#samuel élite

[luegootravez]

Ester Expósito in 'Élite Short Stories: Carla Samuel' (2021)

[k-wame]

᥆і sᥲmᥙ ᥕ᥆𝗍 ᥕ᥆z 𝗍һᥲ𝗍? 👀👀👀🤤🤤

[thehollowprince]

I'm calling it now, in some "shocking" telenovela style twist, Marina, Polo and Samuel will all show back up at Las Encinas after their staged deaths to enact their revenge.

[radio-audience]

so ive been watching élite mainly for iván because i saw him in blood and water and needed more. season 5 was pretty good, iván x patrick literally ate up.

but starting season 6 and the show is just immediately way worse ? all of the original cast is gone and the only ones i care about are iván and patrick, but i already know how their story ends (spoiled) so its like. ok.

im really sad now that all i have of this guy is this show. i wish he was from blood and water and stayed there lowk. i could watch more of andré's stuff but he won't be IVÁN yk.

[saraw4ters]

[thedarkklaaudiaa]

SAMUEL AND CARLA - Señorita #elite

[esterexpsito]

Ester Expósito as Carla Rosón Élite Short Stories: Carla Samuel 1.03 “Part 3”

[cantsayidont]

ÉLITE (2018–2024): Trashy, high-gloss Spanish soap opera about students at posh private high school Las Encinas, initially a mix of rich brats and social-climbing scholarship students, whose conflicts result in murders, near-fatalities, and mysterious disappearances: Each of the first five seasons is framed by a police investigation of the latest casualty, a gimmick that really only works in the first season (where it provides a degree of narrative structure and gravitas that would otherwise be lacking).

Even in its best moments, the show's relationship to reality is never strong, and it's sometimes rather witlessly hypocritical (for instance, the narrative is capable of recognizing the injustice of the school forcing Palestinian scholarship student Nadia (Mina El Hammani) to remove her hijab in class, but not enough to not indulge in its own array of islamophobic cliches in its depiction of Nadia's conservative working-class family). Nonetheless, the show gets by for a surprisingly long time on the strength of its cast and direction, buoyed by a welcome refusal to descend into self-mockery even when the plot leaves the rails. None of the male characters is especially endearing, with Itzan Escamilla (as scholarship student Samuel) becoming particularly insufferable and Miguel Bernardeau (more recently the lead on the disappointing 2024 ZORRO show) a little too convincing as rich dickhead Guzmán, but the girls are consistently more interesting, with Mina El Hammani (as Nadia), Ester Expósito (as morally compromised aristocratic rich bitch Carla), and Claudia Salas (as the salty Rebeka, whose mother is a drug dealer, and who ends up one of the show's most genuinely sympathetic characters) making the strongest impressions.

It's not until the sixth season, with all the original cast gone (several of them feet-first), that ÉLITE starts to feel like it's overstayed its welcome, with some flailing attempts to examine serious themes like abusive relationships tripping over the increasingly orgiastic celebration of wealth and privilege (any interest in characters who aren't filthy rich having departed with the last stragglers from the original cast). Although more visually stylish, it feels like it's become a different, much weaker show, and the writers seem to no longer grasp the distinction between "entertainingly messy bitches" and "grating assholes who are no fun to watch"; by the seventh season, there isn't a single character interesting or sympathetic enough to sustain the plot's frequent lurid detours into cloud cuckoo land. (It does at least have the decency to throw one of its most hateful recurring characters off a roof at the end, which I appreciated.)

The forthcoming eighth season will be the last, but Season 7 was already at least two too many, IME. CONTAINS LESBIANS? One of the boys from the early seasons has two moms, but while there are a surprising number of acknowledged mmf and mmm triads, it's not until the fourth season that there are really any wlw relationships among the principal characters, and they always remain distinctly secondary to the boys. VERDICT: More enjoyable than it has any right to be, at least for a while, but its watchability begins a marked decline after the fourth season, and the sixth and seventh seasons are no longer much fun even as trash TV.

