Muro Sem Vergonha

O Blog do Romance

Não; este blog não é um "Consultório Sentimental" ou "Manual do Engate" online. É mesmo do Romance, forma literária, de que aqui se fala.

Visitem a coisa, que vale a pena. E, por falar em coisa, não percam a entrada relativa ao "Troféu Coisão de Ouro".
Julgo que já devia ter divulgado este endereço há mais tempo: talvez o júri do prémio "Ler" não estivesse agora a braços com cento-e-não-sei-quantos romances para apreciar...

Uma contribuição do gineceu para a política portuguesa

Não percebo porque é que toda a gente anda abespinhada com a Dr.ª Ana Gomes.
Afinal, tudo o que ela fez foi elevar uma figura típica da paisagem humana nacional ao duvidoso panteão da Política.Todos nós temos bem vivas na memória - e nos tímpanos - aquelas mulherzinhas estridentes que surgem diariamente nas notícias televisivas a berrar coisas como: "Ai isto é uma vergonha! É um crime! Atão põem os pretos e os ciganos aqui a viver ao pé de nós?"

É a mesma atitude, a mesma carga de decibéis esganiçados. Só muda o tema.
Creio que um homem nunca faria semelhante figura. Mas isto sou só eu a alimentar uma fantasiazita machista...

Olha que lindo epitáfio... em verso e tudo!

CADA MACACO NO SEU GALHO

Amigos, que vos encostais à sombra
do alto muro que'ora construís,
deitai fora a vergonha que sentis
e fazei-vos assim autores d'arromba.

Se do Porto vos toca a ilustre Casa,
e se ela pela música incomoda,
só tendes de rejeitar a alta roda
e não vades em voos sem ter asa.

E se o fizerdes pensai bem, então,
que a música só toca s'afinada
estiver, bem assim aparelhada
com tudo o qu'é preciso ter à mão.

Não percais vosso tempo qu'é dinheiro
e não mete folgança a quem tem siso
pois s'o tem todo mais nada é preciso
qu'a vergonha anda aí o dia inteiro !

Simpática oferta de Frassino Machado

Na TSF, a música é outra!

Ingredientes há na TSF que sempre me irritaram: a profusão e repetição infinda dos mesmos reclames, a incrível "Bancada Central", e umas coisitas mais.
(Posso até confessar que, com o tempo, me transformei em ouvinte fiel da "Bancada"; não cesso de me espantar com a pletora de sentimentos ao rubro que toda aquela gente ali despeja, a propósito do futebol. Razão tinha a Natália Correia quando disse que tal desporto é "um desperdício de sentimentos"...)

Uma das coisas que apreciava na TSF era a música. Ali, conseguia pôr os meus ouvidos ao abrigo dos hits descartáveis do momento. Podia até descobrir algumas boas novidades. É verdade que o menú nunca era muito consistente ao longo do dia; e depois?

Se uso o pretérito, é com bom motivo. Hoje, a TSF já usa a abominável cartilha da massificação que polui todas as outras rádios: a playlist. E a listinha é da inteira responsabilidade da inefável Margarida Pinto Correia, nem mais.
Que portentosas revelações pode o gosto desta senhora partilhar com os modestos ouvintes?
Madonna, Spandau Ballet, Bee Gees. Entre muitas outras coisas do mesmo jaez.
Quanto à obrigatória música em português, a qualidade e a inovação imperam de modo igualmente soberano: Luís Represas, Ala dos Namorados, João Pedro Pais, Sara Tavares e outros cripto-pimbas que tais.
Para mim, que até tenho a agradecer às ondas da TSF a descoberta deste belo disco, ser agora bombardeado com as riminhas infantis do JPP, em que "coração" só pode mesmo rimar com "paixão", é demais.

Pior, só as crónicas do Rangel.

Heil, Dubya?

O Joao Miguel Vaz enviou-nos, há um ror de tempo, um fascinante artigo da Adbusters: "Is America Becoming Fascist?". Muito obrigado, João.
Cliquem abaixo para ler. É longo mas vale a pena.

Adbusters: Is America Becoming Fascist?

