Continua a ser o maior pensador contemporâneo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ccQUSOmryI
#108 MIGUEL MORGADO - Conservadorismo, Política, TROIKA, Pedro Passos Coelho, Religião, Austeridade
Duas coisas são infinitas: o universo e a estupidez humana. Mas, em relação ao universo, ainda não tenho a certeza absoluta. (Einstein) But the tune ends too soon for us all (Ian Anderson)
Continua a ser o maior pensador contemporâneo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ccQUSOmryI
#108 MIGUEL MORGADO - Conservadorismo, Política, TROIKA, Pedro Passos Coelho, Religião, Austeridade
Recordar a Matemática
Two main features: understand English and be intelligent!...
(personal underlines, silent reflections...)

On New Year’s Eve, at about 3 p.m., I phoned for an ambulance. The pressure sore on the weight-bearing surface of my right amputation stump – one of three on that stump – had torn open, exposing bone: specifically, the cut end of the fibula.
Although it was a pain to have to go into A&E, it wasn’t unusual. I had last been discharged from hospital a week before in Glasgow for infection of said pressure sore. The first two of my armoury of autoimmune illnesses – scleroderma, antiphospholipid syndrome, hypothyroidism, autoimmune uveitis and Sjögren’s syndrome – have caused me to have hundreds of hospital admissions over the past 26 years, and around 45 to 50 operations in theatre.
The first assessor on 111 briskly ran through the questionnaire – this would subsequently be repeated three times by other assessors. I told her the pressure sore was on the weight-bearing surface of my right stump, and explained that I was a double below-knee amputee. ‘Any change in colour of your lower leg, ankle, foot, or toes?’ she rattled off from the script. I stopped myself from saying, ‘It’s incredible – since both amputations, my lower legs have been completely transparent.’
This was the usual bizarre dance with 111. As I wasn’t having difficulty breathing or hosing out blood, I was phoned back by a ‘medical supervisor’. She didn’t sound hugely experienced, but that isn’t necessarily a problem – I’ve seen young doctors who have been exemplary. After several phone calls from 111, paramedics were despatched. They were, as ever, cheerful, competent and kind. Because it was New Year’s Eve, I couldn’t be taken to St Mary’s, where my excellent surgeon Mr Wordsworth (yes, a relative) works. All the central hospitals were reserved for revellers, and I would be taken elsewhere.
Everyone I saw on that night was lovely, including a female consultant. But the next morning I was visited by a different female consultant. She told me that as well as the osteomyelitis – bone infection – I also had aspiration pneumonia, a form of infection where stomach contents enter your lungs. I had known that: I told the overnight consultant I had coughed strangely two nights previously, so I had asked for the chest XR.
I have had aspiration pneumonia many times, so I recognise the symptoms. Usually it affects the right lung, specifically the right lower lobe, because the right main bronchus is, in most humans, more vertical and wider than the left. When I was in the high-dependency unit in Glasgow (superlative staff), both lungs became infected because I was heavily sedated and didn’t sit up promptly to stop the surge from the stomach.
This consultant was immensely patronising. I asked her which lung had been affected, in case both had been, like last time. ‘Aspiration affects the right lung,’ she said primly, pedagogically. ‘I know!’ I laughed. ‘I was a consultant anaesthetist.’ I kicked myself metaphorically (no feet) for asking a question I knew the answer to just to make conversation.
She ignored my comment and crouched by my bedside. In a lowered voice, she said, ‘There is an important question we ask every patient on admission.’ She went on for a bit without revealing the question, so I smiled and said, ‘Yes, I’ve already been asked. I’m for resuscitation.’
But the consultant remained where she was, and continued as if I hadn’t spoken. ‘In my opinion, you should not be for CPR,’ she said, as my jaw muscles slackened. ‘CPR only has a 20 per cent chance of success. Even in those cases where it is successful, quality of life afterwards is very poor. I think that if you had a cardiac arrest, it would not be in your interests to resuscitate you. The quality of your life now is very bad, and if they succeeded in resuscitating you, it would be even worse.’
‘But I really enjoy my life,’ I said, finding myself pleading for it. ‘I’m still productive. I write for The Spectator, and…’ Unhearing, unrelenting, she continued in a steely voice. ‘It’s something to think about. I have given you my opinion. You are weak, you have heart problems. Your quality of life is poor and would be worse if you were resuscitated from a cardiac arrest.’
