EL LIBRE MERCADO EN LA GEOGRAFÍA MENTAL DE MARÍA MACHADO Federico Ruíz Tirado

 

​En el periodismo y en la política hay un principio elemental: las palabras importan, los conceptos definen programas de gobierno y, cuando se pisa en falso en el terreno de la teoría del Estado, el resultado suele ser un sonoro cortocircuito. Eso fue exactamente lo que le ocurrió a María Corina Machado en su intervención en el Diario de las Américas, cuando, en un intento por sacudirse los fantasmas de la izquierda regional, pronunció una frase destinada a los anales del disparate politológico: «Frente a quienes persiguen la idea de los Estados plurinacionales, defendamos nosotros la idea de una nación pluriestatal».

​Con esa sola línea, la abanderada del liberalismo clásico y la centroderecha venezolana dejó en evidencia que, a veces, el afán por construir un eslogan efectista de tarima la hace tener un "cable pelado" conceptual.

​Para demostrar por qué esa declaración es un cortocircuito monumental, basta con ponerla bajo la lupa de la teoría política y ver cómo se contradice con sus propias banderas ideológicas:

​1. Invertir la lógica: Del libre mercado al absurdo institucional

​María Corina se autodefine como una defensora acérrima del orden institucional, la propiedad privada, el libre mercado y la supremacía de la ley. Sin embargo, al proponer una "nación pluriestatal", comete una pifia teórica propia de alguien que cortocircuitó los cables de la lógica jurídica.

​En la ciencia política, el Estado es el aparato soberano, el marco jurídico y el territorio delimitado (el continente).

​La Nación es la comunidad cultural, el lazo identitario y el sentido de pertenencia (el contenido).

​Decir que existe una «nación pluriestatal» es afirmar, en términos lógicos, que una sola comunidad cultural está fragmentada y sometida simultáneamente a múltiples Estados soberanos independientes. ¿En qué manual liberal o republicano se apoya la idea de que una sola sociedad deba dividirse bajo varios Estados internos? Ninguno. Al revés: lo que el liberalismo tradicional defiende es un Estado unitario, fuerte en el cumplimiento de la ley e igualitario para todos los ciudadanos. Con su frase, Machado terminó proponiendo una balkanización institucional que destruye la propia unidad nacional que dice encarnar.

​2. El reflejo condicionado contra la izquierda (El "antídoto" falso)

​¿Por qué soltó semejante disparate? Por reflejo ideológico puro. Al escuchar la fórmula del Estado Plurinacional (impulsada por los procesos constituyentes de la izquierda andina como los de Bolivia o Ecuador), la centroderecha latinoamericana experimenta una urticaria política instantánea. Ven en ese modelo el fraccionamiento corporativo, el indigenismo radical y la erosión de la igualdad ciudadana ante la ley.

​En su intento por contraatacar y buscar un espejo retórico, Machado quiso decir: "Si ellos defienden un Estado dividido por identidades, nosotros defendemos nuestra unión nacional". Pero al buscar la simetría gramatical, se le cruzaron los cables. En lugar de blindar el concepto de Estado unitario, inventó un neologismo imposible. Quiso combatir el estatismo plurinacional y terminó patentando una entelequia jurídica que ni el más ferviente defensor del socialismo del siglo XXI podría haber diseñado con tanta confusión.

​3. El peligro de gobernar con consignas de mitin

​El desliz en el Diario de las Américas desnuda un problema recurrente en el liderazgo político contemporáneo: la supremacía del marketing de trinchera sobre el rigor conceptual. Cuando un dirigente aspira a refundar una república tras años de destrucción institucional, los conceptos no pueden ser adornos improvisados para salir del paso en un foro internacional.

​Un líder de centroderecha que predica la racionalidad económica, el ordenamiento jurídico y el imperio de la ley no puede permitirse un cortocircuito mental de tal magnitud. Porque cuando a un político se le "pelan los cables" en los cimientos de la teoría del Estado, queda al descubierto que el eslogan improvisado pesó mucho más que la claridad de proyecto país.

​Al final, la "nación pluriestatal" de María Corina no pasó de ser un lapsus de tarima: una jugada en espejo tan forzada que terminó demostrando que, en la gramática del poder, el afán de contradecir al adversario a veces te hace naufragar en el más absoluto sinsentido.

