BRIEF HISTORY OF FEDERAL ANTIOQUIA

       The plenipotentiary secretary, official spokesman and historical adviser of the Antioquia governments José Manuel Restrepo (accompanied by Juan del Corral), at the beginning of the 19th century, was clear that Antioquia should advocate for a federal and autonomous government, as one political scientist would say, a government Decentralized.

       The reasons used by the different provinces that defended the federation in New Granada were basically to follow the steps of the system of government of the nascent United States of America, adhering to its judicial, military and legislative formula. The idea that it was the best way to defend the American peoples from French troops, and who maintained a supposed fidelity to King Ferdinand VII, were no more than political excuses, the fact is that Antioch was present in political debates, and yet , In the fratricidal wars of the decade of 1810 to defend firmly the longed Federal Antioquia.

       The times changed, historical processes finally conceived the republic of Colombia as a centralized nation, and that was consolidated at the beginning of the 20th century, after so many vicissitudes, warlike conflicts, and especially, after the celebrations of the commemorations of the Centennial of the Independence of Colombia in 1910, taking as a reference what happened in Santafe de Bogota in 1810, although it is true that some provinces continued to long for those moments of federative governments, in the case of Antioquia, sentiment has remained alive in some sectors of the region.

       That sentiment awakens every time that the Antioquia leaders feel attacked, or somehow affected by the policies from Bogota, like what happened with a recklessness on the part of the government during the time of the drug traffic between the decades of 1980 and 1990, in Who excluded Antioquia from the map of tourist destinations, aroused not the Antioquia people, but rather the mafia groups, to generate again the feeling of a federal Antioquia, promoting a possible citizen initiative for such a case, but the Situation did not go to greater social consequences.

       Now, in 2017, the problem in the case of Belén de Bajirá, a hamlet that is disputed in local terms by the municipality of Mutatá, on the Antioqueño side, and the municipality of Riosucio, on the Chocoan side, has again generated the Feeling of a federal Antioquia. The case is more of a political than a social character, because the abandonment of such a village has been historical on the one hand and on the other, and has more demagogic and economic ingredients than real interest in the settlers.

       Terms such as the Antioqueña race, which has been abused by opportunists, or the exaltation of the Antioqueños as a region, only affects the social relations of a nation that although it has a consolidated institutionally, is still under construction, and in The extent to which political discourses are radically affected will seriously affect the economy and culture of both regions, which, in the end, those who actually benefit from the conflicts, have been some political and economic leaders, that is, a few people.

THE VENEZUELAN REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN

       Only one detonator is left, and the revolution will explode. It happened with the independence of the United States with the British taxes, it also happened, prior to World War I, with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, it happened with the arrival of Lenin prior to the Russian revolution, and in Mexico, the Revolution exploded with farce in the presidential elections - Dictator Porfirio Díaz in 1910.

       For the time being, the Venezuelan narco-dictator regime, led by Nicolás Maduro, tries not to kill Leopoldo López in the dungeon. Also, it is clear that the Venezuelan Armed Forces is not homogeneous in terms of support for the despotic Chavez government, since Chavez leaders, who are against Maduro, or disagree as in the case of the Attorney General of Venezuela, Mrs. Luisa Ortega Diaz, shows a division and nonconformity with the government.

       The marches against Maduro will not stop, it is the only way left for the opposition and the population, as the police increase their coercive actions against the demonstrators (because on the side of the Chavez marches, these are untouchable), In the same way the participation of the social sectors will be increased, as has happened for example with the entry of the main agricultural producers.

       To the extent that images of vulnerable people are shown being mistreated, tortured or murdered by members of the public force, international pressure will increase even more (there are still few ambassadors in Venezuela), and marches will become increasingly radical And reactionary in the face of police abuses ... the result?

       President Maduro will move from threats to action through so-called armed groups, which will increase their killings with the complicity of the army, which in turn will participate in selective killings (as reported by some media), this will still fuel hatred Of the Venezuelans who will see in it a kind of war of extermination, that will force them to take measures not only in the streets through the protests, but also in actions much more reactionary.

       The uncertainty is experienced not only by the Venezuelan people, but also by the political leaders at the head of Maduro, who demonstrate this through their incendiary speeches and their measures of terror against the civilian population. It is clear then, that the true Venezuelan revolution has begun.