‘It would be worse if I wasn’t resuscitated,’ I muttered. What a contrast with my regular consultants, who are positive and actively trying to better the lives of their patients. The Angel of Death wanted to curtail it. I’m still on that ward, being looked after by excellent, kind, compassionate nurses and, thankfully, different doctors. Apart from the noise, night and day, it has been fine. I don’t just rage, rage against the dying of the light, but also against clinicians who think they’re God and that a disabled person at 61 has lived long enough.
(personal underlines)

Despite having eaten my own body weight in chocolate over Christmas – and vowing to do better in the new year – my inner Augustus Gloop means I still feel duty-bound to finish what’s left. Self-control when it comes to eating has never been one of my strengths. My New Year’s resolution about a healthier diet will have to wait. In addition to buying the usual tubs of festive favourites – Heroes, Quality Street and Roses – I got a ton of confectionery as Christmas presents. I reason that it would be ungrateful not to enjoy it.
My New Year’s goals are perennial: eat less and exercise more. I fail every time. I mean, I do a reasonable amount of exercise anyway: at least 10,000 steps a day with the dog, yoga every evening and a martial arts class once a week. But I really need to do more cardio. I bought a pair of running shoes last year with the intention of joining the local parkrun, but never quite made it: 9 a.m. on a Saturday seemed just that bit too early. I did road-test the new joggers a few times, but swiftly lost interest. So dragging my 58-year-old carcass along to the park is back on my to-do list.
January is notoriously the time when gym membership peaks. I’ve belonged to several over the years and, typically, after the initial burst of enthusiasm, my attendance has tailed off dramatically. Quite apart from feeling slightly intimidated by the serious bodybuilders, I find the hot, sweaty, artificially lit environment unconducive. I’d much rather be outside in the fresh air. I also find it boring. Running on a treadmill – never reaching a destination – like a hamster spinning on its wheel in time to techno music – feels like an exercise in futility. A country walk listening to a radio play on my AirPods is far more appealing.
Dry January doesn’t really affect me, as I tend not to drink at home anyway unless we have guests. But Christmas was a bit of a washout: our youngest spent three days in hospital after an extreme allergic reaction caused her to blow up like a pufferfish. As a result, my opportunities for tippling were scant. So I feel that I’m owed a couple of trips to the pub this month. Besides, January’s not the best time to go alcohol-free: it’s cold, dark and nobody has any money.
Veganuary has never appealed. While on holiday in Sri Lanka once, my then girlfriend and I were invited to dinner by some vegans. It was one of the strangest experiences of my life. The evening didn’t get off to a great start after they revealed they were from Dresden and then looked at us with narrowed eyes as if expecting an apology (thanks, Bomber Harris!). We were offered a mixture of berries, fruits and nuts, which, while undeniably healthy, didn’t make for a particularly satisfying meal. Maybe they grazed all day like herbivores. When we asked for water, the head vegan smirked and said they got all the liquid they needed from the food they ate. Apart from being decidedly odd, what was most off-putting was their appearance: emaciated and listless, with a strange, faraway look in their eyes as if they were party to some cosmic truth the rest of us didn’t share. A positive advertisement for veganism, they were not. After making our excuses, we returned to the hotel and – still being in time for the evening meal – sat down at the all-you-can-eat buffet. I’ve rarely eaten with greater relish.
Reading more is always high on my self-improvement list at the start of any year. Being something of a bibliophile, I’ve accumulated a half-decent collection of books. However, I’m now beginning to worry I might not live long enough to read them all. I used to keep a pile by my bed, reading from a selection every evening. Now I struggle to manage two. Those Penguin Classics that I’ve never quite got round to – Aristotle, Cicero, Edward Gibbon – have become little more than dust magnets. But I have set myself the task of reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius this year. I’m still on the introduction.
After Christmas, the wife and I sat down with the cookery books and made a long list of healthy recipes. We also bought ourselves a smoothie maker and have been enjoying effortless fruit-laden drinks. It’s a welcome antidote to the cloying richness of Christmas food. However, the leftover cake is almost begging to be eaten. And I’ve already made two trips to Greggs since the year started.
