We are beautiful
December 28, 2011

“The white people, who are trying to make us over into their image, they want us to be what they call “assimilated,” bringing the Indians into the mainstream and destroying our own way of life and our own cultural patterns. They believe we should be contented like those whose concept of happiness is materialistic and greedy, which is very different from our way.

We want freedom from the white man rather than to be intergrated. We don’t want any part of the establishment, we want to be free to raise our children in our religion, in our ways, to be able to hunt and fish and live in peace. We don’t want power, we don’t want to be congressmen, or bankers….we want to be ourselves. We want to have our heritage, because we are the owners of this land and because we belong here.

The white man says, there is freedom and justice for all. We have had “freedom and justice,” and that is why we have been almost exterminated. We shall not forget this.”

http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/quotes.html

Era un día caluroso y empapado en sudor
con la espalda cansada
mi hermano, mi padre y yo
nos terminábamos el agua del jarrón

Esta seria la décima primavera de mi vida
la construcción nos comió la energía
pero mi familia
con una pachanga festejarían

No teniendo ganas para caminar, ni siquiera de bailar
en casa me decidí estar
ellos se irían sin mi
y la fiesta me perdí
Pero no arrepentí porque esa noche fue mágica

Fue cuando apareció
tocando la puerta de la entrada
yo me asome a la ventana
mirando hacia abajo
mire su falda girando

Daba vueltas de felicidad
hasta que me vio
paro repentinamente y me sonrío
con ganas de platicar
baje rápidamente las escaleras
y la deje entrar

Paso por delante de mi
su cabello oscuro y brilloso
rozo toda mi cara dandole cosquillas en la nariz

Subió a mi sala y miro lo que cocinaba
eran un par de huevos que se quemaban
entonces agarro un baso de agua
y espero a que terminara

Allí en el sofá comimos
yo un par de huevos quemados
y ella un desayuno recalentado

Café con leche teníamos en las manos
mientras una película mirábamos
Ella atemorizada me agarro los brazos
mis padres esa noche no regresaron

Era luna menguante
y con su dedo indice me obligo a callarme
dandome un beso
mis ojos fueron obligados a cerrarse

Mis manos temblaban
pero con el tiempo mi mente se relajaba
sus poros resaltaban como cuando tienes frío
y mis cabellos con sus dedos perdían el sentido

Su vestido era amarillo con bordes color vino
pero eso no importo en ese momento
porque tanto mi ropa como su vestido
terminaron tirados por el piso

La sangre salio de su organismo
fue algo extraño para un par de niños
sin darnos cuenta
la inocencia quedo en el olvido

En unas cuantas horas el sol saldría
y a ella a su casa la acompañaría
su madre, en la entrada lista para el viaje
las maletas sacaría
y yo con mucha tristeza el ultimo adiós les daría.

Penas arden dentro de la soledad
las mas tristes esta noche
noche de luto y desgracia
las que todos los años de navidad nuestra familia pasa

parece que la noche buena rasguñara el pecho
con el filo de la guillotina de la muerte
o como colmillo de serpiente
apretando su presa para soltar su veneno y
matarla en un instante

noche de luto y desgracia
las que pasamos los pobres en la noche de esperanzas
de niños dormidos a la luz de un arbol caido
de aquellos que duermen con el estomago ardido
aquellos ignorados entre el ruido

Parece que naci, vivo y muero en la noche
donde los mis mas frios sentimientos
salen como humo negro
del corazon a los tejidos
de los tejidos a la piel
de la piel al abismo.

soy el producto de la noche triste
la noche maligna
aquella noche donde los seres amados
se van sin despedirse
desaparecen sin decir adios
aquellos que mueren y que dejan una huella
o aquellos que fueron asesinados
y te convierten a la religion de la justicia

hoy no quiero hablar de la justicia
porque estoy triste y cansado
de pasar año tras año con la mirada cansada
para evitar las lagrimas
de no tener a mi verdadera familia a un lado

pero ya sera ese dia
cuando encuentre ese pedazo de corazon
espero que no sea muy tarde
porque eso sera mucho mas triste…

Cuando la mente es ciega
Y los ojos son torpes
El corazón es incompetente
Facilitando la manipulación del alma
Esclavizando al cuerpo
Dándole a la vida un sabor muy amargo.

En la era de la abundancia, la televisión, las computadoras y las drogas
Los cuales nos vuelven en juguetes de esas personas manipuladoras,
Convirtiéndonos en sufrimiento de la naturaleza
En lagrimas de la lluvia y en llanto de las tormentas

Quimeras mecánicas
De petróleo y sangre humana
Practicando el canibalismo
Entre los de nuestra propia especie
Satisfaciendo los mas oscuros sentimientos
Viviendo día a día con la sonrisa maligna
De la ira, la avaricia, la gula, , la soberbia, la pereza, la ambición, y la envidia

Sin embargo, como hemos sido capaces de llegar a este punto?
Primero ofreciendo nuestra amistad
A su rechazo invocamos al dios del odio
Provocando la guerra y a nuestro desconocimiento de ese gran sentimiento
Perdimos la guerra
A eso el dios del miedo apareció
En el miedo salio en silencio
Y la impunidad prevaleció
Tomando medio siglo para plantarse en nuestros cerebros
Para finalmente cambiar la esperanza por el “que dirán” o mas bien por el “ mundo es así y así siempre será”

Al final del proceso nos atrevimos
A intercambiar la civilización por nuestra cultura
Y así…
Terminamos en el abismo.

Por los siglos de los siglos……………..

Cuando la mente es ciega
Y los ojos son torpes
El corazón es incompetente
Facilitando la manipulación del alma
Esclavizando al cuerpo
Dándole a la vida un sabor muy amargo.

El laberinto de la soledad

EN NUESTRO lenguaje diario hay un grupo de palabras prohibidas, secretas, sin contenido claro, y a cuya mágica ambigüedad confiamos la expresión de las más brutales o sutiles de nuestras emociones y reacciones. Palabras malditas, que sólo pronunciamos en voz alta cuando no somos dueños de nosotros mismos[1]. Confusamente reflejan nuestra intimidad: las explosiones de nuestra vitalidad las iluminan y las depresiones de nuestro ánimo las oscurecen. Lenguaje sagrado, como el de los niños, la poesía y las sectas. Cada letra y cada sílaba están animadas de una vida doble, al mismo tiempo luminosa y oscura, que nos revela y oculta. Palabras que no dicen nada y dicen todo. Los adolescentes, cuando quieren presumir de hombres[2], las pronuncian con voz ronca. Las repiten las señoras, ya para significar su libertad de espíritu, ya para mostrar la verdad de sus sentimientos. Pues estas palabras son definitivas, categóricas, a pesar de su ambigüedad y de la facilidad con que varía su significado. Son las malas palabras, único lenguaje vivo en un mundo de vocablos[3] anémicos. La poesia al alcance[4] de todos.

Cada pais tiene la suya. En la nuestra, en sus breves y desgarradas, agresivas, chispeantes sílabas, parecidas a la momentánea luz que arroja el cuchillo cuando se le descarga contra un cuerpo opaco y duro, se condensan todos nuestros apetitos, nuestras iras, nuestros entusiasmos y los anhelos[5] que pelean en nuestro fondo, inexpresados. Esa palabra es nuestro santo y seña. Por ella y en ella nos reconocemos entre extraños y a ella acudimos cada vez que aflora a nuestros labios la condición de nuestro ser. Conocerla, usarla, arrojándola[6] al aire como un juguete vistoso o haciéndola vibrar como un arma afilada[7], es una manera de afirmar nuestra mexicanidad.

Toda la angustiosa tensión que nos habita se expresa en una frase que nos viene a la boca cuando la cólera, la alegría o el entusiasmo nos llevan a exaltar nuestra condición de mexicanos: [exclamdown]Viva México, hijos de la Chingada! Verdadero grito de guerra, cargado[8] de una electricidad particular, esta frase es un reto[9] y una afirmación, un disparo, dirigido contra un enemigo imaginario, y una explosión en el aire. Nuevamente, con cierta patética y plástica fatalidad, se presenta la imagen del cohete que sube al cielo, se dispersa en chispas y cae oscuramente. O la del aullido en que terminan nuestras canciones, y que posee la misma ambigua resonancia: alegría rencorosa, desgarrada afirmación que se abre el pecho y se consume a si misma.

Con ese grito, que es de rigor gritar cada 15 de septiembre, aniversario de la Independencia, nos afirmamos y afirmamos a nuestra patria, frente, contra y a pesar de los demás. ¿ Y quiénes son los demás? Los demás son los “hijos de la chingada”: los extranjeros, los malos mexicanos, nuestros enemigos, nuestros rivales. En todo caso, los “otros”. Esto es, todos aquellos que no son lo que nosotros somos. Y esos otros no se definen sino en cuanto hijos de una madre tan indeterminada y vaga como ellos mismos.

