We have just learned that the president of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (better known as AMLO), has just honored you – even denigrating you – by referring to you and your book Madre Patria (but did not dare to name you) in the course of a large farce that they mounted in the Mexican capital this August 13 to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the liberation (for them, fall) of Tenochtitlán on that date of the year of grace 1521.
In case someone does not know yet, let us remember that the Mexican president – whose unequivocally European appearance denotes that not a drop of indigenous blood runs through his veins – is the one who has had the audacity to repeatedly demand that Spain apologize for the Discovery and Civilization of America.
Apart from thanking him for a reference that will further boost the success of your book, what can you think of saying to the president?
If I could have the opportunity to hold a face-to-face debate with the President of Mexico, Mr. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, I would read these words from Eva Perón: “The black legend [of which you are today a leading figure] with which the Reformation managed to denigrate the greatest and noblest enterprise known to the centuries, such as discovery and conquest, it was only valid in the playground of fools or those with vested interests.” Would the president of Mexico dare to call Eva Perón a pro-monarchic and maintain that the most important anti-imperialist woman in the history of America is the expression of a colonialist thought, as he maintained referring to me in his speech of August 13? But let’s get to the core of the matter. The essential thing is that, like magicians – and the president of Mexico is not one of the good ones -, he tries, with his gestures and words, to hide the truth. The supposed courage of the president of Mexico in denouncing the Spanish conquest of America is a smokescreen to cover up his cowardice in front of the United States. Because he, like none of the black-legendarian presidents of Mexico, has dared to denounce – even in a low voice – that one of the main causes of underdevelopment suffered by Mexicans has its origin in the theft, by the United States, of the 60% of the territory that Mexico inherited from Spain when it became independent. They did not even know how to keep the inheritance received, and that in 1810 Mexico was much more powerful and wealthy than the United States, to the point that the United States backed the dollar against the peso of the Bank of Mexico. My grandmother would say: poor AMLO, so brave before the King of Spain and so cowardly before the President of the United States.
It would be good, to show that my grandmother’s phrase is a completely unfounded assertion, that President López Obrador, on February 2 marking a new anniversary of the ignominious treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo – for which, after having been defeated militarily, Mexico was forced to hand over 2,378,539 square kilometers of its territory to the United States – would have to organice a great act like the one you organized for August 13. To enhance the celebration, he would have to invite the President of the United States Joseph Biden and in a great speech, when they are face to face, demand that Biden apologize to the Mexican people for having stolen Texas, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Arizona that were indisputably part of Mexico. López Obrador could also take the opportunity to remind Mexicans that that same year, 1848, when the Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty was signed, the United States became, thanks to having forcibly appropriated California, the main gold producer in the world. A gold that would allow it to finance the construction of the first transcontinental railroad that was inaugurated in 1869 and that spectacularly energized North American industry. It would be good if it also reminded the people of Mexico that, thanks to the black gold of Texas, the United States became one of the main oil producers in the world after 1901. It would be magnificent if the President of Mexico closed his speech by demanding that the President of the United States apologize for the massacres of California Indians committed by the North American Army since 1846, when the United States seized California from Mexico, including the Sacramento River massacres, occurred on April 6, 1846, the Lake Klamath massacre on May 12, 1846, or the Sutter Buttes massacre on June 21, 1846, all of them executed by Captain John Frémont, friend and protégé of Joel Roberts Poinsett.
Reading the words of López Obrador, don’t you get the impression of two things? The first, that they have accused the blow: your book has really hurt them. The second, that to avoid your arguments, the man had to become openly on the defensive.
I say it for two things. On the one hand, because of what it means that in a public event of such magnitude the very illustrious president of Mexico felt obliged to try to refute your book (A book, hey! Has he ever read any in his life?). The second aspect is the very words with which he tried to refute you. He did so by recognizing two points: that “it may be true that Moctezuma was a tyrant”; and that if the tyrant and his subjects were defeated, it was because the other oppressed peoples rebelled and fought alongside the Spanish. Doesn’t it seem amazing to you that the president of Mexico begins to acknowledge such things in nothing less than the great public act destined to honor the tyrant and the oppressors?
To try to justify this oppression, he was only able to resort to the “You more!” Argument. As usual. The Spanish still oppressed more, harassed more, killed more …
What do you say to all this?
In my book and in the interviews I have been conducted, I told a simple truth, but one that no one dares to say for fear of the reprisals of the guardians – of the implacable Rottweilers – of the academic media system that has established the dictatorship of the political correctness, a truth, I repeat, simple but irrefutable that has demolished them: If Spain had to apologize for having defeated Aztec cannibalism, both the United States and Russia would have to apologize for having defeated Nazi genocidal imperialism. The battle for Tenochtitlán was bloody, but as bloody, by the way, as the battle for Berlin, which put an end to Nazism.
