oblivion. But no such option exists with regard to Russia when it announces that it is moving away from the dollar both as a reserve currency and in international trade. Instead of bombing, the US is reduced to begging, and that is what Biden came to Geneva to do. He was forced to beg rather than bargain or deal because he had nothing to offer to Russia and because the Russians have no reason to trust him to make deals. Well, not quite nothing: Biden could still offer to do nothing, or as close to nothing as possible—that being something that his administration is still ostensibly capable of delivering.

Biden can't stop anti-Russian sanctions that have already been written into law, but he can force his administration to drag its feet on implementing them and to make their implementation as meaningless and toothless as possible. For instance, he can resort ot sanctioning dead Russians and bankrupt Russian companies. And Biden can't stop the Russophobic rhetoric in the US media and in US Congress, but he can make sure that there is no follow-through from words to actions. Specifically, the US can offer to stop interfering with European efforts to secure access to Russian natural gas, which is becoming critical to European energy security because it is the only fuel that is flexible enough to compensate for the raggedness of electricity output from wind and solar installations.

From the way the Geneva meeting resonated throughout Europe, the effects of this grand bargain are already being felt. Nord Stream 2—delayed but not stopped by US sanctions—is moving ahead. As it promised, Russia will continue to rent capacity on the Ukrainian gas transit pipeline, but at a level that won't even pay for its maintenance. Pointedly, the über-Russophobic Ukraine was not even a topic of discussion at the Geneva summit. In accordance with Oscar Wilde's saying that "There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about," this has caused much hand-wringing in Kiev. The arch-Russophobic Poland, which was one of the main obstructionists of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline within the EU, will now be forced to buy Russian natural gas, either indirectly from Germany via Nord Stream 2 or directly through an LNG terminal they built for American gas from fracking—which, as it turns out, doesn't exist in anything like the necessary volumes. And silly little Lithuania, ever so eager to be rid of all things Russian, will now have to import Russian gas through Germany and Poland, paying transit fees at each step.

As I have said before, Russophobia is expensive: those who engage in it fail to secure the loyal customer discount. The Eastern Europeans who thought that they had a bright future playing Uncle Sam's Russophobic lapdogs have brought this lesson upon themselves in the harshest and most painful way possible. America is leaving Eurasia. Say what you will about Biden, but I am pretty sure that he is cognizant of this fact and that he came to Geneva in an attempt to gain some advantage by offering to leave Eurasia voluntarily.


The second and third images correspond to the same Summit moments as those in Dmitry Orlov's article but they are not the same ones. The first has no correspondent in the article.


By Dmitry Orlov on Sunday, June 20:
1. At Club Orlov, 2021, see here.
2. At Dmitry Orlov's Facebook, see here.









From Yalta to Geneva | De Ialta a Genebra

16.06.21 | Duarte Pacheco Pereira

Yalta Conference, February 1945 | Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin | B&W

Yalta Conference | Conferência de Ialta


Why A Yalta II ?

Oriental Review | Written by Thierry Meyssan on 15/06/2021

We cannot live in a society without rules. If they are unjust, we revolt and change them. This is inevitable, because what seems right at one time is not necessarily right at another. In any case, we need an order, otherwise each one becomes the enemy of all. What is true for men is also true for peoples.

In 1945, the Yalta Conference laid the foundations for the division of the world into the zones of influence of the three great victors of the Second World War: the USA, the United Kingdom and above all the Soviet Union. Throughout the Cold War, each side publicly insulted the other, but they always got along under the table. Historical research has shown that, although at any moment the agreement could have turned into a confrontation, the invective was rather intended to weld each side together than to hurt the opponent/partner.

This system was never contested. It lasted until the disappearance of the USSR in 1991. Since then, the United States has claimed to be the only hyper-power capable of organizing the world. They have not succeeded. On many occasions, China and Russia –heir to the USSR– have tried to reshuffle the deck. They have not succeeded either, but they have not stopped making progress. The United Kingdom, which had joined the European Union during the Cold War, left it to compete again (“Global Britain”). Thus, there are no longer three, but four powers that aspire to share the world.