¿Quién es la Chingada? Ante todo, es la Madre. No una Madre de carne y hueso, sino una figura mítica. La Chingada es una de las representaciones mexicanas de la Maternidad, como la Llorona[10] o la “sufrida madre mexicana” que festejamos el diez de mayo. La Chingada es la madre que ha sufrido, metafórica o realmente, la acción corrosiva e infamante implícita en el verbo que le da nombre. Vale la pena detenerse en el significado de esta voz.

En la Anarquía del lenguaje en la América Española, Darío Rubio examina el origen de esta palabra y enumera las significaciones que le prestan casi todos los pueblos hispanoamericanos. Es probable su procedencia azteca: chingaste es xinachtli (semilla de hortaliza) o xinaxtli (aguamiel fermentado). La voz y sus derivados se usan, en casi toda América y en algunas regiones de España, asociados a las bebidas alcohólicas o no: chingaste son los residuos o heces que quedan en el vaso, en Guatemala y El Salvador; en Oaxaca llaman chingaditos a los restos del café; en todo México se llama chínguere -o, significativamente, piquete- al alcohol; en Chile, Perú y Ecuador la chingana es la taberna; en España chingar equivale a beber mucho, a embriagarse; y en Cuba, un chinguirito, es un trago de alcohol.

Chingar también implica la idea de fracaso. En Chile y Argentina se chinga un petardo[11], “cuando no revienta, se frustra o sale fallido”. Y las empresas que fracasan, las fiestas que se aguan, las acciones que no llegan a su término, se chingan. En Colombia, chingarse es llevarse un chasco. En el Plata un vestido desgarrado es un vestido chingado. En casi todas partes chingarse es salir burlado, fracasar. Chingar, asimismo, se emplea en algunas partes de Sudamérica como sinónimo de molestar, zaherir, burlar. Es un verbo agresivo, como puede verse por todas estas significaciones: descolar a los animales, incitar o hurgar a los gallos, chungucu, chasquear, perjudicar, echar a perder, frustrar.

En México los significados de la palabra son innumerables. Es una voz mágica. Basta un cambio de tono, una inflexión apenas, para que el sentido varíe. Hay tantos matices[12] como entonaciones: tantos significados como sentimientos. Se puede ser un chingón, un Gran Chingón (en los negocios, en la política, en el crimen, con las mujeres), un chingaquedito. (silencioso, disimulado, urdiendo tramas[13] en la sombra, avanzando cauto para dar el mazazo), un chingoncito. Pero la pluralidad de significaciones no impide que la idea de agresión–en todos sus grados, desde el simple de incomodar, picar, zaherir, hasta el de violar, desgarrar y matar–se presente siempre como significado último. El verbo denota violencia, salir de si mismo y penetrar por la fuerza en otro. Y también, herir, rasgar, violar -cuerpos, almas, objetos-, destruir. Cuando algo se rompe, decimos: “se chinga”. Cuando alguien ejecuta un acto desmesurado y contra las reglas, comentamos: “hizo una chingadera”.

La idea de romper y de abrir reaparece en casi todas las expresiones. La voz está teñida[14] de sexualidad, pero no es sinónimo del acto sexual; se puede chingar a una mujer sin poseerla. Y cuando se alude al acto sexual, la violación o el engaño le prestan un matiz particular. El que chinga jamás lo hace con el consentimiento de la chingada. En suma, chingar es hacer

violencia sobre otro. Es un verbo masculino, activo, cruel: pica, hiere, desgarra[15], mancha. Y provoca una amarga, resentida satisfacción en el que lo ejecuta.

Lo chingado es lo pasivo, lo inerte y abierto, por oposición a lo que chinga, que es activo, agresivo y cerrado. El chingón es el macho, el que abre. La chingada, la hembra, la pasividad pura, inerme[16] ante el exterior. La relación entre ambos es violenta, determinada por el poder cínico del primero y la impotencia de la otra. La idea de violación rige oscuramente todos los significados. La dialéctica de lo cerrado y Io abierto se cumple así con precisión casi feroz.

El poder mágico de la palabra se intensifica por su carácter prohibido. Nadie la dice en público. Solamente un exceso de cólera, una emoción o el entusiasmo delirante, justifican su expresión franca. Es una voz[17] que sólo se oye entre hombres, o en las grandes fíestas. Al gritarla, rompemos un velo de pudor[18], de silencio o de hipocresía. Nos manifestamos tales como somos de verdad. Las malas palabras hierven en nuestro interior, como hierven nuestros sentimientos. Cuando salen, lo hacen brusca, brutalmente, en forma de alarido, de reto, de ofensa. Son proyectiles o cuchillos. Desgarran.

…

La palabra chingar, con todas estas múltiples significaciones, define gran parte de nuestra vida y califica nuestras relaciones con el resto de nuestros amigos y compatriotas, Para el mexicano la vida es una posibilidad de chingar o de ser chingado. Es decir, de humillar, castigar y ofender. O a la inversa. Esta concepción de la vida social como combate engendra fatalmente la división de la sociedad en fuertes y débiles. Los fuertes, los chingones sin escrúpulos, duros e inexorables se rodean de fidelidades ardientes e interesadas. El servilismo ante los poderosos -especialmente entre la casta de los “políticos”, esto es, de los profesionales de los negocios públicos- es una de las deplorables consecuencias de esta situación. Otra, no menos degradante, es la adhesión a las personas y no a los principios. Con frecuencia nuestros políticos confunden los negocios públicos con los privados. No importa. Su riqueza o su influencia en la administración les permite sostener una mesnada[19] que el pueblo llama, muy atinadamente, de “lambiscones” (de lamer).

El verbo chingar -maligno, ágil y juguetón como un animal de presa- engendra muchas expresiones que hacen de nuestro mundo una selva: hay tigres en los negocios, águilas en las escuelas o en los presidios, leones con los amigos. El soborno[20] se llama “morder”. Los burócratas roen sus huesos (los empleos públicos). Y en un mundo de chingones, de relaciones duras, presididas por la violencia y el recelo, en el que nadie se abre ni se raja y todos quieren chingar, las ideas y el trabajo cuentan poco. Lo único que vale es la hombría[21], el valor personal, capaz de imponerse.

La voz tiene además otro significado, más restringido[22]. Cuando decimos “vete a la Chingada” enviamos a nuestro interlocutor a un espacio lejano, vago e indeterminado. Al país de las cosas rotas, gastadas. País gris, que no está en ninguna parte, inmenso y vacío. Y no sólo por simple asociación fonética lo comparamos a la China, que es también inmensa y remota. La Chingada, a fuerza de uso, de significaciones contrarias y del roce de labios coléricos o entusiasmados, acaba por gastarse, agotar sus contenidos y desaparecer. Es una palabra hueca. No quiere decir nada. Es la Nada.

Después de esta digresión sí se puede contestar a la pregunta ¿qué es la Chingada? La Chingada es la Madre abierta, violada o burlada por la fuerza. El “hijo de la Chingada” es el engedro de la violación, del rapto o de la burla. Si se compara esta expresión con la española, “hijo de puta” se advierte inmediatarnente la diferencia. Para el español la deshonra consiste en ser hijo de una mujer que voluntariamente se entrega, una prostituta; para el mexicano, es ser fruto de una violación.

… No es un secreto para nadie que el catolicísmo mexicano se concentra en el culto a la Virgen

de Guadalupe. En primer término: se trata de una Virgen india; enseguida: el lugar de su aparición (ante el indio Juan Diego) es una colina que fue antes santuario dedicado a Tonantzín, “nuestra madre” diosa de la fertilidad entre los aztecas. Como es sabido, la Conquista coincide con el apogeo[23] del culto a dos divinidades masculinas: Quetzalcóatl, el dios del autosacrificio (crea el mundo, según el mito, arrojándose a la hoguera, en Teotihuacán) y Huitzilopochtli, el joven dios guerrero que sacrifica. La derrota de estos dioses -pues eso fue la Conquista para el mundo indio: el fin de un ciclo cósmico y la instauración de un nuevo reinado divino- produjo entre los fieles una suerte de regreso hacia las antiguas divinidades femeninas. Este fenómeno de vuelta a la entraña materna, bien conocido de los psicólogos, es sin duda una de las causas determinantes de la rápida popularidad del culto a la Virgen. Ahora bien, las deidades indias eran diosas de fecundidad, ligadas a los ritmos cósmicos, los procesos de vegetación y los ritos agrarios. La Virgen católica es también una Madre (Guadalupe-Tonantzin la llaman aún algunos peregrinos indios) pero su atributo principal no es velar por la fertilidad de la tierra sino ser el refugio de los desamparados[24]. La situación ha cambiado: no se trata ya de asegurar las cosechas sino de encontrar un regazo[25]. La Virgen es el consuelo de los pobres, el escudo[26] de los débiles, el amparo de los oprimidos. En suma, es la Madre de los huérfanos[27]. Todos los hombres nacimos desheredados y nuestra condición verdadera es la orfandad, pero esto es particularmente cierto para los indios y los pobres de México. El culto a la Virgen no sólo refleja la condición general de los hombres sino una situación histórica concreta, tanto en lo espiritual como en lo material. Y hay más: Madre universal, la Virgen es también la intermediaria, la mensajera entre el hombre desheredado y el poder desconocido, sin rostro: el Extraño.

