This article was censored by Facebook, just as this blog is banned from that digital network.
Obrador and his preferential option to flood the poor
Javier Hernández Alpízar
“We had to choose between inconveniences: not to flood Villahermosa and (for) the water to come out through the low-lying areas, of course the poorest were harmed but we had to make a decision,” explained Obrador, according to notes from El Universal, Milenio and Proceso .
In the Titanic, a story whose film is already a classic December, they all sank. There, as in climate change or in the sixth mass extinction of species, they were all in the same boat. But they climbed into the scarce and insufficient life-saving boots first, the rich and the poor had to wait.
In Tabasco, the flood was directed at the poor, the indigenous people of the Chontal area. Obrador says that “of course the poorest were harmed but we had to make a decision.” He assumes that anyone will understand. It seems obvious that circumstances forced them to decide and there was no alternative: the poor had to be flooded because the thread It is always cut because of the thinnest. We could also say that in Villahermosa there are more votes and perhaps the indigenous people have the ugly habit of not voting. Everything can be.
But one thing is for sure, it is a fact. This time, “first the poor” meant flooding them, sacrificing them to the other option, unthinkable that the world was otherwise.
It seems that it is the nature of things: to criticize Obrador would be to politicize the tragedy, get rid of misfortune, be a conservative-fifí. It is very clear: “they had to make a decision.”
However, making a decision means that you were free to choose, and by choosing you take responsibility. It’s like voting in 2018: if there are only evils, you choose the lesser evil, some said. A nice way to justify choosing the wrong one.
The curious thing is that it is always the poorest who are sacrificed: For the Covid 19 pandemic (before which they chose not to try to follow the infections and try to stop the spread of the virus, but to wait for the “inevitable” spread and hold each person responsible for get infected) the most infected and with the most deaths are the poorest. With the investments and megaprojects serving the geostrategic interests of US and international capital in the Southeast, those sacrificed will be the poorest and especially the indigenous communities.
With the consequences of climate change and the massive extinction of species, those most affected will be the poorest, and by the way, those who have contributed the least to the emission of greenhouse gases: climate injustice.
It is always the same decision, be it the floods in Tabasco, the sinking Titanic, the pandemic, climate change … those who are most affected, the first to die, get sick or at least lose everything, are the poor.
The rhetoric that “the poor first” (positive) is fine as a slogan, but when governing, the military, the richest (Slim, Salinas Pliego, Azcárraga, Romo…) are privileged and for the poor: scapulars of the sacred heart…
Capital reigns in the world, and its operators, politicians, rulers, etc., are the right wing- Ah, but in Mexico we have a good, honest, humanist president who (mere coincidence) also first sacrifices the poor.
The only difference is that if Trump or Bolsonaro do that, it is wrong, but if it is Obrador, the one who is wrong is the one who points out and criticizes it.
In Mexico we live like on the other side of the mirror: the policies that in the rest of the world are on the right, here are progressive.
Ramón I. Centeno said it in a great tweet: The most original thing that Q4 has achieved is to turn austerity into something “of the left”, when in the rest of the neoliberal world the struggle of the left is just against austerity and its thinning of the State.
Here it is not called neoliberalism, because by decree we are already in post-neoliberalism. But austerity and sacrificing the poor because “we had to make a decision” are so similar that the syllogism of the lesser evil seems a ruse to make evil pass for a humanistic good.
Once I attended a talk by an Argentine Protestant pastor, I was very interested because he would talk about the crisis that Argentina was experiencing, the popular pots and the neighborhood organization.
At the end, among the audience, Mexican Protestant pastors chatted among themselves. Someone mentioned the poor and the comment was that, according to the Gospel, there will always be poor.
Of course, they are so necessary, there could be no evangelical governments that are worth if the poor end, because if there were not, who to give crumbs to, who to corporatize their votes and to whom, when there is no other option, to sacrifice them to the Covid, the floods or climate change.
Christian or humanist, they are so good. A display of Christian charity, and all his rhetoric of body and soul. Obrador’s tweet says, muddying the memory of his countryman Carlos Pellicer: “Master Pellicer used to say: This is the part of the world where the apartment is still being built. Those of us who were born there have our own idea of what the soul is and what the body is ”.
If that is to be a humanist and a Christian, it makes you want to become the iconoclast who denounces all that hypocrisy and says: those are the merchants of the temple who bless the sacrifices and the poverty of the poor, but they kiss the hand of the Slim of the world.
Of course, it is not necessary to follow Obrador on Twitter or anything. You can read his abominable tweets quoted at https://www.milenio.com/politica/amlo-se-perjudico-mas-a-pobres-por-inundaciones-en-tabasco?fbclid=IwAR0ROGc_5fL6EEdn-3ufraQGN_c0K2yJ2IQyvjLSmoTvSCzLY