Irresolute I may be, but I bumble along doing the best I can, self-aware enough to realise that setting myself lofty goals will only lead to even greater failure. Hence the same resolutions each year. At least I know I’ll fail to keep them, which will lessen the disappointment in myself. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Augustus Gloop falls into the Chocolate River, gets sucked up a pipe and emerges much thinner, having been squeezed by the machinery – which, as a weight-loss method, doesn’t seem too bad. I’ll try to walk that bit faster and further, watch the calories and, perhaps, if you’re in my part of Bristol this spring, you may just see a large, middle-aged man bringing up the rear as he huffs and puffs his way to the end of a 5 km run.
(personal underlines)

As a wave of protests swept across Iran last night, the internet was completely shut down. I have no idea what is happening to my friends, my family, or anyone else. My best friend Champ was at the demonstration. I desperately hope he is safe.
Overnight, there were protests throughout Iran. From Qom and Mashhad, the most religious cities, to Rasht and Anzali, the most secular, people took to the streets. In Tehran, there were protests in the poorest parts to the richest parts of the city. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw the huge crowd in Pol-e-Roomi, a neighbourhood in Tehran where prices are comparable to London.
One reason why so many took to the streets is Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi’s call to action for the first time. When he invited people to protest at 8pm on January 8 and 9, his message received 3.2 million likes and 88 million views – a historic record on Persian Instagram.
Why are the richest and poorest parts of Iran, the most religious and the most secular parts, revolting together? Because this revolution isn’t about the left or right. It is about people wanting to be a nation, rather than an ummah. We want to be citizens, not soldiers of a reactionary Islamist cause.
Iran is a nation wanting its soul back. Protesters burn the Islamic Republic flag and replace it with Iran’s real flag: the Lion and Sun. It is a nation reclaiming the soul of civility, not Islamic barbarism; patriotism, not IRGC internationalism. This is a national revolution to take back what was stolen from us by Islamists: our history, our culture, our way of life. This is the revolt of Persian culture against political Islam.
I hate to be a victim, and I hate victimhood politics as a Thatcherite, but I can’t stop crying when the Islamic Republic attacks hospitals in Ilam to arrest protesters in their beds, and the human-rights mob do not react. They only seem to worry about hospitals when Hamas stores ammunition in them. Normal Iranian citizens? They can’t be bothered. So far, 36 protesters have been killed in just ten days. Western activists don’t seem to care.
The Iranian protesters’ strategic mistake is that they want to be friends with the West. For this reason, the pro-Palestine mob is silent.
Donald Trump, at least, has spoken up. The US president has said the regime will be hit ‘very hard’ if it acts violently against protesters. As a result, demonstrators are changing the names of streets in Tehran to ‘Trump Street’. The Crown Prince has said he is ready to lead the transition to democracy. People chant: ‘This is the final battle – Pahlavi will return.’ It certainly feels like the end is near. No one can predict the exact date the regime’s leaders will leave my country, but it is obvious that it is a matter of time.
The Islamic Republic has used every tool of repression to prevent people from protesting. Since September 2022, dozens of children have been killed by the regime. Nika Shakarami, a 16-year-old, was tortured, raped, and then killed by the IRGC. Her final moments were spent resisting her attackers.
I wish Shakarami was alive so that she could hear the chants of ‘death to the dictator’ and ‘Akhoond bayad gom beshe’, which means ‘the mullahs should f–k off’. In a new Iran, those like Shakarami could live a normal life: wearing what they want, protesting without the risk of being raped by Islamist terrorists. I wish Shakarami, and all those who gave their lives fighting the terror state of the Islamic Republic, could see this day.
(personal underlines)

In this strange new world we inhabit, where many people appear to struggle with nuance, the oversimplification of complex problems means that any shades of grey are ignored. This informal logical fallacy, in which every situation is presented as having only two possible options when, in reality, more exist, is now standard in politics and across mainstream and social media. However, rather than being seen as a sign of intellectual weakness, taking entrenched positions is considered perfectly reasonable.
Think 7 October was depraved and insane? You’re Zionist sympathising scum. Appalled by images of children in Gaza made homeless by the conflict, struggling to lift a spoon to their mouth because they’re shaking so violently from the cold? You’re a pathetic Hamas apologist.
Think Brexit hasn’t exactly been a great success? You’re a sad, embittered remoaner. Wonder where all the unaccounted-for billions overseen by unelected EU officials have disappeared to? You’re a Faragist nutjob. And so on.
