A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours || of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF | How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) Mexico, New EZLN communique: The Zapatistas and the Other: The Pedestrians of History

Date Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:30:59 +0300


Introduction and Part I: The Paths of the Sixth
Introduction: This document is especially intended for and directed toward the
adherents of the Sixth Declaration and the Other Campaign. And, of course, to
those who might sympathize with our movement.
What is presented here is part of the reflections and conclusions that have
been shared with some persons, groups, collectives and organizations,
adherents of the Sixth Declaration of the Lacand ón Jungle. In accord with
our "mode" of doing things in the Other Campaign, first we listened to the
words of these companer@s and then we put forward our analyses and conclusion.
The Sixth Commission of the EZLN has been attentive to the opinions and
proposals of a part of the companer@s of the Other Campaign with regards
to what is referred to as the "postelectoral crisis," to the mobilizations in
various parts of the country (in particular in Oaxaca with the APPO and in
Mexico City with AMLO) and to the Other Campaign. Through letters,
through meeting and assembly minutes, via the web page, in some cases
through publicly stated positions, and in personal and group meetings,
some adherents have expressed their opinions on these issues.

During part of the month of July and the entire month of August, the Sixth
Commission of the EZLN held multilateral meetings with some of our
compas adherents from 19 states of the Republic: Mexico City, Mexico
State, Morelos, Michoacán, Querétaro, Tlaxcala, Puebla, Veracruz,
Oaxaca, Guerrero, Jalisco, Hidalgo, Zacatecas, Nuevo León, San Luis
Potosí, Colima, Nayarit, Guanajuato, and Aguascalientes.

In addition, [we also met] with political and social organizations with a
presence in various parts of the country and with our companer@s of the
National Indigenous Congress (CNI).

In accord with our limited possibilities, we held these meetings in locales of
comp@s of the Other Campaign in Mexico City and in the states of
Morelos, Michoacán, Querétaro, Tlaxcala, and Puebla.

It was neither possible nor desirable for us to talk directly with all adherents,
this with the result that in some places we were accused of "excluding"
some people. With regards to this we say that in the Other Campaign it is
the concern of each group, collective, organization, or individual to decide
with whom they will meet in the Other, as well as when, where, and with
what agenda. In exercise of this right, the Sixth Commission of the EZLN
listened to and spoke with those who accepted our invitation.

However, although these were private meetings, our interventions were not
and are not secret. To those who graciously listened to us, we asked that
they make known to other companer@s in their states and work
organizations what we, as the Sixth Commission of the EZLN, are
thinking. Some of them nobly acceded to this request and have carried it
out fairly. Others have taken advantage of the situation to add their own
judgments as if they were the opinions of the EZLN, or they have
purposefully edited their "summaries" of these meetings so as to give a
slanted version of what it was that we proposed.


The themes of these meetings were:

The national situation "above," particularly with regards to the elections.

The national situation "below," with regards to those who are not part of
the Other.

The situation of the Other Campaign.

The proposal of the EZLN for the "what's next?" of the Other Campaign.

Some of the reflections of the companer@s with whom we met have now
been incorporated into our own thinking, reflections and conclusions.
However, it is necessary to clarify that what we are now communicating
and what we propose to all of our companer@s of the Sixth Declaration and
the Other Campaign is the sole responsibility of the Sixth Commission of
the EZLN, and it is as an adherent of the Other Campaign that we do so.

To those who felt excluded or marginalized, our sincere apologies and our
request for understanding.

We here present, and in only a partial manner, a brief summary of what
occurred within the EZLN and resulted in the Sixth Declaration, our
evaluation (which does not pretend to be THE evaluation) at one year of the
Sixth and the Other, our analysis and position on what is taking place
"above," and our proposal for the next steps of the Other.

What we present here was already consulted, in broad strokes, with the
comandant@s of the Indigenous Revolutionary Clandestine Committee of
the EZLN; thus it represents not only the position of the Sixth Commission
but also of the leadership of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

Sale y Vale.

Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos,
Mexico, September 2006



The Zapatistas and the Other: The Pedestrians of History

September 2006


Part One: The Paths of the Sixth

Here we will briefly delineate, as we have already expounded on this topic,
the internal process of the EZLN previous to the Sixth Declaration:

1. The betrayal and decomposition of the Mexican political class . At the
end of April of 2001, after the March of The Color of the Earth and with the
support of millions of people in Mexico and around the world for the
constitutional recognition of indigenous rights and culture, the political
class in its entirety approved a "counterreform." We have already spoken
about this extensively, now we would just like to point out that which is
fundamental here: the three main national political parties, PRI, PAN and
PRD, turned their backs on the just demands of the indigenous and
betrayed us.

At that point something was definitively ruptured.

This deed (carefully forgotten by those who criticize us for our critiques of
the political class in its entirety) was fundamental for the steps that were to
come on the part of the EZLN, both internally and externally. From then
on, the EZLN carried out an evaluation of what had been its proposal, the
process that followed, and the possible causes of this betrayal.

Through public and private analyses, the EZLN characterized the dominant
socioeconomic model in Mexico as NEOLIBERAL. We indicated that one
of [neoliberalism's] characteristics was the destruction of the Nation-State,
which includes, among other things, the decomposition of political actors,
of their relations of domination, and of their "modes."

The EZLN had believed, up until that time, that there was a certain
sensibility among some sectors of the political class, particularly those
grouped around the figure of Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzano (within
as well as outside the PRD), and that it was possible, through mobilizations
and in alliance with this sector, to "yank" the recognition of our rights as
indigenous peoples from those who govern. For this reason, a good part of
the public external actions of the EZLN were directed toward a discussion
with this political class and a dialogue with the federal government.

We thought that the politicians from "above" were going to understand and
try to meet a demand that had already cost an armed rebellion and the blood
of Mexicans; that this would direct the process of dialogue and negotiation
with the Federal Government to a satisfactory conclusion; that this way we
might be able to "come out" and do politics by civil and peaceful means;
that with the constitutional recognition there would be a "juridical roof" for
the processes of autonomy that were taking place in numerous parts of
indigenous Mexico; and that this would strengthen the path of dialogue and
negotiation as an alternative for the resolution of conflicts.

We were wrong.

The political class as a whole was avaricious, vile, despicable, and stupid.
The decision that the three principal political parties (PRI, PAN and PRD)
then made showed that the supposed differences among them were nothing
more than mere simulations. The "geometry" of the politics from above had
gone mad. There was no left, center, or right. There was only a band of
thieves with immunity... and cynicism during prime time hours.

We don't know if we were mistaken from the beginning, if by 1994 (when
the EZLN opted for civil and peaceful initiatives), the decomposition of the
political class was already a fact (and so-called "neocardenismo" was just
nostalgia for '88), or if in those 7 years, Power had accelerated the rotting
process of the professional politicians.

Since 1994, persons and groups of what was then referred to as "civil
society" had come to us to tell us that neocardenismo was honest,
concordant, and a naturally ally of all popular struggles, not just that of the
neozapatistas. We believe that, the majority of the time, these people were
well-intentioned.

The position of who is today an employee of Vicente Fox, Cuauhtémoc
Cárdenas Solórzano , and his son, the pathetic Lázaro Cárdenas Batel
(today governor of a Michoacan controlled by narcotraffic), in the
indigenous counterreform is already known. From the hand of the later
flaming campaign manager for AMLO, Jesús Ortega, the PRD senators
voted for a law that was denounced as a farce by even anti-zapatista
indigenous organizations. They thus confirmed the words of an old militant
of the left, "the general Cardenas died in 1988." The PRD representatives of
the lower house, for their part, approved a series of secondary laws and
regulations that consolidated the betrayal.

We only have to remember that when we publicly denounced the behavior
of neocardenismo, we were attacked (even in cartoons) by the same people
that now say, in effect, that Cárdenas is a traitor (except now it's for not
supporting López Obrador). Of course, it's one thing is to betray some
indians, it is something very different to betray the LEADER [López
Obrador]. We were then called "sectarian," "marginals," and, for having
"attacked" Cárdenas, "the zapatistas played to the right-wing." Sound
familiar? And now the engineer [ Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas] wants to be
"leftist" and criticize AMLO...while he works for the tenants of Los Pinos in
the commission of the bicentennial independence day celebrations.