Había una vez una Facultad de Ciencias…

 

José Sant Roz

Fue como volver a un pasado muy lejano, algo congelado para siempre en el corazón. Un pálpito, un cielo de lejanías, himnos de juventud. De nuevo, aquella multitud de profesores con los que me encontraba en pasillos y salones, en el cafetín, en Congresos y debates. De vuelta, sorpresivamente a aquellos tiempos bulliciosos, plenos de almas juveniles, de ilusiones y creaciones intelectuales, de algo tan profundamente parecido al amor. Como si el mar estuviera cerca. Porque es como comprobar que la muerte no existe, que eso es un cuento, una falacia, y que todo sigue allí tal cual como lo vivimos y conocimos hace veinte, treinta o cuarenta años, quizás siglos, y que seguirá por los siglos de los siglos.

Congelado en las estepas del alma, para siempre.

Una Facultad en la que trabajamos durante 30 años algunos, otros cuarenta, otros muchos más. Y cuanto estalla en los recuerdos, que uno los ve y siguen tan intactos en sus deambulares con carpetas y libros, en visiones milagrosas, inevitables. También sublime. La poesía de los ensueños o sueños, de los clamores más íntimos y eternos.

Unos llaman a esos seres “colegas”, trazos de nuestra sangre, de nuestros pensamientos, de esa experiencia tan común a la propia vida como es la enseñanza, el aprendizaje, en la perenne conformación de una familia en el más sagrado sentido de la palabra, porque de alguna manera allí fuimos hijos y allí fuimos padres. Allí nos amaron y emularon los jóvenes y allí cultivamos los valores de la amistad, del respeto y del más noble de los cariños. Allí donde debatimos y peleamos, donde nos reunimos tantas veces para definir el destino de programas de estudios, de políticas académicas, de estímulo al estudio y de los valores de la patria y de nuestra historia. Y donde en realidad todos fuimos niños, donde todos vivimos en una pertinaz infancia.

Entonces nos encontramos de nuevo con todos esos hermanos que teníamos más de veinte años sin ver, luego de cruzar los ventarrones de la edad, de los estragos de la política y de la pandemia, en los que muchos perecieron. El motivo era unas elecciones para elegir el nuevo equipo rectoral el cual tenía casi veinte años sin renovarse. Y otra vez se volvieron a llenar los pasillos y algunos salones, volvieron a agolpase con sabrosos bullicios de risas, colegas y alumnos en el cafetín. Y allí estaba Juan Carlos Villegas, Pedro Grima, Osmín Monsalve, José Roberto Morales (más joven que en aquellos tiempos), Arístides Arellán, Gilberto González, Francisco Rivero, Alvis Rosales, … y otra multitud de colegas que han quedados eternos en la memoria y en el afecto.

Me encuentro en el patio de la Facultad, con la candidata a rector, la profesora Patricia Rosenzweig Levy. Nos vemos y nos abrazamos como lo colegas que somos, que hemos sido siempre, tomando en cuenta que hace poco la ataque con dureza crítica por su posición contrarrevolucionaria. Así me han conocido, y no digamos que se trata de genio y figura, se trata de la vida que también tiene el sabor del amor y de la esperanza…

Who Owns the World? The Concentration of Corporate and Financial Power

 By Mark Keenan

Global Research, November 12, 2026

Region: Europe, USA

Theme: Global Economy

Introduction

The concentration of financial and corporate power raises fundamental questions about who ultimately controls the global economy.

While commercial banks create money through lending, the ownership and influence of major banks, investment institutions and multinational corporations represent another important dimension of the modern economic system.

In my recent article, The Boom-Bust-Bailout System: How Private Banking Losses Become Public Debt, I examined the debt-money banking system, the boom-bust-bailout cycle, and the contrasting responses of Ireland and Iceland to the 2008 banking crisis.

This follow-up article examines the relationship between monetary power, corporate ownership and financial influence, including the landmark Swiss research identifying a highly interconnected network or super-entity of 147 corporations, and the substantial voting authority exercised by major asset management companies such as BlackRock. These subjects, including the Swiss research, were also examined in my original February 2025 article, Who Owns the World? The Boom-Bust Bailout Process that Placed Nations in Debt.