[d-targaryenshoe]

Fandoms

GREY'S ANATOMY

Alex Karev

Andrew DeLuca

Atticus Lincoln

Derek Shepherd

Jackson Avery

Mark Sloan

Owen Hunt

CRIMINAL MINDS

David Rossi

Luke Alves

Spencer Reid

PEAKY BLINDERS

Alfie Solomon's

Arthur Shelby

Finn shelby

John Shelby

Michael Gray

Thomas Shelby

ÉLITE

Ander Munoz

Christian Varela

Guzman Nunier

Polo

Samuel Garcia

Valerio

Phillipe Von Triesenberg

Patrick Blanco

Benjamin Blanco

THE WITCHER

Geralt Of Rivia

Jaskier

THE GOOD DOCTOR

Shaun Murphy

Neil Melendez

Marcus Andrews

Crockett Marcel

Noah Sexton

CELEBRITIES

Jesse Williams

Harry Styles

Lewis Capaldi

Shawn Mendes

Tom Hiddleston

Jensen Ackles

Dylan O'Briën

Robert Pattinson

Chris Evans

Henry Cavill

Timothee Chalamet

Tom Ellis

Ben Hardy

VIKINGS

Ivar

Hvitserk

Rollo

Ubbe

Athelstan

Björn

Ragnar

NEW AMSTERDAM

Max Goodwin

Floyd Reynolds

Helen Sharpe

Lauren Bloom

BRIDGERTON

Anthony Bridgerton

Benedict Bridgerton

Colin Bridgerton

Simon Basset

HOUSE OF THE DRAGON

Aegon II Targaryen

Aemond Targaryen

Corlys Velaryon

Criston Cole

Daemon Targaryen

Jacaerys Velaryon

Leanor Velaryon

Lucerys Velaryon

Viserys Targaryen

[100hearteyes]

I watched Élite seasons 1 through 5 (I'm sooo late, I know) and boy do I have thoughts. Be warned: this is a really really long post.

First off: I loved the first three seasons. They're quite good for what they set out to do and they wrap up the overarching story in an overall satisfying manner. I was surprised by how invested I got in the two main straight couples and really liked the main queer one. The show itself and the mysteries were always gripping (it made me want to watch 'just one more' over and over again), and the storytelling and plot were honestly pretty neatly constructed, especially considering the kind of show we're talking about. Loved the additions in seasons 2 and 3, and who they decided to get rid of after 1. Lu (so problematic during her worst times but it was aldo so so pleasant to watch her grow up and become a better person), Nadia, Carla, Guzmán, Rebeka, and Omar are clear standouts for me (Danna, Mina, Claudia are quite possibly the three best actors of the first story).

Which brings me to seasons 4 and 5 (haven't watched 6 and don't know if I want to, which is telling when just a few seconds ago I was telling you I couldn't put down the first three seasons), where the exact fucking opposite happened.

-- brief intermission: Lu and Nadia's friendship is the very best thing about seasons 1 to 3; Danna Paola acted the hell out of every single line and scene she was given; Mina, Georgina, Ester, and Claudia were outstanding too --

Most characters had a clear pathway of development and their stories closed out on a firm note of either growth or regression (or something a bit more complex than that), instead of flip-flopping back and forth between points A, B, and C for three seasons.

-- brief intermission 2: it's important to keep in mind that season 4 had some positives (one very big one); season 5 is the really bad one --

Let me preface this by stating the obvious. High school/college shows that are directly bound to their HS/C setting have an evident handicap: they can't really ever leave that setting (which with enough skill you can turn into a strength imho). This gives you three options.

A - Keep your characters at the eternal age of 15/16/17/18, which ruins the characters and storytelling, because 1) it becomes absolutely nonsensical, and 2) it forces you to do that same flip-flopping where characters keep growing and regressing and growing and regressing ad eternum (see: Marvel's Iron Man);

B - Renew the cast every so often, which gives you the chance to tell new stories and refresh your show with each new cycle, therefore lending it a longevity that won't tire your viewers out, because it's basically like you're making a whole new show every three or for years. You have to do it well, though, so viewers don't feel like they're watching the same story over and over just with different faces.