After this betrayal, we couldn't act like nothing had happened (we're not
perredistas). With the objective of the indigenous law we had entered into
the dialogue process and negotiations with the federal government and
made agreements, we had constructed an interlocutor with the political
class, and we had made a call to the people (in Mexico and in the world) to
mobilize with us for this demand.

In our error we had brought along a lot of people.

Not anymore. The next step by the EZLN would not only not be directed
toward talking and listening with those above, but would confront
them....radically. That is, the next step by the EZLN would go against all of
the politicians.

2. Armed struggle or civil and peaceful initiative? After the Supreme Court
of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) rejected the protest against and
disagreements with the counterreform by diverse indigenous communities,
some intellectuals (several of whom reproached us afterwards for not
supporting AMLO and the PRD in the fight for the presidential seat), made
implicit calls for violence. In so many words, they said that the indigenous
now had no other choice (see the declarations and editorials from those
days—September and October of 2002). One of them, today the flaming
"organic intellectual" of the postelectoral movement of López Obrador,
acclaimed the decision of the SCJN and wrote that the EZLN thus had only
two choices: to renegotiate with the government or to once again rise up in
arms.

The choices that were planted from above (and that certain "leftist"
intellectuals have made theirs) are false, it was by looking inside ourselves
that we decided to do neither one.

We had then the option of renewing combat. And we had not only the
military capacity but also the legitimacy to do so. But military action is a
typical exclusive action, the best example of sectarianism. In this action are
those that have the equipment, the knowledge, the physical and mental
condition, and the disposition not only to die but to kill. We had resorted to
this because, like we already said, they had left us with no other choice.

What's more, we had made, in 1994, a commitment to pursuing the civil
path, not with the government but with "the people," with that "civil
society" that not only supported our demand, but had also participated
directly in our initiatives over those 7 years. These initiatives were spaces
for everyone's participation, without more criteria for exclusion than
dishonesty and crime.

According to our judgment, we had a commitment to these people. So our
next step, we thought, should be a civil and peaceful initiative.

3. The lesson of the previous initiatives: look below. While the political
class, in 2001, converted its betrayal into law, the delegation that
participated in the "March of the Color of the Earth" reported back to the
zapatista communities. Contrary to what one might believe, the report did
not refer primarily to what was said and heard with and from the politicians,
leaders, artists, scientists, and intellectuals, but rather to what we had seen
and heard in the Mexico of below.

And the evaluation that we presented coincided with that of the 5,000
delegates of the 1999 referendum and the March of the 1,111 in 1997.
Namely, there was a sector of the population that called to us, that said to
us, "we support you in these indigenous demands, but, what about us?"
And it was this sector that was, and is, composed of peasants, workers,
employees, women, young people. Above all women and young people, of
all colors but with the same history of humiliation, dispossession,
exploitation, and repression.

No, we didn't understand them to be saying that they wanted to rise up in
arms. Neither were they waiting for a leader, a guide, a caudillo, or a "ray of
hope." No, what we read and understood was that they hoped we would
struggle alongside them for their own specific demands, just as they had
struggled with us for ours. We read and understood that these people
wanted another form of organizing, of doing politics, of struggling.

The "going out" of the 1,111 and the 5,000 had signified "opening" even
more our hearing and our gaze, because these compas had heard and seen,
directly and without intermediaries, those from below. Not just the living
conditions of people, families, groups, collectives, and organizations, but
also their conviction to struggle, their history, their "I am this" and their
"here I am." And these were people that had never been able to visit our
communities, that did not know directly our process, that only knew of us
from what our own words had narrated to them. And they weren't people
that had been on the stage in the distinct initiatives where the neozapatistas
had made direct contact with citizens.

They were humble and simple people to whom nobody listened, and whom
we needed to listen to...in order to learn, in order to become companer@s.
Our next step would be to make direct contact with these people. And if
before it had been to talk to them and they to listen to us, now it should be
to listen to them. And not in order to relate to them in one specific
situation, but for the long-term, as companer@s.

We also analyzed that the zapatista delegation, when it "went out" on a
given initiative, was "isolated" by a group of people—those that
organized, those that decided when, where, and with whom. We're not
making a judgment as to if this were good or bad, we're just pointing it out.
For this reason, the next initiative should be able to "detect" these
"isolations" from the beginning in order to avoid them further ahead.