Por contraposición a Guadalupe, que es la Madre virgen, la Chingada es la Madre violada. Ni en ella ni en la Virgen se encuentran rastros de los atributos negros de la Gran Diosa: lascivia de Amaterasu y Afrodita, crueldad de Artemisa y Astarté, magia funesta de Circe, amor por la sangre de Kali. Se trata de figuras pasivas. Guadalupe es la receptividad pura y los beneficios que produce son del mismo orden: consuela, serena, aquieta, enjuga las lágrimas, calma las pasiones. La Chingada es aún más pasiva. Su pasividad es abyecta: no ofrece resistencia a la violencia, es un montón inerte de sangre, huesos y polvo. Su mancha es constitucional y reside, según se ha dicho más arriba en su sexo. Esta pasividad abierta al exterior la lleva a perder su identidad: es la Chingada. Pierde su nombre, no es nadie ya, se confunde con la nada, es la Nada. Y sin embargo, es la atroz encarnación de la condición femenina.

Si la Chingada es una representación de la Madre violada, no me parece forzado asociarla a la Conquista, que fue también una violación,, no solamente en el sentido histórico, sino en la carne misma de las indias. El símbolo de la entrega[28] es doña Malinche, la amante de Cortés. Es verdad que ella se da voluntariamente al Conquistador, pero éste, apenas deja de serle útil, la olvida, Doña Marina se ha convertido en una figura que representa a las indias, fascinadas, violadas o seducidas por 103 españoles. Y del, mismo modo que el niño no perdona a su madre que lo abandone para ir en busca de su padre, el pueblo mexicano no perdona su traición a la Malinche. Ella encarna lo abierto, lo chingado, frente a nuestros indios, estoicos, impasibles y cerrados. Cuauhtémoc y doña Marina son así dos símbolos antagónicos y complementarios. Y si no es sorprendente el culto que todos profesamos al joven emperador -”único héroe a la altura del arte”, imagen del hijo sacrificado-, tampoco es extraña la maldición que pesa contra la Malinche. De ahí el éxito del adjetivo despectivo “malinchista”, recientemente puesto en circulación por los periódicos para denunciar a todos los contagiados por tendencias extranjerizantes. Los malinchistas son los partidarios de que México se abra al exterior: los verdaderos hijos de la Malinche, que es la Chingada en persona. De nuevo aparece lo cerrado por oposición a lo abierto.

Nuestro grito es una expresión de la voluntad mexicana de vivir cerrados al exterior, sí, pero sobre todo, cerrados frente al pasado. En este grito condenamos nuestro origen y renegamos de nuestro hibridismo. La extraña permanencia de Cortés y de la Malinche en la imaginación y en la sensibilidad de los mexicanos actuales revela que son algo más que figuras históricas: son símbolos de un conflicto secreto, que aún no hemos resuelto. Al repudiar a la Malinche -Eva mexicana, según la representa José Clemente Orozco en su mural de la Escuela Nacional Preparatoria- el mexicano rompe sus ligas con el pasado, reniega de su origen y se adentra solo en la vida histórica.

El mexicano condena en bloque toda su tradición, que es un conjunto de gestos, actitudes y tendencias en el que ya es difícil distinguir lo español de lo indio. Por eso la tesis hispanista, que nos hace descender de Cortés con exclusión de la Malinche, es el patrimonio de unos cuantos extravagantes -que ni siquiera son blancos puros-. Y otro tanto se puede decir de la propaganda indigenista, que también está sostenida por criollos y mestizos maniáticos, sin que jamás los indios le hayan- prestado atención. El mexicano no quiere ser ni indio, ni español. Tampoco quiere descender de ellos. Los niega. Y no se afirma en tanto que mestizo, sino como abstracción: es un hombre. Se vuelve hijo de la nada. Él empieza en si mismo.

…

El mexicano y la mexicanidad se definen como ruptura y negación. Y, asimismo, como búsqueda, como voluntad por trascender ese estado de exilio. En suma, como viva conciencia de la soledad, histórica y personal. La historia, que no nos podía decir nada sobre la naturaleza de nuestros sentimientos y de nuestros conflictos, sí nos puede mostrar ahora cómo se realizó la ruptura y cuáles han sido nuestras tentativas para trascender la soledad.

[1] Dueños … mismos: literarlly, when we are not owners of ourselves; when we are not in control
[2] presumir de hombres: boast of being men, show off their manhood
[3] vocablo: palabra
[4] al alcance: within reach
[5] anhelo: deseo
[6] arrojar: to throw
[7] afilada: sharp
[8] cargar: to load
[9] reto: challenge
[10] Llorona: a mythical woman condemned to wander the earth in search of her dead child
[11] petardo: firecracker
[12] matices: shades of meaning, nunaces
[13] urdir tramas: to plot, to scheme
[14] teñir: to color, to dye
[15] desgarrar: to tear away
[16] inerme: sin defensas
[17] voz: en este caso, palabra
[18] velo de pudor: veil of decency, of propriety
[19] mesnada: group of followers
[20] soborno: bribe
[21] hombría: masculinity, manliness
[22] restringir: to restrict
[23] apogeo: the highest point
[24] desamparado: abandonado
[25] regazo: a lap for a child
[26] escudo: shield
[27] huérfano: sin padres
[28] entrega: both surrender and betrayal

El revolucionario viejo y el revolucionario moderno se encontraron una tarde marchando en difeentes direcciones. El sol mostraba la mitad de su ascua por encima de la lejana sierra; se hundía el rey del día, se hundía irremisiblemente, y como si tuviera conciencia de su derrota por la noche, se enrojecía de cólera y escupía sobre la tierra y sobre el cielo sus mas hermosas luces.

Los dos revolucionarios se miraron frente a frente: el viejo, pálido, demelenado, el rostro sin tersura como un papel de estraza arrojado al cesto, cruzado aquí y allá por feas cicatrices, los huesos denunciando sus filos bajo el raído traje. El moderno erguido, lleno de vida, luminoso el rostro por el presentimiento de la gloria, raído el traje también, pero llevado orgullo, como si fuera la bandera de los desheredados, el símbolo de un pensamiento común, la contraseña de los humildes hechos soberbios al calor de una gran idea.

-¿A dónde vas? -preguntó el viejo.

-Voy a luchar por mis ideales -dijo el moderno-; y tú, ¿a dónde vas? -preguntó a su vez.

El viejo tosió, escupió colérico al suelo, echó una mirada al sol, cuya cólera del momento sentía é1 mismo, y dijo:

-Yo no voy; yo ya vengo de regreso.

-¿Qué traes?

-Desengaños -dijo el viejo-. No vayas a la revolución; yo también fui a la guerra y ya ves cómo regreso: triste, viejo, maltrecho del cuerpo y espíritu.

El revolucionario moderno lanzó una mirada que abarcó el espacio, su frente resplandecía; una gran esperanza arrancaba del fondo de su ser y se asomaba a su rostro. Dijo al viejo-:

-¿Supiste por qué luchaste?

-Sí: un malvado tenía dominado el país; los pobres sufríamos la tiranía del gobierno y la tiranía de los hombres de dinero. Nuestros mejores hijos eran encerrados en el cuartel; las familias, desamparadas, se prostituían o pedían limosna para poder vivir. Nadie podía ver de frente al más bajo polizonte; la menor queja era considerada como acto de rebeldía. Un día un buen señor nos dijo a los pobres: “Conciudadanos, para acabar con el presente estado de cosas, es necesario que haya un cambio de gobierno; los hombres que están en el poder son ladrones, asesinos y opresores. Quitémoslos del poder, elíjanme presidente y todo cambiará.” Asi habló el buen señor; en seguida nos dio armas y nos lanzamos a la lucha. Triunfamos. Los malvados opresores fueron muertos, y elegimos al hombre que nos dio las armas para que fuera presidente, y nos fuimos a trabajar. Después de nuestro triunfo seguimos trabajando exactamente como antes, como mulos y no como hombres; nuestras familias siguieron sufriendo escasez; nuestros mejores hijos continuaron siendo llevados al cuartel; las contribuciones continuaron siendo cobradas con exactitud por el nuevo gobierno y, en vez de diminuir, aumentaban; teníamos que dejar en las manos de nuestros amos el producto de nuestro trabajo. liguna vez que quisimos declararnos en huelga, nos mataron cobardemente. Ya ves cómo supe por que luchaba: los gobernantes eran malos y era preciso cambiarlos por buenos. Y ya ves cómo los que dijeron que iban a ser buenos, se volvieron tan malos como los que destronamos. No vayas a la guerra, no vayas. Vas a arriesgar tu vida por encumbrar a un nuevo amo.

