Sudden Changes In Heart Rate Light Headed

The swine flu and the monstrous power of big livestock industry

Mike Davis *
Without Permission
April 28, 2009
Translation: Marta Domènech and Maria Julia Bertucci
Original English: The Guardian, April 27, 2009

Our friend and member of the Editorial Board of SINPERMISO Mike Davis, whose book The monster knocks at our door (trans. Mary Julia Bertucci, Ediciones El Viejo Topo, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b2006) warned brilliantly lucid and the danger of an avian flu pandemic worldwide, now explains how the great global livestock industry has laid the groundwork for a more than worrying outbreak of swine influenza in Mexico.

Mexican swine flu, a genetic chimera probably conceived in the fecal sludge of industrial gorrinera threatens suddenness with a fever the whole world. Outbreaks in North America reveal an infection that is traveling faster and the traveling with the last official pandemic strain, the Hong Kong flu in 1968.

Stealing prominence to our last official murderer, the H5N1 virus this pig virus poses a threat of unknown magnitude. It seems less lethal than the SARS [Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, for its acronym in English] in 2003, but, like influenza, may be more durable than SARS. Because domesticated seasonal flu type A kill anything less than a million people a year, even a modest increase in virulence, especially if it combined with a high incidence could produce carnage equivalent to a major war.

This is one of the first victims had been the consoling faith, preached inveterately by the World Health Organization (WHO), the possibility of containing pandemics with immediate responses from health bureaucracies and regardless of the quality of local public health. Since the first H5N1 deaths in 1997 in Hong Kong, WHO, with the support of most national health authorities, has promoted a strategy focused on the identification and isolation of a pandemic strain on your local radio outbreak followed by a mass administration of antiviral drugs and vaccines, if available, to the population.

A legion of skeptics have criticized the viral counterinsurgency approach, noting that microbes can now fly around the world almost literally in the case of bird flu more quickly than the WHO or local officials may come to react to the original outbreak. These experts have also noted the primitive, and often non-existent, monitoring of the interface between human and animal diseases. But the myth of a bold intervention, preemptive (and cheap) avian influenza has proved invaluable to the cause of the rich countries like the U.S. and the UK, prefer to invest in their own biological Maginot lines, rather than increasing dramatically support for advanced epidemic fronts overseas. Nor price has been this myth for large pharmaceutical corporations, facing a relentless war with the demands of the developing countries engaged in the production require public key generic antivirals like Tamiflu patented by Roche.

The version of the WHO and the Centers for Disease Control, according to which it is already prepared for a pandemic, without further need for massive new investment in surveillance, scientific and regulatory infrastructure, public health Basic and global access to vital drugs will now be decisively tested by the swine flu, and perhaps find out belonging to the same category of management "ponzificada" risk that securities and obligations of Madoff. It is so difficult that the warning system fails, since it simply does not exist. Even in North America and the European Union .

perhaps not surprising that Mexico lacks both capacity and political will to manage poultry and livestock diseases, but it happens that the situation is hardly better north of the border, where surveillance is undone by unhappy state jurisdictions and large livestock enterprises face the health regulations with the same contempt with which often treat workers and animals. Similarly, a decade of warnings from scientists failed to point to ensure transfer of experimental viral sophisticated technology to countries along the routes most likely pandemic. Mexico has world renowned health experts, but you have to send samples to a laboratory in Winnipeg for decoding the genome of the strain. This has lost a whole week.

But no less alert the authorities for Disease Control in Atlanta. According to the Washington Post , the CDC [English acronyms Center for Disease Control, based in Atlanta; T] he was not aware of the outbreak six days after Mexico had begun to impose emergency measures. No excuses. The paradox of this swine flu is that, even if totally unexpected, had already been predicted with great accuracy. Six years ago, the journal Science devoted a major article to bring out that "after years of stability, the swine influenza virus in North America has been a rapid evolutionary leap."

Since its identification during the Great Depression, the H1N1 virus of swine influenza were only experienced a slight drift from their original genome. Then in 1998 a highly pathogenic strain began to decimate sows on a farm in North Carolina, and began to raise new and more virulent versions every year, including a variant of H1N1 that contained the internal genes of H3N2 (which causes the other influenza A that spreads among humans).

The researchers interviewed by Science were concerned about the possibility that one of these hybrids could turn into a human flu virus, it is believed that the pandemics of 1957 and 1968 were caused by a mixture of human and avian genes forged inside pig-organisms, and urged the creation of a formal system for swine influenza surveillance: admonition, needless to say, which turned a deaf ear then a Washington willing to throw billions of dollars for bioterrorism fantasies sink .

What caused this acceleration in the evolution of swine flu? Virologists have long been convinced that the intensive farming system of southern China is the main vector of mutation Influenza: both the "drift" seasonal and episodic "exchange" genomic. But industrialization granempresarial livestock production has broken China's natural monopoly in the evolution of flu. The livestock sector has been transformed in recent decades into something more like the petrochemical industry to depict happy family farm textbooks in school.

In 1965, for example, in the U.S. had 53 million pigs distributed among more than a million farms, today, 65 million pigs are concentrated in 65,000 facilities. That has meant moving from the old-fashioned pens to cyclopean fecal hell in which, among manure and sweltering heat, ready to share pathogens to lightning speed are piled tens of thousands of animals rather than weakened immune systems.

Last year, a commission convened by the Pew Research Center published a report on "industrial farm animal production, which highlights the acute risk that" the continued circulation of virus (...) property of vast herds, flocks or herds increases the opportunities of developing new episodes of virus mutation or recombination, which could generate more efficient virus transmission between humans. " The commission also warned that the promiscuous use of antibiotics factories in cheaper than pig-human environments, was encouraging the rise of infections resistant estafílocóquicas while generating waste water in outbreaks of e coli scherichia and Pfiesteria (a protozoan that killed a billion fish in the estuaries of Carolina and infected dozens of fishermen).

Any improvement in the ecology of this new pathogen would have to face the monstrous power of big business conglomerates poultry and livestock, such as Smithfield Farms (pork and beef) and Tyson (chicken). The committee discussed systematic obstruction of investigations by large companies, including nothing demure about threats to suppress the financing of the researchers who cooperated with the commission.

is a highly globalized industry and political influence. Just as the poultry giant Charoen Pokphand, based in Bangkok, was able to thwart the investigation of his role in the spread of bird flu in Southeast Asia, is most likely that forensic epidemiology of the outbreak of swine flu was given on his face against the stone wall of the swine industry.

That does not mean that you will not ever find a smoking gun prosecution, and rumor in the Mexican press of an influenza epicenter located around a giant Smithfield subsidiary in the state of Veracruz. But more important, especially because of the continuing threat of H5N1 virus - is the forest, not the trees: the failed strategy of the WHO pandemic, the continuing deterioration of global public health, the gag imposed by the large transnational pharmaceutical to vital medicines and planetary catastrophe that is industrialized livestock production and environmentally insane.

* Mike Davis is a member of the Editorial Board of SINPERMISO . Recently translated into Castilian: his book on the threat of avian influenza ( The monster knocks at our door , trans. Maria Julia Bertucci, Ediciones El Viejo Topo, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b2006), his book on the Dead Cities (trad. Dina Khorasane, Marta Malo de Molina, Tatiana de la O and Monica Cifuentes Zaro, Editorial dreams Dealers, Madrid, 2007) and his book holocausts of the late Victorian era (trad. Aitana and Ivano Guide i Conca Stocco, Ed University of Valencia, Valencia, 2007). His most recent books are: In Praise of Barbarians: Essays Against Empire (Haymarket Books, 2008) and Buda's Wagon : A Brief History of the Car Bomb (Verso, 2007; Mundó Jordi English translation of the editorial El Viejo Topo, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b2009).

Translation w w w.sinpermiso.info : Marta Domènech and Maria Julia Bertomeu.

SINPERMISO electronic offers free weekly. He receives no public or private grant, and its existence is only possible by volunteer work of its associates and altruistic donations from its readers. If you have been interested in this article, consider contributing to the development of politico-cultural project making a DONATION or making a SUBSCRIPTION to biannual magazine printed.

Tatoos After Pregnancy

liberal Social Democrats

Héctor Díaz-Polanco
* Rebellion
March 18, 2009

"In Latin America outlines a peculiar neosocialdemocracia , Creole version of European social democracy, founded here in liberalism (extremely conservative) with viscous cactus. Two features set it apart: his desire to make compatible-no joke-liberalism with socialism, and the fact that all batteries have targeted the left, so that the substance of his speeches (and often his open diatribes) are directed not against the right trends and governments that sign, but precisely against the radical left and even projects that propose progressive social reforms against neoliberalism. "

a work often reveals more about the author than about the object of his analysis. Enrique Krauze's book power and delirium (1) is an attempt to demystify the figure of Hugo Chávez and criticism of government policy, which, as it practically does not save anything. The criticism is flawed and demystification is bogged down in endless insults. But the work is an illustrative summary of the prejudices of the author. Also instructs us about the efforts of the company he heads, Letras Libres, and, incidentally, the group "social" which of late is trying to influence not only in the course of national politics, but also in other countries and Venezuela.