C - A mix of options A and B. You renew the cast but keep some characters to give it a sense of continuity. This is what Élite does: some characters spill over from seasons 3 to 4, and then (I googled) some introduced in the second three-season arc stay for the handoff to season 7. And, sure, it makes sense continuity and familiarity wise, but it also demands careful writing so that the storylines of the characters that are going to stay over for the next overall arc don't feel closed and so that those characters have clear room to grow. So do you know who definitely should NOT be the ones you choose to keep, *most especially* in a high school setting? Your main characters aka the ones whose full story you just told. They're ready to graduate, my buddies. Let them!

And this is where the issues start (but definitely do not end) for Élite. The characters that stay over for season 4 - SPOILER - are (iirc) Samuel and Guzmán, the ~main characters~, plus Ander, Omar, Cayetana, and last but not least my baby Rebeka. The show comes up with mildly logical ploys and explanations for those six to remain, but right off the bat, it's way too many. Six characters??? That's OVER HALF of the main cast of seasons 2 and 3.

While it made sense to have Rebeka and Caye – additions in season 2 and whose stories you could feel hadn't reached their conclusion –, Samu, Guzmán, Ander, and Omar's character arcs were done. They had grown all they had to grow. What does that mean for the story? It means that we had to watch the slow and steady (not literal) assassination of all four characters. It was so painful to watch as the showrunners undid all the growth SGOA had done over the past three seasons and destroyed their characters for the sake of keeping them on the show. The way Guzmán and Samu went back to being assholes to each other made absolutely no fucking sense. And it was honestly fucking annoying seeing that after they became friends so organically in the first arc. That was a friendship you rooted for ffs. As for Omar and Ander, while it made sense on paper for them to still be in high school due to what happened in season 3, the writers could have easily written them off, because their arc WAS over. We'd done the closet. We'd done the back and forth. We'd done the cheating. We'd done the breaking up and making up and all 72 lines of Katy Perry's Hot N Cold. We'd done Omar's story with Nadia, the parents, and Lu (BEST friendship btw), and Ander's with Polo, Guzmán, and his mom. And then the writers decided to put them in a narrative vacuum with a third, endlessly annoying dude and redo all the gay drama parts but ten times worse 🙃

And that's just season 4, because Guzmán and Ander leave at the end of that and then in season 5 the writers decide to fuck up Omar and Samu's friendship too. Fuck you for putting my son Omar through the ringer tbh.

This is coming out way longer than I anticipated (as usual). ANYWAY, quality goes way down in seasons 4 and especially 5. The mysteries are boring and predictable, and – this is important – sex takes on that GOT quality of mattering for nothing other than to goad people to watch. With each season, sex becomes more and more graphic and less and less meaningful for plot and characterization. It's just softcore porn. There's a beautiful sex scene in S4 (I'm biased tho ngl lol) but everything in S5 is Not It.

Rebeka and Caye are two of the best three/four things of seasons 4 and 5. Nevertheless, they ruined Omar, Ander, Samu, and Guzmán, like I said, and the additions to the cast are no better.

Patrick, Ari, and Benjamín (introduced in S4) are frankly bad characters; Philippe (S4) is a missed opportunity; Isadora (S5) is just there to suffer (1 - I say this despite Isa being a good character with lots of potential and Valentina Zenere doing excellent work with her; 2 - I suspect she will have a bigger role in S6, which would be good); and Cruz (1 - I've never met Portuguese person called Cruz (mas também nunca tinha visto ninguém chamado Carloto, por isso o que sei eu lol), 2 - Carloto Cotta's acting is Not Good At All) and Iván (both S5) serve possibly the worst plotline of all five seasons. The only super welcome addition is... Mencía ❤️ even so, her turnaround in season 5 is soooo poorly done and with it the show ruined the best thing about season 4, because if one thing's for sure with Élite is that no one can ever have a happy ending. The writers made that crystal clear when they brought Guzmán, Omar, and Ander back for the second overall arc of the show.

