The Cultural and Political Battle: Interview with the 3 Great Voices of Truth and Freedom at CPAC México 2024

On August 24, 2024, Mexico became the epicenter of the cultural battle with the hosting of CPAC Mexico, an event that brought together key figures from the political and social arenas. Amid passionate speeches and debates, María Herrera stood out with a memorable interview, where two great titans of the cultural struggle shared their visions and strategies for defending conservative values in an increasingly polarized world.

The cultural battle in Latin America has been a growing topic of importance, especially in a context where left-wing policies have gained ground in several countries. During the interview, the participants emphasized the need for an organized and determined resistance to defend the principles they consider fundamental: freedom of speech, the defense of life, and the protection of the family as the core of society.

In addition to addressing these topics, the interview also touched on practical aspects, such as the tactics being used to counter the influence of the left in the region. This ranges from awareness campaigns to active participation in political processes, demonstrating a clear commitment to the conservative cause.

Here are some key excerpts from the interview:

María Herrera: Good afternoon, we’re back here at CPAC Mexico, and I’m joined by three great men who are leading an incredible cultural battle around the world, especially here in Mexico, where they’ve given several lectures and are on tour. I’m talking about Agustín Laje to my right, of course, Miklos Lukacs, and Pablo Muñoz Iturrieta. Welcome to all three.

[…]

María Herrera: I heard Agustín in the previous interviews, talking about the importance of Robert Kennedy Jr. withdrawing from the presidential race yesterday and endorsing Trump. Agustín, do you think this could set a precedent for other candidates, who are not aligned with the right, to endorse conservative figures? Because as Robert Kennedy said, the real threat against children, against democracy, and the survival of a nation is at stake.

Agustín Laje: Well, what happens is that Kennedy Jr. is someone who, despite being a Democrat, has already left the party and has nothing to do with the American left anymore. He is someone who opposes Big Pharma and Big Finance, which are the most powerful enemies Donald Trump has. He is also against the Deep State.

So, at the end of the day, there seem to be several points of convergence for him to end up endorsing Trump in states where the stakes are high. In other states, for example, where the outcome is already known, like California, there will still be a Kennedy Jr. ballot. However, I see the electoral climate in the United States as very strange. Frankly, it worries me a lot, a lot, because everyone thought that after the shooting incident, the elections were already won.

I understand that Trump himself thought this when he chose Vance as his running mate. It seemed like the game was over. But the reality is that just a few days later, no one even remembers the shooting, nor that Kamala Harris is the current vice president.

And there’s a kind of Orwellian moment in the United States right now, where we’ve seen Harris, without saying a word or giving a single interview, rise in the polls and, in some cases, surpass Trump. So, what just happened with Kennedy Jr. is very important, but it’s not the final word. There’s still the debate, and several weeks remain until November. Anything could happen in the United States.

María Herrera: Miklos, Agustín mentions the atmosphere is strange, and I interviewed you earlier about the protests in the UK. Specifically, what we felt, for example, at CPAC in Washington DC, is that people here in the United States, for the first time in many years, are scared again. Thousands of people have been jailed after the call for an election audit on January 6. Banks handed over private consumer financial data simply for having a coffee at Starbucks in Washington DC that day. Is this normal? Do you see this perfectly aligned with the agenda of persecuting dissidents and any resistance to the progressive, globalist movement in the United States?

Miklos Lukacs: What I see is that the agenda is the same; it’s just moving at different speeds. There are countries where this is much further along.

Canada, for instance, is openly a dystopia. The UK is headed down that path. France is completely Islamized.

I’m not saying that, demographically, Islam is the majority, but culturally, Islam’s power is much more evident than Christianity. Spain is also heading in that direction with its open borders policies, and what happened in the UK—where a young Rwandan teenager of color stabbed three children to death and injured ten others—pushed many Britons over the edge. People who had been silent were finally fed up, which resulted in these explosions, these marches in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Edinburgh. The big cities of the UK, especially the combative northwest. And Keir Starmer, who is openly fascist, suppressed these protests harshly because there is two-tier policing, as they call it. Immigrants are treated one way, and natives another. The natives are being persecuted. And there’s also an Orwellian atmosphere, as Agustín mentioned.

