Shake, tremor, hurricane or earthquake and something else?
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 30/06/2025
Share:
Distinguished professor María Candelaria Rodríguez Guillen, citing a commendable study by Ramón Escovar León, states that the academic defines a "notorious fact" as one whose existence can be invoked without any proof, because it is directly known to anyone capable of observing it." In more familiar language, it is often said to be "one that does not require proof."
It is in the context of these definitions that we assume that no proof seems to be required to demonstrate the certainty, we do not know whether absolute or relative, of the "shake-up, tremor, hurricane or earthquake and even something else" that is shaking the world today.
This is a worrying "crisis" resulting from "a profound change with far-reaching consequences, fueled by political and economic developments unfolding within countries and within the international community itself." We don't know if this is perhaps referring to a "kind of catastrophe," fueled by "a conflict" and its pressure on "the global economy." But it is also referring to "political instability and wars (for example, the most visible for now, those between Russia and Ukraine and those between Israel and Iran)." In technical language, we read that "demographic changes, the reduction in funding for development aid and its negative consequences in low-income countries, the demand for so-called critical minerals (lithium, cobalt, and the so-called rare earths)," some of which are destined for weapons with terrible consequences, are still determining factors. It is worth asking, would it be "a profound change with important consequences?" Many people affirm this.
We don't know if it would be pertinent to mention that "American historians Neil Howe and William Strauss, authors of "the theory of generational cycles," maintain that in periods of approximately four generations (80-90 years) each, significant changes occur in humanity characterized by difficulties that profoundly shape societies. We are assuming, one might ask, that when a generation, as Howe and Strauss argue, reaches adulthood, it begins to challenge the order established by the previous one. This cyclical dynamic, over time, for the authors, can lead to drastic changes in society and crises that mark a before and after. They also add that through the theory, crises such as "the world wars, the Great Depression, and a more recent one, the financial crisis of 2008" have been identified, the consequences of which still have a lasting impact, particularly on the so-called middle class. It would seem that, in principle, we would be confronting "the cyclical dynamics" of the aforementioned scientists. The answer? Complicated.
A good friend, much more learned than this apprentice, provided us with Thomas Paine's "tiny" book, "The Crisis," whose genius was quite helpful. It is a collection of articles originally published from December 1776 to December 1783, addressed to Americans during the worst years of the Revolutionary War. We were drawn to the assertion that God is the first cause of the world, a principle transgressed by the British colonizers, since England had appropriated the powers of God through the yoke of colonization, a situation that victimized Americans and, in the opinion of many, decisively stimulated the struggle for independence of the United States. "The Higher Self," as Paine's readers note, inspired the revolutionaries' determination in the fight for freedom. Thus emerged what is now the "Giant of the North," playing a decisive role in the world ever since.
Paine's genius led him to popularize the maxim that "all men are created equal," and therefore a monarchical regime constitutes a "vulgar transgression of God," such a significant and even divine standard. Additionally, there is no doubt that "under a king, men find it impossible to fulfill themselves." But, in addition, the English were further from God than those fighting for independence. Paine is described, in line with these assessments, as the author of the theory of "Common Sense," the foundation of which is that each individual can confront historical legacies and the customs of institutions in pursuit of their freedom and the development of their personality. It is said that this idea also inspired, through the Americans, the Europeans of the French Revolution.
In this context, one might wonder whether Paine also considered "faith" as a virtue, which, with God's help, inspired courage and determination in the American soldiers. This assessment is pertinent if we consider, as we read, that "among the characteristics that heroes share, that virtue is present, as essential." It should be clarified that it is not a "religious" virtue, but rather a "faith" in the mission, which will persist despite everything. This attitude is evident in the hero's actions because, in and of itself, heroism requires that he act positively in relation to his mission and therefore be an agent of change." This is how we read in Benjamin P. McLean, Don Quixote: Hero or Antihero?
It must be reiterated, if we return to Howe and Strauss's theory, that it has gained popularity, but also criticism. Some argue that history is not so predictable and that other factors, such as technological advances and political changes, play an important role in social evolution. It is in this regard that, in principle, it seems to be confirmed that events in the management of the governments of the respective countries have been decisive in the current state of the world. And it must be made clear that the developed world bears equal responsibility, as do those still in situations of underdevelopment and even precariousness.
It is essential to maintain that Thomas Paine used the concept of "deity" usefully, one of the tools of religion for the cultivation of the soul and, consequently, of the body itself. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in all instances; rather, in all fairness, "Don Thomas" has been one of the few who has put it to useful use, questioning the abuses to which it has been subjected.
Given the questioning regarding the diversity of interpretations and the religious wars that still persist, it is essential to make an effort to understand the word well, finding that it comes from the Latin deĭtas, -ātis, and that it identifies the divine being, the divine essence, each of the gods of the various religions, and as synonyms or related words appear God, divinity and divo. The ratio of Paine's idea may have been, resorting to everyday life, that God created the world, giving it to us so that we could lead it to its maximum potential, a task that has not been easy for us, since the Lord created us endowed with goodness (a natural inclination to do good), which would lead us to the "Eternal House", but, at the same time, with evil (a quality of being bad), on the way to "the place where the damned suffer", and what seems serious is that "we have dwelt between the two". Perhaps a clue may come from some peculiarities that bookworms have found and that are written as follows: 1. Religion is the emotional bait; 2. The true Gods that justify war are oil, technology, defense, and the control of countries in confrontation with one another; 3. The victims pray, politicians take sides, and billionaires print money with that kind of smoke that rises from the stoves they always have lit. And finally, it is not a war, but rather a syndicate that brings together diverse but partly homogeneous interests. "The apparent conclusion: When and where there is blood, there is no opportunity." It seems contrary to what could be a summary regarding "deity": that there is a Supreme God, who must be worshipped, which entails piety and virtue, that we must repent of our sins, and that, if we do this, He will forgive us. For there are rewards for the good and punishments for the wicked, both here and in the hereafter.
