The first to speak Fernando Diaz Villanuevawho acted as presenter during the presentation of the latest book by Yano Garcia, writer and collaborator Federico’s Morning on esRadio… “The book is called Herd“he said” but it could be beautifully called Tyranny of the sensesThe explanation that came later was intuitive: “What is terrible is the danger that exists in this way of interpreting reality solely through the senses, which is the cause of the great monsters of the present,” said the disciple of the deceased. Antonio Escohotado… This is why he wanted to pay his respects by asking for a round of applause before continuing, and the entire CEU San Pablo University auditorium, filled to the brim, began to do so. In any case, the mention of the thinker was not accidental. It turns out that Herd It is the only book whose foreword in his life was “from at least one living author”, so, according to Diaz Villanueva, readers already have another incentive to read it, “even if only in order to have access to it … a foreword that is a gem. “
“In addition, Escohotado is very fond of the topics he deals with,” he added. And that’s because they are trying to explain themselves. “why some of us feel less free now than twenty years ago“This last sentence belongs to the author, Yano Garcia, is more empowered than anyone to explain the work, which, in any case, already has its explanation in the subtitle: “How the West succumbed to ideological tyranny.” “Over the years, we have found it difficult to combine various moralist groupswho proclaimed themselves the defenders of all supposedly oppressed minorities in society and who tell us how we should say, what we should discuss and what we should think. ” His speech revolved around the “tyranny” of political correctness, so it was in vogue for a long time, but this expression was not used on any occasion during the colloquium, perhaps because what it condemned was much more complex and thoughtful procedure, which can be attributed to a group of people pursuing a very specific goal. they pointed to the mechanisms that are usually attributed to this phenomenon, their way of “cleansing those who disagree with the general lines of established thought” to the person and what they mean: social death of the one who leaves dogma“.
“Under good rhetoric these new moralists, as always, hide the same old totalitarianismGarcia explained later. “In fact, behind every speech that supports a new morality, there is a general idea: to sell the need for an omnipresent state that protects us and controls our lives.” the radical left today with its historical goals in the last century and came to the conclusion that this is the same trap, albeit with a different face. ” When the Berlin Wall fell, the defeat of communism and socialism was so obvious that the working class itself abandoned these postulates and in a certain way accepted the foundations of the capitalist system, he explained. “Thus, leftist ideologues have concluded that social classes are too weak for the battlefield because they are fluid. Therefore, from that moment on, they tried to find unchanging political themes. ” Diaz Villanueva explained this more clearly by saying: “A rich man can die poor, and a poor man can die rich, but no one can skin his own skin.”…
The conversation turned to another phenomenon related to the previous one: “social sacrifice“The dictatorship of the senses has led to a new Manichaeism,” said Diaz Villanueva. oppressed and oppressors… And thanks to this dialectic, they ultimately created the perfect villain: a heterosexual Caucasian man. ” However, his criticism focused on the other side of the coin: “ it is necessary to raise and correct the victims of this absolutely unholyaware of the harassment they are subjected to or not. “Here, Jano Garcia’s vision in this regard has once again emphasized this fundamental idea, previously expressed and emphasized several times during the act:” Basically, it is supposed to be said to a group of people who share a certain identity that they are oppressed. To paint them that the world is becoming fatal, that it conspires against them, in order to later sell them the idea that an almighty state should protect them. “
To illustrate their claim, they gave several examples. “Case Greta Thunberg It’s very amazing, ”Garcia said. – Before stopping to analyze the content of your message, which I also don’t buy, I was always intrigued by a strange phenomenon when the entire world elite praised a girl who was trying to offend them. face. “” What’s happened? Well, if you pull the string, you’ll find a series of well-connected characters around him, with green lobbies and influential people from Sweden. ” But on top of all this, he wanted to condemn how “he began to object to the” teenage speech “is almost impossible.Morality has aesthetic elementsTherefore, if you say that you do not agree with Thunberg, people will not stop to listen to your arguments, they will automatically brand you as an egoist and almost a monster. Who can be against a poor girl who sacrifices her youth and life to save our planet? Well, of course, nobody. “
It is the general line and point of unification of all the great ideological movements that she condemns. Herd… “The point is, they can tell you that if you, for example, do not agree with current feminism, you want all women to be raped and killed; that if you do not agree with environmental protection, you want the planet collapsed.; if you disagree with the movement Black lives matteryou want slavery back; and so with everything. “” In this way exclude rational debate… Anyone who shows a hint of doubt, criticism, is marked with a word ending in ista: denier, racist, sexist, etc., and is excluded from the discussion. “
Thus, they came up with “the argument most often used by those who defend the perverse policies of the current government.” “This is what people voted for,” they say. “They are silent about the fact that people often make the wrong decisions, and that the democratic system was created relatively recently, because it is also not infallible.” “The ancient Greeks were ultimately suspicious of their own democracy because they recognized danger of demagogueryHe added. And he explained that “modern liberal democracies are based on the idea that the law should protect minorities, which has now been repealed.”Now the law not only fails to protect minorities, but is also used to suppress them.“To illustrate this last issue, he gave the example of a covid passport,“ which is nothing more than a certificate they issue to people who have the right to infect, ”and which is a measure not supported by“ logical and rational criteria ”. “
When asked about the cultural battle he is involved in, Garcia expressed optimism. “This phenomenon cannot last too long, because it also largely depends on the economic well-being of society. When people lived well, they had time to try to save all the oppressed on earth. When a severe economic crisis hits citizens, however, this view tends to change. “He noted that protest movements against the dominant ideological hegemony are gaining strength in many parts of the West, but pointed out the danger:”It is one thing to resist established dogmas, and it is another thing to want to replace them with your own dogmas.– he said. – I am very glad that there are so many alternatives. I would like these alternatives to be liberal, but unfortunately there are fewer of them. “
In this regard, Diaz Villanueva said goodbye to a similar reflection: “We should be proud of the achievements of the liberal democracies of an open society. I am in favor of an open society, and therefore I am opposed to those who pretend that I do not. ” I think it is worth telling someone that they need to be fought with their own weapons. identity is very strongand that it’s easy to fight each other. But this is not a solution. It makes no sense to say that you, for example, prefer Putin. You must fight them intelligently, not unreasonably. “