This is Orwellianism applied. It’s no longer theory; now you can be imprisoned for tweeting something they don’t like or for a Facebook post. Meanwhile, if you rape a child, you get a year or two in prison, and if you’re an immigrant, they make it even easier for you.

So yes, there is this distinction, and I think the situation in the United States is just at different speeds. In coastal states, both east and west, the situation is already lost, but in the heart of the U.S., especially in the smaller, more traditional states, there is still a strong conservative force, albeit not a large one.

María Herrera: Pablo, we’ve seen in the past week Elon Musk’s interview with Donald Trump and how it triggered a reaction, even a preemptive one, from the European Union. […] You are someone who educates parents and society in general about their rights and defending freedom of speech. What can we do to encourage, as Agustín says, more people to get involved in politics? Not because they like politics, but as a means to survive in this world where the only thing you have left is your voice—barely, because not even on social media can you fully express your right to have your nation defended by its nationals.

Pablo Muñoz: Well, look, if you’ll allow me, I’ll answer by following the Orwellian line that Agustín and Miklos touched on. I think Canada is the paradigm nowadays, at least in how an Orwellian government operates concerning freedom of speech, especially in relation to your rights to educate and raise your children based on natural parental rights that precede the state. In Canada, today, they are debating a law that asks for a reform of the penal code to give life sentences to people who deny, on social media, in comments or posts, all these new rights related to gender identity and sexual orientation.

So, for example, if you contradict in a comment, a post, or a YouTube video the so-called right to gender identity, they are asking for you to receive life imprisonment, more than for committing murder. That is, the worst crime you can commit in Canada is denying gender ideology. So we have to understand that what is happening in Canada, which is literally dystopian and Orwellian, will eventually happen in other countries with the same speed Miklos mentioned. In Mexico, everything is ready for when Claudia Sheinbaum wins, as she follows the same ideological line.

In the United States, with Kamala Harris, the situation is going to get much worse. I think it’s time for people to become aware of their political responsibility because all these politicians came to power with people’s support at some point. I see a huge political ignorance among many people who voted for Trudeau just because they found him handsome, a good-looking guy. But when they saw who Trudeau really was, it was already too late because Canada has a system where it’s very hard to remove a prime minister.

María Herrera: Agustín, the topic of Argentina […] in relation to Spain, considering the tensions that emerged from the statements Milley made at VIVA, returning to the issue of defending freedom of expression, how is it possible that there are these tensions when what is being done is simply exposing the truth? What did Milley say? Pedro Sánchez’s wife was being investigated for corruption; we know about the Pegasus case. So what should be Milley’s stance towards Pedro Sánchez’s regime, which is allied with Venezuela and the worst tyrannies in the world?

Agustín Laje: Look, Milley doesn’t mince his words, and in that sense, he’s very similar to Donald Trump. If you closely analyze Milley’s speech, which you referred to from VIVA 24, the reference to Pedro Sánchez and the alleged corruption of his wife came when he interrupted his reading—this wasn’t in the prepared speech. What does that tell you? It tells you about the strength of the truth. People who love the truth feel its force driving them to speak it, despite the consequences that follow. Neither Trump nor Milley are career politicians; they are people who spent their lives doing other things and ended up where they are simply due to fate. They don’t have the typical vices of career politicians—the vices of lying.