Third Way to
neosocialdemocracia
Krauze prominently represents a group that, in the name of liberalism, wants to intervene in political processes to support an extremely conservative positions, but apparently wrapped in a flag and even democratic the label of "left." There is, of course, the first such attempt. Immediately we are reminded of the current a few decades ago was assimilated to the purposes of the "Third Way." In the late nineties, this approach gained momentum in Britain and the United States, under the administrations of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. It was a "New" policy line aimed equally distinguished tradition of liberalism, socialism and consecrated. Critical of both and raised a called third option, which actually put the emphasis on liberal principles "renewed." The democratic veneer was based on the guidance of Anthony Giddens, the British professor laureate London School of Economics, whose ideas were summarized in a book held (2). This sociologist provided the theoretical and academic platform to project the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who became the flagship policy of the Third Way. This approach, in short, was to recover the best of liberalism and add other elements that resulted from the challenges of globalization in progress. As has happened with other "renewals" of liberalism, the creature was totally liberal . It was not renovated building a socialist vision, but to propose a new-style liberalism. The innovations were on the road, and practically everything that was, more than a break, continuation of the neoliberal policies of Margaret Thatcher (3). This became clear during the Clinton administration, with whom Blair agreed and collaborated in the worst adventures (including aggression Navy and the destruction of Yugoslavia) and purchased trim grotesque with the arrival of President George W. Bush, who is subordinated around champion the Third Way (comprising the invasion of Iraq, openly violating international law).

However, Mexican political groups (even within the PRD) and intellectuals eager to establish distance from the left "revolutionary" or "socialist", clung to the topics of the Third Way. The record was comfortable, since it could renounce the left and change projects, and continue to use at least part of this prestigious label. In the rest of Latin America, current neoliberales se adhirieron también con entusiasmo. Surgió así una peculiar neosocialdemocracia , versión criolla de la socialdemocracia europea, fundada aquí en un liberalismo (extremadamente conservador) con la consistencia viscosa del nopal. Dos características la destacan: su afán de hacer compatible —no es broma— el liberalismo con el socialismo, y el hecho de que todas sus baterías tienen como blanco a la izquierda, de tal modo que curiosamente lo fundamental de sus discursos (y a menudo de sus abiertas diatribas) están dirigidos no contra las tendencias de derecha y los gobiernos de ese signo, sino precisamente contra la izquierda radical y aún los proyectos progresistas que proponen social reform to neoliberalism.

This phenomenon is noteworthy, since it only involves Letras Libres but other monthly magazines (such as Nexus , under the direction of Hector Aguilar Camin et al.) In fact, with some exceptions, such publications are devoted to the task of fighting left. Sermons to be devised for the left, telling him not to be and what should become. The leitmotiv is that the left must be "modern" must abandon its historic core objectives (for example, insist on the pursuit of social equality and new forms of democratic participation). If this is justice, it should be, say, seasoned with other approaches from the approach constructed by John Rawls and other liberals, who argue that a society can cherish and inequalities, however, can be fair. The fundamental idea is that the Left, their organizations and intellectuals of course, must abandon any radicalism, healthy moderated by liberal principles. Must be "institutional", while these institutions conspire against equality, justice and even against their own laws and principles that give life. Believe that policy should be resolved between parties without the intervention of the masses, as it always has a negative intrusion, inadequate and even dangerous. Should not be promoted social mobilization, almost without exception. That is, the policy should be made between political professionals. It is pernicious open participation of society (especially its most impoverished and marginalized sectors) on important public issues (economic or political). Democracy must be representative, strictly speaking. It must reject any form of popular participation, except for casting a vote every few years. Of course, you must put aside the itching on the left who flirts with the claims of certain popular sectors, as people peoples and their rights, regarded as outdated and harmful.

The "liberal left" in Mexico

In the case of Mexico, we found some of these ideological patterns that guide the behavior of current when the country faced one of the most untidy and fraudulent elections that has memory. The position adopted by the compact group (neo) Social Democrat and his supporters during the presidential election of 2006 was memorable. They argued the idea that there was no evidence of electoral fraud. You could claim "irregularities", but not fraud. Therefore, resistance was a manifestation of political irresponsibility, typical of a non-modern left, bewildered and resentful. It was monstrous go out (this is considered a major political sin) to protest against fraud. Of course they were against the encampment made in the Zocalo and Reforma Avenue in Mexico City, seeking only what any liberal who would be consistent with upholding the right to vote should be required: clarity about the meaning of the will popular (including the recount, if necessary) or, if appropriate, annulment of the election. They insisted that there was no evidence of serious irregularities and, therefore, did not hold the required demand cleaning the electoral process, but none did any consistent effort to collect evidence themselves otherwise (for which, as intellectuals and academics recognized were supposed gifted).

Theirs was not to seek testing or to address the evidence that were emerging, but defend the "institutions" (IFE, in particular) against all odds. When after José Antonio Crespo, an intellectual who took seriously their responsibility, showed that available information from the records not allowed to know who won election in 2006 (which could not be declared the winner of any of the pointers) and at least he had committed fraud against the law (in the decision of the Electoral Tribunal of the Judiciary of the Federation) (4), all the "undersigned" statements affirming the cleanliness of the election simply kept quiet and turned the other way. Could be conjectured that if those had done the same, each from his specialty, the result could be another? It is impossible to know, but at least have made a contribution to the truth, which is not bad.

is interesting to note that the current referred to includes former members of the Mexican left, radical mood once strong, now hold liberal principles with marked enthusiasm but under the new method to search a certain blend with socialist ideas. Being pure is not prestigious liberal, even though the elites and the power circles have adopted this approach as their world view, or at least in recent times does not guarantee good policy outcomes in the context of countries like ours. In contrast, a controlled dose of socialist ideas can set the tone appropriate; could almost guarantee it is politically correct .

A good example is the group met for Free free to discuss the topic on the left in April 2008: Roger Bartra, Ugo Pipitone, Jesus Silva-Herzog Márquez and José Woldenberg. The result of the roundtable, along with other texts, was published as symptomatic of "Ideas for left" (5). There are several common points in the positions of the cast. First, adherence to the social democratic vision, in some cases after having confessed to a life story with moments of radicalism, culminating in the epiphany of a total abandonment of the past. Interventions are punctuated by wailing at the fact that the path is not rooted in social democratic country (anxiety, as will be shared by Krauze), and especially since the left most prevalent in Mexico have failed to understand the great qualities of this political current. In this sense, Bartra said that the social outlet that he has adopted for years "has very little tradition in Mexico" and "is a tradition largely frustrated." Secondly, it is common to scathing criticism and even rude to any outside left Social Democrats of the parameters they have set. The left is seen as "desperate" (a kind of Freudian projection), "populist", "authoritarian" and "evaporation process" (Bartra). However, at the same time supports the vitality of the left, as Pipitone, from decades at least "dominates the cultural scene", and "has ceased to be a marginal political choice" (Silva-Herzog Márquez).

The sin of the left dominant in the country, according to these authors, does not decide to take the necessary complement clearly liberal. And this is the third point that crosses the views of analysts, it is imperative that the left assimilate the basic values \u200b\u200bof liberalism. The left requires "the pavement of liberal democracy" (Silva-Herzog Márquez) and is required to "turn their eyes to the currents of liberal thought" (Woldenberg). In fact, placed in this effort, several agree that Mexico needs to also take the liberal right: "we are in danger of the liberal tradition also embodied in the right" (Bartra), as the country-full-Silva-Herzog Márquez "needs both a liberal and a right liberal left. " Apparently, then, liberal thought has the peculiar quality to enhance any political position. Universalism dams untenable for so reason, liberalism is not itself a political position (in addition to socioeconomic and cultural) particular, but a truly universal ingredient that blends well with everything.

Liberalism in its maze

historian Krauze, a text in the same issue of the Journal ("Russia to palm"), agrees with the authors mentioned in the negative assessment of the Radical Left (or " revolutionary. ") Its emphasis is on the idea that the only way out for Latin America is liberalism. His obsession is that Latin American countries to adopt the principles and values \u200b\u200bof liberalism. And the perplexity is that despite all efforts, the peoples of the continent (and Mexico in particular) seem immune to this influence . For him, apparently, the current revival on the left in our region is something inexplicable and exasperating. Krauze part of a question: "Why, throughout history, not enough liberalism has taken root among us?" In response, it uses two "explanations" that takes one of their favorite liberal writers: Isaiah Berlin. The first says that is because "our liberal [...] have been reluctant to resort to violence to impose their ideas." Accepting that this is the case (and leaving aside the Liberals, over and over again in history, have used violence every time they have been able to impose their projects), is Krauze adhering to the view that violence is a critical factor in political success, something like "the midwife of history"? Anyway, the fact is that this "explanation" has the problem of explaining little. The second reason is that "Latin Americans, and Russians tend to adopt the revolutionary ideologies, including Marxism and its variants, with theological fervor." These explanations, which is more psychological than historical, sociological or anthropological (and therefore odd in a historian), have the problem of configuring a begging , subtract it explain why "our liberal", the Russians and Ibero peculiar behave that way. Perhaps the explanation lies elsewhere, primarily on the socioeconomic character of our societies, our historical and structural matrix, where liberal thought can only be an elite project, the synthesis of the interests of a minority. But this path of analysis is completely alien to the thinking of our historian.

Later, the author adds two additional explanations. The Gabriel Zaid (used by it in the eighties to explain what was happening in countries like Nicaragua): Marxism has been rooting for her "academic standing" which, according He began with the "blessing of Sartre", which resulted in "academic affiliation of Marxism." But since most liberals are also academics and disputed with advantage, against Marxism, preeminence in academia, the explanation also falls short and turning in a circle. (Why does Marxism longest established university and academic standing?). The other is of Octavio Paz. What explains the "dogged persistence" of the revolutionary ideologies in the " American intelligentsia? The "lack of criticism and self-criticism", responds Paz. So that, accordingly, a defect or epistemological epistemological elucidates the issue: unable to realize what is happening around them (for example, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the neoliberal entrenchment from the nineties, etc.), the Left continues its revolutionary course as if nothing had happened. Here not even explore what specific keystrokes and persistent socio-political and economic, could decipher the stubborn persistence of the left (which is fully aware of what happens). Sold

explanations, Krauze concluded with regret: "In Mexico, the Left is hegemonic not the runs of their books or newspapers, but by the expansionary influence have their ideas, which spread as concentric circles to the centers of higher education, the press and the parties ... "While it is doubtful that today's left is" hegemonic "in the strict sense of the term (eg , in Gramscian terms), we must admit that the author takes a step forward to warn the strength of leftist ideas and their influence in society, although it might be expected to try to understand where such ideas arise (remember : "It is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness") and why its influence. But the latter is asking too much.