Is America becoming fascist? Since mainstream media refuse to seriously
ask this question, the analysis of where we are heading and what has gone
wrong has been mostly off-base. Investigation of the kinds of underhanded,
criminal tactics fascist regimes undertake to legitimize their agenda and
accelerate the rate of change in their favor is dismissed as indulging in
ìconspiracy theory.î If the f-word is uttered, observers are quick to note
the obvious dissimilarities with previous variants of fascism. American
writers dare not speak the truth.

The blinkered assertion that we are immune to the fascist virus ignores
degrees of convergence and distinction based on the individual patient's
history. The New York Times and other liberal voices have been obsessed in
recent years with the rise of minority fascist parties in the Netherlands,
France and other European countries. They have questioned the tastefulness
of new books and films about Hitler, and again demonized the icons of
Nazism. Max Frankel, former editor of the Times, quotes from biographer
Joachim Fest in his review of Speer:

The Final Verdict: ìhow easily, given appropriate conditions, people will
allow themselves to be mobilized into violence, abandoning the
humanitarian traditions they have built up over centuries to protect
themselves from each other.î Is Frankel hinting at his anxiety about the
primal being that has arisen in America? The pace of events in the last
two years has been almost as blindingly fast as it was after Hitler's
consolidation of fascist power in 1933. Speed stuns and silences.

To pose the question doesn't mean that American fascism is a completed
project; at any point, anything can happen to shift the course of history
in a different direction. Yet after repeated and open corruption of the
normal electoral process, several declarations of global war, adventurous
and unprecedented military doctrines, selective suspension of the Bill of
Rights and clear signals that a declaration of emergency is on the
horizon, surely it is time to analyze the situation differently. Several
of the apparent contradictions in the Bush administration's governance
make perfect sense if the fascist prism is applied, but not with the usual
perspective. Fascism is home, it is here to stay, and it better be
countered with all the resources at our disposal.

American fascism taps into the perennial complaint against liberalism:
that it fails to provide an authentic sense of belonging to the majority
of people. America today wants to be communal and virile; it seeks to
overcome what many have been convinced are the unreasonable demands of
minorities and women; it wants to reinvigorate ideals of nation, region
and race in order to take control of the future; it seeks to overcome the
social divisiveness of capitalism and democracy, remolding the nation
through propaganda and leadership.

We can notice obvious differences from the German or Italian nationalist
traditions, of course ñ we have our own nationalist myths. In the near
future, America can be expected to embark on a more radical search to
define who is and who is not a part of the natural order: exclusion,
deportation and eventually extermination might again become the order of
things. Fascism can occur precisely at that moment of truth when the
course of political history can tend to one direction or another. Nazism
never had the support of the majority of Germans; at best about a third
fully supported it. About a third of Americans today are certifiably
fascist; another 20 percent or so can be swayed around to particular
causes with smart propaganda. The basic paradigm remains more or less
intact.

Capitalism today is different, so are the means of propaganda, and so are
the technological tools of suppression. But that is only a matter of
variation, not opposition. With all of Germany's cultural strength,
brutality won out; the same analysis can apply to America. Hitler never
won clear majorities (his ascent to power was facilitated by the political
elites), and yet once he was in power, he crushed all dissent; consider
the parallels to the fateful, hair-splitting election of 2000 and its
aftermath. Hitler took advantage of the Reichstag fire ñ the burning of
the German parliament, which was blamed on communist arson ñ to totally
reshape German institutions and culture; think of 9/11 as a close
parallel. Hitler was careful to give the impression of always operating
under legal cover; note again the similarity of a pseudo-legal shield for
the actions of the American fascists, who stretch the Geneva Conventions
by redefining prisoners of war as ìunlawful.î One can go on and on in this
vein.

If we look at historian Stanley Payne's classical general theory of
fascism, we are struck by the increasing similarities with the American
model:

A.The Fascist Negations
Anti-liberalism.
Anti-communism.
Anti-conservatism.

B.Ideology and Goals
Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state.
Organization of a new kind of regulated, multi-class, integrated
national economic structure.
The goal of empire.
Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed.

C.Style and Organization
Emphasis on aesthetic structure, stressing romantic and mystical
aspects.
Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political
relationships and style, and the goal of a mass party militia.
Positive evaluation and use of violence.
Extreme stress on the masculine principle.
Exaltation of youth.
Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal
style of command.