[…]

Pedro Sánchez and also López Obrador, here in Mexico, intervened during the Argentine electoral campaign by publishing posts and videos supporting certain candidates, which is quite interesting because both claim to be against meddling when it comes to Venezuela. For example, I recently heard López Obrador say that no one should say there was fraud in Venezuela because that would be meddling. But less than a year ago, that man was speaking out against an Argentine presidential candidate during his morning press conference. And Pedro Sánchez, who says it’s meddling for Milley to come to Spain and comment on our government, was commenting on both Argentine candidates during their campaign. With Milley, you’ll hear all these things; he doesn’t mince words. You may like or dislike him, but he will tell you what he thinks, and he’s committed to causes that people were initially skeptical about, thinking he would only run an economicist government. In reality, he’s fully committed to fighting gender ideology, radical feminism, and the «setentismo» ideology in Argentina, which glorifies terrorists and denigrates the military. Now, for example, victims of terrorism hold public offices, where for the past 20 years, we’ve only seen former guerrillas and terrorists in state positions. He’s lifted the morale of the military, and now no official event takes place without the military playing a prominent role. We’re seeing many changes within a short time, but Milley’s political weakness is clear because he doesn’t have legislative power on his side. He has very few deputies, even fewer senators, and no governors or mayors. It’s just him and public opinion, boosted by social media, that currently hold power for Milley.

María Herrera: […] Miklos, Trump’s solution for national security is precisely the militarization of the border. However, we see that in Latin America, many of these militarization projects to stop organized crime haven’t been effective. What can we learn from this experience—cases like Colombia and Mexico, where we are now? Military deployment is imposed, but the country doesn’t improve. What can we say about that?

Miklos Lukacs: That’s an interesting question because, under current circumstances, I believe militarizing the U.S. border is necessary. But the case of Latin America is different. I can mention the experience in Peru with Sendero Luminoso and Alberto Fujimori’s government, which applied an anti-terrorist policy that also involved domestic security, not terrorism, but crime. Fujimori understood that he couldn’t fight subversion if the military didn’t build trust with the population. You can do this in the region; you can militarize, but there’s a deep distrust of the police, even more than of the military. This has an economic component because the salaries of these people are very low, so they are prone to corruption. There’s no trust between citizens and their police, a little more with the military, but trust in the police is very scarce. The situation in Mexico is alarming. If a police officer stops you, you don’t stop. It’s that simple. So, any domestic security policy necessarily involves building trust, but that takes years.

María Herrera: Pablo, the European Union, led by Josep Borrell as its High Representative, says it no longer supports Maduro, but over the years, we’ve seen them support the dictatorship of Díaz-Canel and the Castro regime, by financing and canceling debt through agreements like the Paris Club. Why? I asked María Fernanda Cabal, and it makes me suspicious that suddenly Boric, Petro, and even Josep Borrell are distancing themselves from Maduro. Is it because the fraud is so clear, or what is happening with the Puebla Group, the São Paulo Forum—why are they pulling away?

Pablo Muñoz: Look, the truth is that I’m not Venezuelan, nor am I an expert on Venezuela, but it seems to me that social media has put enormous pressure on the issue of Maduro’s government’s illegitimacy. It’s obvious that this government is illegitimate and that the European Union and all these presidents over the years have been supporting a government that has always been illegitimate. I think that’s the central issue in Venezuela—Maduro is really just a nominal president with power in Venezuela, but it’s all based on a lie because he doesn’t have the legal right to be president. He has truly become a dictator. When global public opinion became so focused on Venezuela, it was incredible to see on social media. The media was also focused on Venezuela, but I can tell you that videos made by Agustín and some I made got more views than CNN. That’s because the analysis they present is so superficial, so ideologically biased, that people have realized it’s a lie. I once had a live stream, which has never happened to me before, with 172,000 people watching—it was the only time. I couldn’t believe I had 172,000 people watching live; it was impossible, way more than what CNN had on the same topic. CNN had an average of 40,000 to 50,000 viewers. I don’t have a YouTube channel as big as others, but Agustín has a huge one. His channel follows a very realistic and aligned ideological and philosophical line with what we talk about. I’m referring to other YouTube channels that talk about Venezuela, think of Ruzarín or other personalities from Mexico who have bigger channels than mine but are clowns offering such superficial analysis that people are catching on. I believe that eventually affects politicians and even influences their speeches.

