Afirman que constructora brasileña OAS financió campaña electoral de Bachelet

Según la revista Veja de Brasil, un ex funcionario del Partido de los Trabajadores (PT) reveló que “en noviembre del 2013, Lula (Da Silva) viajó a Santiago en un jet dispuesto por OAS, dio una charla pagada por OAS y se encontró con Michelle Bachelet. En el mes siguiente, un consorcio integrado por la empresa ganó una licitación en el país”.

Imagen: http://www.eldinamo.cl/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1454334389-auno632182.jpg
Imagen: http://www.eldinamo.cl/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1454334389-auno632182.jpg

La revista Veja de Brasil publicará este miércoles un reportaje que afirma que la empresa constructora brasileña OAS financió la campaña presidencial de Michelle Bachelet.

De acuerdo a lo que adelanta La Tercera, la información fue revelada por dos ex funcionarios del Partido de los Trabajadores (PT): José Cavalcanti “Duda” Mendonca y Joao Santana.

Según el reportaje, Mendonca colaboró con la justicia tras la detención de Santana, luego de ser acusado de recibir dinero ilegal por parte de la constructora Odebrecht y participar de la red de corrupción operada por Petrobras.

El ex PT señaló que las más grandes empresas brasileñas interferían clandestinamente en las elecciones de países como Chile y Colombia.

Respecto a nuestro país, el reportaje señala que “el publicista (Mendonca) relata que OAS también financió la campaña de la candidata Michelle Bachelet, electa Presidenta de Chile”.

Agrega que “en noviembre del 2013, Lula (Da Silva) viajó a Santiago en un jet dispuesto por OAS, dio una charla pagada por OAS y se encontró con Michelle Bachelet. En el mes siguiente, un consorcio integrado por la empresa ganó una licitación en el país”, en relación a la construcción del Puente Chacao.

La revista Veja también afirma que “en 2013, el publicista fue indicado por el PT y por la constructora OAS para coordinar la campaña presidencial de Marco Enríquez-Ominami en Chile”.

“La empresa financió gastos de campaña del candidato, aun sabiendo que las chances de él eran remotas. ¿Por qué? Una inversión futura, según Mendonca. Ominami era considerado un político promisorio”, añadió.

En: lanacion.cl

Aerolínea Emirates adapta tripulaciones en vuelos a EE.UU. tras decreto de Trump

La compañía subrayó que “sigue realizando, como previsto, sus vuelos regulares a Estados Unidos” y que “ninguno de sus tripulantes se ha visto, hasta ahora, afectado” por la nueva reglamentación.

Dubái (AFP).- La compañía aérea Emirates de Dubái afirmó este lunes haber modificado las tripulaciones de sus vuelos con destino a Estados Unidos para adaptarse al decreto antiinmigración del presidente Donald Trump.

“La reciente modificación de las condiciones de entrada en Estados Unidos para los ciudadanos de siete países se aplica a todos los viajeros y miembros de la tripulación” en los vuelos hacia aeropuertos estadounidenses, afirmó la aerolínea en un comunicado.

“Hemos realizado los cambios necesarios en nuestras tripulaciones para adaptarnos a las (nuevas) exigencias” de la administración Trump, agregó Emirates, cuyos empleados son originarios de varios países, incluidos los afectados por el decreto de Trump.

La compañía subrayó que “sigue realizando, como previsto, sus vuelos regulares a Estados Unidos” y que “ninguno de sus tripulantes se ha visto, hasta ahora, afectado” por la nueva reglamentación.

Trump firmó el viernes un decreto que prohíbe durante tres meses la entrada en Estados Unidos de ciudadanos de siete países de mayoría musulmana: Irak, Irán, Libia, Somalia, Sudán, Siria y Yemen. Se exceptúan las personas en poder de visas diplomáticas y oficiales y aquellas que trabajen para organismos internacionales.

En: gestion

President Trump’s Immigration Order, Annotated

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday afternoon approved a sweeping executive order that suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, barred Syrian refugees indefinitely, and blocked entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It also barred green card holders from those countries from re-entering the United States, the Department of Homeland Security said, though the administration said exemptions could be granted.

Here are some major excerpts from the executive order, with comments by The New York Times. The full text of the order is available here.

