Trump is Absurd. Our Best Response is Laughter – Karl E. Scheibe, Wesleyan University*


Photo from Getty Images found on Internet


“Credo quia absurdum”  —  I believe because it is absurd; – Tertullian

This ancient Latin phrase might itself be considered absurd—but it was used to justify Christian faith—not to be achieved by the use of sweet reason.  It is apt in these days, for it can help us understand why such an unreasonable candidate as Donald Trump somehow earned the faith of enough of our citizens to be elected President.  How can we account for this attraction to absurdity in our lives?

First we must recognize that absurdity is all around us—an everlasting presence.  Conscious life is itself a deep mystery, not to be explained by any reasonable account.  And death looms as a more conspicuous absurdity, to which we are often forced out of all reason as the times age and as we age in time.  We attempt to defend ourselves against the absurd by searching for meaning in events and in our own lives.  In this we are aided by social institutions—such as church, family, community, corporation or occupation that can give us stable coordinates—ways of determining North from South, Right from Wrong.  But from time to time, we as a people can get lost in a sea of absurdity—as families, jobs, religions, and political institutions are shaken and seem unstable.  Even little things can be upsetting, as when a TSA agent in an airport orders someone to take off their shoes and belt, to assume silly postures, and finally to surrender a forgotten corkscrew.  Above all, we must not protest at being subjected to such absurd procedures—themselves of doubtful value in achieving safety.  We have learned to accept ubiquitous absurdity.

Regulations, orders, commands, rules—these things produce a pool of resentment in us as reasonable citizens—making us vulnerable to an absurd presence, such as Mr. Trump, who seems to exude contempt for any established order.  He is manifestly neither good nor kind.  He has crude manners and a grotesque appearance—and acts out of impulse rather than reason.  He does not calculate, he cares not for evidence nor for scientific analysis.  He contradicts himself and yet retains the allegiance of a strong and stubborn minority of people who seem to believe him because he is absurd.

We search for meaning, as the famous psychiatrist Victor Frankl observed, emerging from the absurdity of the Holocaust.  But if you are an out-of-work coal miner in West Virginia, whose family has depended for generations on the stability of the mine, you do not have easy search for meaning ahead of you.  Never mind that the promise made by Mr. Trump about starting the mines again is absurd.  It is believed because it is absurd.  It is as if Mr. Trump is giving the middle finger to all of those abiding forces in our world that must be responsible for this conviction that we are being screwed over.  It makes no difference that he makes no sense.  “Stop making sense” is a line with appeal.

“If I laugh at any mortal thing, ’tis that I may not weep.” – Byron

But Mr. Trump is more than absurd.  He is also a fool—and the more remarkable a fool because he does not acknowledge his foolishness.  It is a puzzle to know how to react to Donald Trump as President of the United States.  Should we be afraid?  Fear gives too much credit to the Devil, is unpleasant to experience, and accomplishes nothing.  Should we be angry?  Anger tends to be blinding, and reduces our capacity to act sensibly, as opposed to lashing out.  Lashing out is likely to hurt others, not Mr. Trump.  Should we be remote, withdrawn, in denial?  This might at least enhance survival in the short run.  But isolation simply will not do in the long run–for one may not ignore or be indifferent to a presence so large, so incongruous, so full of novelty and danger.  This leaves us the options of either weeping or laughing.  We might cry as we submit to the specter of the utter defeat of humanity and civilization as we have known them.  Or we might laugh!  Laughter is, I submit, beyond compare the best of all possible responses to Donald Trump.

Consider the delicious word, ‘ridicule’.  It derives from the Latin verb ‘rire’.  It produces the adjectives ‘ridiculous’ and the less common ‘risible’–words that are most apt as descriptive of Mr. Trump’s appearance, utterances, or actions.  This is also the root of the word ‘derision’ and the verb ‘deride’ –handy tools in our verbal kit bag.

Mr. Trump is a fool.  He does not have, as my grandmother used to say, the common sense that God gave to little green apples.  I don’t see him as particularly malicious, even as he is capable of malice in his impulsive churning about.  I see humor as the immediate and most natural response to Mr. Trump.  I recall the image of Jon Stewart clasping his hands and proclaiming his glee at the news that Donald Trump might actually be the Republican nominee.  If you are a professional comedian, always looking for material, then the emergence of Mr. Trump onto the main stage must have seemed like manna from heaven.  Other commentators such as David Brooks were much more reserved in their reception of this startling news, and seemed mostly discomfited, not amused, by this untoward development.