María Herrera: The issue of national security, Agustín, and with this, I’ll close as I don’t want to take more of your time—we’ve never seen this level of violence, organized crime openly roaming the streets of Santiago. Boric talks about trying to copy the criminal public policies of Nayib Bukele, but it still makes me suspicious. I mean, when Boric and Petro come out with these ideas, it doesn’t make much sense to me. Well, they’re close friends after all.

Agustín Laje: Look, with Boric, you have to admit the guy wasn’t as radical as he could have been—he was quite a moderate leftist. And I’d say, regarding the migration issue, there’s a whole topic there because there are different waves of migration. You may receive a wave of good people, and then you start getting waves of people who aren’t so good […] So yes, this is going to have a huge impact on the region. Our systems are already quite fragile for ourselves, let alone to support millions of people who weren’t accounted for in these social, healthcare, educational, welfare, and security systems.

It’s not easy to receive a wave, a diaspora like the Venezuelan one. So, I don’t think there will be any foreign intervention. I believe the only way to solve the Venezuelan issue is by drawing inspiration from what happened in Bolivia in 2019, when there was fraud, and people took to the streets and didn’t leave for more than 20 days. The Armed Forces eventually said they wouldn’t repress the people, and Evo Morales had to leave. Unless there’s an internal fracture within the Bolivarian Armed Forces, there’s no hope. The big question is how do you create that fracture? And I think the way to do it is with very active militancy from people in the streets, eroding the morale of the Armed Forces. Of course, this comes at a high cost. Why? Because no people have ever won their freedom for free.

Let’s start there. There will be blood, there will be disappeared people, tortured people, murdered people, kidnapped people. It’s going to happen. The question is, are Venezuelans today willing to go through that pain? If they are, there is a path to freedom. If they’re not, there’s a continuation of slavery. This is Hegel’s master-slave dialectic in action. Why is the slave a slave? Because he was afraid to die. Here, those who fear death, well, I’m not making a moral judgment, I’m making a political analysis. If you fear death in the face of tyranny, you’re reproducing the psychological principle of despotism, which is fear.

So, if you fear the despot, you empower the despot. When you lose fear of the despot, you risk your life, but you undermine the psychological foundation of tyranny, as Montesquieu pointed out.

María Herrera: There’s a Hispanic vote that needs to be educated. You know my work as an immigration lawyer and educator; it’s not enough to have just one person. We need a team, and we need to inspire future Hispanic leaders in the U.S. so that we multiply, as Jaime Flores and I were discussing today. The capacity of Hispanics to avoid being manipulated is crucial. They shouldn’t want to live in the U.S. the same way they did in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia—it’s truly concerning what we’re seeing. So, thank you very much, and hopefully next year, the four of us can tour across the U.S., educating and especially inspiring new leaders.

Joana Campos

Joana Campos es abogada y editora con más de 10 años de experiencia en la gestión de proyectos de desarrollo internacional, enfocada en la sostenibilidad y el impacto social positivo. Actualmente dirige JC Editorial, donde ha coordinado la edición y distribución de libros de reconocidos autores internacionales y la logística de numerosas giras nacionales. Además, se desempeña como Administradora General en Medicina Integradora, gestionando la clínica y generando proyectos en diversas áreas. Anteriormente, trabajó como abogada corporativa, especializándose en derecho penal y corporativo. Joana es licenciada en Derecho por la Universidad de Guadalajara.

Joana Campos is a lawyer and editor with over 10 years of experience in managing international development projects, focusing on sustainability and positive social impact. She currently leads JC Editorial, where she has coordinated the editing and distribution of books by renowned international authors and managed the logistics of numerous national tours. Additionally, she serves as the General Administrator at Medicina Integradora, overseeing the clinic and generating projects in various areas. Previously, she worked as a corporate lawyer, specializing in criminal and corporate law. Joana holds a law degree from the University of Guadalajara.

The post The Cultural and Political Battle: Interview with the 3 Great Voices of Truth and Freedom at CPAC México 2024 appeared first on Gateway Hispanic.

The post The Cultural and Political Battle: Interview with the 3 Great Voices of Truth and Freedom at CPAC México 2024 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.