That brings me to the two good things about season 4, all of which season 5 destroyed. Caye is given room to grow into her better self after her fuck-ups in the first arc and she shines in season 4. Then in 5 they decide she should actually be in love with her abuser 👍

Rebe and Menci *whimsical sigh*. I fell in love with them. Their push and pull was the heart of s4, which firmly paved the way for reconciliation in 5. It happened. And then it didn't. Then it happened again. And then it didn't. Again. It's so fucking frustrating, because they built one of the best love stories in the show – by far the best of the second arc – and poofed it away like it meant nothing. Fuck it hurt. Honestly for me Rebe/Menci is up there with Nadia/Guzmán, Samu/Carla, and Omar/Ander seasons 1-3. The epic love story the show had been unable to repeat with anyone else. It also gave Rebe her due spotlight and agency and the sensational Claudia Salas a chance to shine. Her chemistry with Mencía/Martina Cariddi was off the fucking charts. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say they had the most explosive chemistry of all of Élite along with Carla/Samuel. And if they were going to destroy it, I'd rather they would have done it in season 4 when Rebeka made a choice that she herself said meant losing Mencía forever than what they did in 5. Because FUUUUCCKKK they really made me believe that reconciliation was possible in s5.

Rebeka was wonderful throughout all five seasons and my only criticism is that I would have given her even more screen time while she was on the show. I miss her already 🥲

This takes me to *drumroll* Mencía. Gosh I love my baby Menci, who has the nicest, most radiant smile. They had her make some stupid choices in season 4 but I guess they had to feed the Armando storyline for all eight episodes. Also, it allowed for some badass Rebe scenes as well as some great hurt/comfort. Season 5 is a garbage fire and she gets dragged along. Mencía is a /wonderful/ character throughout though, it's just a shame that the writers continually chose to cause her pain and to put her between a rock and a hard place.

Which brings me to my last but not least talking point: women and queer people get the short end of the stick over and over and over again.

Just to be clear, racial diversity is worse than bad – we have three (?) black people in five seasons, all with minor roles – but this is Spain we're talking about, so unfortunately my expectations on that front were below zero (the same goes for Portuguese content btw). We have Nadia and Omar in the first three seasons. I'm hesitant to include Lu, Iván, Valerio, Isa as Latinos, because I don't know exactly how it works in Spain, but we don't make that distinction in Portugal. First time I heard of Latinos was in a US media context. I don't want to be ignorant/dismissive though so I'm at least making a reference to the four of them.

-- TW sexual assault --

Four women who are victims of sexual violence in the first five seasons (I'm choosing to include Carla's dad pimping her out to Yeray in this too – Yeray was all too happy to go with it until Carla made it clear that she hated it so much she needed drugs to withstand pretending to be in love with him), three of them in seasons 4 and 5. You see what I'm talking about when I mention how bad those two seasons are? As for the queer characters (some overlap): cancer, prostitution, constant cheating, two instances of borderline p*dophilia (as in, a fully grown adult and a teenager), homophobia, family abandonment, transphobia (in season 6, according to a review I read), racism, religious intolerance, sexual assault, drug dealing – seriously, all the kids who dabble in it one time or another for whatever reason (Omar, Rebe, Valerio, Patrick) are queer – etc etc etc.

And while mistakes were learning opportunities in the first overall arc – e.g. Rebe and Valerio's drug dealing in season 3, however brief, and the damage it caused – in seasons 4 and especially 5 they're just something that happens for drama and pain and to push characters back on their growth, not that they will ever learn from them. Remember when we talked about how seasons 1-3 mostly managed to avoid the Tony Stark Syndrome? Well 4 and 5 revel in it. Character development is but a mirage.