Asi habló el revolucionario viejo; el sol se hundía sin remedio. como siuna mano gigantesca le hubiera echado garra detrás de la montaña. El revolucionario moderno se sonrió, y repuso:

-Compañero: voy a la guerra, pero no como tú fuiste y fueron los de tu época. Voy a la guerra, no para elevar a ningún hombre al poder, sino, a emancipar mi clase. Con el auxilio de este fusil obligaré a nuestros amos, a que aflojen la garra y suelten lo que por miles de años nos han quitado a los pobres. Tú encomendaste a un hombre que hiciera tu felicidad; yo y mis compañeros vamos a hacer la felicidad de todos por nuestra propia cuenta. Tú encomendaste a notables abogados y hombres de ciencia el trabajo de hacer leyes, y era natural que las hicieran de tal modo que quedaras cogido por ellas, y, en lugar de ser instrumento de libertad, fueron instrumento de tiranía y de infamia. Todo tu error y el de los que, como tú, han luchado, ha sido ése: dar poderes a un individuo o a un grupo de individuos para que se entreguen a la tarea de hacer la felicidad de los demás. No, amigo mío; nosotros, los revolucionarios modernos, no buscamos amparos, ni tutores, ni fabricantes de ventura. Nosotros vamos a conquistar la libertad y el bienestar por nosotros mismos, y comenzamos por atacar la raíz de la tiranía política, y esa raíz es el llamado “derecho de propiedad”. Vamos a arrebatar de las manos de nuestros amos la tierra, para entregársela al pueblo. La opresión es un árbol; la raíz de este árbol es el llamado “derecho de propiedad”; el tronco, las ramas y las hojas son los polizontes, los soldados, los funcionarios de todas clases, grandes y pequeños. Pues bien: los revolucionarios viejos se han entregado a la tarea de derribar ese árbol en todos los tiempos; lo derriban, y retoña, y crece y se robustece; se le vuelve a derribar, y vuelve a retoñar, a crecer y a robustecer. Eso ha sido asi porque no han atacado la raíz del árbol maldito; a todos les ha dado miedo sacarlo de cuajo y echarlo a la lumbre. Ves pues, viejo amigo mío, que has dado tu sangre sin provecho. Yo estoy dispuesto a dar la mía porque será en beneficio de todos mis hermanos de cadena. Yo quemaré el árbol en su raíz.

Detrás de la montaña azul ardía algo.- era el sol, que ya se había hundido, herido tal vez por la mano gigantesca que lo atraía al abismo, pues el cielo estaba rojo como si hubiera sido teñido por la sangre del astro.

El revolucionario viejo suspiró y dijo:

-Como el sol, yo también voy a mi ocaso. Y desapareció en las sombras. El revolucionario moderno continuó su marcha hacia donde luchaban sus hermanos por los ideales nuevos.

Por Ricardo Flores Magon

Two Revolutionary Leaders

The old revolutionary and the modern revolutionary met each other one afternoon marching in different directions. The sun glowed like an ember above the distant mountain range; the king of the day was sinking, it sunk down irrevocably. As if it were conscience of its defeat by the evening, it reddened with anger, and cast upon the earth and the sky its most handsome lights.

The two revolutionaries regarded each other face to face: the old one, ashen, disheveled, his unpolished visage like a rag tossed into a wash basket, crossed here and there by ugly scars, his bones insinuating the edges of his body underneath his shabby garb. The modern one, erect, filled with life, his face luminous with the presentiment of glory. He was clothed in rags as well, but he carried them with pride, as if they were the flag of the disinherited, the symbol of a common meditation, the password of humble people elevated by the zeal for a great idea.

“Where are you going?” asked the old man

“I am going to fight for my ideals,” said the modern one. “And you, where are you going?” he asked in his turn.

The old man coughed and spat angrily upon the earth. He cast a glance at the sun, whose anger he also felt in this moment, and said:

“I am not going; I am now coming back home.”

“What happened”

“I am disillusioned,” said the old man “You are not going to a revolution. I also went to the war and you see how I now return: sad, old, damaged in body and spirit.”

The modern revolutionary cast a glance that encompassed space, his brow resplendent; a great hope rose up from the depths of his being and gazed out through his face.

He asked the old man:

“Did you know what you were fighting for?”

“Yes, a wicked man was dominating the country. We poor people were suffering from the tyranny of the Government and from the tyranny of people with money. Our oldest children were locked up in jail; the families, abandoned, prostituted themselves or panhandled to be able to live. No one could look the lowest policeman in the face; the least complaint was considered as an act of rebellion. One day a noble man said to us poor people:

Fellow citizens, in order to put an end to the present state of things, we must have a change in the government: the men who are in Power are thieves, assassins, and oppressors. Let us eliminate those in Power: elect me President and everything will change.

“This is what the noble man said. After this, he gave us firearms and sent us off to fight. We triumphed. The wicked oppressors were dead. We elected the man who gave us the weapons, making him President while we went to work. After our triumph we continued working exactly like before, like mules and not like men; our families continued suffering from need; our oldest sons kept on being taken to jail; the taxes kept on being collected with precision by the new Government, and rather than decreasing, they grew larger. We had to abandon the products of our labor to the hands of our masters. Any time we wanted to declare a strike, they killed us in the most cowardly fashion. Now you see, I knew what we were fighting for: the rulers were bad and we were precisely exchanging them for good ones. And now you see how those who said that they were going to be good turned out to be just as bad as the ones we dethroned. Do not go to the war, do not go. You are going to risk your life merely to exalt a new master.”

So spoke the old revolutionary; the sun sunk down without recourse, as if a gigantic claw had dragged it behind the mountain. The modern revolutionary smiled. He retorted:

“Comrade, I am going to war, but not like you and those of your era. I am going to war not to elevate any man to Power, but to emancipate my class. With the aid of this rifle, I will force our masters to loosen their claws and to release what they have robbed from the poor for thousands of years. You entrusted a man to create your happiness; my comrades and I are going to create happiness for all by our own efforts. You entrusted notable lawyers and men of science with the task of making laws. Naturally, they made them in such away as to benefit themselves. Instead of being the instrument of liberty, they were the instrument of tyranny and infamy. Your entire error and the error of those who, like you, have fought, has been this: to give powers to an individual or to a group of individuals, surrendering to them the task of making everybody happy. No, my friend; we, the modern revolutionaries, do not search for helpers, nor protectors, nor manufacturers of good fortune. We are going to conquer liberty and well-being for ourselves. We are beginning by attacking the root of political tyranny, and that root is called “the right of property.” We are going to seize the land from the hands of our bosses, to hand it over to the people. Oppression is a tree, the root of this tree is called “the right of property.” The trunk, the branches, and the leaves are the policemen, the soldiers, and the officials of all ranks, large and small. Look here: the old revolutionaries have surrendered the task of chopping down this tree every time. They chopped it down, it sprouted, it grew up, and it strengthened; again they chopped it down, again it sprouted, again it grew up, and again it strengthened. This keeps on happening because they have not attacked the root of the wicked tree; all have been too frightened to extract the core and pitch it into the fire. You see, my old friend: you have given your blood for no good reason. I am disposed to give mine so that it will benefit all my brothers in chains. I will burn down the tree from its root.”

Behind the blue mountain, something still blazed: it was the sun, which had finally sunk, perhaps wounded by the gigantic claw which beckoned it to the abyss, while the sky became red as if had been tinted by the blood of the star.

The old revolutionary sighed and said:

“Like the sun, I also am setting. And I will disappear into the shadows.”

The modern revolutionary continued to the place where his brothers were fighting for the new ideals.

By Ricardo Flores Magon

One of my first poems enjoy.

Viejo desanimado en sus pesadillas sus dientes se acabaron
rechinan y rechinan los nervios, y su cara muestran muecas de miedo
un ojo loco y el otro temblando
caminando por el pasto se recordaba, matando niños, mujeres y ancianos

Tremendo trauma vive su juventud, derramando sangre de su ataúd
vive para contarlo, y toda una vida para recordarlo
es la muerte mas maldita, los años pasan y las pesadillas no se evitan
su familia sus manos tranquiliza y su cara visualiza

Una lagrima gorda camina por su mejilla
es el momento de irnos soldado, despídete de tu familia
tenia 14 años era un niño feliz y contento
pero el entrenamiento lo hizo cruel y hambriento

Donde se fue la inocencia de un niño que se fue a la guerra
Avanzando por cielo, mar y tierra con dos granadas y una metralleta
sobrevivió a una mina, y una familia enemiga le curo la herida
la familia conformada por un niño, un bebe, una mujer sin marido y una anciana
en su casa lo cuidarían hasta que sus piernas caminaran
un noche muy fría la luna era llena el muchacho caminaba usando su metralleta como una muleta
un mes después a combate regresaría

Dos años después comandante se volvió y a los 16 años fue cuando realmente falleció
su grupo caminante, de balas, minas y sangre mataban sin preguntarse
el odio lo hizo enloquecer, tanto esfuerzo para comandante
y que rápido perdió su grupo de treinta inmigrantes
cegado por el dolor de su puesto que estaba de lo peor
tratando de recuperarlo fue cuando su alma en un infierno se quemó
recuerdan el niño, el bebe, la madre soltera y la anciana los que lo ayudaron?
pues arrodillados los cuatro con cien balazos fue la única forma de matarlos
pobre comandante en sus manos corre sangre, lagrimas y gritos desesperantes
de una vida que fue dada pero bien desperdiciada

Joven vive para recordarlo y el resto de su vida para analizarlo
sonríe pero llora,
la segunda oportunidad que esa familia le dio con cien balas los despedazó
pobre joven no tuvo elección a su país representó
miles de almas como el usadas por una absurda decisión

Viejo desconsolado, casa grande, tres autos y muchos valiosos artefactos
no hace diferencia de el daño que ha causado
su mente no puede mas, su cuerpo reacciona de mas
tiembla viejo, tiembla joven, tiembla niño
no hay tiempo soldado, es hora de irnos
No! Es tiempo de que se usted se retire coronel
porque este ciudadano se rehusa a ser mandado por una decisión que usted mismo ha tomado
así debió comenzar esta historia
y dos familias en paz vivirían
si esto se multiplicara por cada soldado que en esa guerra por sangre, petroleo y oro
cuantas familias piensas que estarían con nosotros?

