Will the imagery be something serious?
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 17/11/2025
Share:
Imagery is a word that is not only little used, but also problematic in terms of its meaning.
In November 2025, Argentine journalist Fermín Filloy, with extensive experience in writing and content production, wrote on the prestigious Infobae website that scientists in the United Kingdom found that “there is no categorical difference between what people perceive and what they imagine.” The title of his essay was “Imagination or Reality?: Both Processes Can Be Confused in the Brain, According to Science.” This author consulted several sources and found very little reference to the term “imagery,” but frequent mention of “imagination,” the connection between which seems obvious. The latter is defined as “the ability to evoke or produce images independently of the presence of the object to which they refer,” attributing to Saint Augustine the assertion that “images originate from corporeal things and through sensations which, once perceived, can be easily recalled, distinguished, multiplied, reduced, extended, ordered, rearranged, and recomposed as thought pleases.” Up to this point, both the reader and the writer are obviously confused, so turning to AI brings us to a clearer picture: 1. “Imagery” refers to two main concepts: the art of creating religious images in wood and the use of literary devices to create sensory imagery in writing; 2. It can also refer to a person's ability to imagine or visualize and to the set of images used by an author; and 3. Imagery in literature refers to the use of descriptive language to create sensory experiences for the reader. Let's assume, for the sake of clarity, that this essay finds justification in the last interpretation and that, consequently, the question posed in the title is answered. Thanks, therefore, to AI.
In light of the foregoing observations, we must affirm that this essay aims to clarify whether what is currently happening in Latin America, and particularly in Venezuela, our homeland, could be described as “imaginary” rather than, precisely, “literary.” Nor is it serious to consider it as “community celebrations,” as it is presented, one of the most universal social behaviors among human beings. It is nothing more and nothing less than the presence in the Caribbean of a significant US military fleet, the world's leading power, and something that had never occurred before. History recalls an event in 1902, which came to be known as “the foreign blockade,” under the government of General Cipriano Castro, in that fledgling republic, where the leader was a military man, and who, in response to the event, declared: “The insolent foot of the Foreigner has profaned the sacred soil of the Fatherland.” An unprecedented and unjustifiable act in the history of civilized nations, a barbaric act because it violates the most basic principles of international law, an ignoble act because it is the fruit of an immoral and cowardly conspiracy of force and treachery, is the act that the German and British fleets have just carried out in the harbor of La Guaira: they surprised and seized, in a simultaneous and joint action, three defenseless steamships of our navy that had entered dry dock for major repairs. The cause, dear reader? The collection of a debt owed by Venezuela. The presence of the United States, as its authorities, including the Head of State himself, argue, is "a fierce fight aimed at eradicating the trafficking of harmful narcotics, including cocaine, fentanyl, and other substances," whose consumption, according to the American authorities, is causing a true death toll among the inhabitants of the "north." It sounds strange, it must be pointed out, that no reference is made to the immense volumes of money, which, as is well known, are generated by the aforementioned activities, capable of altering even the most solid economy in the universe.
Given this scenario, it is pertinent to ask: Is this a war without quarter? This question is defined with his characteristic expertise by the eminent Ecuadorian constitutional scholar Rodrigo Borja: “It is an expression that means ‘relentless war’ or ‘fight to the death’ and is frequently used figuratively in political life. Its origin lies in Convention III, approved by the Hague Peace Conference in 1907, which codifies a series of rules for acts of war in order to avoid unnecessary violence and limit its destructive or cruel effects. The scholar goes on to indicate that among the guidelines of this international instrument are: 1. Not to kill wounded or sick combatants and those who surrender and lay down their arms, deserving of humanitarian protection in enemy quarters; and 2. This is what the phrase ‘to give quarter’ refers to.” He also opines that these are the universally accepted rules of war. For Borja, when it is said in politics that the “fight will be without quarter,” it means even the final regardless of the consequences, including the elimination of the adversary, even if he surrenders or asks for a truce.
It should also be noted that another concurrent penalty is the confiscation of money and assets related to drug trafficking, which IA defines as "a legal measure in which the State seizes and removes ownership of assets linked to criminal activities, such as money, vehicles, real estate, and other valuables. The main objective is to dismantle the finances of criminal organizations, depriving them of their assets and deterring future illicit activities," as IA concludes.
The magnitude of the military presence in the Caribbean has been highlighted by the aforementioned Infobae website, which, in principle, has the largest number of followers, at least in Latin America. This is their assessment: “An unprecedented operation in the Caribbean”… has gained momentum in recent months… the creation of a joint anti-narcotics task force, under the Pentagon's umbrella, intended to dismantle cartels in the Caribbean Sea, also under the purview of Southern Command. It should be noted that this assessment is held by the majority, with few exceptions.
The event, extraordinary and rarely seen, leads one to wonder if it will spread to other Latin American countries, given the almost "ure et de ure" presumption, that is, the obvious and evident event, which does not admit proof to the contrary, that drug trafficking, as in almost all of humanity, is an evil that waves in the aforementioned continent, not to mention, in the entire globe.
In this regard, one cannot help but wonder whether the fight against drug trafficking, publicly accepted by the US as a pretext for its ongoing military planning, might consequently lead to the restoration of democracy in Latin America. In these countries, with very few exceptions, governments routinely violate constitutions and democratic principles, or the drafting and interpretation of the Constitution, in order to establish atypical regimes. It is difficult to venture a guess, but given so much uncertainty, it prompts one to consider whether Operation "Southern Spear," which, as reported by Infobae, combines warships, robotic technology, and unmanned aerial vehicles, could include a section dedicated to establishing stable political regimes on the continent. These regimes would be derived from the exercise of popular will but would be equipped with economic planning that fosters harmonious social development.
We realists, despite being called "pessimists," might find some relief by delving deeper into the truth of the question, "IS IMAGINATION A SERIOUS THING?" It makes sense to ask ourselves this question, both in relation to the fight against drug trafficking and, additionally, with the implementation of true democracies on a continent where they already exist.
Who has the final say? It's worth asking. It would seem obvious that it's the US, in principle, the guarantor of peace for humanity, or us? Fairness seems to suggest answering "both."
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».