It invokes the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001

The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans.

Most of the 19 hijackers on the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pa., were from Saudi Arabia. The rest were from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. None of those countries are on Mr. Trump’s visa ban list.

America’s founders were pro-immigration

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.

The nation’s founding principles, as reflected in the Declaration of Independence, included dissatisfaction with what were said to be overly restrictive immigration practices.

It defines what non-U.S. citizens should believe

The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.

“There is no statutory requirement that noncitizens entering the United States support the Constitution,” said Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University. “The executive order seems to suggest that even temporary visitors like tourists and students should support the U.S. Constitution, which doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

Does Mr. Trump have the power to do this?

To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) . . .

This provision is the key to the power Mr. Trump claims. It says: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The provision “gives the president capacious authority to deny entry to any alien or class of aliens,” Professor Spiro said. “No court has ever reversed a presidential order under it.”

But he added, “In terms of the number of prospective immigrants involved, this is by far the most significant use of the power by any president.”

Some critics say the order runs afoul of a later law that bars discrimination “in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”

The tension between the two laws has not been definitively resolved by the courts. Jennifer Chacon, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said that a challenge to the executive order based on the later law’s equal-protection principles was the most promising line of attack.

In an opinion article in The New York Times, David J. Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian group, said Mr. Trump had at least violated the spirit of the later law.

“Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far,” Mr. Bier wrote. “If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter.”

It targets 7 countries

. . . I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order . . .

The countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

Some people are exempt

. . . (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

These exceptions are mostly for diplomats, people traveling to the United Nations in New York, and others involved in international organizations.

The order has room to grow

The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals.

The initial list may soon change and expand.

But it also extends beyond the 7 countries

The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.

This provision suspends all admissions of refugees, not limited to the seven countries.

The order prioritizes Christian refugees

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

As a general matter, this will give priority to Christian refugees over Muslim ones. Though framed in a neutral way, this part of the order may raise questions of religion-based discrimination. Mr. Trump has said that he means to favor Christian refugees.

That violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion, according to David Cole, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “One of the critical questions with respect to the validity of executive action challenged under the Establishment Clause is its intent and effect,” he wrote in a blog post. “If intended to disfavor a particular religion, it violates the Establishment Clause.”

Syrians are ‘detrimental’ to U.S. interests, it says

Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

This effectively expands the ban on immigrants from Syria.

How it restricts all refugees

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

This cuts the cap on refugees in half.

In: nytimes 

How Does Trump’s Immigration Freeze Square With His Business Interests?

Even as President Trump takes steps to restrict visitors from some majority-Muslim countries, he and his family continue to do business in some of the others.

Ethics experts question whether that might indicate conflicts between Trump’s business interests and his role as U.S. president.

The executive action, “Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States,” targets seven nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Trump has no business interests in those countries.

One other thing they have in common, as NPR’s Greg Myre writes: “No Muslim extremist from any of these places has carried out a fatal attack in the U.S. in more than two decades.”

The 19 terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates, Myre points out. They are among the Muslim-majority countries not affected by Trump’s immigration freeze, but where Trump does business.

He has significant commercial interests in Turkey and Azerbaijan, is developing properties in Indonesia and Dubai, and has formed companies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His daughter Ivanka said in 2015 that the company was looking at “multiple opportunities in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia — the four areas where we are seeing the most interest.”

Critics said it appears that Trump is picking favorites, overlooking terrorist links in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey that have their own history of terrorism.

And there appear to be conflict-of-interest questions, which could raise legal and constitutional concerns for the Trump White House.

Norman Eisen, a former ethics adviser to President Obama and a current fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, told NPR in an interview:

“I don’t believe that our Constitution allows the president to order State Department and other U.S. government employees to discriminate between otherwise identical people, favoring those from countries he likes because they give him unconstitutional foreign emoluments, and punishing those from other countries that do not pay such personal and illegal tribute to him.”

Emoluments are gifts. A provision of the U.S. Constitution, called the emoluments clause, prohibits U.S. officials from taking gifts of value from foreign officials or governments.

