P. Edronkin

The Andinia Plan Is The Wrong Place To Look At



Best Sellers

Adventure Gear

Survival

Extreme and Conventional Sports

Travel Services

Photo and Video

Natural Health

Courses

Ecology and Gardening

Related Auctions

Vehicles

Jobs and Employment

Many nationalists in Argentina and Chile believe that there is a Jewish conspiracy know as the Andinia Plan that targets their southern territories; the existence of such conspiracy has never been proved but there is a real claim over Araucania and Patagonia, and that comes from a true and recognised lineage of kings and princes.

Not only that: Those nationalists are not the rightful defenders of legitimately occupied territories, but defenders of an usurpation.

The Andinia Plan has never been proved as a real thing and it is in all likelihood based on pure racism with fascists undertones. Evidence was never produced, independent observers never said anything in favour of the argument, and the whole thing could easily and promptly be classified as a chimera. But the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia (KAP, for short) is a different matter: It had real existence before Argentina and Chile wiped out the Mapuche culture south of their respective capitals during the late nineteenth century. Like it or not, once a state gets recognition by other governments, big and small as the KAP did, its sovereign right never cease and are considered perpetual, even if its territory is seized by other powers.

Thus, under international law and on the basis that the Mapuches occupied the southernmost tip of the Americas for more than six thousand years, it becomes self-evident that there are grounds for supporters of the claim to continue their struggle; it is an unquestionable fact that they have the rights to recreate that state in at least part of the territory now occupied by Argentina and Chile.

So down there the discussion about who owns what should not be centred around the Falklands / Malvinas, or regarding some chilling little islands in the Fueguian channels, but on the very fact that there is a state missing.

Viewing this matter from a religious or theological perspective brings me to a simple conclusion: If God or "The Ideal" (from an eco-ecumenical point of view) put some people in some place and helped them survive for sixty centuries, arguing that two nations that occupied that territory only a hundred and fifty years ago by military means would have stronger and better rights is a logical, religious and legal absurd. In other words, it is sinful.

I understand that what I am writing may hurt the emotional sensibility of nationalists, both honest and dishonest, but you cannot argue with facts. So I wonder: Considering the endless failures of modern-day Latin American nations in almost every department, wouldn't it be interesting to consider the re-creation of a true kingdom that represented a six-thousand year old nation? At least they lasted a lot of time, and that is a testament to their capabilities as a culture.




The Outdoors Search Engine for Exploration, Survival and Adventure Lovers - Andinia.com