This article explores:

• Whoever controls the money creation process controls the world – The pyramid of control
• Who owns the banks and asset management companies that own the world?
• The Swiss study of global corporate ownership and the network of 147 corporations
• BlackRock and the concentration of corporate voting power
• Financial concentration and democratic accountability

Whoever Controls the Money Creation Process Controls the World – The Pyramid of Control

Over decades the power to create debt-money has resulted in the power to own, control and manipulate the assets of the material world, as well media and politics. Those that control the money creation process wield the power to control the corporate media and the material world, regardless of which political party is elected, or which system is utilised (capitalism, socialism, communism, etc). This means that many aspects of our lives are in reality controlled by the ‘money-masters’. This power grab was achieved not by creating more value, but by fully controlling the source of money and the world of finance.

A pyramid of control has existed. The higher up you go the closer you get to the source of money creation. At the bottom level we are all going about our daily lives. At the next level up are governments. These are people who are given a monopoly on force and use it to tax and control the population whether or not we agree. The election of new government leaders via representative democracy is an illusion of people power. The vast regulatory systems of government in essence never change.

But who controls the governments? It is not the people of the nations that control governments, this is evidenced by the banking bailouts in Europe after 2008. There was no referendum on the subject, the governments simply complied with the wishes of international private banking corporations.

At the next level up are the mega corporations and at the next level beyond the corporations is the privately owned worldwide banking cartel (or monopoly). Over decades the mega-corporations have acquired the world’s resources and controlled the markets. To do so they needed access to cheap money. The mega corporations got their loans at special rates from the mega banks. As we shall see later in this article those who own and control the mega banks ultimately control the mega corporations.

“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.. when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.“ – James Garfield (20th President of the U.S. – assassinated 1881).

Also note the comments of Congressman Charles McFadden, Chairman, House Banking and Currency Committee, June 10, 1932:

“Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U.S. governments institutions. They are not… they are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the U.S. for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and domestic swindlers, and rich and predatory money lenders… These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American Institutions… The sack of the United States by the FED is the greatest crime in history. Every effort has been made by the FED to conceal its powers, but the truth is the FED has usurped the government. It controls everything here and it controls all foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.” – Congressman Charles McFadden.

For more information see also my book Demonic Economics and the Tricks of the Bankers.

Who Owns the Banks and Asset Management Companies that Own the World?

The concentration of ownership and financial influence within the global banking and corporate system raises fundamental questions about economic power, corporate governance and democratic accountability.

Major commercial banks, investment institutions and asset management companies are connected through extensive networks of shareholdings, financing arrangements and investment relationships. Among the largest global financial institutions are BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley.

.

This image shows the largest global financial institutions (AI-generated image)

.

An important distinction must be made between the legal ownership of financial assets and the power to influence corporate decisions. Large asset management companies generally manage investments on behalf of clients, pension funds, institutions and individual investors. Nevertheless, where voting authority is delegated to these institutions they exercise considerable influence over corporate governance, board appointments and shareholder resolutions.

The Swiss Study: A Global Network of Corporate Control

In October 2011, researchers Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder and Stefano Battiston of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich published a peer-reviewed study titled The Network of Global Corporate Control in the journal PLOS ONE[1].

The researchers analysed corporate ownership relationships using data from 2007, examining a network of approximately 43,000 transnational corporations within a much larger database covering approximately 37 million companies and investors worldwide.

The researchers identified a highly interconnected network of corporate ownership, including a tightly knit group or “super-entity” of just 147 corporations, predominantly financial institutions, which collectively exercised approximately 40 percent of the estimated network control over the economic value of transnational corporations examined in the study. 

Much of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity. These various financial entities and mega-banks are interlocked and own each other. In essence, it is a worldwide privately-owned self-reinforcing entity under the tentacles of many financial corporations.

Significantly, around three-quarters of this tightly interconnected core consisted of financial intermediaries including Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group. According to James B. Glattfelder, one of the authors of the study: 

“In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network.”

