Antonio Hernández

Observador permanente de la realidad, internacionalista, museógrafo, diletante profesional, inconforme, sibarita, aspirante a sabelotodo.

[Ceci Denot @gordameir]

Quienes acusan a Ariana Harwicz en este comunicado de “avalar el exterminio” y de "injuriar" a quienes "se oponen a proyectos de aniquilación", justifican el terrorismo palestino, se hacen llamar “feministas” pero callan frente a la violencia sexual de Hamás, piden eliminar una nación del mapa y persiguen a quienes piensan distinto para intentar bajarlos de eventos. Lo de esta gente es 100% proyección.

No pude encontrar una sola condena al 7 de octubre de parte de Lina Meruane y Rita Segato. Lo que sí encontré es justificaciones por parte de ambas, diciendo que "la historia no empezó allí" y situándolo en un contexto de supuesta opresión de los palestinos. Tampoco encontré ninguna declaración de ellas sobre la violencia sexual de Hamás.
Gabriela Wiener, Ángelo Néstore y Brenda Navarro son activos usuarios de tuiter. Buscar "Hamás" en su historial arroja 0 (cero) resultados. Gabriela el mismo 7 de octubre estaba diciendo que el terrorista era Israel, mientras que Ángelo y Brenda en octubre de 2023 estaban muy ocupados tuiteando sobre drag queens, David Beckham, outfits y series de Netflix. Ninguno condenó la masacre. Me parece que los que “injurian” a los que se oponen a proyectos de aniquilación, como el de Hamás, son los firmantes de esta basura que además igualan sionismo, es decir, la ideología mayoritaria de los judíos, su movimiento de liberación nacional, con el "colonialismo". De una ignorancia y un racismo supinos, por parte de gente que se cree buena y cree tener superioridad moral.

Israel no cometió ni comete un genocidio en Gaza. La acusación de “genocidio” es una manipulación psicológica: inventar una réplica del Holocausto para atribuír­sela a los judíos, apropiándose de sus tragedias y utilizándola como arma en su contra. Si se tratara de una crítica genuina a la guerra, Hamás ocuparía un lugar central en el discurso de esta gente. Pero ni siquiera lo mencionan una sola vez. El accionar palestino está totalmente ausente. No tienen agencia, no son responsables de sus acciones ni de sus decisiones, para ellos son únicamente víctimas pasivas de la maldad judía.

El objetivo de esto es deslegitimar y criminalizar la disidencia: si la discusión se plantea en estos términos -“si no defendés el terrorismo palestino, si no querés que desaparezca Israel, si no pensás que lo de Gaza es peor que el Holocausto o si no creés que ser sionista es ser nazi, entonces sos un genocida”-, la discusión se vuelve imposible. Cualquier opinión que se salga del dogma absurdo que ellos repiten te convierte automáticamente en genocida o negacionista del genocidio.

Y aparte vale decir que esta gente está gritando genocidio no solo desde el 8 de octubre sino desde 1948, porque para el antisionista la propia existencia de Israel es un crimen. Es una ideología que sueña con un genocidio mientras denuncia uno ficticio. No hay que callarse ni dejarse amedrentar por estos fascistas. Mi solidaridad con @ArianaHar

[Antonio Hernández @antuandeletran]

@daphnella Qué pasa con la calidad de los profes de secundaria? Porque en primaria todos eran de la normal, pero en secundaria muy pocos pasaron por la superior y muchos de mis maestros no lo fueron de formación y se volvieron excelentes pero otros fueron unos freaks, por decir lo menos.

[Antonio Hernández @antuandeletran]

@ursulacamba @nexosmexico Muchas felicides Doc, que haya muchos más.

[Antonio Hernández @antuandeletran]

@lucas_gortazar @macariomx en México la caída más importante también es de los alumnos de nivel económico alto o que asisten a escuela particular. Habría que averiguar si aumentó el número de secundarias particulares o la matrícula de éstas, porque la cobertura no creció.

[Antonio Hernández @antuandeletran]

@ValeriaMoy @ClaraBrugadaM Bastaría con que aplicaran el reglamento de tránsito y los corralones estarían llenos.
Hay que averiguar qué hicieron en España, que a principios de los 2000s era un caos y han recuperado la tranquilidad.

[Antonio Hernández @antuandeletran]

@ursulacamba Muchos psicóticos son personas muy adaptadas y exitosas en sociedad. Con lo que sabemos hasta ahora, no parece un delincuente común porque no huyó, ni tomó ninguna precaución. Parece alguien que vive en su propia realidad.

[Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 @Kristof_Poland]

St. Augustine – The Difference Between Power and Civilization.

St. Augustine understood something about political power that modern civilization routinely forgets: a state is not made legitimate by its size, its laws, its institutions, or its ability to enforce them. What separates government from organized predation is justice.
Remove justice, and power remains – but legitimacy disappears. His argument is ultimately not about kings or pirates. It is about the principle that makes authority worthy of obedience, and the thin line between a political order and organized coercion.

1. Power and legitimacy are not the same thing. Power is the ability to make people obey. Legitimacy is the right to command. A tyrant can possess enormous power and no legitimate authority. A government can control every institution in the country and still be fundamentally unjust. The existence of political authority does not prove its legitimacy. Government does not create justice. Justice sets the moral limits of government.

2. Justice is what transforms power into authority. Every functioning society needs coercion: laws must be enforced, criminals restrained, contracts protected. The question is not whether force exists, but what that force serves and what limits it. A just state uses coercion to defend an order in which people can live together. An unjust state increasingly uses the same machinery to protect the interests of those controlling it.

3. Legality cannot be the ultimate measure of justice. A government can make almost anything legal if it controls the lawmaking process. If something is legitimate simply because it is legal, then the state becomes the sole judge of its own legitimacy. That is circular. Law is supposed to constrain power, not merely formalize whatever power decides to do. A perfectly legal injustice remains an injustice.

4. Institutions can make power harder to see. The ancient tyrant arrives with soldiers. The modern state often arrives with forms, procedures, regulations and administrative language. Nobody appears to be exercising arbitrary power because everyone is simply "following the rules." But procedure does not make an outcome just. And when responsibility is distributed across thousands of people, everyone can participate in injustice while nobody feels responsible for it. Power is most dangerous when it no longer looks like power.

5. This is why civilization needs principles above the state. If nothing stands above political power — no civilizational law, no fundamental rights, no moral order — then there is ultimately no principled limit to what government may do. Politics becomes a struggle for control of the machinery. Whoever captures the state gets to redefine the rules, the rights and eventually the meaning of justice itself. When power becomes the source of morality, politics becomes war by other means.

6. Civilization is therefore not the absence of force. It is the subordination of force to justice. It is not simply having government, but having government constrained by principles that government itself cannot casually rewrite. It is not stability at any price. A perfectly stable tyranny is still a tyranny. The real achievement is creating an order in which those who wield power are themselves subject to something higher than their own power.

7. And that is Augustine’s civilizational lesson. Every political order eventually faces the same choice: will power serve a moral order, or will the moral order be rewritten to serve power? The names change – kingdom, republic, empire, democracy. The institutions change. The technology changes. The principle does not.

Remove justice, and the state becomes merely a larger version of the gang.

Civilization begins where power accepts that there are things it may not do – even when it can.

[Creative Deduction @CreativeDeduct]

In 1930, the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset published The Revolt of the Masses, a book that still feels uncomfortably prophetic. His central target was not the poor or the working class, but a new kind of human being he called the “mass man”.

The mass man, Ortega argued, is defined by attitude rather than income. He is the ordinary person who is perfectly satisfied with himself, demands nothing higher of his own character or intellect, and yet insists that his mediocrity be treated as a right. He does not defer to excellence, competence, or higher standards. He regards them with suspicion or resentment. What previous ages saw as the privilege of the few - political influence, cultural authority, the right to shape society - the mass man now claims as his due, without any corresponding effort to rise above the average.

Ortega believed this type of person had been produced by the very success of modern civilisation. Rising living standards, mass education, and liberal institutions had given ordinary people unprecedented power and comfort. But they had not produced a corresponding sense of responsibility or humility before higher achievements. The result was a revolt: the mass man refused to accept the authority of superior knowledge, culture, or character. He demanded that everything be brought down to his level.

The danger, Ortega warned, was that a civilisation cannot survive if its central actors no longer respect the standards that made it possible. When the average begins to dominate without aspiring to anything beyond itself, excellence is undermined, institutions decay, and politics becomes an expression of resentment rather than responsibility.

Ortega’s diagnosis remains unsettling because it is not a complaint about poverty or exclusion. It is a warning about self-satisfied mediocrity armed with power.