The prophet of the dawn

Returning to the book at issue. Appropriate to consider briefly its origins and motivations. The work is more than a biography of Hugo Chavez and his government's political analysis. It is aimed not work with a thirst for knowledge about one of the most interesting socio-political movements of recent times, but for the purpose of favoring the Venezuelan right and, in general, to fight the Latin American left. He is entitled to do, but it is useful to notice it right away. It all began on December 2, 2007, when Venezuela was conducted in a referendum to decide by vote whether or not to approve amendments to the constitution proposed by the Chavez government. For the first time, the right opposition won a victory (though narrow: about 1% advantage) to win the no option. Excited, Krauze immediately take a flight to Caracas. Arrives on 4 December. Interviews with various sectors of the radical Venezuelan opposition (the church, students, etc.). Back to Mexico, he says, with his "Venezuelan shipment of books, full of optimism about opportunities for the right and convinced that he had come" when trying to answer seriously the obvious question: Who, where came, how they built the character named Hugo Chávez? "(6). Krauze found your answer to the question, but not serious.

There is evidence to believe that things were not a mere impulse to know who was Chavez. There were other motivations. The Venezuelan Antonio Sánchez García, in a letter published in late 2008 (7), tells a group of notorious characters of the liberal right, including himself, met for breakfast with Krauze a year earlier. When the meeting occurs, he says, "not 48 hours passed since the historic victory of the NO on 2 December and encouragement [opposition] were jubilant." Apparently Krauze was equally ecstatic. To the extent that she decided to take the role of organizer. Excited, Sánchez García reflects that not imagine that "this meeting would be born two very important initiatives: a wonderful book about Hugo Chavez [...] and civil movement [...]: December 2nd Movement Democracy and Freedom. As recalled [Krauze] in his book, and we had already forgotten was he who had the happy idea of \u200b\u200bpointing to that date had MRI and could be a name to a great movement of opinion. His proposal fell on deaf ears . " Sánchez Krauze confirms that he returned to Mexico full of delight, with its cargo "books" but not only that: also, he says, "for advice, insights into past, present and future of our troubled country." That is, imbued with the perspective of local right. That was important raw material Chavez Krauze book published months later and helps to understand its delirious mood analytical. No wonder the book seems written by a Venezuelan opposition politician (his same topics, its unbridled aggressiveness, etc.). And not a historian.

Before leaving, Krauze adopted a prophetic tone: "They you can live an awakening and that dawn walk them hovering very close, "recalls Sanchez Garcia said. He added:" what happens here will determine the fate of Central America, Mexico and Latin America. "Krauze was admired by "the awakening of a truly democratic and liberal sentiment in Venezuela, so he promised to meet immediately with anti-Chavez student leaders," for a student movement ideologically situated at the antipodes of guevarismo Castro "and university" fighting for democracy and practice a liberal creed ", seemed extraordinary phenomena. Truth is that Sanchez Garcia was also delighted with Krauze, "an Anglo-Saxon intellectual aspect." Like this, the Venezuelan regretted that liberalism does not tell "good news in our region", when what was needed in Latin America "A large dose of liberalism." It happened that, by "chance" and Mario Vargas Llosa Krauze (another radical liberalism crossed) agreed in Caracas. And then our writer no longer contains: "The presence of Enrique Krauze and Mario Vargas Llosa among us is no coincidence" the fact is "symptom anunciatorio the heartbeat of the times: the opening of new historical horizons. " In a final outburst, Sánchez García thinks he sees that "the dawn that predicted Enrique Krauze [one year before] seems to lean out over the tops of Ávila [...]. The good times are announced. The visit of our dear friends are true under the best wishes. "

What was all this fuss about "Alborada", "targets" and "historical horizons? Visitors and guests are referred to the prospect of sweeping victories of the right "liberal" were to be next after the said referendum of December 2, first victory against Chavez after ten attempts. Thought that in the midterm elections of November 23, 2008 would rise to a victory that would be the prelude to the eviction of Chavez and his glorious return to power. Since Chavez was unable to re-election, it seemed close at hand. But much was at stake because of what actually happened in Venezuela largely depended on the political future of Latin America. Had to step on the throttle and use all available weapons. Krauze's book was an effort, however modest it was aimed at strengthening the designs of the opposition, presenting a negative image of the Bolivarian government, and Chavez as an evil character, "Regressive", "messianic" and especially "dangerous" (sound familiar?) Not only for Venezuela but for all Latin America. Hence, published the book, multiply the presentations (in Venezuela, Spain) and the agencies and newspaper interviews the author, to give the political resonance in the Venezuelan process to come.

However, things did not go as planned. The Chavez won the lead in the state and municipal elections of November 2008 (staying with most of the governors and mayors), although the opposition maintained its presence in important areas (especially for its density urban). So the "two initiatives" Krauze to achieve the "dawn" and open the new "historical horizons" remained, as it were, very short. And would immediately Chávez initiative that would overturn the political landscape: the referendum, called for February 15, 2009, in order to define the issue of indefinite or unrestricted application (not the "term limits" according to the language right), in which the other reached the victory with about 10 points ahead of not. The opposition "awakened" as predicted Krauze, but a nightmare. The horizon and vanished auspiciousness. These are facts like these that allow us to understand the above projection behind the references to the new liberals when they speak of "desperation", attributing it to the left. They are shocked and feel helpless before the advances of the left in a growing number of Latin American countries in the span of the last decade. They have failed to overthrow by force the Bolivarian project, and domestic and international context, it becomes increasingly difficult, as so far shown chavismo electorally strong.

The mandate of Octavio Paz

As is his custom, power and delirium , Krauze sailing under the flag of the work and figure of Octavio Paz, who considered almost like his personal heritage, "to come to the case cited or not. Therefore, it is not uncommon to find truly amazing passages in a book that seeks to unravel a contemporary process (the path and the government of Hugo Chavez). Peace Krauze makes return after death to carry out a political analysis, ideological and psychological figure of Chavez. It is common practice that an author is based in another to perform their analysis. But beyond that, the passages quoted Peace Krauze serve not only to build his criticism of Chavez but to make a general view of political trends and progressive governments in the current Latin America, apart from other excesses. The purpose behind all this is, however, political-ideological Krauze wants to remind his peers (the intellectuals of the "liberal left") that Paz left a clear political mandate and strict. If peace was the prophet of the mission, Krauze is the apostle who can fulfill it.

Chapter VIII, where their judgments are nouns, Krauze begins in a low tone: "I would never say for sure what Paz would have thought it simply is not here. " It's just searching for "key." Peace thought that until the mid-twentieth century, democracy was accepted as the foundation of political legitimacy. But in 1959 came a cataclysm with the Cuban revolution, imposed a new legitimacy "revolutionary" in Latin America, according to Krauze gloss, no longer required "of electoral processes and civil liberties and republican institutions." This conspiracy of a deeper way to democracy, plays Krauze, that these military dictatorships. So Peace is devoted to unraveling "dogmatic roots" of the new revolutionary legitimacy. This operation can be summarized in the coupling of several generalizations about the Hispanic tradition, according to the author, can understand the political tendencies that opened the Cuban revolution. Although key elements of this tradition is found in societies of other roots, we construct a pattern that can explain the revolutionary explosion particular stimulated by the Cuban feat. These generalities, little attentive to the historical, are not uncommon in the work of peace. The fact is that the poet who, according to Krauze, had sympathized with true spirit of the left and even the Cuban revolutionaries, became an impassioned critic of the revolution as the cold war was at its peak and was nearing its end. In short, the path of peace was a movement from the "left" to his conversion, Krauze says, "a leading liberal intellectual dissent and social revolutionary Marxism," which warned since 1982 about the risks of a " revolution "was a return to the old Iberian absolutism. The journey of peace seems especially important to Krauze, it is a warning for young people "have embraced the new [...] the old dream of the revolution, now embodied in the commander There Chavez ..." That's what question.

Peace tone was that of gloomy prophet who preached about a threat: the revolution and the socialist dreams. But by 1989, the winds had changed, Paz was full of optimism and was able, Krauze says, prophesying "the end of the revolution", as they attended a series of changes that enabled the poet to announce "the decline of revolutionary myth "in Western Europe and" the return of democracy in Latin America. " Everything under the auspices of what Paz called the "democratic liberalism." How envisaged by the poet? In a way that by now is familiar: "We must rethink," wrote Paz our tradition, renew and seek reconciliation two great political traditions of modernity, the liberalism and socialism . I dare say this is 'the issue of our time' "(8). This search is the task that inherits Peace Krauze and, apparently, by some intellectuals he mentioned above. Therefore

Krauze, in its role as a privileged interpreter, immediately goes into a fun experiment, guessing what Paz would have thought of Hugo Chávez. Krauze says he never spoke to Peace on Chavez, but is "confident" that it would not have seen "reconciliation" of the traditions that had been recommended by the teacher. Moreover, speculation about the sarcasm that would have voted for Chavez Paz, citing Marx. It is a delusional phase, in which Krauze not talk about what Paz thought at the time, but what the historian predicts that say Peace on Chavez. A curious exercise of retrospective prophecy.