Eisen said of Trump: “Normally he would, of course, have freer rein legally in these foreign policy, immigration and refugee matters, but his open and notorious violation of the Constitution changes that. This is the corrupt misconduct of a medieval potentate, not an American president.”

Speaking with NPR Friday, Eisen said the executive action may lead to lawsuits, for example by American citizens whose family members are now barred from joining them in this country. “These decisions about who to let in and not to let into the United States can now be challenged, because there’s an unconstitutional basis for the president’s decision,” he said.

The Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank, hit the same point harder, saying Trump was “carpet-bombing U.S. foreign policy”:

One might think that Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the two countries that nearly all the 9/11 hijackers came from — and which are currently known to be backing ISIS and other terrorists, in Saudi Arabia’s case, and facing serious terror attacks on their own soil largely in response to government repression, in Egypt’s — would be included in Trump’s twisted analysis as potential sources of terrorism.

But no, those countries were ignored. Conflicts of interest? Nah, just a coincidence.

In: npr

Refugees Detained at U.S. Airports; Trump Immigration Order Is Challenged

By NICHOLAS KULISH and MANNY FERNANDEZ / JAN. 28, 2017

President Trump’s executive order closing the nation’s borders to refugees was put into immediate effect on Friday night. Refugees who were airborne on flights on the way to the United States when the order was signed were stopped and detained at airports.

The detentions prompted legal challenges as lawyers representing two Iraqis held at Kennedy Airport filed a writ of habeas corpus early Saturday in the Eastern District of New York seeking to have their clients released. At the same time, they filed a motion for class certification, in an effort to represent all refugees and immigrants who they said were being unlawfully detained at ports of entry.

Mr. Trump’s order, which suspends entry for all refugees for 120 days, created a legal limbo for people on their way to the United States and panic for families who were awaiting their arrival.

The president’s order also blocks the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

It was unclear how many refugees and immigrants were being held nationwide in the aftermath of the executive order. The complaints were filed by a prominent group including the American Civil Liberties Union, the International Refugee Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center, the National Immigration Law Center, Yale Law School’s Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization and the firm Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton.

The lawyers said that one of the Iraqis detained at Kennedy Airport, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, had worked on behalf of the United States government in Iraq for 10 years. The other, Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, was coming to the United States to join his wife, who had worked for an American contractor, and young son, the lawyers said. They said both men had been detained at the airport on Friday night after arriving on separate flights.

The lawyers said they had not been allowed to meet with their clients, and there were tense moments as they tried to reach them.

“Who is the person we need to talk to?” asked one of the lawyers, Mark Doss, a supervising attorney at the International Refugee Assistance Project.

“Mr. President,” said a Customs and Border Protection agent, who declined to identify himself. “Call Mr. Trump.”

The executive order, which Mr. Trump said was part of an extreme vetting plan to keep out “radical Islamic terrorists,” also established a religious test for refugees from Muslim nations: He ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims.

In the arrivals hall at Terminal 4 of Kennedy Airport, Mr. Doss and two other lawyers fought fatigue as they tried to learn the status of their clients on the other side of the security perimeter.

“We’ve never had an issue once one of our clients was at a port of entry in the United States,” Mr. Doss said. “To see people being detained indefinitely in the country that’s supposed to welcome them is a total shock.”

“These are people with valid visas and legitimate refugee claims who have already been determined by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to be admissible and to be allowed to enter the U.S. and now are being unlawfully detained,” Mr. Doss said.

A supervisor for Customs and Border Protection at Kennedy Airport declined to comment, referring questions to public affairs officials. Calls to officials in Washington and New York were not returned early Saturday.

According to the filing, Mr. Darweesh was granted a special immigrant visa on Jan. 20, the same day Mr. Trump was sworn in as president. Mr. Darweesh worked with the United States in Iraq in a variety of jobs — as an interpreter, engineer and contractor — over the course of roughly a decade.

Mr. Darweesh worked as an interpreter for the Army’s 101st Airborne Division in Baghdad and Mosul starting shortly after the invasion of Iraq on April 1, 2003. The filing said he had been directly targeted twice for working with the United States military.

A husband and father of three, he arrived at Kennedy Airport on Friday evening with his family. Mr. Darweesh’s wife and children made it through passport control and customs, but agents of Customs and Border Protection stopped and detained him.