We don't know if it's correct to say that the controversy seems to stop at "the battle for 'the good life' or 'the good life'." For August Corominas, professor of Human Physiology at the University of Murcia and the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the good life is a lifestyle marked by simplicity, honesty, frugality in consumption, solidarity with one's fellow human beings and the environment. It is also a life of dedication to work, service to society, the cultivation of spiritual intelligence, and the joy of living. It has no risk factors. The good life, which is not the same thing, is determined by sensuality, with the satisfaction of needs subject to pleasure. This way of living elevates the perception of the senses to the category of pleasure and is constantly fueled by the structure of consumer society. Its motto is "anything goes as long as you live well," and the rule it follows is pleasure for pleasure's sake. Risk factors don't matter.
Today's "upheaval" in the 21st century is like a well-nourished man who despairs of continuing to eat and seemingly fails to excrete his organic waste. Countries are phantasms designed in constitutions, most of which are well-written in modern times, but more grammatical than real. The regimes contained therein, particularly the most harmonious ones, are subject to human will, with its virtues—the fewest, but also the most vices, evil, and even vileness. It is a "upheaval" that has the newly elected Pope Leo shouting for peace with a profound call to observe the word of God. Narcissism, antisocial behavior, and histrionics lurk in politics, distorting leadership.
Samuel Huntington, a wise professor at the Harvard School of Government, had the intelligence to emphasize, regarding the "Clash of Civilizations," a thesis according to which "cultural and religious identities are a determining factor in conflict," estimating that wars from then on would not be fought between countries, but by "great civilizations" (Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, and, not so late, African). Was the academic referring, perhaps, to what is often described as "the alleged" ideological and religious purity or the theory of elites? Worrying, but with seriousness to praise the assessment of the excellent academic.
We hear, as if from a loud voice and with legitimate anguish, that "good government is in demand." It seems that there is no longer any doubt regarding the "precipice of rhetoric versus reality." In this difficult world of eventualities, the complaints of millions of desperate people who fail to understand the abyss between theory and practice are ever-present. And the tendency to perpetuate an ideological stance now sounds like a mockery.
In Latin America, where we are from, the need to make the values and principles of democracy a reality is beyond imperative. Venezuelan Moisés Naím argues that democracy is severely affected by a global crisis and that three Trojan horses threaten it: 1. Post-truth, 2. Populism, and 3. Polarization. Our respected cabinet colleague in the second administration of President Carlos Andrés Pérez must admit that these three conditions affect the global freedom regime and that with the most recent prevalence of "the conservatism of traditional values and principles (traditionalism, rightism, continuism, and conservatism)." And that much must be shared with one of the few ways to mitigate "the dangerous disconnect between democratic institutions and citizen expectations."
The analyses, as is now traditional, focus more on options for resolving the debacle than on the causes of the debacle. At the Interamerican Institute for Democracy, a space for serious and healthy discussion on the topic, the distinguished Caracas native Beatrice Rangel rightly recalls that "Latin America's illness has its origins in the medieval and obscurantist formation that gave birth to it as a platform for extraction, rather than for wealth creation," with which we agree. Our friend Asdrúbal Aguiar "defends true democracy against the 'popular, plebiscitary, populist, and direct' democracy, the axis of the current totalitarian neo-populism. And the distinguished political scientist Carlos Sánchez Berzain, Director/Founder of the Interamerican, with his characteristic pragmatism, refers to "the dictatorships of the 21st century," sustained by false promises, as historian and former Ecuadorian President Oswaldo Hurtado claims, "of defeating inequality," becoming more dictatorial, and where constitutional presidents have become "autocratic caudillos."
The ideas contained in this essay constantly lead us to frustration, which is perceived when we look at each other, as if asking, "What should we do?" The Venezuelan's expression almost reads, "Why did we overthrow Carlos Andrés Pérez?" But his expression abruptly changes, revealing a kind of concern: "Why did we let himself be overthrown?" The Nicaraguan asks, "What happened to the Sandinista revolution?" The Bolivian asks, "What will we hear from Simón Bolívar when he recalls the efforts to draft that historic constitution?" The Chilean asks, in perfect Italian, "Why did Boric dementiate his revolution? Forse la destra ha vento." An Argentine professor, in the elevator where the conversation is taking place, notes, "Please, let's keep in mind the doctrinal "patuque" (the "doctrine trade"). On the one hand, the so-called monetarism, according to which controlling the money supply is crucial to stabilizing the economy. If the money in circulation increases too rapidly, prices rise and inflation occurs, which is why it must be controlled to prevent it. And on the other hand, the so-called Keynesian economics, according to which "state intervention stabilizes the economy." The Venezuelan immediately replied, "The program that Carlos Andrés Pérez advanced during his second term was 100 percent Keynesian." The elevator opens on the 10th floor/Office 10/B, and the participants realize they have been invited to a meeting to analyze the very topic they had discussed.
The author doesn't know what happened at the meeting, but firmly hopes that "the upheaval that's shaking the world" has been seriously analyzed. The reader is invited to analyze the results.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».