Unfortunately, Krauze not continue with this innovative method, because it might have to prophesy (in retrospect) that would have regretted Paz character failed his prophecy about "the decline of the revolutionary myth." Well the main reason is that Krauze is embarked on burning criticism against Chavez is that, despite the announcements about the triumph of social democracy (liberal) in Latin America and the decline of socialism, resurfaced more strongly in the region that put popular projects in their core cares neoliberal model changes and even the goal of a "socialism of the century", all accompanied by the spread of revolutionary projects (the "Bolivarian revolution" in Venezuela, the "cultural and democratic revolution" in Bolivia, the "revolution citizen "in Ecuador). The same year the Peace announced the change of address, the new process of rebellion had an initial flicker in the Caracazo , which would lead to the Bolivarian government. A second highlight was the Zapatista uprising of 1994, Peace still managed to look and examine. Printing, of course, was that the neozapatismo had renewed the "cult of violence" that the uprising was "unrealistic" and was "doomed to fail" and that the military outcome would be "quick."

Bolivarian project embodies this new cycle of rebellions prominently, and that's why you tuck your batteries Krauze first to the leader of that movement. Since then, the objective is broader: to contain the new air anti-neoliberal and anti-capitalist gradually swirling in the region. This is seen by the group that is part Krauze as a calamity. Hence the onslaught and, in addition, the arrogance of assuming the role of director of that left that insists on ignoring the new course charted by his teacher in 1989. This results in a strange fact: from conservative positions is shown at left what suits her, and he preaches when it is ignored.

The small liberal international

Krauze is not alone in his crusade against the return of revolutionary dreams. It articulates with other characters and groups. Thus, we might speak of a "small liberal international, whose most notable feature is its pronounced conservative profile. It is strange Krauze proximity to positions such as the English Popular Party and its leader José María Aznar (who honored that in 2003, amid mutual praise dithyrambic) and that both participate in seminars and joint political project. One of those jobs, "the lemon" was the one held in Mexico in the middle of the 2006 presidential campaign. Without a blush, appeared together to support the rightist Felipe Calderon, candidate of PAN, one of the more conservative parties and retardant on the continent. So when Krauze is presented as a social liberal, while supporting more ultramontane right, you do not know what to think or do not understand a word about the political leanings of the speaker (and that says to join) or no no respect for the intelligence of others. Also include other intellectuals dedicated to the letters, such as Mario Vargas Llosa. There is indeed no coincidence that Krauze has coincided with Vargas Llosa in Venezuela at the time indicated.

Judging by the results, the adventures of Venezuela group have not been very successful. You may even have strengthened the positions of the local left. Rather than drive, their activism is an expression of the weaknesses of the conservative Venezuelan. The opposition in Venezuela lacks intellectuals themselves, with sufficient preparation and public impact to promote their political positions and, above all, to promote unity between his clenched components, feuding among themselves. Therefore relies on foreign intellectuals who form a sort of "task force" (or "quick action group"), who came rushing to support their peers on the right.

Krauze deformations

Enrique Krauze's book is mostly a string of Disqualifications against Chavez, but I missed the author's arguments. Things are so because they are so Krauze says: Chavez is an authoritarian, a dictator who wants to stay in power indefinitely. No matter that Chavez has met again and again with the requirements of the "legitimacy" stated Peace democratic (remember: elections, civil liberties and republican institutions.) It is irrelevant that the politician has undergone Bolivarian popular will through free elections. Chavez has done in twelve occasions. Apparently, this is an essential and sufficient when it comes to politicians who behave differently to Chavez (for example, as blind supporters of neoliberal policies), but is irrelevant when it comes to a leader who defies the tenets of "free market", the "deregulation" irresponsible and does not practice total indolence meet the needs of the majority, impoverished and disabled to exercise fundamental rights. In this case, there is no democracy, it is an "absolute monarch" and a messianic (one of the favorite groundless Krauze, used to infamy against López Obrador in 2006). Moreover, the democratic cleaning requirement is a requirement strictly to the left, but it can be exempted from the right. As noted, Krauze did not hesitate to support right-wing candidate Felipe Calderón, dedicated to the dirty war against its principal adversary, and when Calderon is declared the winner " haiga been like haiga been"-in his own words, the liberal historian shows no distress or engaged in combat with democratic passion.

Nor is it enough that during the administration of Chavez has respected the fundamental freedoms, even against opposition sectors that do not rest a moment in their task of undermining the institutions and promote the violation of the laws (including incitement to assassination). The opposition to the liberal Krauze supports is one that got to the point of assaulting the republican institutions praised both Octavio Paz, through a coup, and immediately took power with a procedure as "democratic" to remove spent freely elected representatives, to pursue defunct authorities, detention and abuse of opponents. Were not even compassionate. Possessed by the fury democratic institutions dissolved. Fascism poked her face with horror. It's a long story. It was an episode full of vile and ruthless violence. However, they did all this and more, they do not have a shred of liberal (in its pristine) or democratic, and respected liberties and republican institutions (as the Master Peace), seem now to Krauze people "fighting for democracy and liberal practice a religion." In contrast, a government which is not recorded arbitrary imprisonment, extrajudicial killings, torture and other dirty tricks so common in other countries, it only deserves contempt and sentencing Krauze, and the leader that, once restored to power by insurrection of his countrymen, not revenge on their tormentors or affect its properties or Media closed the coup promoters, etc., it seems a corrupt and a violator of human rights. Krauze be more careful if it would realize that by obviating the vileness of their clients, they are transferred to it, that being so unfair and biased in its assessment, the iniquity and dogmatism become distinctive features.

Provided denigrate Chavez Krauze reaches to invent a "Decalogue" which, he says, the Venezuelan leader has "established" with "the people." It insults have how are you: the people "has no individual rights" can only resort to "clustering" to be heard, is only free to engage in protests, is owned by the leader ... Indeed, the author had used the resource Decalogue invented to apply it to Lopez Obrador and all Latin American ruling departs from the neoliberal script, accusing them of engaging in "populist" (9). The method is unworthy of an intellectual. And, in this case, rather than an attack on Chavez, is a cruel insult to the people of Venezuela.

is impossible in this limited space to cover the complete catalog of abuse, deceit and lies that accumulates the author in his work. Only a few examples:

1) "Chavez is one of the richest men in the world." Accordingly, Chavez should be Forbes list of billionaires the world. Takes a similar attempt to vilify Fidel Castro (attributing the treasury as personal wealth). The detractors of this dare say he had secret bank accounts abroad, which was a childish slander. Krauze did not risk much.

2) When you eject the clique that ran at will on the oil company (PDVSA), Chavez made the largest privatization in history, "Krauze says," because "it is now their property." A blatant reversal of history: those who made the public company PDVSA private loot of a small oligarchy, are now victims: the ultimate privatization become privatized, and when he returned his character publicly the company was its privatization.

3) The accused Chavez of "propensity to monopolize education." So to free public education, is to monopolize? Here reverberate the claims of the Catholic Church leaders and other sectors stragglers who prefer an elite education and full of religious ideas. The European social liberalism would be amazed of the pulpit.

4) Chavez is "a champion of democracy," because although it has made "several electoral processes, as made "in a context increasingly stifling all civil liberties and total control of power Republicans." The "choking" of freedom seems to refer to the topic of the lack of freedom of speech and press in Venezuela. A stumbling block in some external media workhorse of domestic opposition. Chavez is accused of pursuing or restrict the means of violating freedom of expression. I never leave my amazement. Anyone who visits Venezuela fairly impartial can check for themselves that there are few countries in the world where the private sector, opposition to the government, has an extraordinary control over the media. I speak in quantitative terms and qualitative: not only is dominating most of the media, but also the most powerful and pervasive (electronic, without missing forms, newspapers, etc.). In fact, one can say that the integrating factor of the Venezuelan opposition are the means, and they work as a whole and their political party. When you read, see or hear the Venezuelan media, realizes that it is a country that enjoys great freedom of expression, sometimes bordering on debauchery (from the viewpoint of current regulations). Such opposition media have the luxury of not only lying, but openly violate the laws even more severe (eg inciting assassination ie, the assassination of President). In the United States and other countries, this offense would result in a prison for its authors. Not in Venezuela. The opposition media distort the facts and spread lies, and not sporadically or by mistake but intentionally and systematically. However, none of them have been censored or closed. I remember a case that shocked me. While in Venezuela and a half ago, I read in a newspaper's claim that right in schools, the government was distributing automatic rifles to children. The information is published as a truism, even included photos of the weapons. In any other country would have been the subject of a scandal and a huge investigation. Apparently the authorities were not in the need for such research. The news was so obviously a liar who disappeared like a sigh. It was a fib. People who do things like that, is the screaming (by the media) there is no freedom of expression.

5) Consider the second case the previous point: the relative control of powers. Perhaps the author relates primarily to the National Assembly (Congress) where there is no opposition representation. It's true. But you can not hide the fact that if there is no opposition because they chose not to participate in elections corresponding betting come to power by other means, not just democratic and lawful. Now the leaders are sorry, feel that their bet was a mistake and have stated that plan to participate in the upcoming elections to that body of power. They should.

6) None of the "missions" (in education, health, food, etc..) Created by the government, Krauze says, "has achieved the expected results. Its greatest impact has been cultural. " Man, is not an outcome or less negligible. But not the whole truth. Many people can see the good results (including all kinds of international agencies, NGOs, etc.).. For example, the data provided Chavez is nothing suspicious sources, such as ECLAC and the United Nations, show that conditions in Venezuela have changed favorably to the popular sectors in the field of education (Recently, Venezuela was declared by UNESCO as a country free of illiteracy), the health, food, among others. But above all, the results can clearly see are the millions of poor beneficiaries. It should be noted here also to a large proportion of middle-class citizens and even members of the upper class. But neither they nor willing to Krauze view.