The humor that emerges from beholding Mr Trump is multi-layered.  He characterizes himself as smart and omni-competent, even as he makes conspicuous display of his ignorance and poor judgement.  He talks fluently, to be sure.  But he displays a reduced vocabulary with a preference for absolutes and extremes–words like “great” and “terrible”, “disaster” and “terrific”.  He frequently exhorts his audience to, “Believe me, trust me,” and usually repeats this command several times.  I, for one, am not likely to fall in line behind one who is constantly exhorting me to fall in line.

There is a respectable “theater of the absurd”—with Beckett and Ianesco and Pirandello and even Albee and Shepard guiding us to hone our appreciation of the absurd in life.  Dadaism and Dali in art and John Cage in music have understood that “The absurd” has a prominent place in our lives.  And so it has—even a place of honor.  But it is perilous to allow an absurd fool to take a dominant position in our lives.  Mr. Trump should be laughed off the stage.

Karl  E. Scheibe is Professor of Psychology, Emeritus at Wesleyan University

He has written extensively on psychology and theater.;  860 514 4728

*While Steve Scheibe authors most of the material on the allabroadconsulting blog, this text was written by my brother Karl and is used here with his permission.

Is it Time to Give Up on Brazil?


I have attended and spoken at plenty of events in Brazil, the US and other countries.  There is usually a favorable view (often tinged with condescension) of the Brazilians, mixed with suspicion about the country’s unique and complex socio-economic culture.  The conclusion has nevertheless always been that Brazil is too big to ignore and that it is a beautiful place temporarily bogged down by failures largely of its own making.

But perceptions about Brazil are changing along with its image.  Faced with a severely shrunken and stagnant economy, vast political disarray and a societal meltdown many Brazilians, both elite thinkers and average citizens are throwing in the towel.  Foreigners are doing the same in the face of street crime and wanton murder and mayhem occurring on a daily basis with further signs of deterioration.  A vague sense of hopelessness and despair mixed with resignation is the prevalent feeling.

The current round of plea bargains, secret recordings, denunciations, indictments and accusations do not leave any major figure in Brazil’s political elite untouched.  Passion and anger seethe and erupt in personal attacks on opposing sides in the streets, on airplanes, and in Congress and other forums.  President Temer stands accused of being the Godfather figure of Brazil’s biggest mafia.  Former Presidents Lula and Dilma and virtually all of their staff member have been unceremoniously brought in for depositions or labor under a cloud of suspicion.  Billions of dollars have disappeared in an almost uncountable number of schemes with little hope of more than a penny on the dollar ever being recovered.  While members of Brazil’s elite sit in jail and others are in line, the judicial system has also come under attack for partiality and corruption.  Dilma’s presidential opponent, Aecio Neves, was only recently removed from his Senate seat due to a compromising recording showing his long-suspected illicit activities.  So Brazil’s three powers: executive, legislative and judicial have little or no credibility among Brazilians.  The 1988 Constitution remains in place yet everyone recognizes that reforms are needed but cannot be made because of gridlock and lack of consensus.  Brazil’s streets show the obvious consequences with over 14 million unemployed, rampant growth of informal activities–semi-legal to totally illegal – street crime, crimes against tourists and the vulnerable and an upsurge of killings in territorial disputes by drug gangs and organized crime.

The picture is not pretty.  Is Brazil headed for a Venezuela-like crisis?

Possibly, but there is a contrarian view, not necessarily of optimism but something closer to opportunism and hope.  It is based on a larger story taking place outside the realm of institutional weakness and governmental breakdown.  There are different threads in this narrative.  Here are a few:

  1. On the institutional level, the corruption scandals and their walk through the judicial system is actually purging Brazil, awakening consternation and revolt in civil society. In the long term, this will lead to resurgence and rebuilding.
  2. As to the economy, Brazil’s bureaucratic and protectionist system has sorely tested national manufacturing. The companies that survive will emerge stronger and can be competitive in the international economy based on the creativity and dynamism.  Brazil’s natural resources, including agriculture, forestry, mining and much else, will also spur economic growth.
  3. Just as the agriculture sector has modernized and now represents the growth sector of the economy, industry too can revive through specialization and a focus on innovation and competitiveness. The Brazilian market is large and Brazil remains a regional power in spite of the last years of decline.
  4. Brazilians again are emigrating in significant numbers.  But many will inevitably return as was evidenced in the boom years leading up to 2014 and the World Cup.  Return migration brings advantages of skills learned abroad, entrepreneurship and investments.  Very few deny that opportunities abound in all sectors for those with eyes to see.
  5. Foreign investors and so-called “smart money” is flowing into Brazil to take advantage of attractive valuations. These “capitalists” are not even necessarily betting on the long run.  They see opportunity for profit by buying at the bottom and selling on the inevitable recovery.  Foreign capital is flowing into traditional sectors such as oil and gas, mining, agriculture and even industry, not to mention innovative sectors such as alternative energy (wind, solar), education and online retail.
  6. Social networking in Brazil ranks second or third after the United States on most measures of usage. While the separation of data, information and productive content remains a universal problem, the access to all types of information gives Brazil’s user population an outstanding opportunity.  Many Brazilians already are successful entrepreneurs in this sector.
  7. Brazilians have always depended on a paternalistic and patrimonial state. But the collapse of the productive sector, the spread of corruption, and its institutionalization are creating and shaping the emerging perception that the model is no longer feasible.  This forces an awakening and perhaps a stronger drive to a more traditional liberal democratic model.  Of course, at this point, this is aspirational and the subject of ongoing debate.  Certainly given the disparities, supportive and corrective social policies in education and income distribution continue to be required.  A minority prefers socialism, perhaps something between Cuba and China, but there is no operational model of how this would work except for perhaps Lula’s first term which had little to do with socialism.
  8. Although there has been a lot written about Brazil being lost, most thinking and informed Brazilians still want an orderly, constitutional, and regulated transition to a new government. Institution building is a slow process and it will only take place through the regular holding of elections and improvements in education and access to information. It is a sticky wicket indeed but still taking place slowly, way too slowly.

So in the end, it is not yet time to give up on Brazil.  It is still a beautiful and viable place in spite of its politicians and government.  More time is needed to transform hope into reality.  Defeatism is bound to lead to defeat.



Institute of the Americas: XXVI La Jolla Energy Conference



Since the early nineties, the Institute of the Americas at the University of California, San Diego campus has promoted an energy dialog bringing together top level executives, academics, consultants, hands on practitioners and journalists.  The exchange of information is always enlightening and the President and the staff of the Institute, especially Jeremy Martin, deserve kudos for promoting and organizing this important two-day meeting.

Here is the link to the event with the list of topics and of the distinguished speakers and panelists:

This year’s meeting could hardly have taken place at a better time.  The political economic crisis in Venezuela is ongoing, Brazil is in the midst of its second impeachment or presidential change in less than a year, Argentina’s new administration is seeking a more open and market oriented path for the use of its extensive oil/gas resources and suddenly, the small and often neglected Guyana is facing a surfeit of riches with the recent discovery of major offshore reserves.

The picture at the beginning of this text is of the panel: Brazil’s Energy Reset. On the left is Paulo Sotero, a journalist by trade and the Director of the Brazil Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, D.C.  Seated with him are Rafael Ferreira of the state sponsored Energy Research Office and Andre Regra of Brazil’s regulatory ANP (Agencia Nacional do Petroleo).  Jay Thorseth, a Latin American Director for British Petroleum is between Andre and Rafael.

The perspectives from Brazil panel were quite representative of the other discussion at the Conference.  While each country has its particularities, representatives of the public sector, the private sector and academia or journalists showed unique perspectives.  Both Andre and Ricardo, for example, emphasized the reset of Brazil’s energy sector and hued pretty much to the government narrative.  Implicit in their presentations was the shift from a nationalistic PT (Brazilian Labor Party) perspective to greater market openness.  Both noted Brazil’s resumption of oil field auctions and the reduction of local content requirement that had previously put off many international investors and oil companies.  Jay Thorseth of BP, while polite and diplomatic, presented the private sector’s perspective, emphasizing the need for market realism.  Thorseth said governments need to favor foreign companies to be competitive and to access to capital, technology, knowledge and skills.  Auction and participation terms need to take into account Brazil’s need to be an attractive destination world-wide in terms of cost, profit and royalty payments.  If there are better deals elsewhere, then it is likely that the big oil companies or the so-called majors will favor these over a restricted Brazilian market.