In his speech, López Obrador was effectively on the defensive and tried to avoid the issue of the anthropophagy of the Aztecs, and I understand it because of the evidence that I present in my book Madre Patria. Dismantling the black legend from Bartolomé de las Casas to Catalan separatism about the Aztec holocaust is overwhelming. Today the scientific evidence is abundant and irrefutable: sacrificial stones with traces of haemoglobin, obsidian tools for this task, human skeletons executed by cardioectomy with cut marks on the ribs, beheadings … When history is analyzed without prejudice and not trying to hide the truth (as do the supposed historians who advise López Obrador and write about the alleged genocide which implied the Spanish conquest of America, but they are silent on the issue of human sacrifices) it is concluded that the Aztecs carried out as a state policy the conquest of other indigenous peoples in order to have human beings to sacrifice to their gods and use the human flesh thus obtained as the main food of the nobles and priests. Year after year, the Aztecs snatched from the peoples that had been conquered boys and girls to assassinate them in their temples. As I verify in Madre Patria, Aztec imperialism was the most atrocious in the history of humanity. Such was the number of human sacrifices that the Aztecs made of people from the towns enslaved by them that, with their skulls, they built the walls of their buildings and temples. The number of victims immolated was immense. Almost no scientist computes it at less than 20,000 each year, and there are still some who make it go up to 50,000. That is why on August 13, 1521, the Indian peoples of Mesoamerica celebrated the fall of Tenochtitlan. That day an immense joy flooded the hearts of the indigenous masses oppressed by the Aztecs. The main contradiction, for the Aztec-dominated nations, was that of life confronted with death. Continuing under the Aztec rule would have meant, for the Tlaxcalans and Totonacs, for example, continuing to be – literally – devoured by the Aztecs. Liberation meant ceasing to be their main food. The other contradictions were, that said, evidently secondary.
As AMLO had to admit in his speech, reluctantly and between the lines, it is materially impossible to think that, with just 300 men, four old arquebuses and some horses, Hernán Cortés could defeat Moctezuma’s army made up of 300,000 fierce, disciplined and brave soldiers. It would have been impossible, even if the 300 Spaniards had had automatic rifles like those used by the Spanish army today. Thousands of Indians from the oppressed nations fought, along with Cortés, against the Aztecs. That is why his compatriot José Vasconcelos affirms that “the conquest was made by the Indians”. I would like to have the opportunity to ask López Obrador the following question: In 1943 or 1945, would you have been on the side of those who built the gas chambers or on the side of those who fought to put an end to the holocaust carried out by the Nazi regime?
One thing that has surprised me is the presence at the said event of two indigenous people: an American senator and the leader of a Canadian community. The surprising thing is not that they have gone to look for these indigenous people, but that they have not managed to bring anyone from Mexico itself, that is, any descendant of the oppressed or oppressive indigenous people, eaten or eaters, don’t you think?
If he had had to invite the descendants of Moctezuma, he would not have been able to explain why these, after the conquest – like most of the Aztec nobility – were very rich and were related through multiple marriages with the most distinguished of the Spanish nobility. It is easier to lie in front of strangers. In a rapture of sincerity and cornered by the evidence that I present in Motherland, he had to accept that Emperor Moctezuma had been a “tyrant”, and he did well to admit it. Of course, it would have been better for her to inform her two special guests — Jamescita Mae Peshlakai, United States Senator from Arizona, and Kahsennenhawe Sky-Deer, Head of the Kahnasake Community Council in Canada — than under the despotism of Moctezuma – as demonstrated by the Mexican José Vasconcelos – “the women were little less than merchandise and that the kings and chiefs had them at their leisure and as presents”. He could also have informed them that “the bond that united Moctezuma with his feudataries was one of terror, that each local king left children, relatives, friends hostage in the capital”. Thus, Senator Jamescita would have avoided the embarrassment of stating that “democracy around the world is based on indigenous values of equality and justice”.
Related to the above, another question. You have already told us in these same pages about how the Hispano-American Indians sided with Spain when the Creoles decided to become independent. Now, what is the situation today? It is obvious that it is not among the indigenous people where the current wave of demolishing statues and promoting an anti-Spanish or, more generally, the anti-white indigenous movement has emerged. Now, it seems to me just as obvious that such a wave cannot fail to affect —but I don’t know if a little or a lot— indigenous communities. What can you tell us about it?