[Antonio Hernández @antuandeletran]

@mluiselli Si por izquierda entendemos antirégimen, los dictadores empiezan por ahí. Después eliminan también a sus aliados, los derecha.

[Antonio Hernández @antuandeletran]

@mluiselli Si el régimen es más autoritario, no hay destierro sólo encierro y entierro. Todavía más autoritario, únicamente entierro.

[Antonio Hernández @antuandeletran]

@Cuauhtemoc_1521 Yo frecuento La Casa del Pavo en Motolinia.

[Marco Levario Turcott @Arouet_V]

Desde el lunes 7 de octubre de 1968 hasta el 23 del mismo mes, el @Excelsior de Julio Scherer García se sumó a la persecución de Carlos A. Madrazo y Elena Garro, como presuntos instigadores del movimiento estudiantil. Madrazo era adverdario de Gustavo Díaz Ordaz, rechazó el trato que daba a los jóvenes e impulsó la democracia en el PRI, razón por la que fue destituido como presidente nacional. Madrazo proponía, entre otras medidas, que los militantes del partido decidieran a sus candidatos y no el Preidente del país.

El 4 de junio de 1969, Madrazo y otras personalidades murieron en un muy extraño accidente aéreo. De acuerdo con testigos, se vio y escuchó una explosión del avión antes de estrellarse. En Excélsior no hay palabras de duelo de Díaz Ordaz y tampoco hay ninguna duda ni demanda porque se conociera la caja negra, esto sucedió años después y en retazos. El editorial de Excélsior de Scherer lamenta en cinco líneas el deceso dejando implícitas sus diferencias con Madrazo. Siete días después, Scherer y Diaz Ordaz festejaron con un abrazo el día de la libertad de expresión. Era el último año como presidente del represor.

Durante toda su vida, Scherer presumió su amistad con Lázaro Cárdenas quien responsabilizó a Díaz Ordaz de la muerte de Madrazo pero el periodista jamás comentó al respecto.

Al paso de los años, Scherer llamó asesinó a Díaz Ordaz y jamás ofreció disculpas a la familia Madrazo porque él se sumó a la persecución política contra el llamado "Ciclón del Sureste" (como después lo haría contra Manuel Marcué Pardiñas con la represión del 10 de junio de 1971).

[Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 @Kristof_Poland]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau – the original Woke

He invented it. Every premise of contemporary progressive ideology traces directly back to one man who had never met a "noble savage", never raised a child, and never lived according to a single principle he preached.

1. His foundational claim: man is naturally good and civilization corrupts. This sounds compassionate. It is the most dangerous idea in Western political thought. Because if man is naturally good, then every failure, every crime, every inequality is caused by the system – never by the individual.
Responsibility evaporates. The oppressor is always external. The victim is always pure. This is the complete architecture of Woke in one sentence, written in 1755.

2. The "Noble Savage" is Rousseau’s Form – his version of Plato’s ideal. The uncorrupted man, untouched by property, competition, and civilization, living in natural harmony. Rousseau had never met one. He invented him from an armchair in Paris, extrapolating from travel accounts of peoples he had never visited. The Noble Savage is not an anthropological observation. He is a political weapon – a club to beat civilization with, wielded by someone living comfortably inside it.

3. The "General Will" is the most dangerous concept in modern political philosophy. Not the actual expressed will of actual people – but the deeper will, the will people would have if they were "properly enlightened". Whoever claims to know it can do anything in its name. Robespierre knew it. Every revolutionary vanguard since has known it. Today’s progressive institutions know it – which is why they can override democratic majorities, suppress dissent, and compel speech, all while insisting they represent the people’s true interests. The General Will is the intellectual license for every tyranny that calls itself a liberation.

4. The chain from Rousseau to today is unbroken. Rousseau to Robespierre and the Terror. Robespierre to Marx, who secularized the General Will into historical necessity. Marx to every "liberation" movement that ended in a gulag. And today: replace civilization with white supremacy, replace the Noble Savage with the marginalized community, replace the General Will with lived experience – and you have the complete operating system of contemporary progressivism. The software is the same.

5. Voltaire, his contemporary and rival, saw him quite clearly: Rousseau made primitivism intellectually respectable. He gave the comfortable classes of every generation a way to signal virtue by denouncing the civilization that produced them, from inside it, without cost. The French Left Bank intellectual denouncing capitalism from a café. The Harvard professor deconstructing Western civilization from a tenured chair. The hedge fund billionaire funding the abolition of meritocracy. All of them are living in Rousseau’s armchair.