GOVERNMENT AND ELN - THE NEGOTIATION NEEDED BY NOBODY

       Someone at one time mentioned that the ELN did not take it into account for a simple reason; historically coca plantations have not been for this group a priority in military and political terms, on the one hand. On the other hand, after the Anorí operation in the 1970s by the Colombian military, it is said that it was substantially reduced.

       So much was his military weakening that Carlos Castaño, the chief of the AUC at the time, referred to this subversive group in a contemptuous way. The same is true for the United States government, or rather, for the presidents who have passed through the White House; this group has not posed a major threat to the region. In fact, some columnist mentioned something like that, within the rare and contradictory political ideology of this guerrilla group, supposed to have as reference the Cuban revolution, is that the ELN wants a revolution without war, something like a war Without war.

       And it seems that this perception is generalized by the general population, which has been indifferent to the negotiations that are carried out in Ecuador except for some academics and columnists (as always happens), say that in the facilities of a Jesuit farm is the Table of negotiations. Because, to finish off, after what happened with the priest Camilo Torres, has had the aura of being a kind of guerrilla Catholic militancy. A rare kind of passive subversive group.

       Now, what does it mean that the negotiations being carried out in Ecuador are minimized in their smallest proportions? The answer can be summarized in two factors, first, the historical ignorance of the terrorist acts of the subversive group in Colombia and the Andean region in general, and second, because it has not been the subject of any political party.

       What would happen if it became a political issue as was done in the case of the FARC or as it is done in the case of the FARC? What do the FARC have that the ELN does not have to move the matter to a second line? It is as if a distinction is made between the terrorist group ISIS and Al Qaeda.

       Generally, when that kind of differentiation occurs for some political party or government, there is an interest or convenience behind everything, such as when US governments ignore arms smugglers or dictators precisely because it serves their Conveniences and political interests, and, in the case of society, indicates that there is a double standard.

THE VIOLENCE OF 1950 HAS RETURNED IN COLOMBIA

       It is pathetic the spectacle offered by the so-called people when confronted in the streets, media or social networks on account of the debates generated by some statement by Uribe or Santos, or some of his friends. And the most terrible thing is that these people echo the speeches, when on one side and the other side, they try to defend the country, that abstract and meaningless thing when at the moment of defining it, and one does not know for sure what concepts to use or in what ways to refer.

       And the defending people of I do not know what, concentrates its attacks on the corruption of the one having as reference to a corrupt or vice versa. That is, there are people who refer to the corrupt Uribe as an intact man, impeccable, defender of the country, and that there are people who refer to the corrupt Santos as a defender of peace, or as a kind of missionary in Defense of freedom and many other things.

       It is pathetic because the speeches become so repetitive that it seems a reggaeton. That the so-called Fibristas want to destroy the peace of the people, who identify with those of the extreme right, or that the so-called farc-santistas want to turn the Colombian people into a more Venezuela, they want to destroy the country, Only makes the people into a kind of trained dog that follow the designs of their respective masters.

       And it was precisely at the end of the 1940s and during the 50s that one of the most bloody fratricidal wars that the country has experienced because of the same speeches that the two corrupt leaders are wielding today, Say, the corrupt president Santos and corrupt ex-president Uribe. At that time, the people split between the Liberal party and the conservative party, led by another pair of corrupt, and initiated by the death of another corrupt.

       Which of them is more corrupt? Who defends whom? Or, who defends what? The most pathetic of all is that it is repeating the same spectacle of the mid-twentieth century. Political leaders surrounded by escorts (even to buy the market in the corner), with all the comforts of medieval princes, with medieval mentality, always protecting interests of economic groups, seeing how the town divides and engages in a war of Words to realize then, that the poor is still poorer and the rich is still richer ... and that with war or without it the establishment will remain the same.

WELCOME TO TOTALITARIAN DEMOCRACY

       Are we repeating the events of the early twentieth century, when the great powers were filled with absurd nationalistic sentiments, in which the great German power, which at that time was the German empire, felt the right to have more colonies than Their peers, in which societies were anxious for economic and military war because their demagogic and populist leaders were sold to them, because everyone believed that the effects of conflict were something temporary, a feeling that began in Europe, and later Move to Asia and America?

       Muammar Gaddafi used to say that Libya was the best democracy in the world, Hugo Chávez Frías insisted time and time again that Venezuelan democracy was a strong democracy, and Fidel Castro was convinced that his regime was a regime Democratic right now to all these democratic concepts, we should ask Mr Dump Trump what he means by democracy, as well as Mrs Angel Merkel and all the leaders of democratic regimes, because the notions seem to change and vary in conception , Depending on who observes it.