En el horizonte se ve el sol anaranjado, con la luna verdosa a un lado, en un cielo artificialmente nublado
Mi caja de muerto tres metros adentro, tapada en cemento, con un gran rascacielos
Los campos secos, los mares mas sueltos, animales muertos, en todos los pueblos

La naturaleza nos dio la espalda, modificamos las semillas por plantas sin mañana para poder venderla
Nuestra curiosidad sobrepaso los limites de la madre tierra
Practicando con animales, creando incurables enfermedades
Pobres habitantes pobres, bien sea por los pocos que fueron a explorar Marte.

Bomba tras bomba tiraron uranio a los pueblos mas necesitados
La excusa de la creación de trabajos, esclavizando a los pobres desempleados
Sobrepasados en radiación, no tenían elección
El cáncer fue menos letal que pagar la medicina al pobre mas pobre quedar
La agricultura se termino, la dependencia de las maquinas fue lo que nos jubilo.

El consumismo, el capitalismo, el imperialismo no enseñaban pero, una piedra en el desierto nos importaba
Con los mas crudos ejemplos nos bofeteaba y la televisión nos tragaba
Viendo al niño indonés haciendo juguetes para el niño ingles
Viendo al niño hindú encontrando el juguete en el Everest de esclavitud.
Al niño africano le toco lo peor el desperdicio de asbesto estaba en su interior, fue lo que cenó.

En las Américas millones de futuros jóvenes en la misma situación
Tratando con la contaminación, el trabajo forzado y la explotación
Hablando idiomas propuestos, sintiendo desprecio por sus ancestros
Todo por la superación
Presumiendo descendencias europeas cuando color de piel, estatura y forma los delata y asi mismos se matan

Mis hijos, tus hijos, corriendo a su labor con un tanque purificador, como astronautas en el espacio exterior
Ricos en sus capsulas monetarias manipulador, opresor del sumiso eslabón ya disfruto, ya se fugo.
Los pobres en la subsistencia comprenden la resistencia,
pero es tarde

Las plantas ya no purifican, los mares la tierra se tragan,
El sol nos castiga nos quema, la comida se aniquila, el agua se contamina, el aire nos asesina y la luna? con bombas dias despues fue destruida.
Volcanes, y la nueva era glaciar se aproxima para dar chance a otra civilización que sea menos materialista, menos abusiva

The following text is an excerpt from a talk given by Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos to the International Civil Commission of Human Rights Observation in La Realidad, Chiapas on November 20, 1999. The outline for the talk was published in Letters 5.1 and 5.2 in November of the same year, with the titles “Chiapas: the War: 1, Between the Satellite and the Microscope, the Other’s Gaze,” and 2, “The Machinery of Ethnocide.” Any similarity to the conditions of the current war is purely coincidental. Published in Spanish in La Jornada, Tuesday, October 23, 2001. The Restructuring of War

As we see it, there are several constants in the so-called world wars, in the First World War, in the Second, and in what we call the Third and Fourth.

One of these constants is the conquest of territories and their reorganization. If you consult a map of the world you can see that there were changes at the end of all of the world wars, not only in the conquest of territories, but in the forms of organization. After the First World War, there was a new world map, after the Second World War, there was another world map.

At the end of what we venture to call the “Third World War,” and which others call the Cold War, a conquest of territories and a reorganization took place. It can, broadly speaking, be situated in the late 80′s, with the collapse of the socialist camp of the Soviet Union, and, by the early 90′s, what we call the Fourth World War can be discerned.

Another constant is the destruction of the enemy. Such was the case with nazism in the second World War, and, in the Third, with all that had been known as the USSR and the socialist camp as an option to the capitalist world.

The third constant is the administration of conquest. At the moment at which the conquest of territories is achieved, it is necessary to administer them, so that the winnings can be disbursed to the force which won. We use the term ‘conquest” quite a bit, because we are experts in this. Those States, which previously called themselves national, have always tried to conquer the Indian peoples. Despite those constants, there are a series of variables which change from one world war to another: strategy, the actors, or the parties, the armaments used and, lastly, the tactics. Although the latter change, the former are present and can be applied in order to understand one war and another.

The Third World War, or the Cold War, lasted from 1946 (or, if you wish, from the bombing of Hiroshima in 1945) until 1985-1990. It was a large world war made up of many local wars. As in all the others, at the end there was a conquest of territories which destroyed an enemy. Second act, it moved to the administration of the conquest and the reorganization of territories. The actors in this world war were: one, the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective satellites; two, the majority of the European countries; three, Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia and Oceana. The peripheral countries revolved around the US or the USSR, as it suited them. After the superpowers and the peripherals were the spectators and victims, or, that is, the rest of the world. The two superpowers did not always fight face to face. They often did so through other countries. While the large industrialized nations joined with one of the two blocs, the rest of the countries and of the population appeared as spectators or as victims. What characterized this war was: one, the arms orientation and, two, local wars. In the nuclear war, the two superpowers competed in order to see how many times they could destroy the world. The method of convincing the enemy was to present it with a very large force. At the same time, local wars were taking place everywhere in which the superpowers were involved.

The result, as we all know, was the defeat and destruction of the USSR, and the victory of the US, around which the great majority of countries have now come together. This is when what we call the “Fourth World War” broke out. And here a problem arose. The product of the previous war should have been a unipolar world – one single nation which dominated a world where there were no rivals – but, in order to make itself effective, this unipolar world would have to reach what is known as “globalization.” The world must be conceived as a large conquered territory with an enemy destroyed. It was necessary to administer this new world, and, therefore, to globalize it. They turned, then, to information technology, which, in the development of humanity, is as important as the invention of the steam engine. Computers allow one to be anywhere simultaneously. There are no longer any borders or constraints of time or geography. It is thanks to computers that the process of globalization began. Separations, differences, Nation States, all eroded, and the world became what is called, realistically, the global village.

The concept on which globalization is based is what we call “neoliberalism,” a new religion which is going to permit this process to be carried out. With this Fourth World War, once again, territories are being conquered, enemies are being destroyed and the conquest of these territories is being administered.

The problem is, what territories are being conquered and reorganized, and who is the enemy? Given that the previous enemy has disappeared, we are saying that humanity is now the enemy. The Fourth World War is destroying humanity as globalization is universalizing the market, and everything human which opposes the logic of the market is an enemy and must be destroyed. In this sense, we are all the enemy to be vanquished: indigenous, non-indigenous, human rights observers, teachers, intellectuals, artists. Anyone who believes themselves to be free and is not.

This Fourth World War uses what we call “destruction.” Territories are destroyed and depopulated. At the point at which war is waged, land must be destroyed, turned into desert. Not out of a zeal for destruction, but in order to rebuild and reorder it. What is the primary problem confronted by this unipolar world in globalizing itself? Nation States, resistances, cultures, each nation’s means of relating, that which makes them different. How is it possible for the village to be global and for everyone to be equal if there are so many differences? When we say that it is necessary to destroy Nation States and to turn them into deserts, it does not mean doing away with the people, but with the peoples’ ways of being. After destroying, one must rebuild. Rebuild the territories and give them another place. The place which the laws of the market determine. This is what is driving globalization.

The first obstacle is the Nation States: they must be attacked and destroyed. Everything which makes a State “national” must be destroyed: language, culture, economy, its political life and its social fabric. If national languages are no longer of use, they must be destroyed, and a new language must be promoted. Contrary to what one might think, it is not English, but computers. All languages must be made the same, translated into computer language, even English. All cultural aspects that make a French person French, an Italian Italian, a Dane Danish, a Mexican Mexican, must be destroyed, because they are barriers which prevent them from entering the globalized market. It is no longer a question of making one market for the French, and another for the English or the Italians. There must be one single market, in which the same person can consume the same product in any part of the world, and where the same person acts like a citizen of the world, and no longer as a citizen of a Nation State.