And therein lies the problem largely Krauze's book: it is crossed by a cut vision and ideologically biased. Not that I can see but not see. Or better: just want to see what their political purposes and their ideological commitments you make. That's why, for him, the Bolivarian project has failed on all fronts, Chávez is an intolerable threat and socio-political landscape is bleak Venezuela. The nuances, when forced to make are only to confirm the negative absolute rule that has built its own prejudice.

To characterize this state of mind, Roberto Hernández Montoya has used the term denial. It refers to an unbeatable denial of the facts, sometimes borders on the ridiculous. For those affected, the cost is to understand nothing of what goes on around them. The deniers, he explains, can not see "missions, deny bridges, highways deny, deny literacy denied hundreds of thousands of people who regained vision [...], the tens of millions of books at low cost or free . Deny everything. Denied the benefits of the abolition of the credit index, indexed or Mexican. Cured in a module [health] of Barrio Adentro and deny it. Realero lose at the Stanford Bank [who conned an undetermined number of Venezuelans for more than 2 billion dollars] and deny or pay to fool with the arguments Chavez their fault that they ran into Stanford, fearful that Chavez will confiscate your money. He has not done in ten years, private enterprise has run its course in charge, making money like never before and still more afraid that Stanford Chávez. Being an idiot is the most expensive luxury. " Then explain that the conduct disorder that designates the denial "is not just deny something, but hide it, ignore it in a curtain of deafening silence. It was pathetic how the media kept silent about the second Oscar coup [in the latest installment] Sean Penn won [American actor who is sympathetic to the Bolivarian cause]. They see the government work, but when put string [television] to finally see it, then turn off the television or go to a cable channel. Internal exile. Do not want to see, not having to admit they do not want to admit: that this is the only good government of the Republic so far. It is not perfect, "someone said that was it, but the best" (10). Is, "I say the same thing happens to Krauze.

* The author is a professor-researcher at the Center for Research and Higher Studies in Social Anthropology (CIES). Director of the journal Memory . Recent works: Canon Snorri . cultural diversity and tolerance, UACM, Mexico, 2004; The labyrinth of identity , UNAM, Mexico, 2006, and praise of diversity. Globalization, multiculturalism and etnofagia , Casa de las Americas, Havana, 2008 (Essay Prize Ezequiel Martínez Estrada, Casa de las Americas 2008).

Notes:

1. Tusquets Editores, Mexico, 2008.

2. Anthony Giddens, The Third Way . The renewal of social , Taurus, Spain, 1999.

3. H. Díaz-Polanco, "The Third Way. A critical evaluation ", in Bulletin of American Anthropology , Institute of Geography and History, 34, Mexico, June, 1999.

4. José Antonio Crespo, 2006: speak the minutes. The weaknesses of the Mexican electoral authority , Random House Mondadori / Debate, Mexico, 2008.

5. Cf Letras Libres, Year X, no. 113, May 2008.

6. Enrique Krauze, "Journey to Caracas," Letras Libres , November 2008, p. 25.

7. Antonio Sánchez García, "Krauze and Vargas Llosa in Caracas", El Nacional, Caracas, December 6, 2008.

8. Cited by Krauze in power and delirium , op. cit., p. 330. Italics ours.

9. At least since 2005, Krauze has published "Ten Commandments" against "populism", adapted to the political situations of different countries (Mexico, Venezuela, etc..). The most far-reaching announcement was made in Spain: E. Krauze, "Decalogue of Latin American Populism", El Pais, October 14, 2005. This is a simplistic list, based on the topics most backward of liberalism on the sins incurred by politicians who are not pleasing to the conservative intellectuals. The meaning of article I analyzed accurately Krauze Emir Sader ("Populism: its complete translation," Alai-Amlatina , November 14, 2005). These sentences sum it up: "The Decalogue" said Sader, "is a whole body X-liberal cynicism [...] In the neoliberal era, the popular word used to try to disqualify the priority of social hub of the alternative post-neoliberal" .

10. Roberto Hernández Montoya, "denial" in Aporrea , Caracas, March 1, 2009.

Free Simple Roomagreement

scented Who won and who lost with "narcoprotestas" Destroying the memory

Kristin Bricker
* Rebellion
March 12, 2009
Original: Narco News
** Translation: Germain Leyens

Calderón and the military are heroes, social organizers and the poor are demonized

The February 9, 2009, several hundred young with faces covered blocked major roads in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, in a highly coordinated series of actions, paralyzing the city of 1.1 million people. The protesters returned almost every day for more than a week, allegedly coordinated actions by young people with Nextel phones. Each time the protesters again blocked arteries, accompanied by more women with young children in their arms.

At first, the motives of the protesters were not evident. Then they know who protested against the use of the military in the war against drugs. Specifically, they demanded the withdrawal of the Army civilian police functions and the resignation of the commander of the 7th Military Zone, Cuauhtémoc Pérez Antúnez.

Within days of the first protest, the Mexican military - who were deployed to Nuevo Leon by President Felipe Calderon in February 2007 to combat organized crime - arrested six suspected members of the Zetas, the organization founded by defectors from Mexican army working for drug trafficking organizations. The government accused the six of leading the demonstrations that created chaos in Monterrey. Among those arrested is Juan Antonio Beltrán Cruz. The military said they found illegal firearms and 71 backpacks filled with school supplies in his truck. Cruz Beltran was allegedly poor neighborhoods to entice parents and youth to participate in the protests.

Some protesters also admitted to the government and the media that they were paid for participating between 200 and 1,000 pesos (13 to $ 70), women received more money, and women with young children in the arms receiving maximum.

February 17, the day of the most intense protests in Monterrey, blockades to protest the military occurred in Reynosa and Matamoros in Tamaulipas state, several cities in Veracruz and Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua.

February 18, the military began patrolling the streets of Monterrey. The protesters were gone.

February 19, President Felipe Calderon made a speech commemorating the Mexican Army Day at the base of the 7th Military Zone in Monterrey. In his speech, described as "cowardly" to the drug cartels by paying women, children and older people to manifest, and stated that the Army would not return to their barracks until the civil police has the capacity to continue the fight.

are not normal events

Narco News spoke with a supporter of the Zapatistas' Other Campaign in Ciudad Juárez over the February 17 demonstrations that shut down three international bridges in that city. She actively participates in multiple networks of organization throughout the city and says she knows most of the social organizations and know of protests before they occur. Wishes to remain anonymous for his own safety. Narco News says that two of the three blocks were advertised before they occurred and organizations known-dups and families of missing persons, took part. Their particular focus on new-army was generally taxi drivers are protesting against the policies of Public Transport Secretary regarding plates for taxis, the lack of stops for taxis, and other topics related to their work. Similarly, families of missing persons generally protest against violence, insecurity and militarization, but never focus only on the military.

The third protest, however, was "very strange" he says. It was announced before it happened. She says she knows most of the organizers of the city, but when observed protest in the news, "did not see a single familiar face." Although he says that the demonstrations of February 17 were not with characteristic for Ciudad Juárez, said that there were not nearly as strange as the protests that took place in Monterrey.

In Monterrey, the local organizers knew immediately that the anti-military protest their protest was not normal. A Monterrey-based group that adheres to the Other Campaign told Narco News that is in contact with most social organizations in town that make demonstrations, and none of them knew some activists and organizations that participated in the protests. Did not even know that protests take place until that happened, there was no email notices or flyers in the streets calling on people to demonstrate. Don Héctor Camero

NGO based in Monterrey, Tierra y Libertad, also knew immediately that this event was different. Radio Bemba told that groups usually involved in the protests are released, their organizations and their demands. It was not the case with the protests against the army. The protesters remained anonymous, even with their faces covered. Did not immediately know their demands and did not express how they had suffered since the army took to the streets in his city. Camero

known that At least some of the participants were paid. Radio Bemba told how the family member of a friend agreed to 500 pesos for participating. The homeowner had just lost his job, and someone offered her 500 pesos women to participate in a blockade. She accepted the offer.

Followers of the Other Campaign in Monterrey also became suspicious when they saw the police reaction to the protest. Although this protest was one of the most aggressive that Monterrey has seen in recent history, the police were more considerate than previous protests. There was no burning barricades in the streets of Monterrey for normal manifestations, says the source of Narco News. But when 80 to 90 youths set fire to a barricade on Avenida Fidel Velásquez during protests against the army, the police preferred dialogue to repression. "If social organizations have done that would have been a very violent repression," said a supporter of the Other Campaign that wishes to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. Camero

agrees: "Young people gather at Civil Plaza del Colegio Monterrey. As young people begin to congregate, the police intervened. Do not let young people gather. They [youth] educational films shown there, political and civic - it is not a sin - and they [the police] can not perform their cultural activities. They are sent from. But in this case [the "narco protests"], the police acted very wisely. "

reaction "cautious" of the police and army to quell the protests is widely documented in the Mexican media. About 50 people were arrested during the protests. They were released hours later after paying bail of 500 pesos. Thanks to the draconian laws of Mexico on organized crime, these people, whom the government accuses of working for drug cartels, could have been held without bail, but not what happened. Reforma reports that a young man was arrested on the Avenue of the Constitution, but was released minutes later. Shortly afterwards he was seen blocking the Gonzalitos Avenue.

not know why the police acted with much caution. The local government official reason is that many women, elderly people and children participated in the protests. The source of Narco News in Monterrey talking about rumors that the police had received threats. It's a possibility: the day after police arrested the alleged Zeta, Beltran Cruz, with a 9 mm submachine gun and 71 bags in his possession, a police commander involved in his arrest was murdered in broad daylight. The attackers shot him many times that his face was unrecognizable. The cartridges recovered from the crime scene show that at least some of the weapons used, a 9-mm submachine gun and an assault rifle, are limited by Mexican law to exclusive military use (although the law did not prevent nuclear weapons end up in the hands of members of drug cartel).