The Forum of San Pablo is behind all this. Its members preach “indigenous fundamentalism” because they have the unacknowledged objective of provoking a new Balkanization of the Spanish-American republics, making a Mapuche state, a Quechua state or an Aymara state appear … Thus, once again divided, we will be even more powerless in the concert of the nations and, therefore, more underdeveloped. Because we are not divided because we are underdeveloped, but we are underdeveloped because we are divided. Forgive me for being self-referential again, but as I show in the Madre Patria – and that has hurt them much – the indigenous movement was promoted first by English imperialism, then by Yankee imperialism and today by numerous NGOs at the service of international finance capital or, more precisely, at the service of international monetary imperialism. This policy sought and seeks to break the linguistic and religious unity of Spanish America in order to promote a new Balkanization since the permanent policy of the great powers and world power always consists of dividing to reign. For this reason, the indigenous movement can be defined without any doubt as an instrument of imperialism to fragment the Hispanic American republics and turn them into anonymous segments of the international market. The indigenists have the same concept of nation that the Nazis had: the idea of the nation based on race. Indigenist leaders – like the Catalan separatists – are racist, although they try to hide it to appear sympathetic to world public opinion.
Regarding indigenism as a permanent policy of Anglo-Saxon imperialism, the Marxist historian Jorge Abelardo Ramos affirms: “The thesis of the defense of the Indians is very noble. But the origin is very suspicious. Well, to separate the indigenous or black masses from the Creole or white masses of the current Latin American Nation, is to accentuate the conditions of general enslavement and the Balkanization achieved until now. It is about —and here is the service that the ‘left’ and the ‘progressives’ are rendering to imperialism once again — of separating the ethnic groups; after having separated the classes and the States from the great Bolivarian project. It is a campaign against the Latin American nation.” This lapidary affirmation by Jorge Abelardo Ramos – beyond misusing the concept of Latin America, which is a concept invented by French imperialism – says it all. On the other hand, Andrés Soliz Rada, one of the most prominent figures on the Bolivian left, argues that the indigenous movement is a neocolonial construction, exercised by pseudo-leftists, to destroy the “in constituted” national states and prevent the construction of a continental Ibero-American state, the only political instrument capable of successfully confronting large transnational companies, international finance capital and the great powers of the 21st century. If indigenism was an instrument of the foreign policy of Great Britain and the United States and today it is an instrument of international monetary imperialism, it follows, by logical consequence, that those who preach indigenism work consciously or unconsciously for imperialism.
The Most Excellent President of Mexico, Mr Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the Most Excellent President of the Republic of Peru, Mr Pedro Castillo (what a paradox of history that they all bear Spanish surnames!), The Chilean Elisa Loncon, president of the Constituent Assembly of Chile, the Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, the former president of Bolivia Evo Morales and all those who accompany them in preaching the black legend of the Spanish conquest of America and in the attempt to create artificial plurinational republics, are undoubtedly the cheapest labor force that imperialism has had throughout its history to execute its strategic plan for the territorial fragmentation of the Spanish-American republics.
The success of Madre Patria in Spain is overwhelming: since it came out it has remained unfazed in the top positions of Amazon. But what about Latin America? You were telling me a few weeks ago that they hadn’t put it up for sale yet. Has this situation changed or is it going to change soon?
I hope so because surely an edition of Madre Patria in Mexico would be – as we Argentines, who constantly use football metaphors like to say – a midfield goal. Did you know that the word “cancha”, which we use to refer to a soccer stadium, is a word of Quechua origin?
Let’s go back to López Obrador. So you already have the first reaction to your book from the black legend field. Coming from whom this first reaction comes, it is not surprising the intellectual destitution of his arguments. Now, in this same black legend field, there must be some intellectual, some journalist, some scholar, some historian …, people who cannot remain undaunted by the avalanche of data and reflections with which your more than 500 pages crumble what they think and write. Some reaction must have these people, I say. Or they remain silent … and covered with the greatest of reproaches; or they react, discuss your data and arguments, try to refute them, etc.
If they did, would you pick up the glove, would you accept such a debate? It could be exciting, don’t you think?
Assuming, of course, that the others had the guts to do such a thing. I say this because, if I am not mistaken, they have not been able to get a single article in any of the many media that support Hispanophobia, right?
Faced with the overwhelming evidence that I present in my book about the falsehood of the black legend, progressives and black-legendarians of all forms and shapes have opted for silence. You ask me if I would pick up the glove in case some liberal challenged me to a debate, and I answer that – as José Hernández says in the gaucho poem Martin Fierro – “I am a bull in my rodeo and a bigger bull in someone else’s rodeo”, so I accept any debate anywhere, in liberal or progressive universities and before any black legend writer, journalist or professor who dares to challenge me. I am willing to hold a debate on my work Madre Patria and the statements in it because, as the great caudillo from Rio de la Plata José Gervasio Artigas maintained, whom I have admired all my life, “with the truth I neither offend nor fear”.
Dear Javier, before saying goodbye to you and to the esteemed readers of El Manifiesto – until the next interview, of course -, I propose that we raise our glasses and make a toast to the 500th anniversary of the liberation of Tenochtitlán and the final defeat of the bloody cannibalistic imperialism of the Aztecs.