I think this is it. Anyway, Rebe x Menci forever, and Lu, Nadia, and Carla are my babies ❤️

[luegootravez]

Ester Expósito in 'Élite Short Stories: Carla Samuel' (2021)

[k-wame]

'ANYTHING GOES' ÉLITƎ Series 5 • EP02 • dir. Ginesta Guindal

[kitc0nn0r]

Again… like every other gif on this blog, this is stolen.

Here’s the original post from @wiha-jun

[jgmail]

El momento liberal: del «fin de la historia» a Trump

Por Alexander Dugin

Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

Charles Krauthammer, un experto estadounidense en relaciones internacionales, escribió un artículo programático titulado «El momento unipolar» en el número de 1990/1991 de la prestigiosa publicación globalista Foreign Affairs, en el que ofrecía una explicación del fin del mundo bipolar. Tras el colapso del bloque del Pacto de Varsovia y la desintegración de la URSS (que aún no se había producido en el momento de la publicación de su artículo) surgiría un orden mundial en el que Estados Unidos y los países del Occidente colectivo (OTAN) serían el único polo que gobernaría el mundo, estableciendo sus reglas, normas, leyes y equiparando sus propios intereses y valores a los del resto del planeta mediante acuerdos vinculantes. Esta hegemonía mundial establecida de facto por Occidente fue denominada por Krauthammer el «momento unipolar».

Poco después, otro experto estadounidense, Francis Fukuyama, publicó un manifiesto similar titulado el «fin de la historia». Pero a diferencia de Fukuyama, que se apresuró a proclamar que la victoria de Occidente sobre el resto de la humanidad ya había tenido lugar y que en adelante todos los países y pueblos aceptarían sin rechistar la ideología liberal y aceptarían el dominio exclusivo de Estados Unidos y Occidente, Krauthammer fue más comedido y cauto y prefirió hablar de «momento», es decir, de una situación de facto con respecto al equilibrio de poder internacional, pero no se precipitó a decir que este orden mundial unipolar sería duradero. Todos los signos de la unipolaridad se encontraban presentes: aceptación incondicional por casi todos los países del capitalismo, la democracia parlamentaria, los valores liberales, la ideología de los derechos humanos, la tecnocracia, la globalización y el liderazgo estadounidense. Pero Krauthammer, observando tal estado de cosas, decidió decir que existía la posibilidad de que no se tratara de una realidad estable, sino sólo de una etapa, una cierta fase, que podría convertirse en un modelo a largo plazo (en cuyo caso Fukuyama tendría razón) o incluso podría llegar a su fin, dando paso a otro orden mundial.

En 2002-2003 Krauthammer retomó su tesis en otra prestigiosa publicación, pero ya no globalista sino realista, National Interest, donde publicó un artículo titulado « Sobre el momento unipolar», argumentando que después de diez años la unipolaridad había sido un momento y no un orden mundial duradero, ya que pronto surgirían modelos alternativos debido a las crecientes tendencias antioccidentales en el mundo que se podían observar en los países islámicos, en China, en una Rusia fortalecida, donde el presidente Putin había llegado al poder. Los acontecimientos posteriores han reforzado aún más la tesis de Krauthammer de que el momento unipolar ha llegado a su fin y que Estados Unidos no ha conseguido que su liderazgo mundial, el cual poseía en la década de 1990, sea duradero y sostenible: el poder de Occidente ha entrado en un periodo de declive y decadencia. Las élites occidentales no supieron aprovechar la oportunidad de dominar el mundo, que estaba prácticamente en sus manos, y ahora es necesario participar en la construcción de un mundo multipolar con estructuras diferentes, sin pretender poseer la hegemonía, en caso de que no se quiera permanecer en absoluto al margen de la historia.