6. He sent all five of his illegitimate children to a Paris orphanage. Then wrote Émile – one of the most influential books on education in Western history, a detailed guide on how to raise a virtuous child in harmony with nature. He did not find this contradictory. This is not hypocrisy in the ordinary sense – this is obłuda (remember the obłuda of communism?👇🏻). The defining structural feature of the ideology he invented: the sermon is inversely proportional to the practice. The performance of virtue replaces the exercise of it. Naming the oppressor substitutes for personal accountability. Rousseau didn’t just invent Woke – he lived it, in every detail, before anyone had the word.

7. The original Woke was woke about a fiction he invented – and spent his life performing outrage about a civilization he depended on and never left. Two and a half centuries later, the performance is the same. The noble savages have been updated. The General Will has new names. The orphanages are metaphorical. But the man who sends his children away and then lectures everyone else on how to raise theirs – that man is everywhere.

[Vino y Tequila @antoniolaveaga]

Mi columna

[Araceli✨ @aracelibs]

Para todos los que no quieren pertenecer al tercer mundo, por favor, compartan por todos lados este excelente cartón de @CartonCalderon

[Antonio Hernández @antuandeletran]

Sobre los que no han entendido que la expansión del islamismo radical, es una amenaza para el resto del mundo, no importa si eres cristiano, budista, judío o ateo.

[Rawan Osman روان عثمان @RawaneOsmane]

The picture is a comment posted under a Haaretz piece covering Brad Lander's podcast appearance, in which he says Israelis will not be safe until Palestinians are free.

Someone in the comments offered the familiar line: Israel just needs to be a good neighbor, remove ambition and prejudice, and peace will follow. Here is what I told him:

“…wow. You have no idea what the Arab-Israeli conflict is about, do you? I am half-Syrian, half-Lebanese. I lived in four different Arab countries. I lived through wars with Israel growing up in Lebanon, back when I believed what you currently believe. Israel wants to be a good neighbor among countries that are adamant to annihilate it. There are reasons for that, and pan-Arabists have different motivations than those of pan-Islamists. But it all boils down to hating the Jews (due to decades of propaganda spreading blood libels, conspiracy theories, and denying the Holocaust) and rejecting the sovereignty of non-Muslims (especially the Jews) in a territory that has been Islamized and belongs to dar al-Islam. If the Jews get away with it, what will the Muslim world do about the many minorities who will also aspire to equality and consequently reject subordination to Muslims?"

I say this as someone who lived it, not someone theorizing from a distance. And I want to elaborate on why this matters far beyond Israel's borders.

Unless you understand political Islam, you will not understand why the war on Israel is not really about Israel. It is a preview. If a Western democracy fails to hold a clear line against jihadism, it will inherit the same problem Israel has lived with for a century, just on a longer timeline.

Look at what has already happened to Christians across the Middle East. Iraq had over a million Christians before 2003; today the number is a small fraction of that. Syria's Christian population has collapsed since the war began. Lebanon, once nearly half Christian, has watched that share shrink decade after decade. Egypt's Copts live under constant pressure.

This did not happen because Christians failed to be good neighbors. It happened because a supremacist strain of political Islam does not tolerate permanent equality for non-Muslims in what it considers its own territory.

Now look at Europe. Muslim populations are growing steadily, and within a generation or two several Western countries will look demographically very different than they do today. Most Muslims living in the West are exactly like everyone else. They want to raise their families, build a life, and be left alone. That is not in question.

What is in question is a minority within that population who are not interested in coexistence as equals. They are interested in supremacy, and they are patient. They understand something Western liberals often refuse to see: democracies that grant full rights and representation to everyone, radicals included, hand those radicals the tools to eventually dismantle the very system that protected them.

Israel is simply further along in this fight than the West is. Watch what Israel is forced to deal with, because it is coming for you too, slowly but surely.

#Israel #TheWestIsNext

[Antonio Hernández @antuandeletran]

@Dios_0ficial Cara de popó
Jijos de sú tal por cuál.
Vividor.
Falto de talento.

[Antonio Hernández @antuandeletran]

@juliandezubiria @elespectador Hace ya décadas que el Banco Mundial había alertado que la educación superior le esquilma recursos a la educación básica, inclusive en el sector público. Un rector universitario tiene más influencia para conseguir más recursos que el director de la primaria Benito Juárez.

[Antonio Hernández @antuandeletran]

https://t.co/eVDBp3VHHb