I’d like to think – although I have no evidence for this – that there is a silent majority who, like me, inhabit the middle ground on most things. Human beings are a mass of contradictions, and I’m no exception. Part liberal, part centre-right, I simultaneously hold contradictory positions on many topics. For example, I don’t believe in the death penalty, for the simple reason that, in my opinion, the average politician shouldn’t be left in charge of a doughnut stand at a car-boot sale, never mind being allowed to legislate back into existence the state’s right to kill people, usually in a macabre fashion. But do I read stories about people I think deserve to be shot? You bet. And if someone had harmed a loved one of mine, I’d want to be the person pulling the trigger.
My position on the introduction of gay marriage was unequivocal – I was entirely in favour. Why would you deny two people of the same sex who love each other the same right as everyone else to solemnise their union, and I’m glad that homosexuality is now hardly worthy of comment. But I take a dim view of encouraging children who are confused about their gender down a path that is potentially harmful to both their minds and their bodies.
Do I believe in uncontrolled immigration? No – it would lead to economic and social catastrophe. Do I think a certain level of immigration is not only necessary, but also desirable? Without doubt. You only have to look at our most successful immigrant communities to see the benefits. You get the idea.
However, many seem unable to cope with cognitive dissonance and instead seek the security of moral absolutes. The inability to deal with ambiguity – whether in themselves or in life generally – is leading to a world in which people hold a completely binary view of everything and are unable, or unwilling, to reach consensus. The consequences are potentially devastating, and we’re already seeing examples of the damage this causes, such as extreme political polarisation leading to violence.
To move beyond this age of false dichotomies, which is causing serious societal harm, we need to reach a point where finding common ground is once again considered the most desirable outcome. To do so, people must relearn how to accept life’s complexities. Life isn’t simply a matter of either-or – right versus wrong – it is, and always has been, more subtle than that. These distinctions should be embraced, not rejected. They add depth and meaning to our existence. Without them, we become myopic, miss the bigger picture, and rob ourselves of a more complete understanding of the world.
Plato sought to overcome false dichotomies through dialectical rhetoric. Rather than accepting mere opinion or belief, he advocated pursuing genuine knowledge through rigorous questioning, dialogue, and logical argument to arrive at episteme – true knowledge. He sought a comprehensive understanding of a subject rather than limiting himself to a single point of view, and he accepted the limits of his own knowledge. Education in private and grammar schools was once heavily classical, with students studying the works of Aristotle, Cicero, Plato, and others. They learned structured argument, moral reasoning, and how to distinguish persuasion from truth. These skills have now all but disappeared. To reverse the emotional manipulation, moral absolutism, and factionalism we see all around us, they desperately need to be taught again as part of every school’s curriculum.
Instead of sleepwalking towards a future in which we are unable to think critically, we must once more embrace life’s complexities to recover depth, meaning, and perspective. Nuance is essential for that journey, guiding us towards a clearer view of the world as it actually is.
(soulignés personneles)
À l’approche des élections hongroises, un phénomène inquiétant se confirme : la dérive d’une partie du journalisme européen vers une logique de guerre informationnelle. Le récent communiqué de l’Observatoire des ingérences démocratiques (OID), initiative du MCC Bruxelles, met des mots sur une réalité de plus en plus difficile à ignorer : sous couvert d’enquêtes, certains médias participent activement à la construction de récits politiques orientés, au mépris des principes fondamentaux de cette profession.
Au cœur de cette controverse, une cible privilégiée : Viktor Orbán. Depuis plusieurs semaines, une avalanche d’accusations spectaculaires s’abat sur le dirigeant hongrois : ingérence directe des services russes dans sa campagne, manipulation des élections, voire scénario extravagant de tentative d’assassinat montée de toutes pièces. Autant d’allégations graves, mais systématiquement fondées sur des “sources anonymes” ou des documents impossibles à vérifier.
Ce qui frappe dans cette séquence, ce n’est pas seulement la gravité des accusations, mais leur mode de diffusion. Des médias occidentaux de référence relaient des informations issues de circuits opaques — “sources de renseignement européennes”, “rapports internes”, “contacts sécuritaires” — sans jamais fournir au public les éléments permettant d’en juger la crédibilité.