Paulo Sotero started by remembering his previous writing on the major crisis and downfall of Brazil’s economic and political system.  This reminder, while obvious, became something of the elephant in the room.  Presenters with government ties were loath to recognize that their initiatives toward opening the energy sector depend not only on technocratic criteria but also on politics.  Thus, when Brazil’s President Temer departs, his replacement will reorder the chairs in the oil sector and in public companies like Petrobras and others in energy production and distribution.  Likewise in Mexico, President Pena Neto is in the last year of his term and essentially a lame duck.  If AMLO (Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador), a popular figure on Mexico’s left, is elected, Mexico’s energy reset will also certainly have a different orientation.   Representatives from Mexico’s public companies emphasized change in legislation in the hope of ongoing modernization and expansion of both oil and gas exploration and distribution in partnership with the private sector.  Optimistically speaking, resource nationalism is seemingly buried, but in Latin America it often rises phoenix like.  Private sector players must always be worried about institutional weakness as regulations and norms or the lack thereof thwart intentions.  Governments and businesses want to mobilize Latin America’s ample energy resources but this depends on the modernization, increased transparency, and durability of the rules of the game.  And these rules, in spite of promised advances, are still being negotiated.

The Conference provided a lot of detail on resources, processes, government action and private company plans.  The major discovery of oil in Guyana certainly will impact markets and already directly affects Venezuela and Brazil.

Finally, the presenters noted that even for traditional oil and gas players, alternative energy is now mainstream and has great significance and unlimited potential for development.  Nevertheless, petroleum and its derivatives will be the major source of energy for their economies for at least another generation.


Nelson Xavier – Profissional

Screen Shot 2017-05-14 at 20.05.22

Conheci o Nelson logo no inicio da década de 90 quando ele e minha cunhada foram viver juntos. Na época Nelson já era bem conhecido e tinha feito filmes de sucesso e sua presença na TV era corriqueira.

Embora há certo glamour, a vida de artista não é tão fácil como as pessoas podem imaginar. Ganha razoável quando trabalha mas normalmente a maioria dos artistas tem contratos temporários. Vive de filme a filme ou novela a novela ou peça a peça. Exige paciência, criatividade e sobretudo talento, dedicação e persistência. Muitos caem pelo caminho. Nelson iniciou sua carreira na década de 50 e usou sua arte para confrontar o regime militar no anos 60.

Sem duvida, Nelson sempre foi muito talentoso. Ele pode ser descrito como leading man, cangaceiro, assistente, diretor, gallant, estrela, mas o que mais percebo é sobretudo o Profissional. Lembro-me de quando os visitei em Santa Teresa. Nelson era um cara sistemático. Levantava cedo, tomava um café ligeiro e se metia no escritório. As vezes eu achava que ele estava fugindo das visitas mas, na realidade, era o trabalho. Uma vez, quando ele estava fazendo uma novela para a rede Globo e sabendo de seu passado “comunista”, provoquei bobamente, num certo esquerdismo infantil, quando ele estava treinando e declamando um dialogo. Ele ficou uma fera e me passou uma boa bronca. Disse ele, “Steve sou profissional, tenho talento mas o talento sozinho não basta. Tenho que trabalhar e quando trabalho, levo a serio. Quando você chama de “decoreba”, despreza meu trabalho. Meu esforço é de representar bem, de traduzir, transformar, produzir e projetar a personagem. Não é fácil e tenho que trabalhar.” E ai, eu encolhi diante de sua seriedade e o respeitei ainda mais.

Por infelicidade há mais de 10 anos, Nelson veio batalhando um câncer serio. Tinha que fazer quimioterapias e radioterapias. Coisas pesadas. Eu os visitei varias vezes nesses anos, e observei que Nelson ainda trabalhava bastante. Levava a doença e o tratamento como mais um desafio profissional, mesmo sendo muito doloroso.

Inteligente, intelectual e talentoso, Nelson foi grande em tudo o que fez. Como marido e pai amante de Via e Sofia, foi suporte com simplicidade, sabedoria e confiança. Seu exemplo deixou uma enorme herança profissional e pessoal.

Sua vasta coleção de filmes e trabalhos que já fazem parte do arquivo artístico nacional, e são provas de sua grande presença que não deixara de existir.


Excelente artigo do Bolivar Lamounier

Por Bolívar Lamounier

Indigência intelectual torna mais sombrio o futuro dos 14 milhões de desempregados

Estamos avançando no caminho da democracia, com mais transparência e instituições mais fortes, ou, ao contrário, sofrendo um retrocesso, com grave risco de uma recaída na corrupção e na violência?