Brandon Friedman, who worked with Mr. Darweesh as an infantry lieutenant with the 101st Airborne, praised Mr. Darweesh’s work. “This is a guy that this country owes a debt of gratitude to,” Mr. Friedman said. “There are not many Americans who have done as much for this country as he has. He’s put himself on the line. He’s put his family on the line to help U.S. soldiers in combat, and it is astonishing to me that this country would suddenly not allow people like that in.”

Mr. Friedman, who is the chief executive of the McPherson Square Group, a communications firm in Washington, added, “We have a moral obligation to protect and repay these people who risked their lives for U.S. troops.”

He also said he feared for America’s military. “This not only endangers troops in the future, it endangers troops who are in combat now in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, wherever,“ Mr. Friedman said. “If those interpreters and those fixers hear that the United States is not going to protect them, then they don’t have any incentive to work with U.S. troops, and there’s no way that we can operate without their support and assistance.”

“He is a brave individual, and he cares about Iraq and he cares about the U.S.,” he said of Mr. Darweesh.

Mr. Alshawi was supposed to be reunited with his wife, who has been living in Texas. The wife, who asked to be identified by her first initial, D., out of concern for her family’s safety, wiped away tears as she sat on a couch in her sister’s house early Saturday in a Houston suburb.

The woman, a 32-year-old who was born in Iraq, met her husband when both were students at a Baghdad college. The couple has one child, a 7-year-old son who is in first grade. The boy was asleep in the house at 3 a.m. Eastern time Saturday, unaware that his father was in the United States but under detention and at risk of being returned to Iraq.

Relatives crowded the living room in their pajamas and slippers, making and receiving phone calls to and from other relatives and the refugee’s lawyers. At times, D. was so emotional that she had trouble speaking about her husband’s predicament.

She pulled out her cellphone and flipped through her pictures. She wanted to show a reporter a picture she had taken of her son’s letter to Santa Claus. In November, at a Macy’s Santa-letter display at a nearby mall, the boy wrote out his wish: “Dear Santa: Can you bring my Dad from Sweden pls.” He has not seen his father in three years.

“I’m really breaking down, because I don’t know what to do,” she said. “It’s not fair.”

She and her relatives had not told her son that his father was finally coming to Houston and that the son’s wish to Santa was about to come true. “It was a surprise for him,” she said.

Earlier on Friday, she had watched news coverage about Mr. Trump’s executive order. “My husband was already on the airplane,” she said. “He got to the airplane at 11 o’clock in Houston time.” At that point, she grew worried about what effect the order would have on her husband, but she assumed it would not take effect immediately.

D., along with her brother and her sister, asked that their full names not be used because they were concerned that publicity about the case would lead to harassment.

At about 2:30 a.m. Eastern time Saturday, Mr. Alshawi called his wife on her cellphone. They spoke for about five minutes, and D. put the call on speaker so the rest of the family gathered at the house could hear. It was the first time D. and her husband had spoken since he arrived at the airport in New York at about 8:30 p.m. Eastern time on Friday, she said. He had flown from Stockholm to New York, and was supposed to then fly to Houston.

“He gave his package and his passport to an airport officer, and they didn’t talk to him, they just put him in a room,” she said. “He told me that they forced him to get back to Iraq. He asked for his lawyer and to apply for an asylum case. And they told him, ‘You can’t do that. You need to go back to your country.’”

She said the authorities at the airport had told him that the president’s signing of the executive order was the reason he could not proceed to Houston.

“They told him it’s the president’s decision,” she said.

D.’s brother added of the phone call with his brother-in-law, “He’s very calm but he’s desperate. He said, ‘They are sending me there, they are sending me there,’” referring to Iraq.

In: nytimes

El régimen de periodistas del Duce

Periodista + poder = dictador. No necesariamente esta ecuación tendría que dar siempre tan tremendo resultado. Pero en el caso de Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) esa suma es, en efecto, de una precisión matemática.