Le mécanisme est désormais bien rodé : une première “révélation” surgit dans un média spécialisé, souvent lié à des réseaux transnationaux ou financé par des organismes étrangers ; elle est ensuite reprise par de grands titres internationaux ; enfin, des responsables politiques s’en emparent pour lui donner une caution institutionnelle. Ainsi se construit une vérité médiatique, indépendante de toute démonstration factuelle.
Le problème n’est pas l’existence de sources anonymes — parfois nécessaires — mais leur transformation en fondement quasi exclusif du récit. Lorsque des accusations aussi lourdes reposent uniquement sur des témoignages invérifiables, le doute devrait être la règle. Il devient pourtant l’exception.
Le glissement dénoncé par l’OID est majeur : le journalisme d’investigation, censé incarner un contre-pouvoir, tend à se transformer en outil d’intervention politique. En période électorale, cette mutation est particulièrement préoccupante. Car il ne s’agit plus seulement d’informer, mais d’influencer.
En jetant le soupçon sur la régularité du scrutin hongrois, ces récits contribuent à délégitimer par avance ses résultats. Peu importe, au fond, que les accusations soient prouvées ou non : leur simple circulation suffit à fragiliser la confiance dans le processus démocratique.
Ce phénomène s’inscrit dans une dynamique plus large au sein de l’Union européenne, où la question de la “désinformation” est devenue centrale. Mais le paradoxe est saisissant : alors que Bruxelles investit massivement pour lutter contre les manipulations informationnelles, elle reste largement silencieuse face à des pratiques médiatiques qui relèvent elles-mêmes de la désinformation par insinuation.
Les conséquences de cette dérive dépassent largement le cas hongrois. En brouillant la frontière entre enquête et militantisme, ces pratiques alimentent une crise de confiance déjà profonde envers les médias. Le public, confronté à des informations contradictoires et invérifiables, finit par douter de tout — y compris des faits établis.
Cette défiance généralisée est le terreau idéal de toutes les radicalités. En prétendant défendre la démocratie contre des ingérences supposées, certains acteurs médiatiques risquent paradoxalement de contribuer à son affaiblissement réel.
Le rappel formulé par l’OID est, à cet égard, salutaire : plus les accusations sont graves, plus le niveau de preuve exigé doit être élevé. Cette règle élémentaire semble aujourd’hui oubliée, au profit d’une logique de l’urgence et du sensationnel.
En période électorale, cette exigence devrait être absolue. Car une information infondée ne se contente pas d’être erronée : elle peut altérer durablement le jeu démocratique. Accuser sans preuve, c’est déjà intervenir.
La question posée est donc simple, mais décisive : le journalisme européen veut-il rester un outil de connaissance ou devenir un instrument d’influence ? De la réponse dépend non seulement la crédibilité des médias, mais aussi la solidité des démocraties qu’ils prétendent servir.
Lucas Chancerelle
29/03/2026
F.C.P - S.C.P. em andebol
E se este país for mesmo diferente? E se nós formos mesmo mal formados, estúpidos, pobrezitos de mente, atrasados da cuca?
Sobretudo no desporto!...
Cá vamos, cantando e rindo...
(sublinhados pessoais)
O Ministro da Defesa da Alemanha, reiterou a ideia de que a guerra no Irão, “não é a nossa guerra”.
Parece uma frase prudente, sensata e madura, afinal o Irão não é na Europa. Mas na verdade é apenas uma forma elegante de justificar a rendição mental, e a recusa de agir.
PUB • CONTINUE A LER A SEGUIR
O problema começa muito antes, numa disposição cognitiva dos países europeus, hoje transformada em catecismo. A convicção de que o uso da força representa, por definição, um mal e si, e tudo se pode resolver com diálogo e moderação. A tese parece nobre, e por isso seduz. Mas, examinada de perto, é apenas uma necessidade psicológica. Consola-nos do mundo, mas não o descreve. Como todas as ilusões reconfortantes, resiste ferozmente aos factos.
Quando o Irão contradiz, pelos seus actos, esta ilusão, a mente europeia, em vez de rectificar o diagnóstico, corrige a realidade. Reescreve o que o Irão faz. Mesmo quando os aiatolas fazem exactamente o que dizem; mesmo quando o regime diz exactamente o que quer, em slogans, leis, mísseis e sangue; mesmo quando o povo iraniano se levanta e grita, à sua maneira, que o problema não é um mal-entendido diplomático mas uma tirania impiedosa e fanática. Ainda assim, a reacção reflexa de boa parte das elites ocidentais é falar por cima e reinterpretar. Ah, eles não querem realmente dizer isso, há moderados a emergir, desta vez será diferente.