What's more, whether it was desired or not, the "going out" of the EZLN
had privileged the interlocution of a sector of the population: the cultured
middle class, intellectuals, artists, scientists, social and political leaders. If
made to choose, in the new initiative we would have to decide between this
sector and that of the most dispossessed. And if we had to decide, we would
decide in favor of the latter, those from below, and we would construct a
space where we could meet them.

4. The "cost" of being consistent with one's word. Each conclusion that we
reached in the internal analysis led us to another definition, and each
definition to a new conclusion. According to our custom, we couldn't call
people to an initiative without telling them clearly what we thought or
where we wanted to go. If we had decided that with the political class
nothing, nothing above, then we must say so. We had to make a head-on
and radical critique of the ENTIRE political class, without differentiating
(as we had differentiated before Cárdenas and the PRD), giving our
arguments and reasons for this. That is, we had to let the people know what
had been ruptured. We thought then (and, as it would be seen, we weren't
mistaken) that the sector that before followed Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas
Solórzano would later "forget" the legislative actions by the PRD
government—the incorporation of ex-priistas, the flirtations with "big
money," the repressions and aggression from perredista governments
against popular movements which were outside their orbit, the complicit
silence of López Obrador in the face of the Senate perredista vote against
the San Andrés Accords—and it would proclaim AMLO as its new
leader. We'll talk more about López Obrador later; for now we'll just say
that our critique included him and, as expected, this bothered and distanced
that sector that had been close to neozapatismo.

That sector, formed principally but not only by intellectuals, artists,
scientists, and social leaders, also included what is called "the PRD social
base," and many people who, without being PRD fans or sympathizers,
think that there was or is something salvageable in the Mexican political
class. And all these people, along with many more that did not and do not
subscribe to the analysis and positions of the PRD, formed a kind of
"shield" for the zapatista indigenous communities. They had mobilized
each time that we suffered an aggression.....except when that aggression
came from the PRD.

The critique and distance with regard to AMLO, would be assumed by
those who considered and consider their alternative to be above to be a
critique of they themselves. Ergo, not only would they stop supporting us,
but they would go so far as to attack us. And that's what happened.

Among the triumphs of those who, from academics, the sciences, the arts,
culture and information, gave their unconditional and uncritical support to
López Obrador (and who make an ostentatious show of intolerance and
despotism...even without having the government) is one that has slipped by
unperceived: they managed to do what neither money nor pressures and
threats had been able to, that is, to close the few public spaces that had
given space to the word of the EZLN. First they lied, later they twisted
meaning and slandered us, after that they cornered us, and finally, they
eliminated our voice. Now they have the field clear to make themselves the
strident echo for what AMLO says and contradicts (previous edition),
without anybody or anyone overshadowing them.

But the cost of this will not only be political...it is also military. That is, the
"shield" will cease to be so and the possibility of a military attack against the
EZLN will be more and more attractive to the powerful. The aggression will
come then in olive green uniforms, as wells as in blue, tri-colored...or, as it
happened, yellow (the perredista government of Zinacant án, Chiapas,
attacked a peaceful mobilization by zapatista support bases with firearms
April 10, 2004; the yellow paramilitaries which were formed afterward,
sponsored by the PRD, the first "AMLO citizen support
networks"—another "forgotten" of those that reproached and scolded the
EZLN for having not supported and not supporting now the perredista).

So we decided to separate the political-military organization from the civil
structure of the communities. This was a utmost necessity. The influence
of the political-military structure in the communities had become, instead
of a thrust, an obstacle. It was the moment to step to one side and not
disturb. But this was not just about avoiding a situation where the process
that the zapatista communities had constructed (with their own
contributions, genius, and creativity) be destroyed at the same time as was
the EZLN, or that this process not be disturbed by the EZLN. It was also
aimed at insuring that the cost of the critique of the political class was
"paid" only by the EZLN and, preferably, by its military chief and
spokesperson.

But not only this. In the case that the zapatista communities would decide
to take the step that the EZLN viewed as necessary, urgent, and
concordant, we would have to be ready to survive an attack. For this reason,
a time later, the Sixth Declaration of the Lacondó n Jungle would start off
with a red alert, and we would have to prepare, for years, for that.