Author Dean Henderson writes in an article[2]:

“The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo)… According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation… One important repository for the wealth of the global oligarchy that owns these bank holding companies is US Trust Corporation – founded in 1853 and now owned by Bank of America. A recent US Trust Corporate Director and Honorary Trustee was Walter Rothschild…”

Furthermore, according to Ellen Brown, chairperson of the Public Banking Institute in the U.S. asset management companies, such as Blackrock, literally own much of the U.S. and the world. She states: 

“BlackRock has a controlling interest in all the major corporations in the S&P 500, it professes not to “own” the funds. It just acts as a kind of “custodian” for its investors — or so it claims. But BlackRock and the other Big 3 ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) vote the corporations’ shares; so from the point of view of management, they are the owners. And as observed in a 2017 article from the University of Amsterdam titled “These Three Firms Own Corporate America” they vote 90% of the time in favor of management.”[3]

In a 2018 review titled “Blackrock – The Company That Owns the World”[4], a multinational research group called Investigate Europe concluded that BlackRock “undermines competition through owning shares in competing companies”. The major shareholders of Blackrock are all mega-banks and financial corporations, such as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citi Group, Wells Fargo and Company, Morgan Stanley, and other various other banks[5]. So, privately owned commercial banks own Blackrock and the other major asset management companies that own most of the world. 

Although the research was based on 2007 data, its findings remain significant in demonstrating how corporate ownership and control can become concentrated within a relatively small network of financial institutions. The figures describe the ownership network examined at that time and should not be interpreted as a direct measurement of corporate control in 2026. 

Author Karen Hudes, who worked in the legal department of the World Bank for more than 20 years, has cited the above Swiss study during an interview with the New American[6]. According to Hudes: “What is really going on is that the world’s resources are being dominated by this group,” and that “corrupt power grabbers” have managed to dominate the media and control the finances of virtually every nation in the world. These organizations include The World Bank, the IMF and central banks, such as the Federal Reserve, all of which are unelected and unaccountable. In relation to the media author E.H. Brown states that:

“Secrecy has been maintained because the robber barons have been able to use their monopoly over money to buy up major media, educational institutions, and other outlets of public information.”[7]

BlackRock and the Concentration of Corporate Voting Power

The activities of major investment management companies provide a contemporary illustration of the relationship between asset management and corporate influence. According to BlackRock’s 2025 annual report[8] the company managed approximately $14 trillion in assets at the end of December 2025.

These assets are largely managed on behalf of clients rather than being owned outright by BlackRock itself. Nevertheless, the management of such extensive investment portfolios can confer substantial influence through shareholder voting, corporate engagement and investment stewardship[9].

BlackRock acknowledges that its investment stewardship teams engage with corporate management and exercise shareholder voting rights on behalf of clients who authorize them to do so[10].

The company has also expanded arrangements allowing eligible clients to select their own voting policies through its BlackRock Voting Choice programme. This illustrates both the substantial voting responsibilities exercised by investment managers and the distinction between delegated voting authority and ultimate beneficial ownership.

The broader question is therefore not simply who legally owns the shares in the world’s largest corporations, but who exercises the voting rights associated with those shares, how that authority is distributed, and what mechanisms exist to ensure accountability.

The significance of the Swiss research lies not merely in identifying concentrated corporate ownership, but in demonstrating how interconnected financial institutions can occupy central positions within the wider global economy. This raises a further question explored throughout this article: how does the concentration of financial influence interact with the debt-based monetary system, and what happens when the risks generated within that system are ultimately transferred to taxpayers through government bailouts?

Financial Concentration and Democratic Accountability

The concentration of financial influence extends beyond ownership percentages alone. Large banks and asset managers occupy important positions within the financial system through corporate lending, investment decisions, capital allocation, shareholder voting and relationships with major corporations.

The wider implications of concentrated financial power deserve continued public scrutiny, particularly where decisions affecting employment, investment, public services and economic stability are made through privately owned mega-banks and institutions over which ordinary citizens have limited direct oversight.

The underlying issue remains one of accountability: to what extent should decisions shaping the economic future of societies be influenced by a relatively concentrated network of major financial institutions, and what institutional safeguards are necessary to ensure transparency and protect the public interest?

Who Ultimately Owns the World? Divine Ownership and Human Stewardship

Beyond the economic and financial questions examined in this article lies a more fundamental philosophical question: Who ultimately owns the world?