After the confusion of 1991-2021, from “Desert Storm” to the “reshaping of the broader Middle East,” the United States’ ambition broke down in Syria. It took several years for it to admit defeat. The Russian armies now have much more advanced weapons and the Chinese army has much more qualified personnel. Washington urgently needs to take note of reality and accept an agreement otherwise it will lose everything. It is no longer a matter of calculating what is best for it, but of undertaking everything to survive.

The allies of the United States have not perceived the importance of the military disaster in Syria. They persist in lying to themselves and treating this major conflict, involving even more states than the Second World War, as a “civil” war in a small, distant country. It will therefore be particularly difficult for them to comply with Washington’s cascading retreat.

A Yalta II is the last chance for the United Kingdom. The former “Empire on which the sun never sets” no longer has the military means of its ambitions. But it still has an exceptional know-how and an unfailing cynicism (the “Perfidious Albion”). It will take part in any deal as long as it guarantees a payoff. It follows in the footsteps of the US Administration, taking advantage of their common culture and solid networks of influence. The Pilgrim’s Society, which was very present during the first Obama administration, is back in the White House.

Antony Blinken and Dominic Raab

At a G7 preparatory meeting on May 3, 2021, U.S. and U.K. foreign ministers Antony Blinken and Dominic Raab suggested that the West would fight both Russia and China. But it is an entirely different scenario that should be implemented.


Russia is not the USSR, where few leaders were Russian. It does not seek the triumph of an ideology. Its foreign policy is not based on a vague “geopolitical” theory either, but on the projection of its strong personality. It is ready to neglect its interests rather than to deny itself.

China has come a long way without owing anything to anyone, and especially not to those who destroyed it at the beginning of the 20th century. It intends above all to recover its regional influence and trade with the rest of the world. It knows how to wait, but is not ready to make any concessions. Today it is an ally of Russia, but it remembers its role during its colonization and has not given up its territorial claims on Eastern Siberia.

In short, none of the four major powers is acting according to the same logic and pursuing the same objectives. This makes it easier to reach an agreement, but more difficult to keep it.

The Pentagon has appointed a task force to consider possible options for dealing with China (DoD China Task Force), which it fears more than Russia. Indeed, whatever Beijing recovers from its regional zone of influence, it will do so at the expense of Washington’s positions in Asia. For its part, the White House has organized a top-secret working group to consider possible new orders. The first group has issued its report, which has been classified. No one knows whether the second group has completed its work or not.

It is this group that oversees the destiny of the United States. Its composition itself is secret. Its members are obviously more powerful than a senile president. It plays a central decision-making role comparable to that of the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPD) during the Bush-Cheney Administration.

It is unclear at this point whether this group represents political objectives and/or financial interests. In any case, it is clear that Global Finance influences both NATO and the White House. It does not seek to change alliances, but rather to have the information necessary to adapt behind the scenes to these changes and preserve its social position.

The movements of Washington’s various special envoys suggest that the Biden Administration has already chosen to restore the Cold War duopoly. This is the only way for Washington to avoid a war against a Russian-Chinese alliance that it would probably not survive.

This option implies that Washington commits itself to defend the integrity of Russian Siberia against China and that Moscow reciprocally defends the US bases and possessions located in the Chinese zone of influence.

This option assumes that Washington recognizes Chinese economic pre-eminence in the world. But it leaves it the possibility of politically containing the “Middle Kingdom” so that it never becomes a world power in the full sense.

The only real loser would be China, still deprived of a part of its zone of influence and politically contained. However, it would be appeased, for the time being, by letting it recover Taiwan, which the Pentagon Think Tank has considered for a week as “non-essential” for the USA.