Mas eles querem realmente dizer o que dizem, não há “moderados” a brotar do sistema e nada será diferente do que tem sido.
Desde 1979, o regime iraniano tem dito explicita e repetidamente ao que vem. Jurou destruir os EUA e Israel. Fez da hostilidade um programa, da intimidação uma linguagem e de exportação do terrorismo uma estrutura de poder. Em 2023, Khamenei explicou, com todas as letras, que o acordo nuclear de Obama fora apenas uma táctica, e que o regime nunca tencionara honrá-lo. Disse-o com a naturalidade de quem confessa a mentira e espera, não o descrédito, mas nova rodada de conversações. E obteve-a. O mundo ouviu a confissão e marcou outra reunião. Há ingenuidades que, ao fim de várias décadas já não merecem esse nome.
A frase “não é a nossa guerra”, só se torna possível neste ambiente moral de evasão.
Não é a nossa guerra? Pois não. É apenas a nossa energia, o nosso comércio, a nossa segurança, os nossos aliados e o nosso futuro. O estreito de Ormuz, por onde passa uma fatia colossal da energia mundial, não será livre por milagre geográfico. O Bab el-Mandeb, cuja perturbação basta para encarecer fretes, atrasar rotas e pressionar cadeias logísticas, também não é apenas uma curiosidade num mapa. E os grandes hubs aéreos do Golfo, nós centrais da circulação global de passageiros e mercadorias, não são apenas uma particularidade oriental sem qualquer influência sobre a vida de um continente que importa energia, depende do comércio e gosta muito de férias. É por isso que é difícil decidir onde acaba a miopia e começa a paródia.
A verdade é que esta guerra já entrou em nossa casa sem pedir autorização. Está no preço dos combustíveis, no custo dos transportes, na volatilidade dos mercados, nos seguros, nas facturas de energia, nas cadeias de abastecimento. Uma guerra muito pouco nossa, portanto, segundo alguns líderes, mas suficientemente íntima para se sentar à mesa connosco. O prodígio lógico do europeísmo contemporâneo consiste precisamente em declarar exterior aquilo que já nos determina interiormente. É uma forma curiosa de soberania, esta de sermos afectados por tudo e responsáveis por nada.
Mas a questão é sobretudo estratégica. O Irão não é uma potência satisfeita com a mera sobrevivência, segurança, bem estar ou influência. Quer hegemonia, preponderância, revolução, extermínio.
Há décadas que constrói, com disciplina e persistência, um sistema de projecção indirecta do medo que assenta em proxies armados, coerção marítima, intimidação regional, chantagem energética, acumulação de mísseis e drones, profundidade estratégica e ambição nuclear, tudo embrulhado em profecias milenaristas. Tudo isto está à frente dos nossos olhos E quem se recusa a ver propósito onde ele entra pelos olhos dentro, acaba sempre por mal.
Perante este quadro, a inacção é baptizada com eufemismos. Os ingénuos chamam-lhe contenção. Os pretensiosos preferem “evitar a escalada”, expressão muito útil porque permite assistir à escalada real enquanto se finge combatê-la com frases. A História, nada impressionável com cortinas de fumos e linguagens criativas de apaziguamento, decreta apenas que o problema de adiar o preço a pagar, acaba por o tornar incomportável.
Se a presente guerra não tivesse eclodido agora, por decisão consciente de quem resolveu enfrentar o problema, em vez de o negar, não teríamos como alternativa um horizonte de entendimento pacífico entre e República Islâmica e as democracias fatigadas. Teríamos, isso sim, uma guerra futura em condições muito mais favoráveis ao grande disruptor da região, que estaria então mais armado, mais entrincheirado, mais nuclearizado, mais confiante e mais capaz de subjugar os adversários pela simples credibilidade da ameaça.
Além disso é obsceno fingir que Israel é um detalhe local de uma querela distante. Um Irão não neutralizado nos seus objectivos e capacidades não precisa sequer de conquistar formalmente o Médio Oriente. Basta-lhe persuadir todos de que pode destruir quem lhe resiste, estrangular quem depende das rotas que ameaça e impor custos intoleráveis a quem o desafie. Está a mostrar que não hesitaria em fazê-lo. A subjugação não precisa de ocupação. Começa quando o inimigo convence os outros de que resistir lhe sairá demasiado caro. É esse o ponto em que a fraqueza alheia passa a ser a sua força.