El discurso de Putin en Múnich en 2007, el ascenso al poder en China de un líder fuerte como Xi Jinping y el rápido crecimiento de su economía, los acontecimientos en Georgia en 2008, el Maidan ucraniano, la reunificación de Rusia con Crimea y, finalmente, el inicio del Nuevo Orden Mundial en 2022 y una gran guerra en Oriente Próximo en 2023 no han hecho sino confirmar en la práctica que los prudentes análisis de Krauthammer y Samuel Huntington, siendo este último el que predijo un «choque de civilizaciones», estaban mucho más cerca de la verdad que Fukuyama, que era demasiado optimista (frente al Occidente liberal). Ahora resulta obvio para todos los observadores sensatos que la unipolaridad fue sólo un «momento» y que este momento está siendo sustituido por un nuevo paradigma: la multipolaridad o – más cautelosamente – el «momento multipolar».

El debate sobre si estamos hablando de algo irreversible o, por el contrario, temporal, transitorio e inestable en el caso de tal o cual sistema internacional, político e ideológico tiene una larga historia. A menudo, los defensores de una teoría insisten vehementemente en la irreversibilidad de los regímenes y transformaciones sociales con los que están de acuerdo, mientras que sus oponentes, o simplemente los escépticos y observadores críticos, plantean la idea alternativa de que se trata sólo de una cuestión de momento.

Esto se remonta al marxismo. Mientras que para la teoría liberal el capitalismo y el sistema burgués son el destino de la humanidad que se impondrá y nunca acabará (ya que el mundo sólo puede ser liberal-capitalista y poco a poco todos se convertirán en clase media, es decir, burgueses), los marxistas veían el capitalismo como un momento del desarrollo histórico. Era necesario superar el momento anterior (feudal), pero a su vez el capitalismo debía ser superado por el socialismo y el comunismo y el poder de la burguesía tendría que ser sustituido por el poder de los trabajadores, la destrucción de los capitalistas y de la propiedad privada para que únicamente prevaleciera una humanidad compuesta por proletarios. Para los marxistas, el comunismo no era un momento, sino, de hecho, «el fin de la historia».

Las revoluciones socialistas del siglo XX – en Rusia, China, Vietnam, Corea, Cuba, etc. – contradijeron el marxismo. Pero la revolución mundial no se produjo y empezaron a existir dos sistemas ideológicos en el mundo: el mundo bipolar comenzó a existir desde 1945 (tras la victoria conjunta de comunistas y capitalistas sobre la Alemania nazi) hasta 1991. En esta confrontación ideológica cada bando argumentaba que el bando contrario no era el destino de la humanidad, sino simplemente un momento, no el fin de la historia, sino una fase dialéctica intermedia. Los comunistas insistían en que el capitalismo se derrumbaría y el socialismo reinaría en todas partes y que los propios regímenes comunistas «existirían para siempre». Los ideólogos liberales les respondieron: no, el momento histórico es el comunismo, el comunismo no es más que una desviación frente al camino burgués de desarrollo, un malentendido y el capitalismo existirá para siempre. Esta es, de hecho, la tesis de Fukuyama sobre el «fin de la historia». En 1991 parecía que tenía razón. El sistema socialista se derrumbó y las ruinas de la URSS y China se precipitaron a abrazar el libre mercado, es decir, se pasaron al capitalismo, confirmando las predicciones de los liberales.

Por supuesto, algunos marxistas marginales creen que aún no es de noche, que el sistema capitalista fracasará y entonces llegará la hora de la revolución proletaria. Pero esto no es seguro. Al fin y al cabo, cada vez hay menos proletarios en el mundo y, en general, la humanidad va en una dirección completamente distinta.

Las opiniones de los liberales, que, siguiendo a Fukuyama, consideraban que el comunismo no era más que un momento y que proclamaron que el «capitalismo sería el fin de la historia» al parecer tenían razón. Los parámetros de la nueva sociedad, en la que el capital alcanza la dominación total y real, fueron interpretados de diversas maneras por los posmodernistas, que propusieron métodos extravagantes para luchar contra el capitalismo desde dentro. Entre ellos, el suicidio proletario, la transformación consciente del individuo en un inválido o en un virus informático, la reasignación de género e incluso el especismo. Todo esto se ha convertido en el programa de la izquierda liberal estadounidense y cuenta con el apoyo activo de la cúpula dirigente del partido demócrata: el wokismo, la cultura de la cancelación, la defensa de la ecología, los transgéneros, el transhumanismo, etc. Pero tanto los partidarios como los detractores del capitalismo victorioso están de acuerdo en que no se trata sólo de una fase del desarrollo que será sustituida por otra cosa, sino que es el destino y la etapa final de la formación de la humanidad. Sólo la transición a un estado posthumano – lo que los futurólogos llaman «singularidad» – puede ir más allá. La propia mortalidad del hombre queda aquí superada en favor de la inmortalidad mecánica de la máquina. En otras palabras, bienvenidos a la Matrix.