With American fascism, the first two negations are obvious; the third may
seem unlikely. But fascism is not conservatism, and it takes issue with
conservatism's anti-revolutionary stance. Conservatism's libertarian
strand ñ an American staple ñ would not agree with fascism's ìnationalist
authoritarian state.î Reaganite anti-government rhetoric might have been a
precursor to fascism, but free market and deregulationist ideology cannot
be labeled fascist.

Continuing to look at Payne's list, we note that the goal of empire has
found open acceptance over the last couple of years. Voluntarism has been
elevated to iconic status, as AmeriCorps members are recruited and
directed toward homeland-security measures. The mass party militia ñ
especially large bands of organized, militarized youth ñ seems to be
missing, but there is certainly no doubt about the glorification of
violence. The masculine principle (think Donald ìRummyî Rumsfeld, or the
president landing Top Gun-style on the deck of an aircraft carrier) has
been elevated as the basis of policy-making. Command is authoritarian and
personal. It is true that Bush is not as charismatic as Hitler, but one
would have to ask if this is not a redundancy in a political model that
raises the office of the presidency to an icon of celebrity.

It takes a bit more effort to notice American fascism's emphasis on
aesthetic structure, stressing romantic and mystical aspects. As Hebrew
University political scientist Zeev Sternhell has described it for Nazi
Germany, fascism in the American synthesis is a cultural rebellion, a
revolutionary ideology with totalitarianism at its very essence.

In only the last few months, America has advanced tremendously from
emerging to realized fascism. Its imperialist and expansionist tendencies
need to be couched less and less in idealist terms for mass acceptance.
The idea of a cohesive ìworking classî has been dormant for more than a
decade. Oppositional groups are often self-silencing ñ the meek
Democractic Party is only the most obvious example ñ but most of the
ruling establishment continues to practice a mild form of liberalism and
hopes that if things get too out of hand it can mobilize public opinion
against brutal suppression.

George Mosse, author of The Fascist Revolution, describes fascism as
viewing itself in a permanent state of war, enlisting the masses as ìfoot
soldiers of a civic religion.î As Mosse points out, fascism seeks a higher
form of democracy even as it rejects the customary forms of representative
government. Government and corporate propaganda is pervasive in America;
we need only to delineate its descent from the Nazi form. Mosse rejects
the notion that fascism rules through terror; it is built, he says, upon a
popular consensus. One must never underestimate the fertile ground
American anti-intellectualism provides for more banal forms of propaganda
and cultural terrorism. American media, entertainment and virtual
technology have pioneered whole new methods of trivialization of ìmass
deathî and elevation of brutality as a ìgreat experience.î The current
American aesthetic appreciation of technology, and especially the
technology of war, is also of a piece with Hitler's passions.

Even the puritanism of American fascism does not necessarily conflict with
the Nazi emphasis on style and beauty. Nazism annexed ìthe pillars of
respectability: hard work, self-discipline, and good manners,î along with
chastity and family values. The US certainly has its analogs to Max
Nordau, whose rebellion against decadence in art and literature so
inspired the Nazis. (Think of the demonization of photographer Robert
Mapplethorpe, and the ongoing attacks on alleged artistic degeneracy.) We
must be willing to consider expanded definitions of how romanticism has
been incorporated by American fascism.

Liberals might complain that in America there hasn't been a declared
revolution, a fascist transformation that asserts itself as such. But
fascism has simply taken over the liberals' own platform, including its
appeal to ìtolerance and freedom.î As Mosse says, ìTolerance . . . was
claimed by fascists in antithesis to their supposedly intolerant enemies,
while freedom was placed within the community. To be tolerant meant not
tolerating those who opposed fascism: individual liberty was possible only
within the collectivity.î Fascism is not a deviance from popular cultural
trends, but only the taming of them within revived nationalist myths.
Mosse holds that fascism didn't diverge from mainstream European culture;
it absorbed most of what held great mass appeal. The same principles apply
to American fascism.