It is important to understand that the main obstacle for the US is mental. Since 2001, Washington has been convinced that instability plays in its favour. This is why it is unabashedly instrumentalizing jihadists around the world, thus implementing the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy. However, the concept of a Yalta-type agreement is, on the contrary, a bet on stability, which is what Moscow has been preaching for two decades.

President Biden has planned to meet with his British partners to strengthen their alliance on the model of the Atlantic Charter; then to bring together his main allies for the G7: and finally to meet with his military and civilian allies in NATO and the European Union. It is only after having assured himself of the loyalty of all that he will meet his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in Geneva on June 16.

All this is paradoxical; because it amounts to making the Biden Administration do exactly what the Trump Administration was prevented from doing. Four years have been wasted for nothing.

Source: Voltaire Network


Original in French | Original en français here | ici 
Portuguese translation | Tradução portuguesa here | aqui 











Jaime Nogueira Pinto e o Globalismo

14.06.21 | Álvaro Aragão Athayde

Dictatorship of the Billionairiat


Jaime Nogueira Pinto parece ter começado a perceber que, neste princípio do século XXI, o Inimigo de Portugal é o Globalismo, não o Comunismo.

Digamos que começava a desesperar… 
• Comentário de Álvaro Aragão Athayde [2021.]


10 de Junho

Se não é a pertença a uma comunidade na História o que nos une numa humanidade comum,
o que propõem então que seja?

Por Jaime Nogueira Pinto no Observador às 00:10 de 04 de Junho de 2021.

“Old soldiers never die”. A frase, celebrizada pelo general Douglas McArthur no seu discurso de despedida, em 1951, vem de uma velha canção de guerra inglesa.

“Old soldiers never die”. É bonito mas não é verdade. Os velhos soldados morrem, como toda a gente. E, como quase toda a gente, morrem também na memória de quase todos. Sobretudo nesta nossa “ditosa pátria”. Cada vez somos menos os que teimamos em proclamar, todos os anos, no memorial dos Combatentes, a memória dos nossos amigos e camaradas que morreram. E muitos depois do fim das últimas guerras do Império.

O Guilherme, o Jaime, o Alfredo, o Zé, o Miguel, o Victor, entre tantos outros. Eles e os milhares que não chegaram a “velhos soldados” têm ali o nome gravado na pedra. Lembramo-los todos os anos. E vamos voltar a lembrá-los este ano, a 10 de Junho, primeiro na missa nos Jerónimos, às 10h30, e depois ali mesmo, no memorial. Seremos menos, em cumprimento das restrições pandémicas, mas vamos lá estar.

As nações são feitas disto mesmo – de glórias e derrotas e da memória dos sacrifícios que os seus filhos por elas fizeram, em guerras ganhas ou perdidas. A que então travámos, creio poder dizê-lo em nome da maioria dos que por lá passámos, foi uma guerra sem ódio. Digo-o pela amizade que fui encontrando em alguns dos que então combatemos. Os nossos mortos lutaram e morreram pela nação; os mortos dos que então nos combateram morreram por nações que queriam ver nascer.

Globalismo e subordinação

E a nação, realidade que alguns se esforçam por cancelar ou proibir, continua a ser importante. E agora talvez mais que nunca. Até porque parece ser, afinal, a nação, o único corpo intermédio capaz de defender os povos das tutelas globais. E se não é a pertença a uma comunidade na História o que nos une, irmana e congrega numa humanidade comum, o que propõem então que seja? O sermos todos inodoros, incolores, insalubres, neutros, fluidos e inclusivos? Ou pior, o sermos só nós, do alto da nossa hipócrita e soberba “perfeição ocidental”, os únicos chamados à irrealidade da contrição perpétua, do cancelamento cultural e da suprema glória do desenraizamento e do angelismo transcultural?