As duas interpretações são cabíveis. Há indícios nas duas direções. A Lava Jato, por exemplo, é um avanço importante e, justamente por sê-lo, suscita reações contrárias, com empresas, partidos e até pessoas investidas em posições de autoridade fazendo de tudo para esvaziá-la e anular os seus efeitos. No terreno político, outro avanço inegável: hoje já ninguém contesta que as eleições são the only game in town – a única forma legítima de acesso ao poder –, mas não faltam tentativas de abastardá-las mediante o caixa 2, a publicidade enganosa, o coronelismo estatal em que o PT transformou o Bolsa Família, e por outros meios.

O que há, portanto, são dois processos simultâneos e contraditórios, ambos profundamente enraizados na realidade atual do País. Um, modernizador, apontando para a consolidação e o aprimoramento da democracia; o outro, reacionário, corporativista, empenhado em preservar privilégios injustificáveis e, no limite, nefasto para o regime democrático.

A “greve geral” – assim mesmo, entre aspas – de 28 de abril ressaltou os contornos da segunda tendência, reacionária e de duvidoso teor democrático. Se o objetivo das entidades que a convocaram fosse debater com seriedade as reformas, o lógico seria que patrocinassem eventos plurais, em recintos apropriados, propícios a discussões serenas. Ainda que o objetivo fosse apenas manifestar uma posição contrária, de forma unilateral, por que não mobilizaram o público para ouvir seus porta-vozes? A verdade é que as entidades organizadoras não fizeram uma coisa nem outra.

Partiram direto para a violência, incumbindo pequenos grupos de paralisar os transportes (às favas, portanto, os interessados no debate!), bloqueando vias públicas, obrigando o comércio a fechar suas portas e dando ensejo a não poucas depredações. Nas ruas percorridas, o que se viu não foi a solitária pedra do poema de Drummond, mas dezenas ou centenas de pedras, tocos de pau e outros objetos.

Esse modo de agir evidencia a importante mudança de ênfase havida na ideologia do PT e das organizações sindicais e dos movimentos sociais que ele satelitiza. Em seus primórdios, o pensamento petista podia ser apropriadamente descrito como um marxismo de sacristia.

O assembleísmo daqueles tempos falava em ética e martelava a tecla da “construção do socialismo”, evocando o cristianismo das catacumbas. No momento atual, a nota dominante é o recurso à ação direta, com o declarado intuito de causar transtorno às atividades diárias da sociedade. Para alcançar tal fim serve queimar pneus, apedrejar vidraças, etc; transmitir ameaças sem perder tempo com palavras. A esse modo de agir se pode apropriadamente denominar anarcossindicalismo, uma das modalidades ideológicas do pré-fascismo, classicamente exposta por Georges Sorel no livro Reflexões sobre a Violência, obra de 1908. Sorel queria “educar a burguesia”, fazendo-a deparar-se com o poder coletivo da classe operária. O que estamos começando a ver no Brasil é pior que isso, é uma violência cega, aleatória, que atinge muito mais duramente os pobres que os ricos. Ou será que foi para assustar a burguesia que queimaram nove ônibus no Rio de Janeiro?

Se, como antes assinalei, o objetivo da manifestação do dia 28 de abril fosse debater as reformas, os meios seriam outros, e dois pontos se destacariam obrigatoriamente na pauta: o imposto sindical e a reforma da Previdência. O imposto – um dia de trabalho que a força do Estado arranca de cada assalariado a fim de sustentar os sindicatos – é a pedra angular da organização sindical brasileira.

Complementa-o a chamada unicidade sindical, ou seja, o monopólio da representação de uma categoria numa dada base territorial, excluindo, portanto, a competição entre sindicatos (Constituição de 1988, artigo 8, II). Décadas atrás, passava por ignorante o advogado ou sociólogo que discorresse sobre a organização sindical brasileira sem indicar seu parentesco com o regime de Mussolini; citar a Carta del Lavoro era sinal de cultura. Mas foi para preservar tais excrescências que os manifestantes do dia 28 recorreram à peculiar retórica dos pneus queimando e do apedrejamento.

Semelhante ou até pior foi a posição assumida na ocasião pelo sindicalismo no tocante à reforma da Previdência Social. Pior porque a discussão de tal reforma deve obrigatoriamente partir de uma evidência incontornável, a mudança demográfica. A sociedade brasileira está ficando mais velha. Os nascimentos e a mortalidade infantil diminuem, os vivos vivem mais do que há 30 ou 40 anos.