Both ancient Vedic wisdom and biblical teachings express the principle that ultimate ownership belongs to God rather than humanity. From this perspective, the notion of absolute human ownership is ultimately illusory. Individuals, corporations and governments may claim legal ownership of land, resources, financial assets and institutions, but such ownership is temporary. Human beings enter this world possessing nothing and ultimately leave it in the same condition.

The Śrī Īśopaniṣad, Mantra 1, teaches that everything animate and inanimate within the universe is ultimately owned and controlled by the Supreme Lord. It further instructs human beings to accept only what is necessary for their maintenance, recognising that all resources ultimately belong to God.

Similarly, in the Bhagavad-gītā (5.29), Lord Kṛṣṇa identifies Himself as sarva-loka-maheśvaram, the Supreme Lord of all planets, and the well-wisher of all living beings. This principle is also expressed in the Bible, Psalm 24:1: “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein”.

This understanding leads naturally to the principle of stewardship rather than absolute proprietorship. Human beings are not the ultimate owners of the Earth’s wealth and resources, but temporary custodians entrusted with their responsible management and use. The accumulation of material wealth and power cannot confer permanent ownership, nor does it remove the moral responsibility to use such resources for the benefit of society and all living beings.

The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (7.14.8) further emphasises that individuals should not claim more wealth than is necessary for their maintenance, describing excessive appropriation as a form of theft. The biblical principle of stewardship is also stated in the Bible 1 Corinthians 4:2:“Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.” 

From this perspective, the concentration of financial and corporate power examined throughout this article raises not only questions of economic accountability but also deeper moral and spiritual questions. Those who exercise control over vast financial resources have corresponding responsibilities concerning how those resources are used and whose interests they serve.

The ultimate question, therefore, is not merely who owns the world in a legal or financial sense, but whether humanity can recognise its role as a temporary steward rather than an absolute proprietor, and establish economic systems that reflect responsibility, fairness and the welfare of all living beings.

Further Analysis: Debt, Human Productivity and Financial Control

The concentration of financial power raises a further question concerning the relationship between debt, human productivity and the obligations imposed upon individuals and future generations.

In a forthcoming follow-up article, I examine how financial institutions and government debt systems interact with human productivity, together with broader questions concerning the creation of credit, legal identity, financial obligations and individual autonomy.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Mark Keenan is an independent writer and former Science Adviser at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change and former Environmental Affairs Officer at the United Nations. His work examines the intersections of science, history, technology, finance, religion and institutional power.

He is the author of Demonic Economics, The Debt Machine, The AI Illusion, Climate CO2 Hoax – How Bankers Hijacked the Environment Movement and Fake Moon Landings and the Lies of NASA. His articles and books are available through his Substack markgerardkeenan.substack.com and RealityBooks.co.uk.

Notes

[1] The study is available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0025995

[2] Source: 10K Filings of Fortune 500 Corporations to SEC. 3-91

[3] Ellen Brown’s blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

[4] Source: https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2018/blackrock-the-company-that-owns-the-world/

[5] Source: https://stockzoa.com/ticker/blk/

[6] Source: https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/15473-world-bank-insider-blows-whistle-on-corruption-federal-reserve

[7] Source: ‘The Web of Debt’ by E.H. Brown, pg 130. Second edition.

[8] Source: https://ir.blackrock.com/financials/annual-reports-and-proxy/

[9] Source: https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/insights/thought-leadership/investment-stewardship/blackrock-voting-choice

[10] Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1100663/000119312526061812/d56890d485bpos.htm

---

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Mark Keenan, Global Research, 2026

Ay Venezuela: el día que Caracas le cantó el himno a Washington Por Eduardo Miguel Álvarez Estévez

 

Por Eduardo Miguel Álvarez Estévez* 12/11/2026

La Habana, 7 de noviembre de 2026.- Ayer viernes, en Caracas, en la cuna de Simón Bolívar, se reinauguró la Plaza Washington. Se colocó una ofrenda floral ante la estatua del primer presidente de Estados Unidos. La banda Sinfónica Juvenil Simón Bolívar interpretó los himnos de ambas naciones. Y Delcy Rodríguez, presidenta encargada de Venezuela, sonrió para las cámaras junto al encargado de negocios estadounidense, John Barrett.

No homenajearon a John Reed. Ni a Ángela Davis y las Panteras Negras. Ni siquiera a Abraham Lincoln. Homenajearon a Washington, con bandera gringa e himno yanki.

