Post by johnbc on Sept 27, 2020 18:54:47 GMT
Latin American independence was just an English trick.
I will never understand why people celebrate the independence of Latin American nations. The Spanish and Portuguese empire were infinitely preferable to this agglomeration of eternally bankrupt republics, forever eaten by coups, revolutions and dictatorships. Besides, the only decent country created by the supposed Latin American civilization was Argentina, but only until the arrival of Perón. Argentina is the England that didn’t work.
The independence of Brazil, like that of the Spanish colonies, was not an independence except from a legal point of view. Politically and economically, they have just moved from one orbit of influence to another, in yet another episode of the historic crept that the British crown gave to its Iberian competitors.
It is clear that, among the founders of the country, there were those who pushed for a more effective independence. This is the case of the great Andrada, who began by advising the country not to owe a debt to the great European bankers, because the debt, he said, would never stop growing. They fired Andrada and they are still rolling over the debt.
English policy was to encourage rebellions and progressive demands in foreign colonies and areas of influence, always out of step with the effective possibilities of the local economy, to generate crises and destroy the hegemony of competing empires. Encouraged by the English to dance at a pace that they did not have the strength to follow, the nations affected by this policy developed a chronic cultural complex, which is the contradiction of basic values: if they seek to adapt to the ethical and political demands of progressive civilization, they have to submit to international power and lose autonomy; if they want to preserve autonomy, they have to deny their citizens the new rights created by the most advanced society. Hence, in these nations, the most democratizing governments tend to “surrender” (Juscelino Kubitschek), and nationalist governments to “authoritarianism” (Bernardes, Geisel).
The reflection of this in the culture and in the psychological life is a general environment of farce and unreality, where all proposals have some secret vice and where no one can fully say what they think, because everyone feels, at heart, guilty of inconsistency.
The History of an Empire
In these five hundred and so years, Brazil was above all a creation of the official initiative, especially military, passing over the astonished passivity of a disjointed and inert civil society. The history of Brazil does not belong to Brazil: it belongs to a Portuguese overseas empire that broke up under the blows of English diplomacy, helpfully aided by native intellectuals who thought they were doing a great benefit for generations to come. What a Portuguese-Brazil-Africa political-economic bloc would represent in the world today was something they could not imagine, but which the English imagined perfectly well and for this very reason they feared like the plague.
The specter of the emerging mulatto empire haunted British nights as the prophecy of a new Moorish expansion
Have you seen the film “Burn!”, by Gillo Pontecorvo? It is the history of Brazil.
Brazilian independence had sacrificed on the altar of the momentary interests of landlords a project of worldwide scope, immediately placing them under the yoke of English banks that would later throw them into the genocidal adventure of the Paraguayan war.
Nothing is more illustrative than the tragic life of the Brazilian Patriarch. Andrada believed in a project-Brazil superior to that of the Portuguese empire, and for this very reason, shortly after Independence, he vigorously opposed making loans abroad. The deep impulse that moved the wheels of history did not take long to crush the pioneer’s blind illusions: Andrada was fired and sent into exile, while the new ruling class began the endless novel of foreign debt. Independence did not come to expand the Brazilian horizon, but only to narrow the Portuguese’s. Mission accomplished, the movement’s leader could be thrown away.
The Marxist vulgate of today imposes on us the legend that Independence and the fall of the Empire were stages of a revolution destined to crown them with glories. But this only proves that “Marxism” is Marx for children. Marx himself said that colonies in Africa and Latin America that became independent would fall ipso facto out of history. They fell.
Half a farce, half a tragedy, the perennially semifrustrated independence could drive them crazy, if it weren’t for the Brazilian’s proverbial ability to live in ambiguity. But this capacity is in turn part of the traditionally national lifestyle, which a moralist progressivism today invites them to abandon it in exchange for an american-style legalistic rigorism that, in turn, will cost their country new submissions. And so on. Until when?
I will never understand why people celebrate the independence of Latin American nations. The Spanish and Portuguese empire were infinitely preferable to this agglomeration of eternally bankrupt republics, forever eaten by coups, revolutions and dictatorships. Besides, the only decent country created by the supposed Latin American civilization was Argentina, but only until the arrival of Perón. Argentina is the England that didn’t work.
The independence of Brazil, like that of the Spanish colonies, was not an independence except from a legal point of view. Politically and economically, they have just moved from one orbit of influence to another, in yet another episode of the historic crept that the British crown gave to its Iberian competitors.
It is clear that, among the founders of the country, there were those who pushed for a more effective independence. This is the case of the great Andrada, who began by advising the country not to owe a debt to the great European bankers, because the debt, he said, would never stop growing. They fired Andrada and they are still rolling over the debt.
English policy was to encourage rebellions and progressive demands in foreign colonies and areas of influence, always out of step with the effective possibilities of the local economy, to generate crises and destroy the hegemony of competing empires. Encouraged by the English to dance at a pace that they did not have the strength to follow, the nations affected by this policy developed a chronic cultural complex, which is the contradiction of basic values: if they seek to adapt to the ethical and political demands of progressive civilization, they have to submit to international power and lose autonomy; if they want to preserve autonomy, they have to deny their citizens the new rights created by the most advanced society. Hence, in these nations, the most democratizing governments tend to “surrender” (Juscelino Kubitschek), and nationalist governments to “authoritarianism” (Bernardes, Geisel).
The reflection of this in the culture and in the psychological life is a general environment of farce and unreality, where all proposals have some secret vice and where no one can fully say what they think, because everyone feels, at heart, guilty of inconsistency.
The History of an Empire
In these five hundred and so years, Brazil was above all a creation of the official initiative, especially military, passing over the astonished passivity of a disjointed and inert civil society. The history of Brazil does not belong to Brazil: it belongs to a Portuguese overseas empire that broke up under the blows of English diplomacy, helpfully aided by native intellectuals who thought they were doing a great benefit for generations to come. What a Portuguese-Brazil-Africa political-economic bloc would represent in the world today was something they could not imagine, but which the English imagined perfectly well and for this very reason they feared like the plague.
The specter of the emerging mulatto empire haunted British nights as the prophecy of a new Moorish expansion
Have you seen the film “Burn!”, by Gillo Pontecorvo? It is the history of Brazil.
Brazilian independence had sacrificed on the altar of the momentary interests of landlords a project of worldwide scope, immediately placing them under the yoke of English banks that would later throw them into the genocidal adventure of the Paraguayan war.
Nothing is more illustrative than the tragic life of the Brazilian Patriarch. Andrada believed in a project-Brazil superior to that of the Portuguese empire, and for this very reason, shortly after Independence, he vigorously opposed making loans abroad. The deep impulse that moved the wheels of history did not take long to crush the pioneer’s blind illusions: Andrada was fired and sent into exile, while the new ruling class began the endless novel of foreign debt. Independence did not come to expand the Brazilian horizon, but only to narrow the Portuguese’s. Mission accomplished, the movement’s leader could be thrown away.
The Marxist vulgate of today imposes on us the legend that Independence and the fall of the Empire were stages of a revolution destined to crown them with glories. But this only proves that “Marxism” is Marx for children. Marx himself said that colonies in Africa and Latin America that became independent would fall ipso facto out of history. They fell.
Half a farce, half a tragedy, the perennially semifrustrated independence could drive them crazy, if it weren’t for the Brazilian’s proverbial ability to live in ambiguity. But this capacity is in turn part of the traditionally national lifestyle, which a moralist progressivism today invites them to abandon it in exchange for an american-style legalistic rigorism that, in turn, will cost their country new submissions. And so on. Until when?