Ora, se cada cidadão quer, como é justo que queira, ser garantido na velhice, é óbvio que precisa trabalhar e contribuir por mais tempo. Esse é o cerne da questão, o resto são as regras específicas da transição para o novo sistema, que o Congresso está analisando e negociando. Eis aqui, portanto, uma evidência meridiana: o foro adequado para a negociação é o Congresso, não as ruas. A linguagem apropriada é a do discurso parlamentar, não a do coquetel Molotov. Ameaçar ou tentar chantagear o Parlamento por meio da ação direta é uma insanidade que só pode mesmo vicejar na mentalidade anarcossindicalista.

Neste momento em que o Brasil precisa desesperadamente das reformas mencionadas a fim de superar a recessão e retomar o crescimento econômico, essa forma de indigência intelectual não “educa” ninguém. O que ela faz é tornar mais sombrio o futuro dos nossos 14 milhões de desempregados e dos pobres em geral.

*Cientista político, é sócio-diretor da Augurium Consultoria, membro das academias Paulista de Letras e Brasileira de Ciências, é autor do livro “Liberais e Antiliberais: a luta ideológica de nosso tempo” (Companhia das Letras, 2016)

O Estado de São Paulo

KD a Raiva?

Screen Shot 2017-05-05 at 16.58.33

Anos a fio com uma repetição para além de cansativa, ocorrem atrocidades que causam repulsa.  Enquanto o Congresso e os políticos empenham-se em negociar proteção política em troca de reformas acontecem em toda parte as desgraças rotineiras.  Matam e mutilam Índios, degradam o meio ambiente, os assaltantes tomam com impunidade, as policias invadem, as milícias “protegem”, mulheres são assediadas e ameaçadas, as crianças morrem por balas “perdidas” e pessoas de “bem” insistem na continua rapinagem. Enquanto isso, o cidadão comum assiste de boca aberta e engole seco com o atendimento de qualquer serviço publico.  KD a raiva?

É verdade que há casos de prisões de políticos e empresários por corrupção mas tem se a percepção que o tratamento desigual perante a justiça permanece e muitos corruptos aparentemente gozam de boas vidas em casa.  KD a raiva?

Propaga-se a cordialidade do brasileiro.  Mas talvez é melhor observar que a acomodação e passividade são ainda mais característicos.  A população queda perplexa, passiva e atônita diante dos acontecimentos.  Aceita-se com fatalidade que o governo é corrupto, que a policia é violenta, que desigualdade, machismo e racismo são parte da realidade que não vai mudar. E ainda ha gente que clama pela volta da ditadura militar, mas por frustração e menos por ira.  KD a raiva?

Volta-se para a família, para a igreja, para a torcida ou mesmo para um movimento que ofereça um beneficio ou ao menos uma promessa de melhora ou sentimento de valorização individual.  Mas sem raiva e com acomodação.  Dar muro em ponta de faca não faz bem.  Arriscar contra a maré não faz sentido quando o emprego é precário ou inexistente e o dinheiro está curto.  A opressão da escassez quase absoluta e a passividade induzida favorecem o status quo.  Assim também a falta de interesse pela educação publica de primeiro e segundo grau.   A falta de conteúdo e a aprendizagem apenas para passar levam também ao não questionamento.  KD a raiva?

Não é que o brasileiro não tenha raiva.  O marido bate na mulher, a mãe castiga as crianças e os meninos usam a raiva para bullying e intimidação.  Desafortunadamente as pessoas não encontram como: 1) compreender a raiva; 2) lidar com a raiva de forma produtiva; e 3) canalizar a raiva através de uma participação social.  Sem consenso fica difícil compreender.  A frustração resulta no atavismo e botar para quebrar numa rejeição sem resultado.  E se não há resultados e mudança, por que participar?  E assim a não participação acaba favorecendo os de cima e as coisas mudam só para ficar no mesmo.  KD a raiva?

Quando pergunto: KD a Raiva? Umas pessoas respondem que estão com vergonha, mas não com raiva.  Outros respondem que a raiva é da direita, ou seja, acham que a revolta contra a corrupção é coisa de um lado só.  Por trás, existe o pensamento que os pobres, os homossexuais ou os “diferentes” representam uma ameaça de alguma forma.  Os negros, as minorias sexuais e ate os religiosos se sentem perseguidos.  E todos recorrem para o estado paternal e patronal para verbas e socorro.  E aí continua todo mundo “bestializado” como bem descreveu meu mestre Prof. Jose Murilo de Carvalho.

KD a raiva?  KD a bendita raiva?