Há, porém, um erro ainda mais grave no raciocínio europeu: a suposição de que todos os regimes calculam como nós, de que todos pensam de forma igual.
O mundo não é assim. Há sociedades que valorizam prosperidade, estabilidade, melhoria do bem-estar e gestão eleitoral do descontentamento. E depois há regimes ideológicos, revolucionários e milenaristas, para os quais o sofrimento da própria população é apenas matéria-prima ao serviço dos objectivos dos líderes, e não, como no nosso caso, um travão moral.
A sensibilidade europeia, habituada à dinâmica do preço das cenouras e dos nabos, imagina que uma subida de preços ou algum incómodo social bastam para moderar qualquer poder, e projecta sobre Teerão a psicologia da couve de Bruxelas. É um erro infantil, que se torna perigoso quando a infantilidade se instala em gabinetes ministeriais.
A posição do Sr Pistorius é, por isso, errada e desastrosa. Ao dizer que “esta não é a nossa guerra”, oferece de bandeja aos isolacionistas americanos que detestam a Europa e a Ucrânia, e admiram a Rússia, a fórmula exacta de que precisarão para responder, amanhã, que a guerra na Ucrânia também não é a guerra deles.
E, no dia em que Washington, farto de sustentar a segurança de um continente rico, mas estrategicamente estúpido e ainda militarmente subnutrido, aplicar à Europa o mesmo princípio de indiferença de que a Europa se ufana para o Golfo, veremos então muitos supostos estadistas redescobrir, entre suspiros e manifestações de preocupação, que a geografia existe, que a História não acabou e que a protecção americana não é um fenómeno atmosférico.
Se, no século passado, os EUA tivessem olhado para a agressão nazi e concluído, com ar de merceeiro prudente, que não era a sua guerra, a Europa teria aprendido em alemão correcto o preço da neutralidade alheia. Dizer hoje o mesmo, num continente que continua dependente da arquitectura estratégica americana, é de uma irresponsabilidade quase pornográfica. Sobretudo quando se insulta Washington de manhã e se espera salvação à noite.
E aí temos o lamentável exemplo da Espanha de Sánchez, que acrescenta à miopia, a ideologia de esquerda antiamericana e a solenidade declamatória do vazio, assente na ilusão de que um slogan substitui um pensamento.
“Não à guerra”, repete, como se gritar “não ao fogo”, apagasse um incêndio. O governo espanhol porta-se como se a condenação verbal da guerra impedisse os mísseis de voar, os regimes de ameaçar e os fanáticos de avançar. E não percebe que apenas sinaliza ao Irão que, do lado europeu, continua a existir uma abundante reserva de cobardia e estultícia, embrulhada em virtude retórica. A certa altura, a pose pacifista deixa de ser convicção e passa a ser parasitismo, Beneficia da ordem assegurada por outros, mas denuncia o esforço necessário para a manter.
No fundo, a frase alemã e a coreografia espanhola dizem-nos muito sobre a Europa. Revelam uma classe dirigente viciada na gestão do imediato e incapaz de pensar o estrutural; gente que troca estratégia por mercearia, valores por sondagens, liberdade por descontos temporários e segurança por palavreado ideológico Uma classe que se preocupa com o preço dos brócolos hoje, e mostra-se alegremente disponível para que, amanhã, os seus povos paguem com juros o preço da energia, do comércio, da soberania, da segurança e, por fim, da própria liberdade.
“Não é a nossa guerra”, dizem eles.
Pois não. São apenas os nossos mares, os nossos combustíveis, os nossos aeroportos, os nossos mercados, os nossos aliados, a nossa vergonha e o nosso futuro. Um continente que já não reconhece como sua uma guerra capaz de decidir o grau da sua dependência perante Rússia, China ou Irão está em decadência. E quando a decadência começa a falar em tom moral, já não se trata de prudência. Trata-se de cobardia armada em virtude. Que se paga com submissão, chantagem, e medo. E com a liberdade.
Quando finalmente chegar a factura, será inútil explicar ao credor que, em tempos, tudo aquilo “não era a nossa guerra”.