That means that cultural history, the history of tradition, clashes with this process and is the enemy of the Fourth World War. This is especially serious in Europe where there are nations with great traditions. The cultural framework of the French, the Italians, the English, the Germans, the Spanish, etcetera – everything which cannot be translated into computer and market terms – are an impediment to this globalization. Goods are now going to circulate through information channels, and everything else must be destroyed or set aside. Nation States have their own economic structures and what is called “national bourgeoisie” – capitalists with national headquarters and with national profits. This can no longer exist: if the economy is decided at a global level, the economic policies of Nation States which try to protect capital are an enemy which must be defeated. The Free Trade Treaty, and the one which led to the European Union, the Euro, are symptoms that the economy is being globalized, although in the beginning it was about regional globalization, like in the case of Europe. Nation States construct their political relationships, but now political relationships are of no use. I am not characterizing them as good or bad. The problem is that these political relationships are an impediment to the realization of the laws of the market. The national political class is old, it is no longer useful, it has to be changed. They try to remember, they try to remember, even if it is the name of one single statesman in Europe. They simply cannot. The most important figures in the Europe of the Euro are people like the president of the Bundesbank, a banker. What he says is going to determine the policies of the different presidents or prime ministers inflicted on the countries of Europe.

If the social fabric is broken, the old relationships of solidarity which make coexistence possible in a Nation State also break down. That is why campaigns against homosexuals and lesbians, against immigrants, or the campaigns of xenophobia, are encouraged. Everything which previously maintained a certain equilibrium has to be broken at the point at which this world war attacks a Nation State and transforms it into something else.

It is about homogenizing, of making everyone equal, and of hegemonizing a lifestyle. It is global life. Its greatest diversion should be the computer, its work should be the computer, its value as a human being should be the number of credit cards, one’s purchasing capacity, one’s productive capacity. The case of the teachers is quite clear. The one who has the most knowledge or who is the wisest is no longer valuable. Now the one who produces the most research is valuable, and that is how his salary, his grants, his place in the university, are decided.

This has a lot to do with the United States model. It also so happens, however, that this Fourth World War produces an opposite effect, which we call “fragmentation.” The world is, paradoxically, not becoming one, it is breaking up into many pieces. Although it is assumed that the citizen is being made equal, differences as differences are emerging: homosexuals and lesbians, young people, immigrants. Nation States are functioning as a large State, the anonymous State-land-society which divides us into many pieces.

If you look at a world map of this period – the end of the Third World War – and analyze the last eight years, a restructuring took place, most especially – but not only – in Europe. Where there was once one nation, now there are many nations. The world map has been fragmented. This is the paradoxical effect that is taking place because of this Fourth World War. Instead of being globalized, the world is fragmenting, and, instead of this mechanism hegemonizing and homogenizing, more and more differences are appearing. Globalization and neoliberalism are making the world an archipelago. And it must be given a market logic. These fragments must be organized into a common denominator. It is what we call “financial bomb.”

At the same time that differences appear, the differences are multiplied. Each young person has his group, his way of thinking, such as punks and skinheads. All of which are in every country. Now the different are not only different, but their differences are multiplied and they seek their own identity. The Fourth World War is obviously not offering them a mirror that allows them to see themselves with a common denominator. It is offering them a broken mirror. As long as it has control of the archipelago – of human beings – the powers are not going to be very upset.

The world is breaking into many pieces, large and small. There are no longer continents in the sense that I would be a European, African or American. What the globalization of neoliberalism is offering is a network built by financial capital, or, if you would prefer, by financial powers. If there is a crisis in this node, the rest of the network will cushion the effects. If there is prosperity in a country, it does not produce the effect of prosperity in other countries. It is, thus, a network which does not function. What they told us about the size of the world was a lie, a speech repeated by the leaders of Latin America, whether Menem, Fujimori, Zedillo, or others leaders of compromised moral character. In fact what is happening is that the network has made Nation States much more vulnerable. It is useless for a country to struggle to construct an equilibrium and its own destiny as a nation. Everything depends on what happens in a bank in Japan, or what the mafia in Russia or a speculator in Sydney does. In one way or another, Nation States are not saved, they are permanently condemned. When a Nation State agrees to join this network – because there is no other choice, because they force it, or out of conviction – it is signing its death certificate.

In short, what this great market wants is to turn all of these islands into commercial centers, not nations. One can go from one country to another and find the same products. There is no longer any difference. In Paris or in San Cristóbal de las Casas you can consume the same thing. If you are in San Cristóbal de Las Casas, you can simultaneously be in Paris getting the news. It is the end of Nation States. And not just that: it is the end of the human beings who make them up. What matters is the law of the market, and that is what establishes how much you produce, how much you are worth, how much you buy, how much you are worth. Dignity, resistance, solidarity all disturb. Everything which prevents a human being from turning into a producing and purchasing machine is an enemy, and it must be destroyed. That is why we are saying that the human species is the enemy for the Fourth World War. It is not destroying it physically, but it is destroying its humanness.

Paradoxically, by destroying Nation States, dignity, resistance and solidarity are built anew. There are no ties stronger, more solid, than those which exist between different groups: between homosexuals, between lesbians, between young people, between migrants. This war, then, goes on to also attack those who are different. That is what those campaigns are owing to, so strong in Europe and in the United States, against the different, because they are dark, speak another language or have another culture. The means of cultivating xenophobia in what remains of the Nation States is to make threats: “These Turkish migrants want to take away your job.” “These Mexican immigrants came to rape, they came to steal, they came to sow bad habits.” Nation States – or the few of them that remain – delegate to those new citizens of the world – computers – the role of getting rid of those immigrants. And that is when groups like the Ku Klux Klan proliferate, or persons of such probity as Berlusconi reach power. They all build their campaigns based on xenophobia. Hate for the different, persecution against anything that is different, is worldwide. But the resistance of anything that is different is also worldwide. Faced with that aggression, these differences are multiplied, they are solidified. This is how it is, I am not going to characterize it as good or bad, that is how it is happening.

The War Is Not Only Military

In strictly military terms, the Third World War had its logic. It was, in the first place, a conventional war, conceptualized in such a way that, if I put in soldiers, and you put in soldiers, we confront each other, and whoever is left alive wins. This took place in a specific territory which, in the case of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, forces, and the Warsaw Pact, was Europe. Starting from a conventional war, between armies, a military and weapons oriented path was established.

We are going to look at the details a bit more. This [he shows a rifle], for example, is a semi-automatic weapon, and it’s called an AR-15 automatic rifle. They manufactured it for the Vietnam conflict, and it can be taken apart very easily [he disarms it], there it is. When they made it, the Americans were thinking about a conventional war scenario, that is, large military contingents which confronted each other. “We’ll collect a lot of soldiers, we’ll advance, and in the end someone will have to be left.” At the same time, the Warsaw Pact was developing the Kalashnikov automatic rifle, which is commonly called the AK-47, a weapon with a lot of firing volume at short range, up to 400 meters. The Soviet concept involved large waves of troops: a mountain of soldiers would advance, firing, and, if they died, a second and a third wave would arrive. The one who had the most soldiers would win.

The Americans then thought: “The old Garand rifle from the Second World War isn’t of any use anymore. Now we need a weapon that has a lot of short-range firing power.” They took out the AR-15 and tested it in Vietnam. The problem was that it broke down, it didn’t work. When they attacked the Viet Cong, the mechanism remained open, and when they fired it went “click.” And it wasn’t a camera, it was a weapon. They tried to solve the problem with an M16-A1 model. Here the trick is in the bullets, which are called two different things. One, the civilian, 2.223 of an inch – can be bought in any store in the United States. The other – 5.56 millimeter – is for the exclusive use of NATO. This is a very fast bullet and it has a trick to it. In war, the objective is to see that the enemy has losses, not deaths, and an army considers itself to have casualties when a soldier can no longer fight. The Geneva Convention – an agreement to humanize war – forbids expanding bullets, because at the point at which it enters it destroys more, and it’s a lot more lethal than a hard tipped bullet.

“Given that the idea is to increase the number of wounded and decrease the number of dead,” – they said – “we are prohibiting expansive bullets.” A shot from a hard bullet leaves you useless, you’re a casualty now, it doesn’t kill you unless it reaches a vital organ. In order to fulfill the Geneva Convention and to dupe them, the Americans created the soft tip bullet which, when it enters the human body, bends and turns. The entrance hole is one size, and the exit hole is much bigger. This bullet is worse than the expanding one, and it doesn’t violate conventions. Nonetheless, if it gets you in the arm…it will blow you up. A 162 bullet goes through you and leaves you wounded, but this one destroys you. Coincidentally, the Mexican government has just bought 16,000 of these bullets.

That is, weapons are created for precise scenarios. We are going to assume they don’t want to use the nuclear bomb. What are they going to use? Many soldiers against many soldiers. And so the NATO and Warsaw Pact conventional war doctrines were created.

The second option was a localized nuclear war, a war with nuclear weapons, but only in some places and not in others. There was an agreement between the two superpowers to not attack each other in their own lands, and to fight only on neutral ground. It remains to be said that that this ground was Europe. That’s where the bombs were going to fall and one would see who would be left alive in Western Europe and what was then called Eastern Europe.