5. Anticapitalist and from the left. But the principal conclusion to which we
arrived in our evaluation had nothing to do with these aspects, that is,
tactics, but rather with something fundamental: responsible for our pain, for
the injustice, the contempt with which we are treated, the plunder and the
blows with which we live, is an economic, political, social, and ideological
system, capitalism. The next step neozapatismo would take would have to
point clearly to this source, not only of the negation of indigenous rights
and culture, but to the negation of the rights and the exploitation of the
great majority of the Mexican population. That is, it would have to be an
anti-systemic initiative. With this in mind, although all of the initiatives of
the EZLN have been anti-systemic, this wasn't always made explicit. The
mobilization for indigenous rights and culture had taken place inside the
system, and with the intention of constructing an interlocution and a
juridical space within the legal framework.

And defining capitalism as the culprit and the enemy brought with it
another conclusion: we needed to go beyond the indigenous struggle. Not
only in declarations and propositions, but in organization.

We needed, we need, we thought, we think, a movement that unites the
struggles against the system that plunders us, that exploits us, that
represses and looks down upon us as indigenous. And not only us as
indigenous, but millions who are not indigenous: workers, peasants,
employees, small business people, street vendors, sex workers,
unemployed, migrants, under-employed, street workers, homosexuals,
lesbians, trangendered people, women, young people, children, and the
elderly.

In the history of the public life of the EZLN, we had met other indigenous
peoples and organizations and we had good relations with them. The
National Indigenous Congress had permitted us not only to know and learn
from the struggles and processes of autonomy that Indian peoples were
carrying out, it also taught us to relate to them with respect.

But we had also met organizations, collectives, political and cultural groups
clearly defined as anticapitalist and of the left. With them we had always
remained distrustful, distant, and skeptical. The relationship had been,
above all, a continuing misencounter...on both sides.

Upon recognizing the capitalist system as the source of indigenous pain,
the EZLN had to recognize that it was not only in us that it produced this
pain. There were, there are, these others that we had encountered over
these 12 years. Recognizing their existence was to recognize their history.
That is, none of these organizations, groups, or collectives had been "born"
with the EZLN, nor by its example, nor in its shadow, nor under its wing.
There were, and are, groups with their own history of struggle and dignity.
An anticapitalist initiative should not only take them into account, but
propose an honest relationship with them, that is, a relationship of respect.

The compas of the national Indigenous congress had shown us that to
recognize histories, ways, and contexts is the base of respect. In that sense,
we thought that it would be possible to propose this to other anticapitalist
organizations, groups, and collectives. The new initiative should propose
the construction of commonalities and alliances with those others, without
that implying an organic unity or hegemony by them or by the EZLN.

6. Looking Above...what is not said. As the struggle for the presidential seat
went on above, it became clear that they never touched on what was
fundamental for us: the economic model. That is, the system that we are
subject to as Indian peoples and as Mexicans was not addressed by any of
the proposals made by those disputing the "above," not by the PRI, not by
the PAN, and not by the PRD.

As it has been pointed out, not just by us, the supposedly "leftist" proposal
(of the PRD in general and AMLO in particular), was not and is not [leftist].
It was and is a project for the administration of the crisis, assuring profits
for large property owners and controlling social discontent with economic
support, the cooptation of leaders and movements, threats, and repression.
From the arrival of Cárdenas Solórzano to the government of the capital,
later with Rosario Robles and after that with López Obrador and Alejandro
Encinas, the city of Mexico was and is governed by the PRI, but now under
the PRD flag. It changed party but not politics.

But AMLO had, and has, what none of his antecessors did: charisma and
ability. If before, Cárdenas used the government of the city as a trampoline
for the presidency, López Obrador did also, but with more ability and
better luck than the engineer. The government of Vicente Fox, with all of
its awkwardness, became the principal promoter and publicist for the
candidacy of the perredista. According to our evaluations, AMLO would
win the election for president of the Republic.

