An ill-intentioned reading of contemporary history has wanted to lie by saying that the Shock Administration came to power thanks to the fact that Uribism governed consecutively since 2002.
Obviously, with that vulgar lie they co-opted millions of Colombians who have a historical sense that is as deplorable as it is childish, since, for them, names like Eustorgio Salgar, Manuel María Mallarino, Santos Acosta and Santos Gutiérrez can be associated with everything except presidential history. .
Some with intellectual pretensions, like those of Gustavo Petro, will say that the last two are ancestors of Santos Calderón (Juan Manuel) and that this confirms that Uribismo, according to them, has governed Colombia since the 17th century even when the republic was born two centuries later.
I have noted the above because precisely the lack of historical sense in politics can lead to what the M-19 guerrilla has called: resignifying the facts.
In order not to refer to previous works, let us agree that “resignifying the facts” is a subversive tactic that consists of falsifying history, that is, subverting the past to legitimize the present.
Thus, one of the strategic objectives of the guerrilla has been to turn its greatest criminals into national heroes and terrorism into a national epic, just as they did in Latin America with Ernesto Guevara.
In other words, the guerrilla’s tactic has been to appropriate political adjectives such as peace, human rights, democracy, social justice in order to camouflage what they truly represent: war, crimes against humanity, totalitarianism, terrorism; That is to say, in everything opposite to what they proclaim so much. Of social justice we can say that, on the one hand, it is associated with revolutionary justice (Castro model) of eliminating the opponent and, on the other, with the concentration and waste of public money only for those who form the regime or the nomenclature. .
Thus, the only way the guerrillas have to legitimize their criminal past is to “resignify the facts” and for that they have a well-specialized apparatus at the service of the cause. This nucleus is made up of writers, artists, journalists, judges, magistrates, professors and other sectors that secretly agree with the armed struggle and with the combination of forms of struggle.
Romanticizing terrorism with such recurring fallacies as “we rebel against the dictatorial system” and “we rise up against social injustice,” the guerrillas have appropriated a language that, despite their crimes, has allowed them to pose as defenders of rights. humans, champions of peace and moral beacons of justice.
Now, the true culture of peace is promoted by eliminating fallacies from language such as the one that maintains that kidnapping It is just a retention for economic purposes, which peace It is an adjective exclusive to the guerrilla even though there have only been a series of processes to legalize organized crime and that the rebels They are philanthropic groups of an intellectual nature with political purposes. Without subverting language to invert reality and the past, peace begins to be built.
And if there is a lot of interest on the part of the Shock Administration in promoting museums as part of a memory policy that contributes to the preservation of the past, I invite it to ensure that all the money that the presidential couple wastes goes to a fund that it designs a historical tourism plan in Ambalema, an economic center of the 19th century, or to exalt the house in Bello of Don Marco Fidel Suárez, true and authentic president-intellectual.
To conclude, the figure of Bolívar is the total opposite of what a guerrilla, financed by money from the Medellín Cartel, represents for national history since any reader trained in our past knows that Bolívar had three stages: the radical, the liberal and the conservative but, above these mutations, the three facets lead to a single front: the republican. In fact, Bolívar was never a lazy and sub-intellectual who, sucking on the sap of the State, wanted to live off of the (colonial) institutions while he disowned them, delegitimized them and tried to destroy them. Quite the contrary, he was a man who, as his troops passed, was followed by the creation of institutions as reflected in his speeches and his well-considered legacy for the legal history of America.