A crer na comunicação social e no silêncio cúmplice ou no aplauso tímido de uma direita temerosa, só os burros, os ignorantes, os retrógrados, os fascistas, os populistas, os xenófobos, os de extrema-direita imaginam inexistentes tutelas globais ou censórias derivas mundialistas de oligarquias iluminadas. Veja-se, por exemplo, Georgia Meloni, dos Fratelli d’Italia, que recentemente voltou a chamar a atenção para o globalismo de subordinação que pretende substituir a soberania nacional e popular pelas tutelas subtis e doces de Bruxelas, de Frankfurt e de Davos, falando da nação como defesa dos povos da Europa contra os mandatos transnacionais. Pura desinformação.

E no entanto, torna-se cada vez mais evidente a estranha aliança táctica e objectiva (e às vezes subjectiva) que está em curso. A aliança de um mega capitalismo internacionalista de “fundos piratas” e senhores da Big Tech com um radicalismo pós-marxista acolhido, endossado e divulgado pela opinião média. É que por mais que alguns queiram perpetuar a imagem do “grande capitalista”, de fato às riscas, charuto e relógio de bolso, ligado às forças conservadoras e “fascistas”, não há como não ver que a ideologia que hoje serve o “mega-capitalista”, de ténis, t-shirt e causas e casas ecológicas e alternativas, está longe de ser o conservadorismo, o populismo, o extrema-direitismo, o fascismo, os nacionalismos que, ao contrário, o ameaçam.

E como as nações, o nacionalismo e os valores identitários são o símbolo por excelência de tudo o que “impede a marcha do progresso”, são o alvo a abater… As nações e os valores identitários do Ocidente euroamericano, bem entendido, porque noutras latitudes já pode haver valores identitários nações e nacionalismos, como o da República Popular da China, um nacionalismo autoritário de partido único e de capitalismo de direcção central, mas que talvez seja melhor não desafiar.

De acordo com as regras destes zelosos pastores do puritanismo multicultural, os asiáticos e os africanos, coitados, podem ser nacionalistas; mas nós, europeus, nós, ocidentais, mais misericordiosos, justos, perfeitos, humanitários e civilizados que os outros, não podemos nem devemos descer tão baixo. Nações, raízes e identidades são primitivas minudências que se compreendem perfeitamente nos outros, que se acolhem, que se aclamam até, mas que a nós, ocidentais, chamados a coisas maiores, não nos ficam bem. Cancelar raízes, pertenças, passados e culturas para atingir a suprema neutralidade e inclusividade é o mínimo a que podemos aspirar.

Daí talvez o luso esforço das campanhas de desnacionalização (veja-se por exemplo, o Programa de História A, 10º, 11º, e 12º anos do Curso Científico-Humanístico de Línguas e Humanidades), que, à luz de ideais “científico-humanitários”, combatem a “desinformação histórica”, apelando à condenação e à contrição perante uma História-pátria e uma identidade que, depois de rigoroso fact check, se revelam, afinal, negras.

O regresso da nação

Entretanto, resistindo a este delirante cancelamento cultural, a valorização da História e da Nação parece estar de volta. De Budapeste a Paris, de Varsóvia a Roma e a Madrid, sob diferentes regimes e em diferentes situações de poder ou oposição, ganham espaço político, pelo voto popular, movimentos e partidos que defendem a identidade e a soberania nacionais, a liberdade de expressão, a prática religiosa, uma visão meta-política da política e um conceito tradicional e realista de família e de comunidade. E esta valorização aparece com força porque os valores que se reafirmam estão em risco por acção de uma minoria com hegemonia gramsciana no Estado e na Sociedade.

Por isso, é preciso que alguns – de direita, de esquerda, do que for – os afirmem em nome do realismo, do senso comum, da continuidade dos modos de vida e das comunidades que construímos na História. E se os partidos sistémicos e as instituições se calam, teremos de ser nós, os que não temos medo que nos achem estúpidos, a resistir.