And we were not mistaken. López Obrador obtained the highest number
of votes among those that fought for the presidency. Although not with the
grand margin foreseen, his advantage was clear and certain. Where we were
mistaken was in thinking that the recourse of electoral fraud was something
of the past. But we'll talk about this below.

Following our analysis, the arrival of AMLO and his team (formed purely
by shameless and pathetic salinistas, in addition to a rabble of vile and
despicable people) to the presidency of the Republic would mean the
installation of a government that, while appearing to be left, would operate
as if it were right (exactly as it did and does in the government of Mexico
City). Additionally, it would take power with legitimacy, support, and
popularity. But nothing essential in the economic model would be touched.
In the words and AMLO and his team: "we will maintain macroeconomic
policy."

As almost no one says, "macroeconomic policy means a rise in
exploitation, the destruction of social security, the precarization of work,
the dispossession of ejidal and communal lands, an increase in migration to
the United States, the destruction of history and culture, the repression of
popular discontent...and the privatization of petroleum, the electric industry,
and the totality of natural resources (which, in López Obrador discourse,
is disguised as "co-investment").

The "social" politics (the analysts close to AMLO "forget" once again the
strong similarities with the "solidarity" of Carlos Salinas de Gortari—the
"unnameable" renamed by López Obrador's team) of the perredista
proposal, they told us, would be possible by reducing the expenditures of
the governmental apparatus and eliminating (ha!) corruption. The savings
obtained would serve to help the "most vulnerable" sectors (the elderly and
single mothers) and to support the sciences, culture, and art.

So we thought: AMLO wins the presidency with legitimacy and with the
support of big business, in addition to the unconditional backing of the
progressive intellectuals; the process of destruction of our homeland (but
with the alibi of being destruction "of the left"); and whatever kind of
opposition or resistance would be qualified as "sponsored by the right, at
the service of the right, sectarian, ultra, infantile, an ally of Martha
Sahagún (then it was Martita that it seemed would precandidate of the
PAN—afterwards etiquette would say "ally of Calderon") and blah blah
blah," and repressed (like the student movement of 1999-2000; the town of
San Salvador Atenco—we should remember that all this started with the
PRD municipal president of Texcoco; the representatives of the PRD in the
State of Mexico, who today demand the liberation of the prisoners at that
time nodded to and supported the police repression; and the young people
that were repressed by the perredista government of that "defender of the
right to free expression" Alejandro Encinas, paradoxically, for blocking a
street in demand of liberty and justice for Atenco); attacked (like the
zapatista support bases in Zinacant án); or slandered, pursued, and
satanized (like the Other Campaign and the EZLN).

But the illusion would end the minute that they saw that nothing had
changed for those from below. And then would come a stage of
disappointment, desperation, and disillusionment—that is, the breeding
grounds for fascism.

For this moment an alternative leftist organization would be necessary.
Following our calculations, the true nature of the so-called "Alternative
Project for the Nation" would be defined in the first 3 years of governance.

Our initiative should take this into account and prepare itself to go with
everything it has against (including cartoons) for various years, before
converting itself into a real left, anticapitalist option.

7. What followed? The Sixth. By the end of 2002, the project that would
later be known as the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandó n Jungle had been
broadly outlined: a new civil and peaceful political initiative; anticapitalist,
that would not only not seek interlocution with politicians, but would
criticize them openly and without exceptions; which would permit direct
contact between the EZLN and others from below; that would listen to
them; that would privilege relationships with humble and simple people,
that would permit alliances with organizations, groups, and collectives with
he same thinking; that would be long-term; that would prepare to go
forward with everything against them (including the progressive sectors of
artists, scientists, and intellectuals) and ready to confront a government that
had legitimacy. In sum, to look, listen, speak, walk, struggle, below...and to
the left.

In January of 2003, dozens of thousands of zapatistas "took" the city of San
Crist óbal de las Casas, Chiapas. Machetes (in honor of the rebels of
Atenco) and pine limbs burning brightly illuminated the central plaza of the
ancient Jovel. The zapatista leadership spoke. Among them, Comandante
Tacho warned that those that bet on forgetting, cynicism, and convenience
"are mistaken, there is something else."

In this moment, still in the shadow of dawn, the Sixth Declaration began to
walk...

(to be continued)

_______________________________________________
A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en


A-Infos Information Center