Sin embargo, la posibilidad misma de aplicar el término «momento» en la época de la «victoria global del capitalismo» abre una perspectiva muy especial, aún poco pensada y desarrollada, pero cada vez más clara. ¿No deberíamos asumir que el colapso franco y evidente del liderazgo occidental y la incapacidad de Occidente para ser una instancia universal de poder legítimo de pleno derecho tienen una dimensión ideológica? ¿No significa el fin de la unipolaridad y de la hegemonía occidental el fin del liberalismo?

Esta consideración se ve confirmada por un acontecimiento político crucial: el primer y segundo mandato de Donald Trump como presidente de Estados Unidos. La elección de Trump como presidente por parte de la sociedad estadounidense implica una crítica abierta al globalismo y al liberalismo como expresión del Occidente unipolar y revela que ha madurado una masa crítica de insatisfacción tanto ideológica como geopolítica frente al dominio de las élites liberales. Además, el hecho de que Trump eligiera como vicepresidente de EE.UU. a J.D. Vance deja claro que este ha abrazado la «derecha posliberal». El liberalismo fue considerado como un término negativo a lo largo de la campaña electoral de Trump, aunque se utilizó para referirse al «liberalismo de izquierdas» como ideología del Partido Demócrata estadounidense. Sin embargo, en los círculos del «trumpismo de base» el liberalismo se ha ido convirtiendo en un término negativo y ha pasado a verse como algo inseparable de la degeneración, la decadencia y la perversión de las élites gobernantes. En la ciudadela del liberalismo – Estados Unidos – ha triunfado por segunda vez en la historia reciente un político extremadamente crítico con el liberalismo y sus partidarios no tienen reparos en demonizar directamente esta corriente ideológica.

Así, podemos hablar del fin del «momento liberal», del hecho de que el liberalismo, que parecía haber vencido históricamente y derrotado de una vez por todas a la ideología, resultó ser sólo una de las etapas de la historia mundial y no su fin. Y más allá del liberalismo – después del final del liberalismo y al otro lado del liberalismo – surgirá gradualmente una ideología alternativa, un orden mundial diferente, un sistema de valores diferente. El liberalismo resultó no ser un destino, no el fin de la historia, no algo irreversible y universal, sino sólo un episodio, sólo una época histórica con un principio y un fin, con límites geográficos e históricos claros. El liberalismo se inscribe en el contexto de la modernidad occidental. Ganó batallas ideológicas con otras variedades de esta modernidad (el nacionalismo y el comunismo), pero al final se derrumbó, llegó a su fin. Y con él llegó el fin del momento unipolar de Krauthammer y el ciclo aún más extenso del dominio colonial exclusivo de Occidente a escala planetaria que comenzó con la época de los grandes descubrimientos geográficos.

[fnicolasmc]

La lâcheté, l'arrogance chez les "élites" (dont un a été ministre de l'éducation nationale, institution en principe garante des valeurs de la République et de ceux qui les transmettent à la jeunesse) : https://charliehebdo.fr/2024/10/societe/billet-luc-ferry-quand-lintello-trouillard-confond-samuel-paty-et-dominique-bernard/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0wiPNuLeE8FQQk5bzinb0BTDfY1B7-fhY53MPLyXQg8zFl23qK6NXYn30_aem_GPQ8k1DpgfYbmugzInBGUg