A-Infos (en) Italy, FAS, Sicilia Libertaria #461 - PACIFICATION (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

What a strange time we are living in, gripped by a vise that is 
squeezing us, pushing us into indifference on one side and anguish on 
the other. And the reaction to this state of affairs, which is indeed 
present, is confined to an illusory, unrealistic pacifism and rendered 
invisible by the media hubbub. Since the war in Ukraine, which brought 
conflict back to Europe after the massacres in the Balkans in the 1990s, 
everything has been a downward spiral, shaping a model of relations 
between states (and empires) based exclusively on armed conflict, 
whether actual or threatened. In the recent past, George W. Bush's 
permanent war at the dawn of the 2000s marked a further step toward the 
conviction that armed conflicts are inevitable. At the same time, it 
made clear that capitalism, in its constant expansion and 
transformation, also requires wars: active wars, like the many that 
bloodied vast swathes of the world, or potential wars, like those they 
want us to get used to from now on. Yet those wars of the early 1990s 
and early 2000s, from the first to the second Gulf War, which, moreover, 
sparked the mobilization of a vast pacifist movement, albeit incapable 
of influencing the choices of governments, did not represent a true 
turning point, a leap into a climate of war as is occurring today. A 
systematic approach seems to oversee the construction of this univocal 
dimension that revolves around the irreconcilable conflict between 
friend and enemy, without any compromise, pushed to the point of total 
destruction or subordination. All this is the fruit of thirty years of 
political and cultural labor that is about to lead us from a generic and 
moral rejection of war, mindful of the horror of the Second World War, 
to its acceptance, its normalization, its anesthetization as an integral 
part of our daily lives, exposed to us through brutal images that, in 
their repetitiveness, become part of the contemporary landscape.

In this direction, the genocide of the Palestinian people, experienced 
firsthand, amidst the utter helplessness of large segments of global 
public opinion and the most brazen and perverse obstinacy of the Israeli 
government and its accomplices, the American and European governments, 
is becoming with each passing day a point of no return in the way we 
conceive and represent ourselves. A recent essay by Franco Berardi Bifo, 
titled "Thinking After Gaza," expresses the full gravity of the moment, 
but also contains a perhaps final appeal to embark on a path of 
redemption to safeguard the possibilities of an increasingly annihilated 
humanity: "Thinking after Gaza means, first of all, recognizing the 
irremediable failure of the universalism of reason and democracy, that 
is, the dissolution of the very core of civilization. But it also means 
seeking escape routes from the future that awaits us, that awaits those 
born in this infamous century. To those born in the dark light of the 
final century, we owe this final act of thought, so that they may desert 
history, along paths we cannot currently imagine."

It seems that governments are working resolutely to deny us this 
possibility, obliterating us within this climate of war that now infests 
everything. Israel's aggression against Iran is confirmation that war 
can be waged, indeed, must be waged; it is the only way to save 
civilization from barbarism. And Trump's gyrations are merely color for 
a public opinion now accustomed to the spectacularization of everything, 
especially pain. Thus, the ineffable American president, while 
presenting himself as a peacemaker-meaning he wants to impose his 
conditions at all costs, by hook or by crook-allows the massacre of the 
Palestinians and forces fearless European governments to continue the 
arms race, the sole item on their political agenda.

But all this alone would not hold up; governments' impositions require 
consensus, a narrative that creates an aura of justice or necessity for 
their action. The press and media are mobilized for this purpose: to 
make war acceptable, to give it the appearance of regularity.

Some time ago I happened to read an article in La Stampa by Nathalie 
Tocci, who appears to be one of the most ardent supporters of the new 
global balance based on bombs and drones, along the following lines: 
"British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announces that the United Kingdom 
is preparing for war, that London will invest in 12 new submarines, and 
that every citizen must be ready to do their part. These words echo the 
tones of French President Emmanuel Macron for several months, and, more 
recently, of the new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who, at the helm 
of Europe's largest country, is ready to assume growing responsibility 
for the continent's defense. These are words the Nordic and Baltic 
states have been repeating for years, which is why they spend an average 
of nearly 5% of their GDP on defense. These are expenses that 
governments do not impose on their citizens, but that citizens demand of 
their governments, knowing that they are necessary to protect life and 
liberty. These are populations who know that these values are threatened 
by Russia, and that they are values too great to be blindly entrusted to 
the United States, especially now that Donald Trump is in the White 
House. These few lines condense the most relevant aspects of the 
dominant narrative on the construction of the enemy and consensus and 
the mystification of reality-far from fake news-with the aggravating 
circumstance that the article appears in a newspaper considered 
"progressive." Perhaps this is an extreme example, but it is indicative 
of how slowly, almost inadvertently, we are sliding down a dangerous 
slope where war is already an option, if not the only option. War or its 
threat, which from the Western and capitalist perspective are equivalent.

Faced with such a display of resources and forces, pronouncements and 
demonstrations of testimony are certainly not enough, especially from 
those political forces, from the Democratic Party to the Five Star 
Movement and their acolytes, who now cry foul because they are in 
opposition, whereas when they were in government they approved every 
measure and Every effort has been made to "normalize" war. But it's not 
enough, even as certain left-wing press does, to praise, for example, 
Spanish Prime Minister Sanchez, who refused to increase military 
spending to 5% of GDP. Perhaps more coherently, and given the 
possibility of a generalized war, Sanchez should be asked to leave NATO, 
but this seems not even a possibility. So where is the difference 
between Sanchez, who makes this reputedly dramatic gesture, and Meloni, 
who revives the old adage "if you want peace, prepare for war"? It would 
be an interesting question to ask.

Let's return to Berardi Bifo's words: we owe young people, starting with 
ourselves (and themselves), one last act of reflection, so that they can 
desert history. Deserting history means completely overturning the 
present. Accommodations and expedients are merely complicity: the 
rejection of war, weapons, states, and capital must be radical.

https://www.sicilialibertaria.it/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en