Perhaps a final means of taking the measure of American fascism is through
the writer and intellectual Umberto Eco and his 1995 essay ìUr-Fascism,î
which identifies 14 characteristics of ìeternal fascism.î Not all of them
have to be present for a system to be considered fascist, and some may
even be contradictory: Eco is astute enough to suggest a family of
resemblance, overlap and kinship, and the analyst's task is to note which
particular characteristics apply to a system and understand the reasons
for the absence of others, rather than dismiss the fascist categorization
if some features from a previous fascist variant do not apply. ìThere was
only one Nazism, and we cannot describe the ultra-Catholic Falangism of
Franco as Nazism,î Eco says of the differences between fascist movements,
adding, ìRemove the imperialist dimension from Fascism, and you get Franco
or Salazar; remove the colonialist dimension, and you get Balkan Fascism.î

All 14 characteristics of Eco's matrix of ur-fascism apply to America to
some degree. (1) the cult of tradition; (2) the rejection of modernism;
(3) the cult of action for action's sake; (4) the idea that dissent is
betrayal; (5) fear of difference, or racism; (6) the appeal to individual
or social frustration; (7) obsession with conspiracies, along with
xenophobia and nationalism; (8) the message that the enemy is at once too
strong and too weak (note the media spin on Osama bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein); (9) the idea that pacifism is collusion with the enemy, and that
life is a permanent war; (10) scorn for the weak; (11) the cult of
heroism; (12) machismo, or transferring the ìwill to power onto sexual
questionsî; (13) the belief that individual rights are subordinate to the
unity of the state, and that fascism ìhas to oppose ërotten' parliamentary
governmentsî; and (14) ur-fascism uses a language of propaganda.

No doubt, fascism is a descriptor too carelessly thrown around. Perhaps a
non-controversial statement may be that the fascist tendency always
exists, at the very least latent and dormant. But when more and more of
the latency becomes actualized, there comes a point when the nature of the
problem has to be redefined. We may already have crossed that point. As
Eco notes, ìUr-fascism can still return in the most innocent
of guises. Our duty is to unmask it and to point the finger at each of its
new forms ñ every day, in every part of the world.î

Anis Shivani is at work on a novel about South Asians in New York during
the boom years. He welcomes comments at
Anis_Shivani_ab92@post.harvard.edu.

From the September/October 2003 issue of Adbusters magazine.

Ai, esta acédia outonal...

Enquanto tento arrumar todas as explicações para a inenarrável blogo-moleza que me atacou desde que regressei de férias - o trabalho amontoado, a preparação de um lançamento na micro-editora em que me atasquei, o livro que já devia estar na gráfica em vez de estar a ser revisto pela 14ª vez, etc. - vai valendo ao pobre Muro a boa vontade dos recém-alistados. O meu bem-haja ao J.P. Cotrim e a essa "personagem de mistério" , o João V. Claro.

Mas outros andaimes lá vão adiando a nossa derrocada. Leitores como o Helder Ventura têm a caridade de nos presentear com colaborações sempre bem-vindas. Aqui fica a última:

Tenho andado aflito com a Casa da Música. Aquela obra ali à rotunda da Boavista, no Porto. Como se trata de construção, pensei que algo se passasse por aqui, mas nada. Nem mesmo os muito célebres e eruditos blogs tratam o assunto.( Apenas umas coisitas aqui e ali..)  Ora o que se passa em torno desta obra reflecte apenas a triste gestão do nosso território e das cidades em particular. (Ministério das cidades... mistério nas cidades).
Embora me apetecesse, não vou tecer considerações sobre se a obra, belíssima e revolucionária no panorama de qualquer cultura arquitectónica, deverá ser acompanhada ou não por um edifício anónimo e brutalista de mais uns quantos escritórios envidraçados à boa maneira dos idos anos de Dallas. Menciono no entanto o facto de que o nosso território continua a ser ordenhado (disse ordenado?) por jogos de monopólio nada esclarecidos cedendo sempre à fria lógica dos valores numéricos, os valores de equilíbrio, complementaridade, mobilidade, diversidade e excepção. Valores determinantes na consolidação de uma sociedade evoluída, mas também como factores identitários das Cidades, cada vez mais em disputa por algo que as distinga da mediania e da mediocridade.
E assim, ainda nem sequer está inaugurado e concluído determinado património, e já o estamos a dilapidar e a descaracterizar.
Tempos Modernaços estes, que nos obrigam a becos sem saídas fáceis.