Winners and Losers in the "narcoprotestas"

During the "narco protests," the world's attention focused on one thing: Who was behind the protests? The government says the Gulf cartel and its partners armed Zeta organized protests Monterrey. Some have speculated quietly that the government itself organized the protests to strengthen the military's popularity. The truth is that nobody, except the organizers of the protest may come to know who was really responsible. Therefore, the real question is not "Who did it?" But "why did it?"

The reasoning behind the careful planning and masterful execution of the protests of Monterrey is best understood by evaluating who came out ahead and who lost when he finally finished the "narco protests."

Winners

President Felipe Calderon: Calderon presented with a platform of "hit hard on organized crime." Days after taking over from his post, took the controversial decision to deploy troops to states where they believed had been lost ground to the drug. Since then, drug violence has surged in 2008, the number of killings related to organized crime has more than doubled the 2007 total, making the drug war is more deadly than the drugs themselves. However, the day he arrived at the army base in Monterrey to give his speech of the Day Army was the first day in over a week in which there was no "narco protests" in Monterrey. While Calderon was previously associated with increased rates of homicide, mayhem, and violence, is now associated with peace and tranquility. As described by the anonymous supporter of the Other Campaign in Montreal: "Everybody talks about a 'failed state' and Calderón arrives and brings the order."

The National Action Party (PAN) and Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) : 2009 is an election year in Nuevo León. The post of mayor in Monterrey and the governor will be in play on 5 July. Monterrey is controlled currently by the PAN, while the governor of Nuevo León is PRI. Both contests have become races to see what can repress political dissent better than other candidates. The PAN, as the party following the deployment of the army to fight organized crime, and has proven a strong hand when it comes to organized crime. However, the PRI, which ruled Mexico with an iron fist for more than seven decades, will not be so easily defeated.

Rodrigo Medina de la Cruz, the PRI candidate for governor, proposed that the state of Nuevo Leon Congress passes a law making blocking a path "in a violent way" is punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine between 7,500 and 25,000 pesos (492-1639 dollars). The mayor of the PAN in Monterrey, Adalberto Madero Quiroga, submitted its own proposal to the state legislature: roadblocks should be punishable by six years in prison, but if someone dies in the protest, the sentence is doubled to 12. Quiroga's proposal does not specify whether the sentence of 12 years applies only if the protesters kill the person, or is applied if the police or the army also killed someone. In Mexico, the police, the army and pro-government paramilitary groups are generally responsible for the deaths of protesters, not the participants in the protests.

The army Monterrey protests have become heroes to the military. The press and eyewitnesses say that the people of Monterrey literally welcomed with open arms when the soldiers began patrolling the streets of the city just a day before the arrival of Calderon. According to reports, people in the streets cheered and applauded when they saw the soldiers. Contact Monterrey Narco News says that "the city is completely militarized," and that people seem to like.

If someone wanted to organize protests to increase the popularity of the Army, Monterrey is the perfect place to do so. The group of Monterrey told Narco News that there was never a significant sentiment against the Army in Monterrey, despite the military presence in Nuevo Leon for over a year. Cameron explains why: "In Monterrey has not been the kind of transgressions committed by soldiers that have taken place elsewhere. I'm not saying there, there have been 150 or 200 agents of the Federal Preventive Police (PFP). Are federal police have also been deployed in the war against drugs and participating in joint operations with the Army. But in general, soldiers patrols are carried out with care. There have been some complaints due to incorrect or raids by Army checkpoints. But in general there have been many complaints about their treatment of the population. So these protests, in which young people have not only disguised, but have walked around with clubs threatening to drivers or young women, have created a situation in which the people support the military. He says: 'We're with the military. " So the protests are actually causing the opposite "of its stated objective, which is the withdrawal of the army."

Indeed. Just two weeks after the end of the protest, the federal government announced it was sending another 5,000 troops to Ciudad Juarez, is the most violent city in Mexico and also the site of a protest that the media associated with the "narco protests." thousand federal police officers and two thousand soldiers have already arrived. Before the recent strengthening, there were 2,000 soldiers stationed in Ciudad Juarez, which means that when all the reinforcements arrive, 7,000 soldiers will patrol the city of 1.4 million inhabitants. It is one soldier for every 200 civilians in a city with a population density of more than 4,632 persons per square kilometer, or 23 soldiers per square kilometer. Although the federal government's announcement is not likely a direct result of the "narco protests," certainly did not hurt demonstrations Army public relations before one of the 'waves' strongest military in the country.

All narco-trafficking organization to work with sectors of the army: In December 2008, a correspondent for Narco News, Bill Conroy, presented evidence that corruption within the Mexican Army would not be limited to a few isolated incidents officers (albeit high range) on the payroll of the cartel in his article "Murder in Juárez bringing to light a 'military cartel' pop." A source, former DEA agent Celerino "Cele" Castillo III, told Conroy:

"During the presidential election, El Chapo [Joaquín Guzmán, leader of the Sinaloa drug organization supported [Mexican President] Calderon. Calderon then rented the Army to eliminate El Chapo Osiel [Cardenas Guillen, head of the Gulf drug organization that controlled the Mexican border city of Nuevo Laredo]. You have to remember: Why has not been arrested Shorty? "

Calderon retired military and now works hand in hand with El Chapo. U.S. Veterans ... [the war] Iraq were acting as mercenaries for the Mexican military. Right now as we speak, U.S. veterans of Iraq is working for that organization. Do reinforcement work on this side [of the U.S. border] to the Mexican military. ... They are charging the profits of drug sales in the U.S. They [those who owe money to the drug organization] are trapped and give them 24 hours to send some money to bank accounts in Mexico. If not, are executed ...

Former M-70 grenade launcher 40 mm ammunition used. Are on the table in the picture [of weapons confiscated by Mexican authorities] of today's newspaper. What the story does not say is that the ammunition of 40 mm is U.S. production. And that, what you think? "

Conroy goes on:" Castle added that recently received information indicating that another group has become quite famous through the media, the Zetas (Mexican group trained by U.S. special operations who deserted the Mexican Army) now support the Mexican military in drug trafficking operations along the border. "

In the same article quoted William Conroy Peyro Ramírez, a former senior member of the Juarez drug organization, reporting in the case of the House of Death, who describes how the Mexican Navy smuggled drugs for DTO from Colombia.

Conroy's story does not specify a drug organization that has control over the Mexican Army. Mentions three or four separate organizations that supposedly are in collusion with the military: the organization of El Chapo Guzman, the Zetas (who supposedly work for the Gulf drug organization or anyone who pays well), and DTO Juárez. Rather, the evidence and Conroy sources show that to survive an underground industry has to keep close to their friends close and even closer to their enemies. In a business where alliances and rivalries that change with the wind, and where politicians, police and military officers to the highest bidder, the military has emerged as another participant in the game. Just as in other cartels, alliances of soldiers to the cartel "change the conditions, and find new allies if the price is right. May prefer different allied military officers and soldiers under his command, with different drug trafficking organizations. And even if the rumors that President Calderón has its preferred drug trafficking organization and using its military campaign to eliminate the enemies of that organization were true, Calderon can not control all of his soldiers better than how El Chapo can control all the cells of the "Federation" Sinaloa.

So, although it is possible that a drug organization or a partnership between that organization and a section of the Army has organized the "narco protests," nobody knows what military officer and his soldiers working with what organization until someone withdraws the officer. Even then, it is doubtful that the complainant told the truth. So the official winner and clear of "narco protest" was the Army as a whole. Whatever the drug trafficking organizations that are currently aligned with sectors of the Army, just witnessed the rise the power of her ally, and with it his own. And because the military, who have been waging a constant public relations battle over his involvement in the war against drugs, just to increase his power and popularity, they may have just increased the present value of that loyalty.



Losers Apart from all the drug cartel that is not aligned with the Army, particularly in regions in which occurred the "narco protests," civil society suffered a significant blow because of the protests.

social organizations and : protests "against the army" in Monterrey managed to neutralize very legitimate demands (that the military withdraw from civil duties of maintaining law and order) and complaints (the soldiers perform civilian functions to maintain order without a formal declaration of war is unconstitutional).

When anti-military protests erupted in areas with a history of legitimate protests against militarization, such as Veracruz and Ciudad Juarez, there was immediate speculation in the press that they were also linked to drug traffickers. However, unlike Monterrey, no concrete evidence has emerged that these protests have been organized by none other than the protesters themselves. As a supporter of the Other Campaign in Ciudad Juárez told Narco News that one of the anti-military blocks of an international bridge in that city was "very strange" compared to similar protests, she said legitimate social organizations were definitely involved in the protests and blockades occurred in other parts of Ciudad Juárez that day. Even though the government found that participated legitimate members of families of people have disappeared by the military, the press reported, without citing other evidence, that "security agents" unidentified people said they were hired to protest. Although the government has not presented any evidence or facts no official statement to the effect that at least some protesters in Ciudad Juarez have received compensation for their participation, if someone paid people to protest where legitimate social organizations also were protesting, they succeeded in destroying all credibility with in that city that had legitimate social organizations. And even if not a single protester in Juárez participated by receiving payment, the spectrum still exists - the media discussed the protests in all four states as if all were the same, without a shred of proof that there have been participants outside Monterrey who have received some compensation.

social organizers are thorns on the back of undemocratic power. As such, activists can be so inconvenient for drug traffickers to the government. In locations where drug dealers are owners of, or form the government, or in regions where drug traffickers are the bosses, activists threaten the power of the drug trafficking organization. Whoever has been following the protests, whether the government or a drug organization or a mixture of both, has consolidated his power to wrest the social and political organizers.