Camões, o realista

O 10 de Junho era o dia da Raça. E a raça era a dos Portugueses de todos os séculos, de todas as raças e que foram de muitos continentes. Somos uma nação de pioneiros da globalização que, na universalidade, nunca perdeu a identidade, antes a foi recriando com os povos que foi encontrando. E não nos vangloriámos com irrealidades, antes tivemos também sempre um grande sentido do real e do trágico na vida dos homens e dos povos, na ascensão e queda dos Impérios e das civilizações. Ou tiveram-no os nossos melhores. E ainda que as notas “científico-humanísticas” que se adivinham sobre “desinformação e preconceito” em Camões possam vir a dizer o contrário, é difícil não ler n’Os Lusíadas grandeza, aventura, vitórias, também cupidez, servilismo, traição.

Como Fernão Lopes, como Gil Vicente, como Diogo de Couto ou Fernão Mendes Pinto, Camões é um épico lúcido que, como os clássicos gregos e latinos que o inspiraram, conhece a natureza humana (coisa que os novos puritanos do radicalismo importado parecem desconhecer), e sabe que os heróis – os seus heróis individuais, o Fundador, o Condestável, Gama ou Albuquerque – são profundamente humanos. Humanos no bom e no mau. E que o seu herói colectivo – o Povo Português – também vacilou, também esqueceu, também abandonou, também traficou, também se perdeu. E que foi um povo que, no ano da morte do poeta, perdeu a independência com a “união real” a Madrid.

Camões teve o cuidado de dar voz ao contraditório da Expansão, com o Velho do Restelo (o “Idoso do Restelo” não falaria assim), queixando-se também do “desamor às boas letras”. E no lamento final do seu poema maior, foi dizendo:

Não mais, Musa, não mais, que a Lira tenho
Destemperada e a voz enrouquecida,
E não do canto, mas de ver que venho
Cantar a gente surda e endurecida.
O favor com que mais se acende o engenho
Não no dá a pátria, não, que está metida
No gosto da cobiça e na rudeza
Duma austera, apagada e vil tristeza.

Contra a decadência e o decadentismo

Esta é também uma das nossas muitas horas de decadência, decadência crónica ou que continuamente encontramos e que alguns dos grandes pensadores e patriotas de oitocentos – como Herculano, Antero de Quental e Oliveira Martins – também viram aprofundar-se no seu tempo. Mas que diriam se estivessem hoje aqui e se confrontassem com a nossa agravada submissão e veneração ao exterior? Que diriam das delirantes ideias e práticas que não nos servem nem a ninguém mas que agora que nos chegam em virtuais caixotes…da América? E qual não seria o espanto de Camilo e de Eça ao reencontrar hoje um Portugal de Calistos Elóis, de conselheiros Acácios, de Dâmasos, de Palmas Cavalões em múltiplas réplicas tristemente actualizadas em traços caricaturais mais ridículos e mais carregados ainda?

Toda esta bela e festiva sociedade está agora alarmada, ofendida e até assustada porque, ao fim de 47 anos de regime mais ou menos concordante, aparecem algumas vozes de discórdia.

É bom que se sinta alarmada. Mas pior que classe dirigente e a esquerda radical alarmadas é uma direita que não vê a utilidade e a utilização desse alarme para a perpetuação no poder dessa mesma classe. Uma direita ora obediente e também alarmada ora chorosa, derrotista e masoquista, descrevendo o tempo e o modo da Decadência e do Fim como um irremediável e inevitável castigo da História a que não podemos nem devemos resistir.

O 10 de Junho deve significar o contrário e inspirar e dinamizar a vontade sem medo que o povo português sempre mostrou. Resistir e mudar as coisas é e deve ser a palavra de ordem.

Artigo original (só para assinantes) e comentários dos leitores (para todos) aqui.


No Museu do Combatente, 2021

No Museu do Combatente, 2021.


Escrevi no comentário «Jaime Nogueira Pinto parece ter começado a perceber» e escrevi-o porque Jaime Nogueira Pinto parece ainda não ter lido Zbigniew Brzezinski:

Nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.
• Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era. Viking Press, 1970.









Pág. 1/2