       What are the explanations of the political sciences about the concept of democracy; if characters like Trump arrogantly say that I won, hinting that now he can do whatever he wants without paying attention to the social claims of The American citizens themselves?

       Democracy is a gelatin, in which its notions stretch and contract permanently, in which any despotic leader can claim to be democratic without even sharing the Western conception of the term. Journalists should ask world leaders what do you understand about the term democracy. To know with some precision if the notions coincide with what the political sciences and the whole world understands by democracy.

       Now, I think, from now on, democracy should be added to elements that are not so democratic. Hitler came to power in Germany, and by democratic means regimes such as that of Cuba and North Korea were maintained, and by democratic means Chavismo came to power in Venezuela.

       Is democracy to blame? Rather, it is the distortion of democratic virtues. The situation in the US is a tenebrous case, the fact that Trump had ordered the military to complete an oil pipeline to bypass federal administrative agencies, means that it is becoming a country with totalitarian democracy.

       Will the expressions and social manifestations be enough to stop this? The profound reflections of the nascent United Nations Organization were sufficient to make the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The societies in the world, must bring back these reflections, otherwise we will return to the dreaded epoch of anti-democratic democracies.

NEOCONSERVADURISM AND NEOLIBERALISM The global confrontation of economic doctrines

The paradox of neo-conservatism and neoliberalism is based on the fact that the former follows the guidelines of economic protectionism, and the second is based on the free market, and the most surprising is that the former can be considered a kind of neocommunism, the ironies of life.

       And even more ironic is that since the mid-1980s (to say the closest in historical terms), it is precisely the small and medium-sized entrepreneurs who in the long run have been able to benefit from globalization, not only economic, but Also in the cultural aspect given the prevailing hyper connectivity in which the world today is.

       This is a rare competition for large oligopolies, holding companies and major multinationals. It is as if the social and doctrinal conflict between the medieval aristocracy and the group of so-called bourgeoisie survived. The political situation that has been happening in the United States, which is foreseen, will also happen in some European countries such as England, for example, has been rather a kind of civil war expressed at the polls.

       It may be a momentary reaction on the part of conservative societies (because even young people are conservative) in response to successive structural economic changes. It seems as if the history, in which groups of workers burned factories during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as considered harmful to them and a serious danger to the future, a matter that was overcome at the time, was repeated, returning to the lane, harassing and Ancient concept of nationalism.

       Economic ideological clashes have been so radical that they have resulted in civil wars, revolutions, and conventional wars between nations. Perhaps the recoverable of the political phenomena that have occurred in recent years (we must also remember the so-called Arab Spring), is that in all social sectors has entered into a kind of reflections, what has been done, what is there, and what remains to be done.

       Be that as it may, I prefer that both neo-conservatism and neoliberalism be limited to a world-wide confrontation of economic doctrines, and that society expresses its anxiety and fears in the voting of any political election that is held, I prefer that to return the frightful memories of a war.

TRUMP'S ECONOMIC WAR HAS BEGUN

As a neo-communist, is the qualification that would fit Donald Trump. The closing of borders to a social sector of immigrants, increase of tariffs to imported products, reduction of taxes to big companies and multimillionaires with the hypothetical purpose that these entities and personages will grant a greater increase in the employment to the North Americans, are some Of the characteristics of the new (with dubious legitimacy by the subject of the Russian intervention in the elections) president of the USA.

       The diplomatic confrontation with the Chinese government, then with the Japanese government, and then with the Mexican government, is just the beginning of an economic war initiated by the neo-communist Trump, in addition, because in an unprecedented way, it seeks a certain closeness with the government Russian, historical enemies in the military and economic field. And like all war, there will be victories and defeats, and then the question is, who will be the most harmed?

       Paradoxically, neo-communism seeks to protect the interests of large holdings because simply globalization also benefits, save the proportions, medium and small entrepreneurs. Now, that Trump economic war will generate more employment in the US? Reflection is on the side effects of economic policies.

       Trump's negotiations with entrepreneurs are not such, they are either a kind of threat to business, or a kind of bribe to entrepreneurs. The long-term effect of this neocommunist, who always treats people as if they were the servants of their mansions, is only one. The economic devastation of the United States of America. For the sample a Russia, a North Korea, a Venezuela ... so many horrible things that have authoritarianism, or in the words of Hannah Arendt, when referring to totalitarianisms.