Y yo me pregunto: ¿es esto «genialidad estratégica»? ¿Superaron a Bobby Fischer, a Karpov, a Kasparov? ¿Fueron más allá de Clausewitz y Liddell Hart?

No. Es más sencillo. Adoptaron el punto de vista del panamericanismo, que prolonga a Monroe y Adams. Están con Santander.

La memoria de Bolívar, insultada

Bolívar le recomendó en sus cartas a Santander no invitar a Estados Unidos al Congreso de Panamá. Santander se esforzó por hacer todo lo contrario. Dejó afuera a Haití «por ser gente de color». Y ahora, doscientos años después, el gobierno que dice ser heredero de Bolívar reinaugura la Plaza Washington en el corazón de Caracas, con himno yanki incluido.

Eso no es pragmatismo. Es un insulto a la memoria de Hugo Chávez. Es un alineamiento geopolítico 100% nítido. Es un nuevo proyecto político que condena «el extremismo» de Chávez y sus antiguos aliados. Por eso los bombardeos feroces contra la insurgencia. «Pacifistas» con los gringos, superviolentos contra la rebeldía radical no institucional.

El canciller lo confirma

Y no es un hecho aislado. El nuevo canciller de Venezuela, Oliver Blanco, se formó en Acción Democrática, fue jefe de comunicaciones de la Asamblea Nacional de Ramos Allup, y en su primer día en el cargo se reunió con Marco Rubio en Washington para coordinar el «plan de tres fases» de Trump. El gobierno de Delcy no está negociando con el imperio. Está ejecutando el plan del imperio.

Y mientras tanto, los 32 cubanos que murieron en Caracas defendiendo la Revolución Bolivariana no tienen ni una placa, ni un homenaje, ni una ofrenda floral. Venezuela no votó contra el bloqueo en la ONU. Venezuela pone a un antichavista al frente de su diplomacia. Venezuela reinaugura la Plaza Washington mientras los que dieron su vida por Chávez son olvidados.

No hay traición. Hay un nuevo rumbo.

Basta de fingir demencia, de victimizarse o de encubrir con atajos. Las comunas existen. Pero no dirigen la política ni la economía. Si fuera distinto, no hubiera habido homenaje a Estados Unidos en la cuna de Simón Bolívar.

No hay «pistola en la cabeza». Hay un nuevo proyecto político y económico. Hay un Panamericanismo geopolítico y una Teoría del Derrame aplicada a la economía. Hay un alineamiento con Washington que se escenifica con banderas, himnos y ofrendas florales.

Nos duela mucho o no, hay que partir de la realidad.

Mi indignación

No soy venezolano. Soy cubano. Pero ayer, cuando vi las imágenes de la Plaza Washington, sentí una indignación que no puedo callar. Porque esa plaza no está en Miami. Está en Caracas. En la misma ciudad donde Chávez levantó la bandera del antiimperialismo. En la misma tierra donde Bolívar soñó con la unidad de Nuestra América.

Y mientras eso pasa, aquí en Cuba seguimos resistiendo solos. Sin el petróleo venezolano. Sin el voto venezolano en la ONU. Sin la solidaridad que durante años fue incondicional.

Comenzar otra vez

Pero como bien dices, la única lucha que se pierde es la que se abandona. Nuestro guía es «el hombre de las dificultades». Bolívar perdió muchas veces. Siempre volvió a empezar.

Nosotros también. Porque no nos vamos a rendir. Porque no vamos a aceptar que nos borren de la historia. Porque Cuba, aunque se quede sola, no se arrodilla.

Patria o Muerte. Venceremos

♦♦♦

*Eduardo Miguel Álvarez Estévez es un analista político, ensayista y columnista, reconocido por sus textos de análisis geopolítico, crítica social y reflexión histórica sobre América Latina y el escenario internacional. Es colaborador y articulista en diversas plataformas independientes de pensamiento crítico y análisis sociopolítico en el ámbito hispanohablante (como piensaChile), donde publica ensayos breves de opinión y análisis de actualidad internacional.♦
𝕎 Eduardomiguel♦
𝕏 @PBolivaria / ✉ pbolivariana@gmail.com♦