The last option of the Third World War was total nuclear war, which was a huge business, the business of the century. The logic of nuclear war is that there would be no winner. It doesn’t matter who fired first, no matter how quickly he fired, the other would be able to fire also. The destruction was mutual, and, from the beginning, this option was simply renounced. The nature of it came to be what is called in military diplomatic terms, “deterrence.”

So that the Soviets wouldn’t use nuclear weapons, the Americans developed many nuclear weapons, and, so that they wouldn’t use nuclear weapons, the Soviets developed many nuclear weapons, and so on. They called it IBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile), and they were the rockets that went from Russia to the United States and from the United States to Russia. They cost a fortune, and now they’re not useful for anything. There were also other nuclear weapons for local use which were the ones they were going to use in Europe in the case of a localized nuclear war.

When this phase began, in 1945, there was a war to be fought because Europe was divided in two. The military strategy – we are speaking of the purely military aspects – was the following: a few forward positions in front of the enemy line, a line of permanent logistics, and the mother country, called the United States or the Soviet Union. The logistical line supplied the forward positions. Large airplanes that were in the air 24 hours a day, the B-52 Fortress, carried the nuclear bombs, and they never had to land. And there were the pacts. The NATO Pact, the Warsaw Pact and the SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization) Pact, which is like the NATO of the Asian countries. The model was put into play in local wars. Everything had a logic, and it was logical to fight in Vietnam, which was an agreed scenario. The local armies and insurgents were in the role of the forward positions. In the role of permanent logistics were the lines of clandestine or legal arms sales, and, in the role of the mother countries, the two superpowers. And there was also an agreement about the places where they had to remain as spectators. The clearest examples of these local wars are the dictatorships of Latin America, the conflicts in Asia, especially Vietnam, and the wars in Africa. These apparently had absolutely no logic whatsoever, since the majority of the time what was going on wasn’t understood. But what was happening was part of this outline of conventional war.

It was during this period – and that is important – that the concept of “total war” was being developed. Elements which are no longer military enter into military doctrine. For example, in Vietnam, from the Tet offensive (1968) until the fall of Saigon (1975), the media again became a very important battle front. And so, the idea began to develop in the military that military power was not enough. It was necessary to incorporate others, such as the media. And also that the enemy could be attacked with economic measures, with political measures and with diplomacy, which is the game of the United Nations and of international organizations. Some countries create sabotage in order to secure the condemnation or censuring of others, which is called “diplomatic war.”

All these wars followed the domino theory. It sounds ridiculous, but they were like two rivals playing dominoes with the rest of the population. One of the opponents would put down a piece, and the other would try to put his down in order to cut off the follow-up. It is the theory of that illustrious individual by the name of Kissinger, the Secretary of State for the United States government during the Vietnam era, who said: “We cannot abandon Vietnam because it would mean giving up the game of dominoes in Southeast Asia to the others.” And that is why they did what they did in Vietnam.

It was also about trying to regain the logic of the Second World War. For most of the population, it [the Second World War] had been heroic. There was the image of the Marines liberating France from the dictatorship, liberating Italy from the Duce, liberating Germany from the military, the red army entering from all sides. The Second World War was supposedly waged in order to eliminate a danger for all humanity, that of national socialism. Thus the local wars attempted, one way or another, to regain the ideology of “we are acting in the defense of the free world.” But now Moscow was in the role of national socialism. And Moscow, for its part, did the same thing: both superpowers tried to use the argument of “democracy” and the “free world”, as each of them conceived it.

Afterwards came the Fourth World War, which destroyed everything from before, because the world is no longer the same, and the same strategy cannot be applied. The concept of “total war” was developed further: it is not only a war on all fronts, it is a war which can be anywhere, a total war in which the entire world is at stake. “Total war” means: at any moment, in any place, under any circumstances. The idea of fighting for one place in particular no longer exists. Now the fight can take place at any moment. There is no longer the concept of escalation of the conflict with threats, the taking of positions and attempts to reposition oneself. At any moment and in any circumstances, a conflict can arise. It can be domestic problem, it can be a dictator and everything which the last wars of the last five years have been, from Kosovo to the Persian Gulf War. The entire military routine of the Cold War has, thus, been destroyed.

It is not possible to make war, in the Fourth World War, under the criteria of the Third, because now I have to fight any place, I don’t know where I’m going to have to fight, nor do I know when, I have to act rapidly, I don’t even know what circumstances I’m going to have to prosecute this war. In order to resolve the problem, the military first developed the “rapid deployment” war. An example would be the Persian Gulf War, a war which involved a great accumulation of military force in a short period of time, a large military action in a short period of time, the conquering of territories and withdrawal. The invasion of Panama would be another example of rapid deployment. There is, in fact, a NATO contingent which is called “rapid intervention force.” Rapid deployment is a large mass of military force which throws itself against the enemy and which makes no distinction between a children’s hospital and a chemical weapons factory. That is what happened in Iraq: the smart bombs were quite stupid, they made no distinctions. And that’s where they remained, because they realized that this is quite expensive, and it contributes very little. In Iraq they made an entire deployment, but there was no conquest of territory. There were the problems of the local protests, there were the international human rights observers.

They had to withdraw. Vietnam had already taught them that, in these instances, it is not prudent to insist: “No, we can’t do this now,” they said. They then moved on to the strategy of “projection of force.” “Better to have forward positions in North American military bases all over the world, accumulating a great continental force which, in a matter of hours or days, will have the capacity to put in military units any place in the world.” And they can, in fact, put in a division of four or five thousand men in the most distant point in the planet in four days, and more, constantly more.

But the projection of force has the problem of being based on local soldiers, or, rather, on US soldiers. They believe that, if the conflict is not resolved rapidly, the body bags, the dead, will begin arriving, like in Vietnam, and this could provoke many domestic protests in North America, or in whichever country. In order to avoid those problems, they abandoned the projection of force, making – let us be clear – mercantile calculations. They did not make calculations about the destruction of the human forces, or the natural ones, but of publicity and image. And so the war of projection was abandoned, and they went on to a model of war with local soldiers, more international help, more of a supranational body. Now it was not about sending soldiers, but of fighting by means of the soldiers who were there, helping them according to the basis of the conflict, and not using the model of a nation which declares war, but of a supranational body like the UN or NATO. The ones doing the dirty work are the local soldiers, and the ones in the newspapers are the Americans and the international support. This is the model. Protesting no longer works: it is not a war of the United States government. It’s a war by NATO, and, besides, NATO is merely doing the favor of helping the UN.

Throughout the entire world, the restructuring of armies is so that they can confront a local conflict with international support under supranational cover, and under the disguise of humanitarian war. It has to do with saving the population from a genocide by killing it. And that is what happened in Kosovo. Milosevich waged a war against humanity: “If we confront Milosevich, we are defending humanity.” That is the argument the NATO generals used and which brought so many problems to the European left: opposing NATO bombings implied supporting Milosevich, better, then, to support the NATO bombings. And Milosevich, you know, was armed by the United States. The military conception – which is what is now at play – is that the entirety of the world – whether Sri Lanka or any other country, the most distant one can think of – is now the backyard, because the globalized world produces simultaneity. And that is the problem: in this globalized world, anything that happens any place affects the new international order. The world is no longer the world, it’s a village, and everything is very close. Therefore the great policemen of the world – especially the United States – have the right to intervene anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances. They can consider anything as a threat to their domestic security. They can easily decide that the indigenous uprising in Chiapas threatens the domestic security of North America, or the Tamils in Sri Lanka, or whatever you want. Any movement – and not necessarily armed – anyplace can be considered a threat to domestic security.

What is that has happened? The old strategies and old concepts of making war have collapsed. Let us see.

“Theatre of operations” is the military term for indicating the place where the war is going to occur. In the Third World War, Europe was the theatre of operations. Now it is not known where it is going to break out, it could be any place, it is no longer certain that it is going to be in Europe. Military doctrine moves from what is called “system” to what they call “versatility.” “I have to be ready to do anything at any moment. A plan is no longer sufficient: now I need many plans, not just to construct a response to particular incidents, but to construct many military responses to specific incidents.” This is where information technology intervenes. This change leads to moving from the systematic, the inflexible, the rigid, to the versatile, to that which can change from one moment to the next. And that is going to define the entire new military doctrine of armies, of military corps and of soldiers. This will be one element in the Fourth World War. The other will be the movement from “containment strategy” to that of “drawing out” or “extension”: now it is not just about conquering territory, containing the enemy, now it is about prolonging the conflict to what they call “non-war acts.” In the case of Chiapas, this has to do with taking out and putting in governments and municipal presidents, with human rights, with the media, etcetera.

Included in the new military conception is an intensification of the conquest of territory. This means that it is necessary to not only be concerned about the EZLN and its military force, but also about the church, the NGOs, international observers, the press, civilians, etcetera. There are no longer civilians and neutrals. The entire world is part of the conflict.