The "narco protests" not only served to damage the credibility of activists; The government also is using them to push for measures to suppress the protests and get some control over them, in a way very similar to that used by the U.S. government As mentioned earlier, Nuevo León officials have proposed sentences between 6 and 12 years and heavy fines for blocking a road during a protest, which currently is a traffic violation. The only proposed exception to the law is if a legitimate protest to alert the government before the action you want to block a road during a demonstration. This effectively introduced a permit system for events in Mexico, where demonstrators will want to demonstrate ask the government for permission to do so. The current system is largely U.S. and gives the government significant control over the demonstrations. The government says the organizers where and when they can demonstrate. When the government does not want to have protests, denies permits directly to the protesters, as was the case during the Republican National Convention [RNC, for its acronym in English] in Philadelphia in 2000. The city government granted permits to indicate to the RNC for the whole city for the duration of the convention, leaving nothing for social organizations (the RNC, obviously not used the permit to protest - just wanted to exclude activists). The only given permission to the organizers of the demonstration was a "free speech zone" (meaning "freedom of expression was a right only in that area, but not the rest of the city) which was an enclosed area in a corner of a park so far from the Convention Center that no one paid attention to the few protesters who decided to use the area. If the event serves to raise the costs of a government policy or decision as a war, the demonstrations led to reduced costs for the government to a minor headache and temporary.

Thanks to the "narco protests," Monterrey public opinion has given the green light to kill the government demonstrators and pro-government civilians. The contact in Monterrey Narco News sent us comments in online forums that in his opinion accurately represent the feelings of citizens of Monterrey on the protests. At a forum on the website of the Monterrey newspaper El Norte, a comment says: "if you're in the car and you go through, although aviéntales the car run over and do not stop lying if you let them. Moreover, neither turn around, like you've hit a frog. If you're a mere block later, take the same car. " Another comment said that after hitting a protester, the Drivers should give "reverse to see if they are eager to follow argüernderas by clowns and a backpack." Another one says "if they stand near a bridge take him and it's their fault." And: "if they kill all these people no one will miss, every piece of shit trash or leave these starving or just paste it to the trees of the indepenaca or RISC, and those things go from there, some dead of those most do not do anyone any harm, so you better do something good for society does not keep fucking starving in the boat ...! "[sic]. Nobody

forum similar critical comments that call to murder. Being

activist in Mexico it is dangerous, even without public support for his murder. In February, Mexico's Supreme Court refused to blame the police who killed Alexis Benhumea and Francisco Javier Cortés at demonstrations in San Salvador Atenco in 2006. In its decision, or even acknowledge that the police were responsible for the killings, despite a tear gas bomb killed Benhumea and the gun that killed Cortez is of a size which is given to state police commanders, but whose bearing on civilians is illegal. Also in February, armed men "who appeared to be soldiers" kidnapped two Indian activists for human rights in Guerrero, tortured and murdered.

neighborhoods: The poor neighborhoods are neighborhoods on the outskirts of cities. Have to fight for basic municipal services such as paved streets, running water, and sewer systems and sanitary facilities.

Narco News has documented how the joint operation of the federal police and army in Michoacán is used to suppress the neighborhoods, in particular those belonging to social organizations. Since there is evidence that residents of neighborhoods were paid to block roads during the "narco protests," you can expect increased government repression in the colonies Popular Monterrey-even those who did not. If the locks

provoked fury against protesters in general, provoked a particularly fierce anger against the poorest residents of Monterrey because it is known that some of them participated in exchange for school supplies and money. A comment in the forum of the North wrote that the military should be deployed against the protesters (they were made six days after the comment) and "total kill these people if no one will miss him, every piece of shit trash or leave These starving or just paste it to the trees of the indepenaca or cliffs. "

hatred against poor residents Monterrey is misguided says Cameron, because it ignores the conditions created by the government itself, leading people to block roads in exchange for school supplies and money. "There is a crisis of unemployment and neglect of young people. There is no guarantee [of employment for young people]. I'm not even talking about schools or sports-talk job. This closure is easy to make such offers [to be paid for protesting]. It's a very strange scene, unimaginable, but it can happen easily due to the situation. " Camero

blames the government to spend millions of pesos in public funds to support political parties when no adequate provision to schools with their basic needs. "How is it possible that the narcos are providing school supplies to the people? We have an ongoing campaign to get school supplies in schools [Nuevo Leon]. These are conditions that the government has allowed to develop, and organized crime may seize them. "

* Kristin Bricker is a correspondent based in Mexico Narco News. Also part of the Rebel Imports collective that sells textiles, coffee and fair trade honey from Zapatista cooperatives. For contacts with Kristin krisbricker@gmail.com write. His personal blog is http://mywordismyweapon.blogspot.com . ** Feature
original
English: h ttp: / / narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/03/who-won-and-who-lost-mexicos-narco-protests

Savegame для Dragon Age Origins

Hector Gomora
Rebellion
March 11, 2009

Nine years of breaking the strike at the UNAM

On 6 February, met Nine years after the invasion of the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) from the unconstitutional portion of the army, disguised as police, which is the Federal Police. Thus the strike broke months earlier (April 20), triggered by an attempt by the power system to privatize UNAM shims from increased fees. Of course, as always happens in history, the trigger was one, but the resulting movements grow and reproduce various grievances on which they seek justice.

There is much to say about it, but it can now address the main points, which once were discussed in the media, and where was sufficient to find the bias and half-truths that made the media lynching that served as a pretext to break the strike. In this part incluso plumas afines a la izquierda, pero a la izquierda parlamentaria (o sea, el Partido de la Revolución Democrática), ésa que aceptó las reglas del sistema y que cuando surgen movimientos de base, que no buscan negociaciones para beneficio, siempre terminan dándoles la espalda. No es de extrañar que tanto el Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional como el Consejo General de Huelga (columna del movimiento estudiantil de 1999-2000) marcaran su distancia respecto al PRD.

Por el contrario, existen otros intelectuales y organizaciones que se niegan a aliarse con esa facción pragmática y utilitarista y trabajan para rescatar el verdadero legado histórico izquierdista, que concibe una sociedad integrada from below and not driven by elites borreguiles. Most of these voices are hardly heard when the CGH was presented in the media as intransigent.

met Now that nine years of breaking the strike, echoed in the media-even in some rather linked to the left-memories that are more characteristic of historical revisionism of information to preserve the memory: very biased reviews, which particularly important facts omitted while ranged in comments on the "undeniable" failures of the movement, but presented in a way that outline the CGH as a small group of bullies inept and incapable of understanding much. Admittedly, there were factions that fell on it, but to call a movement as complex as simplistic as it is, to say the least, ignorant.

Here are some of the things that were said. You'll notice that some were common to virtually all media, others were characteristic of the left press.

1. There was a marked polarization in the CGH and a natural attrition of the movement.

This was true in part, also omitted the polarization was a more of the system, for example, with various "proposals" of solution that really solves nothing. That helped create a division between those who were undeceived and who, eager to resume classes, wanted to see in those desired solution. It's a classic maneuver of power, less secure minds bust. The wield so insistently that division within the movement had inoculated the idea that the University was in the hands of people without direction. Finally, speaking of attrition of the movement is not easy and requires many elements to secure. Of course, when it comes to honesty and accountability reporting.

2. The invasion of University City was censored by many university sectors, including many who had been handed down to conclude the work stoppage.

That's true ... and in the case of the latter was a great hypocrisy, because everyone knows fairly understood that statements such as "it is necessary that this strike ends" are always used by the government as a pretext for repression. More than a supposedly left-wing intellectual contributed to making the false idea that CGH had won and it was time to deliver the facilities. Carlos Monsivais again is a good example. When the system propaganda invented duo vs ultras. moderate, this writer published an article called "Ultra: hysteria will absolve me," where related, without proof, to sectors that did not accept CGH the "generous" offers Rectory with the wings more intransigent and aggressive movements of earlier times. It was a classic article that makes use of the prestige-built by the power system, to make statements that carry weight not only among supporters of the person, but as propaganda for the system, so that it "proves" that even most lucid minds of the left are against it.

course, when the crackdown came, Mosniváis immediately published an article called "The ultras par excellence", which saddled the government divided the qualifiers before the CGH ... as if there been possible to foresee that it was not to tell who had no force or means at their disposal, who has all that and the monopoly of legal violence. It's the classic maneuver of the organic intellectual: first contributed to the political lynching and repression when it comes do the shocked me to keep my image with the clueless.

3. The intention to amend the General Rules of Payments (RGP) was canceled in June, but students did not want to end the strike because they argued that other five remained unfulfilled demands.

Indeed, the trigger was the passage, quite dirty, amendments to Regulation General Payments (RGP), which looked especially a sharp increase in quotas. And indeed, the movement demanded, in addition to the cancellation of such reforms, the following: repeal of the 1997 reforms for which canceled the automatic pass to graduate high school at UNAM, to eliminate the only exam National Evaluation Center (Io) for admission to secondary school; convene a university congress democratic and decisive, dismantling of the police and cancellation proceedings and sanctions against those involved in the movement, and tour the school calendar to make up the days lost during strike.

