2024-01-18 02:00:00
Since the end of the 19th century, with the encyclical “Rerum Novarum” of Pope Leo Therefore, it is not surprising that on a topic as central as culture, Milei’s ultraliberalism and Kirchnerist Gramscianism (Marxism) are associated. And this issue is so central – above the economy and politics itself – that Saint John Paul II stated that “culture is the foundation of the life of people, the root of their identity, the support of their survival and of its independence; “the specific way of existing and being of man.” It is the result of a colossal and silent process carried out by a people for centuries, with unique and irreplaceable elements, produced, used, communicated, loved and bequeathed from generation to generation. In no way can it “be made” by a handful of ideologized artists, no matter how brilliant they may be. The concepts of culture and art are wickedly mixed, in a confusing synonymy, so that “those who make art” almost necessarily “make culture”, hiding that the artistic manifestations of a people are only one of the many expressions of its culture, and that, if it contains its core values in which it has been generated and from which it acquires legitimacy and transcendence. Perón was referring to the roots of these values: “Of the marriage of heroes and gods, philosophers and artists of old Athens; of the imperial reflections of Ancient Rome redeemed by the Sign of the Cross; From the fusion of the Law of God and Roman law that our Mother Spain knew how to amalgamate with an ascetic sense, the new humanistic formula that elevates man to the highest peaks of civilization” (National Congress of Philosophy, 1949). The Hispano-Creole culture. Denying, questioning or degrading these values means being left without culture, being left “without being”, as the Pope said, ceasing to exist. But the “artists” supported by Kirchnerism and the brand new officials of liberalism ignore or despise all of this (LG, 01/13/24, page 5), when their “confrontation” is only about the budget: the “artists” defend economic achievements, and the libertarian secretary of culture, Leo Cifelli, its reduction or cancellation. For him, culture “is a tool of transformation.” A tool? Who manages it; Where is this “transformation” heading? Even more confusing, he adds that this mere tool is a “creator of identity”, in an inadmissible conceptual caper (“foundation”, “root”, “support”, “way of being”, says John Paul II, what a difference, what difference? No?!). Culture is the living being of a nation, and, as such, we must contribute to its permanent enrichment and consolidation. It is not something static that can be “created” a piacere (culture is not “created”, that is an aberration; plastic or theatrical art is created or recreated, for example) and, therefore, “transformed”, that is “handled”, even like the Constitution itself. It is of such an exquisite and sublime nature that, just as it develops over centuries, it can be destroyed in a few years and almost irreversibly, as in Europe. So, for the libertarian, ideologically sick with market economy, and for these “artists”, ideologically sick with gender theory, indigenism, inclusive language and class struggle, such a dimension is incomprehensible, like the very notion of Homeland that is sustained in those values, or it is not sustained at all, and therefore, both actors are associated in the degradation of national culture and its inevitable consequence; our slavery in the hands of world powers, for whom we are merely suppliers of valuable raw materials, natural resources, and excellent professionals, trained by our free Universities, laboriously sustained by collective effort through the Argentine State.
#Partners #degrading #culture