Imagen: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1306648-el-regimen-de-periodistas-del-duce
Imagen: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1306648-el-regimen-de-periodistas-del-duce

El de Mussolini fue un régimen de periodistas que no sólo influiría fuertemente sobre futuros gobiernos derechistas en la manera de manipular a la prensa, sino también en administraciones de signo supuestamente progresista. Una influencia que, lamentablemente, aún no ha cesado y cuyos aires nos resultan desafortunadamente familiares. Es curioso: el fascismo goza de muy mala prensa, pero hasta algunos que se creen sus detractores no se cansan de practicarlo y no de manera tan solapada.

Hijo de padre izquierdista y madre católica, Benito -por Benito Juárez, el revolucionario mexicano- sufrirá sucesivas y sísmicas mutaciones políticas a lo largo del tiempo.

“Del anarquismo al socialismo, el nacionalismo extremo y, finalmente, el fascismo”, sintetiza el historiador Peter Neville en Mussolini , una biografía que presta atención a las circunstancias que pesaron en su formación. A pesar de haber trabajado como albañil y varias veces como maestro, el periodismo captó el centro de su atención muy recurrentemente como colaborador de periódicos socialistas, tarea que alternaba con sus incursiones como agitador y orador de causas siempre inflamadas. “La experiencia como periodista -señala Neville- sería invaluable en su carrera política.”

La inclinación hacia las letras efímeras -qué otra cosa es después de todo el periodismo- le venía por la sangre: si bien su padre fue herrero, en cierta época escribió un par de notas, en tanto que su hermano Arnaldo ( ghostwriter de ” il Duce “, en Mi autobiografía ) y su sobrino Vito se dedicaron de lleno al periodismo.

El mismo Benito tenía pasta para aporrear las máquinas de escribir y llegó a ser director del periódico Lucha de clases , de Forli, en 1909. En 1912, al borde de los 30 años, ya era editor de Avanti! y, dos años más tarde, fundaba Il Popolo d´Italia . “Mussolini -apunta Neville- produjo gran cantidad de escritos, y aunque están plagados de egotismo y dogmatismo, permiten comprender ciertos aspectos de su personalidad.”

La figura del dictador italiano viene a cuento porque en las últimas semanas se estrenó en la Argentina Vincere , el apreciado film de Marco Bellocchio que supo reflejar con dramatismo las tortuosas aristas de su compleja relación amorosa con Ida Dalser, a la que se propuso borrar del mapa en cuanto comenzó a incomodarlo. Y lo mismo con el hijo que ambos tuvieron, que llevaba su propio nombre. Mussolini prefirió, en cambio, inclinarse por otra mujer, Rachele Guidi, su esposa oficial, con quien tuvo tres hijos: Edda, Vittorio y Bruno.

Peleó en la Primera Guerra Mundial y tuvo un temprano cargo político (secretario de la Cámara de Trabajo de Trentino, en 1909). Fueron años de agitación y turbulencias que desembocaron en una voltereta ideológica que lo llevó de un extremo del arco político al otro, en 1921, cuando creó el Partido Fascista y resultó electo para ocupar una banca en el parlamento. Fue 1922 el año de su consagración, al ser designado primer ministro, y sus “camisas negras” marcharon sobre Roma.

Pronto contempló con agrado el crepitar de hogueras alimentadas con libros y con periódicos opositores.

El nuevo pontífice de la extrema ideología italiana sentenciaba por entonces en La Doctrina Fascista (Vallechi Editore Firenze, Florencia, 1935) que “todo permanece en el Estado y nada fuera de él”. ¿Y qué pensaba del periodismo? “La prensa es un elemento del régimen, una fuerza al servicio del Estado”, decretó.

Así, los que no supieron encolumnarse rápidamente fueron hostigados y presionados de distintas maneras, hasta que con la excusa de un atentado frustrado contra Mussolini, el Gran Consejo Fascista resolvió la suspensión, por tiempo indeterminado, de todas las publicaciones que no fueran totalmente favorables al régimen.

El silencio caracteriza a las dictaduras, pero en una dictadura encabezada por un ex periodista, rodeado de ex periodistas amigos, lo que imperó fue el parloteo, tan caro, por otra parte, a la idiosincrasia peninsular. Su menú era sencillo y no apto para estómagos delicados: malversación de la verdad, relectura constante de la historia y el presente en función de las necesidades del régimen en cada momento, aderezados por continuas consignas machacadas una y otra vez hasta el hartazgo para mantener en alto la “épica” discursiva del régimen.