This implies that national armies are of no use, because they no longer have to defend Nation States. If there are no Nation States, what are they going to defend? Under the new doctrine, national armies go on to play the role of local police. The case of Mexico is quite clear: the Mexican Army is doing more and more police work, like the fight against drug trafficking, or this new body against organized crime which is called the Federal Preventative Police and which is made up of military personnel. It is about national armies turning into local police in the manner of a US comic book: a Super Cop, a Super Police. When the army in the former Yugoslavia was reorganized, it had to turn into a local police force, and NATO is going to be its Super Cop, its senior partner in political terms. The star is the supranational body, in this case NATO or the US army, and the extras are the local armies.

But national armies were built on the basis of a doctrine of “national security.” If there are enemies or dangers to the security of a nation, their work is to maintain security, sometimes against an external enemy, sometimes against destabilizing domestic enemies. This is the doctrine of the Third World War or Cold War. Under these assumptions, national armies develop a national conscious which now makes it difficult to turn them into police friends of the Super Police. Thus the doctrine of national security must now be transformed into “national stability.” The point is no longer defending the nation. Since the main enemy of national stability is drug trafficking, and drug trafficking is international, national armies which operate under the banner of national stability accept international aid or international interference from other countries.

The problem of again reordering national armies exists at the world level. Now we go down to America, and from there to Latin America. The process is a bit similar to that which took place in Europe and which was seen in the Kosovo war with NATO. In the case of Latin America, there is the Organization of American States, the OAS, with the Hemispheric Defense System. According to the former president of Argentina, Menem, all the countries of Latin America are threatened and we need to unite, destroying the national consciences of the armies, and to make a great army under the doctrine of a hemispheric defense system, using the argument of drug trafficking. Given that what is at stake is versatility – or the capacity to make war at any moment, in any place and under any circumstances – rehearsals begin. The few bastions of national defense which still exist must be destroyed by this hemispheric system. If it was Kosovo in Europe, in Latin America it is Colombia and Chiapas. How is this system of hemispheric defense constructed? In two ways. In Colombia, where the threat of drug trafficking is present, the government is asking for everyone’s help: “We have to intervene because drug trafficking not only affects Colombia, but the entire continent.” In the case of Chiapas, the concept of total war is applied. Everyone is a part, there are no neutrals, you are either an ally or you are an enemy.

The New Conquest

In the fragmentation process – turning the entire world into an archipelago – financial power wants to build a new shopping center which will have tourism and natural resources in Chiapas, Belize and Guatemala.

Apart from being full of oil and uranium, the problem is that it is full of indigenous. And the indigenous, in addition to not speaking Spanish, do not want credit cards, they do not produce, they are involved in planting maize, beans, chile, coffee, and they think about dancing to a marimba rather than using a computer. They are neither consumers nor producers. They are superfluous. And everything that is superfluous is expendable. But they do not want to go, and they do not want to stop being indigenous. There is more: their struggle is not to take over power. There struggle is to be recognized as Indian peoples, that their right to exist is recognized, without having to turn into other people.

But the problem is that here, in the land that is at war, in zapatista territory, are the main indigenous cultures, there are the languages and the largest oil deposits. There are the seven Indian peoples who participate in the EZLN, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tojolabal, Chol, Zoque, Mam and mestizos. This is the map of Chiapas: communities with an indigenous population and with oil, uranium and precious wood. For neoliberalism everything is merchandise, it is sold, it is exploited. And these indigenous come to say no, that the land is mother, it is the depository of culture, that history lives here, and the dead live here. Absolutely absurd things that cannot be entered on any computer and which are not listed on a stock exchange. And there is no way to convince them to be good, to learn to think right, they simply do not want to. They even rose up in arms. This is why – we say – that the Mexican government does not want to make peace: it is because they want to do away with this enemy and turn this land to desert, afterwards reorganizing it and setting it to operate as a huge shopping center, a Mall in the Mexican Southeast. The EZLN supports the Indian peoples, and is, in this way, an enemy, but not the main one. It is not enough to sort things out with the EZLN, even worse if sorting things out with the EZLN means renouncing this land, because that will mean peace in Chiapas, it will mean renouncing the conquest of a land rich in oil, in precious woods and uranium. This is why they have not done so and are not going to do so.

Published in In Motion Magazine November 11, 2001.

Hoy en día llovizno, y mis ojos opacos mirando mi zapato distorsionan mi reflección
El pequeño charco me enseña a un niño extraño que parece que perdió a su hermano
Sus pasos silenciosos sombreado por la luna, tenia maleta en mano
Parece irse sin despedirse de sus papas
A mi segundo parpado se encontraba en un desierto sin final
Mis ojos estaban por llorar y al mismo tiempo una gota de lluvia caía a gran velocidad
En esa visión las raíces humanas y culturales se evaporaban
Desaparecían, las violaban, los discriminaban, las extorsionaban, morían, y se olvidaban
El sol quería dormir al niño pero este nunca se rindió
A cambio el respiro, abrió los ojos y aprendió
Mi lagrima al charco se unió pero alcé mi cabeza y una gota de lluvia mi pupila limpio
Mi cuerpo se enfriaba y el corazón mas fuerte palpitaba
Mi mente se controlaba y esta aprecia:
El valor de la vida.

Ese mismo día en el mismo suelo extraño mis sentidos se desarrollan
Mis ojos me muestran que vivo en un campo de diversas rosas
Mi acercamiento me indica que sus espinas son muy grandes para su tacto
Y su aroma dispersado por el viento es como putrefacto o simplemente como sudor amargo
Sin embargo, yo me atrevo
Sin miedo al envenenamiento mi dedo un hermoso pétalo alcanza
El cual era falso y robusto como solo de plata u oro se alimentara
Las flores físicamente perfectas
Pierden su suavidad, aroma y pureza
Pierden la habilidad de desarrollar la belleza interna.

Al mismo tiempo en otra parte de nuestra civilizada sociedad
Esta Camilo con una botella de vino y Mario con un churro en la mano
Los dos en la calle sentados, todavía bañados en sudor celebrando que lograron para su relajante diario
La luz se apaga, mi cuerpo da media vuelta y se teletransporta 500 años en el pasado
Me encuentro con los indígenas y negros esclavos plantando o construyendo iglesias para los blancos
Los cuales a sudor de sol daban una miseria para comida
Pero ellos preferían el aguardiente o la hoja de coca
Terminando con las razones tradicionales remplazándolo con un pensamiento suicida
A esto llega mi pregunta ¿Qué tanto a cambiado esta sociedad? o mejor aun ¿cuándo pararemos de sudar nuestras espaldas por la riqueza ajena?
En esto concluye el poder de cuestionar.

La realidad es que no nos hace falta un Simon Bolívar, un Allende, Zapata o Che Guevara
Mucho menos un cambio interno o esperar al gran descanso eterno
Si el poder de una sonrisa existe en cada una de nuestras existencias
Significa que en esta y en la otra vida existe la felicidad
Ya es un hecho que en cualquier sociedad donde el ser humano no es tratado como tal, la justicia nunca existirá.
Por eso he llegado al nivel de cansancio de esperar a ser categorizado como ser humano
De pedir una reforma migratoria o pelear por una mejor vivienda
Mucho mas de pedir a los gobiernos que reduzcan sus niveles de carbono
O que no modifiquen la comida que yo como
Por eso ya me rehúso a matar a 20 personas por día con tal de vivir mejor en esta cárcel cruel y fría
Porque no quiero que los problemas ambientales, pobreza e inmigración afecten a mis futuras familias

Por eso mi llamado es hacia la conciencia, en su ilimitada pureza, sus mundos alternativos son la respuesta
Estoy citando a los 30 millones de indocumentados y a los 120 millones de latinoamericanos
La mayoría de ellos sin tierra, casa, agua, alimentos o trabajo
En este citatorio incluyo a los estudiantes, a las mujeres, a los indígenas y a todos los grupos marginados
El mundo esta en su degradación el cual necesita un extremo cambio
La razón de esta unión es la aniquilación del nacionalismo
Y crear un sistema donde tus hijos y los míos vivan felizmente de formal natural, libre y sin capital; llegar a la simplicidad.
Por eso necesitamos la constitución de los oprimidos, reclamar la verdadera independencia y liberarnos de nuestras diferencias

En el transcurso de este pensamiento la lluvia se aproximaba
Mi mente imaginariamente visualiza
el sol, la marimba y el la belleza de mi pueblo el cual remplace por esta jungla de cemento
Por un lugar donde las masas buscan la indiferencia, la cual combinan con la falsedad convirtiéndola en su propia tristeza
En el lugar donde las hambres son constantes con tal de llevar una educación adelante
Estos son los Estados Unidos el país mas decepcionante por crear problemas irracionales que obligaron a muchos de nosotros a sufrir todas estas monstruosidades
En ese momento el tiempo parece pararse las gotas de lluvia se suspenden en el aire
los árboles acariciados por el viento también se detienen
Mis brazos se alzan y la lluvia pareja en aguacero me baña
Mis lagrimas continúan, mi corazón palpita y mi mente me grita
Para esa libertad del individuo, la tierra y la conciencia
Tienes que sacrificar la vida y digo la muerte también
Porque quiero estar en la playa con mi familia observando el anaranjado atardecer
Y mirar a mi comunidad indígena prevalecer
Ese será el costo de mi libertad porque la libertad no se pide se toma.