Questions

"As humans, many wonder to what extent and when they should bear the historical blame carried out by their own ancestors, their ancestors, and if it is possible to denounce at least what the victims of their forbears do today, which is the same thing that was done to them in the past or much worse since this is the 21st century. How to denounce genocide or injustice without being called racist, xenophobic, hostile against a nation, or complicit in the sins of the past? Has the human individual lost his conscience for the convenience of a few and comfort in the face of fear and terror? For money? For a power? The questions are so simple, and the answers are clear and evaded due to the fear and anger that come from helplessness. He had already decided to send everything to hell because not only had fear and comfort won, but no one cared about a supposed legacy. It was simply a matter of time before civilization fell, and he, with a bottle of wine and hopefully drunk, would watch the world burn with sadness but with the clear conscience of having tried something different. -Being in the ass of the world, looking for the ass of the world's ass, is complicated - it was said. But then he remembered that place between the jungle, the mountains, the sea, and the Caribe. Where he was once happy without fear. He smiled. Is there any better place to see everything burn and even better with a glass of rum and perhaps a mulatto woman next to him? No more questions. He smiled and decided to send everything to hell.

Without a doubt, humanity (global, even if it sounds arrogant) is facing a moral and natural challenge: the protection of life itself and of the collective conscience as a species in the face of a system invented by themselves and founded by greed. This challenge is not even historical but instantaneous. It is experienced at all levels and depends on brave young people and stubborn and fearful old people, compared to completely avaricious and mean others. Yes, globalization and the success of the diversity promised by the free market exposed the darkness of that same system. And there is no need for any type of fallacy or hypocritical response: it is clear, and it is a question of oppressors against free minds. And it is these, in conscience, that will guarantee life. The former do not care since their gain is as long as they can enjoy it. And then die and take most of the others with them in death because of their selfishness. It is difficult to write and think in the first person, and even more so when your greatest aspiration is to contribute and be free. Maybe that's why he was so fragile and so readily betrayed. Many would understand if he were an artist, but he was simply someone whose curiosity (like desire) led him to try to reduce gaps in freedom. But he, in himself, was an opportunity, a papaya to sabotage or take advantage of. Make fun. Thus, writing in the first person, he began his log with a date of April: the sea was expanding again, and no one understood why he did not want to be a commodore or an admiral at my age...

Humans are afraid and remain silent when one does not have that supposed power. Fortunately, some do not care about repression and are courageous despite their fragility—despite life and what it represents. They are the ones who, in one way or another, have allowed the experience (not simple survival) and, one can dare say, who guarantee hope in the face of decay and fear. Yes, they guarantee transcendence. (Silence). Convenience taught that, and in countries like these, the survival instinct is in different ways. The hatred of others, for example, towards freedom (mental, intellectual, and, I would dare say, even spiritual) was enough to want its annihilation. My annihilation, and the best way, was to dehumanize me. One hundred years earlier, they had been the liberal dogs; thirty years, the communist dogs; and today, they were the progressive dogs. Of course, after asking for the rivers of blood, they would go to their services as before they went to the churches. They would dress in white, while their husbands would go with their own lovers of color or brunette or from the neighborhood, and their daughters would dream of that gringo who knows what they can get here for free if they are the daughters of so-and-so and at a very low price. If they are from the neighborhood, it costs them a lot on their land. especially because it costs them brains. Still, it is not a question of hate but of laziness. Is it worth giving a little life to this society?

You think more about the easy answer (not even the possible answers) than about uncomfortable questions. Thinking about them is complex and dangerous for a humanity that destroys itself and, in the process, the life that surrounds it. It is not easy to have some hope when what is moral is not legal. Legality guarantees injustice, inequality, enmity, and oppression, not to mention modern slavery.  Consciousness as humanity is so difficult despite all this knowledge... (Sigh) He preferred this solitude than dragging with all his sadness someone who couldn't stand it because, on the one hand, he was only interested in his wealth and, on the other, the pleasure of the night, not the tranquility of what would be left of it and of the next morning. That was why every afternoon when he walked from the old cafe, increasingly decadent and gray, to his room in the old city, he was grateful for his latest divorce. She couldn't stand it. Having a conscience at the end of your days is unbearable."