“La prensa diaria -diagnostica Edward R. Tannenbaum en La experiencia fascista – fue el medio de comunicación más natural de los fascistas. En ninguna otra dictadura hubo tantos periodistas que hablaran tanto sobre tantas cosas. El Duce marcaba el tono del régimen con su continuo interés periodístico y este tono influía también en el Ministerio de Cultura Popular.”

Italiano hasta la médula, el fascismo lució siempre una exuberancia y desorden de los que careció el nazismo, su monolítico e implacable aliado.

“Goebbels y Rosenberg -agrega Tannenbaum- habían preparado listas negras de cientos de libros, obras teatrales, cuadros, películas y de sus creadores. En Italia, las listas negras y otras formas de control cultural no fueron tan amplias como en Alemania y nunca se cumplieron tan estrictamente. El régimen fascista permitió un limitado criticismo en cuestiones concretas, con una actitud política conocida posteriormente como «tolerancia represiva»”.

Mientras en Alemania un tercio de la prensa total fue absorbida por la maquinaria estatal; en Italia sólo lo fue en un diez por ciento. De todos modos, cualquier atisbo de crítica desapareció de la totalidad de la prensa después de 1926.

“La prensa más libre del mundo -se regodeaba Mussolini- es la prensa italiana. En otros países, los periódicos están a las órdenes de grupos plutócratas, de partidos, de individuos; en otras partes están reducidos a los bajos menesteres de la compra y venta de noticias excitantes, cuya lectura reiterada acaba por determinar en el público una especie de saturación estupefacta con síntomas de atonía e imbecibilidad; en otras partes, los diarios están reunidos en manos de poquísimos individuos, que consideran los periódicos como una verdadera industria, como la del hierro o la del acero. El periodismo italiano es libre porque sirve solamente a una causa y a un régimen; es libre porque dentro de las leyes puede ejercer y ejercita funciones de control, de crítica, de propulsión.”

En los tiempos en que el gran Consejo Fascista terminó destituyendo a Mussolini, en 1943, aquí en la Argentina los militares del Grupo de Oficiales Unidos (GOU), que habían desalojado del poder a los conservadores del “fraude patriótico” dieron precisas instrucciones para que la caída del Duce fuera suministrada con cautela por los diarios y los informativos de la radio.

La creación, el 21 de octubre de 1943, de la Subsecretaría de Informaciones y Prensa seguirá el modelo italiano al centralizar y coordinar la información oficial y organizará, por primera vez de manera sistemática y persistente, la propaganda estatal. Tres años más tarde, capitalizará ese esquema Juan Domingo Perón, quien, en 1939, enviado a Europa en misión de estudio, había asistido a cursos en Italia donde quedó muy impresionado con la experiencia fascista.

El 27 de marzo de 1945, un mes antes del fusilamiento de Mussolini por los partisanos y del suicidio de Hitler, en su búnker, cuando los soviéticos ya estaban a las puertas de Berlín, la dictadura militar argentina le declaraba la guerra al Eje, en reacción tardía. La semilla fascista, de todos modos, terminaría germinando nuevamente.

© LA NACION

En: lanacion.com.ar 

Make “América” great again (toda)

Siempre la misma discusión acerca del término “America” para los estadounidenses y “América” para los latinoamericanos. Para los primeros es la denominación informal de su país ya que no andan diciendo “I’m from the United States of America”..muy largo, y como tienen fama de prácticos, pues la cortaron solo a “America”: “I’m an American”. Mientras que para los segundos, es la denominación de todo el continente en que se localizan 35 países (incluye Canadá y Estados Unidos de Norteamérica).

Ya que ahora Trump mediante una retórica nacionalista se apropió del término para su campaña política, cerveza Corona emerge con la mejor respuesta al sujeto que, como de broma, salió elegido presidente del país norteño. Hagamos (toda) América grande de nuevo!

https://youtu.be/SuLEu-nwd50

Por su parte, la otra “America”, la de Trump, apela a un argumento populista y victimizador que siempre ha funcionado en política. Ahora saben por qué ganó (aparte del Colegio Electoral):