Again we came across the suggestion that the movement was uncompromising. First, the alleged "cancellation" of the new RGP Dean did not mean to abandon its plans to raise fees, only subtly changed the way they originally wanted to impose (as I'll explain later). Second, indeed, the movement had other demands, and this paper suggests that the only thing that was under discussion were the quotas.

If not ill intent, if at least claim ignorance in a way, because history shows that social movements are often born for a specific trigger, but recaptured the accumulated grievances. Y in previous years the UNAM authorities had made clear actions that were assaults against students and against the whole project of public universities, including the following: remove the automatic pass to graduate high school and apply test-memorable as the rector Javier Barros Sierra had called "aberration" -; incorporate the consideration of Ceneval UNAM, in clear violation of university autonomy to accept evaluation forms designed in the neo-liberal private sectors, and implementation of an administrative apparatus of repression.

But for the ignorant and the wicked, the fees were the only thing of which had to worry. It is as if the intention is to study the movement of 1968 in Mexico only from the beating that some students handed riot, or gang prior litigation. Let this form of deception for people like Octavio Paz, and distorted the analysis of '68.

4. Rector Francisco Barnes de Castro bowed to proposing that the fees were voluntary, but the movement did not accept that as a solution to the conflict.

Without mentioning the reasons for the CGH and many analysts to reject the measure, it is building a picture of intransigence. But there are two very important. First, although voluntary, such fees were illegal because the Constitution provides that public education should be free, and that means it will be even for those who can pay, equal rights for all. Second, and more importantly, taking as a basis for the story, the supreme master, it was hoped that such contributions, even if it was implemented and thus, would become mandatory at any time there is the example of the tax on auto ownership , which was supposed to be just to fund the Olympics in 1968 ... and still pay. With a historical adversary can not be so naive as to rely, if one leaves a door ajar gets sooner or later. It is a postulate elementary social left, which preserves the historical memory, and that is not understood by lovers of the left "dialoguera" inflating his speech precisely for that word, but always avoids the undeniable fact that when dealing with an enemy the dialogue history can not be a good faith, but with strategy, because the enemy always hit on the weak parts found.

5. In July, researchers emeritus of the UNAM, supported by 41 teachers from various disciplines, called the CGH "to terminate the strike and submit their proposals in the discussion forums on the understanding that the proposals that emerge will be carried to relevant decision makers. " The strikers rejected the proposal.

Again we encounter a selection of facts that does not give space to the reasons for the striking students, they understand that the proposal did not meet any of the claims. It was a typical strategy "to specific demands, ambiguous answers." Repeal the fees requested, untie the Ceneval and so on., And offered emeritus (fanfare please) ... discussion spaces. Moreover, "Emeritus"-not all were, but named in his time was part of the propaganda strategy, raised the same as the authorities: to bring particularly decision-makers ... controlled by them.

If one gets to investigate how the adoption of the regulation of payments that triggered the conflict, will find that there was precisely where the dirty work of the corporate machine linked to the federal bureaucrats who control the UNAM. How to endorse a proposal that made the decision in the hands of the same groups that triggered the conflict? Imagine that some workers go on strike and ask for 20% increase in salary and benefits 10% ... so clear, and in return receive and offer "discussion forums" where leave proposals were discussed between the employer and the representation union ... that workers know they are corrupt. Would we accept the proposal if we were the workers? "We seem intransigence?

6. Over time they had sharpened the contradictions and conflicts within the CGH and lived a climate of revenge and lack of self-criticism.

This is not true. This case is based precisely on the notes biased media. Is the strategy of selecting the facts that communicate to build a certain image, then do brainy analysis based on that false image. Even the press focused on the left fell into it.

arose While these notes, not necessarily invented, but selected from among others that contradict the desired image, people like Thomas Mojarro was aware of other activities and situations with groups politically educated and better organized ... while criticizing them as an ally their strategic failure. Moreover, these divisions and problems are inherent in any movement, but by chance only emphasizes those things at times.

7. There was pressure from radical groups to keep unemployment in schools where communities were pronounced to resume activities.

This is copied almost verbatim from a publication linked to the left, yet they are perceived use of language for ideological ends. Do not hesitate to label as position: those who speak for continuing the strike were "radical groups" and who wanted classes were "community" of course, the reasons for the "radicals" to remain vigilant unimportant. It reinforces the image of intransigence by suggesting-without evidence-that the majority of students wanted classes, while for the "other" uses the term reductionist "groups." Here it is asking one thing: even if it was really a significant majority to end a strike that was to abolish illegal fees, since when the voice communities is crucial to see if they fight for respect for the law? The legitimacy of the struggle is not measured by the number of people that support it.

Apparently, the basic idea of \u200b\u200bdemocracy as the voice of the masses is wielded only when convenient, if not, that everything is decided by group leaders.

8. In November, Francisco Barnes de Castro resigned as rector of the UNAM, passed by the conflict.

Actually the "resigned" President Zedillo, as part of a new strategy, which was in charge of the new agent in the UNAM, Juan Ramón de la Fuente. Not that Barnes was overtaken by the conflict, but changed its strategy. To terminate the authorities of the UNAM the image of intransigence and pass the CGH, was used to Leopard: change everything to change nothing. De la Fuente came with a conciliatory image, with the offer of dialogue, but as always happens with a historical adversary, such dialogue was just a ploy to gain time, they finally breached the agreements and progress on a demonization in the media. Overall, the same strategy used years ago against the Zapatistas.

Meetings between students and representatives of Dean were in the Palace of Mines in late 1999. After reaching some agreements authorities unilaterally cut off talks in January and presented something that was known as the Institutional Proposal to end the strike.

9. The governing Institutional Proposal contemplated definitely leave without effect on RGP.

is a half truth, and therefore untrue to say that the proposed fees expunged. What he proposed was that would be repealed if they so chose bodies controlled by the authorities. Do not rinse this is another way to build a picture of intransigence, and now the vast majority of media-including some linked to the left, as well outlined. They merely say that the CGH rejected the proposal without mentioning his reasons; and these were, again, they really did not involve any solution. He was being asked to CGH to give up his only weapon of pressure-making facilities, and disarmed and trust that corporate bodies are controlled by the authorities to settle their claims. In short, it was essentially the same thing months before the so-called proposed emeritus.

The chancellor held a plebiscite on January 20 to vote on the proposal Institutional among the university community.

10. The referendum initiative was supported by intellectuals and academics.

objective information would have added "and strong rejection and criticism of others. " But if they are not mentioned, much less be mentioned reasons. And there were two good-sized. First, that the plebiscite the authorities broke their word, they violated the agreements Mining December 1999, which recognized the CGH as the only valid interlocutor to resolve the conflict. Second, that the proposal implied stewardship ask the community their views on the assessments (for suggesting that they be repealed only if so decided, and law enforcement is not subject to public consultation or review of any organ. The Constitution provides in Article III that "all education that the State shall be free. " All means exactly that.

11. As a result of the plebiscite, 87 percent of the 150 000 participants supported the proposal and called for the resumption institutional activities.

These figures were released with great enthusiasm nine years ago and again a few weeks ago. Happened to be omitted-and-miss to mention what percentage of the total COMMUNITY COLLEGE 150 000 were those who, by bad faith or lack of understanding-legitimized the Rectory dishonesty. According to figures provided at the time by Mitofsky Consulting, which may be anything but a leftist organization, "the pattern of the UNAM was about 400 000 members. Go representativeness of the plebiscite. This would have been a failure for the authorities ... if not because the media turned to hide things like that to give the impression that the vast majority of the university community was against the strikers, they were a handful intransigent.

12. The strikers were confined to disavow the results of the plebiscite.

illegitimate They highlight what he and his lack of representativeness. Not to mention their arguments and use the verb "to discredit" it reinforces the image of intransigence.

addition, which was limited distribution for nine years and no now (or for many of the feathers of "left") is that in response to the referendum of the authorities, the CGH made his own parallel query, the results did not even bother to analyze.

13. As a prelude to the operation which came to University City, on February elements of the Federal Preventive Police entered the premises of the Preparatory 3, following a clash between members of the Directorate General of the Commonwealth of the UNAM and Student members Justo Sierra Front.

So it was said a few weeks ago, ignoring that there were complaints that it was a provocation to PFP give the pretext to invade.

14. The strikers were divided and engaged in long meetings.

Very true, and is one of the things that "good faith" is to question the move, but what the heck does that have to do with the fact that they were betrayed by Dean, subject of a fierce campaign to discredit and attacked in a brutal and illegal? Again he wanted to "justify" and wants to strike suggesting that UNAM was in the hands of people without direction. On Saturday February 5, 2000 some two thousand 260 soldiers entered the University City. A lot of students and teachers as well as people who supported the strike were charged nothing Unless terrorism and riot. That stopped the most "daring" review last February. None of the allegations of legal irregularities that occurred with it, or on signs in the sense that the operation of University City invasion involved several serious legal violations. All this was almost entirely censored at the time and now can be easily erased from history ... unless we do something.

That is the importance of preserving historical memory, because otherwise years later, we prescribe a version of "revisionist" as before, and will remain easy prey to the manipulations and conceptual information we will launch from the media when they arise the next-and insurance-social protest movements.

This is especially important now that the present government is taking the criminalization of social protest to extremes rarely seen in recent times. We must learn to distinguish allied feathers which are not. It is grown by ourselves, have more options (which are not in the commercial media, but they exist), to define our own position on things and learn to discriminate trial.

is that, or continue to say that students are criminals, that is, following hot on ourselves without realizing it.

Jorge Lofredo