Rusophobia, anti-Semitism and Mexico
By Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero
What is the reason that the Mexican extreme right seeks to resuscitate the spirit of Canoa and 1968 in the current elections? By accusing Russia of supporting Andrés Manuel López Obrador, are they trying to revive anti-communism, Judeophobia and violence against public universities?
Communism, Jews and the Russian Orthodox Church are elements that provoke conflict for Catholics. The Jewish-Illustrated conspiracy is emphasized, which acquires force when the Pontifical States are lost in 1870, and the Catholic Church blames the enemies Freemasons, enlightened, Jews, communists, liberals, secularizers and scientists. In the great conspiracy against the Church, all the enemies of Catholicism fit and are confused. The fundamentalism and Catholic fundamentalism would then be justified to reconfigure the greatness of the Church. The Holy See built the attacks on Russia from the moment when that country was a space for the survival of Bundism - a socialist Jewish movement - the affirmation of Orthodox Christianity, communism and Islam. One of the geopolitical projects for the protection of the Vatican State was the "Intemarium". The Intermarium was, and is, an anti-Jewish, Russophobic and ultraconservative Catholic project. When the Russian Revolution emerged, this strategy was implemented so that the intransigent integral Catholicism infiltrated governments, universities, civil society, etc., with the purpose of rooting Catholic secret organizations and controlling the status quo.
The animosity of Poland to Russia has infected the Ibero-American countries; nevertheless, the true rejection of Russia is not from Poland but from the Holy See that observes in Russia one of its main historical enemies. The Mexican far right has enunciated its historical attachment to the geopolitical project called Intermarium that coordinated the arrival of Karol Wojtyla as Bishop of Rome.
A few days ago, Poland enacted a law that sanctions the interpretation or indication that can be made between that nation and Nazi collaborationism. The fact constitutes a useless legislature with respect to historical evidences and facts. However; Beyond the Polish responsibility in the Holocaust, the interesting thing is to highlight the way in which anti-Semitism is used as a justification for Russophobia.
Recently, Russia has begun to take a leading role in the definition of global and European geopolitics. Since Vladimir Putin came to power there has been a synchronization between Russia's internal and external policy that seeks to affirm its vital space and zone of influence. The long period of the political group of Vladimir Putin has solved the crises of the USSR, the conflicts with the border areas and has maintained a zone of influence in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Does Russia intend to constitute the Central State of the Baltic Slavic civilization? in the XXI century? How is Vladimir Putin's leadership to lead an elite that coordinates a semi-authoritarian democracy? Is Russia's development a risk for the West? Are there areas of influence for Russia in other civilizations? What is the reason for the emergence of Baltic Slavic identity in the post-communist era? What role does Russia play in the current multipolar scenario? Has it become a democratic, capitalist and liberal nation? Can it return to socialism to promote a new hegemony? What kind of power is Russia now?
Samuel Huntington gives Russia the treatment of a country whose modernity is frustrated or torn; at least, at the end of the 20th century, that's what it seemed. Russia has a Russian modernity, Baltic Slavic, which with greater certainty is attached and which, each time, has a resounding success. Russia supported, a little over a decade, the capitalist democratic neoliberal model; however, he abandoned it and has found himself again with an autochthonous experience of growth and development. This was the world of the future to which Huntington's hypotheses referred: 1) civilizations will develop internally in a radical process of differentiation with the West and 2) the West has to redefine its civilizing values to stop its own decline in a global context where there are more and more actors and competitors.
Although the concept of clash of civilizations has a serious and bizarre impression, the most important thing that the hypotheses of the North American geopolitical singular have is the approach of the challenge that the culture or western civilization presents once the world of the cold war is over. While it is true that cultural differences have always been there, the exhaustion of the bipolar scheme generated many civilizations and central states of the same, emerge with greater strength and sense of geopolitical territoriality.
This is the case of Russia, only with attachment to its cultural identity and nationalism has managed to be reborn after almost collapsing with the end of the USSR. Russia has a global role that competes with the United States and the West in particular, its recovery has defeated the image of a poor, authoritarian and weak country. At the turn of the 21st century, Russia rejected Westernization and returned to the path of its own identity. The stage has followed, partially, the picture that appeared Huntington. Russia can not be omitted from international politics in Eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East. It can not be said that he has regained the power that the USSR had; but it is not a minor actor in current geopolitics either. Its foreign policy coincides more and more with its national interest and is prepared militarily and professionally.
The recent leadership of Russia, China and India have robbed the United States of importance in global control. However, they do not seek the total armed conflict and, much less, the conquest of the world. The multipolar equilibrium generates a cold war where more actors intervene that, certainly, adopt the cautious and latent patterns of contention. Armed conflicts are represented in areas where diplomacy is concluded and the interests of the powers determine the use of force.
Modernizing globalization is no longer the heritage of Western culture. The West is in crisis for a blind neoliberalism represented in the Culture of Davos and the cultural metastasis that generates its consumerism. The abandonment of the United States to Mexico implies the opportunity for identity recovery and social reengineering. The Mexican neoliberals, the extreme right and the national bourgeoisie are condemned by the old capitalist superpower; they are ineffective, corrupt, murderous, retrograde and cretinous.
Should Mexico continue under the tutelage of the Holy See and projects such as the Intermarium? Should Mexico fear Russia? Of course not.
A large part of the macro-projects and strategic policies that our country has lost, owe their failure to the belief that you can only work with the allies of Catholic Christendom. There are the results: impunity, corruption, poverty and underdevelopment. Russia, and the world, are opportunities that globalization and modernity offer to our environment. It is a pity that El Yunque continues believing that Mexicans are programmed in code "Canoa 1968". The neoliberal Hispanic Catholic oligarchy can no longer hide its parasitism, the attacks on Russia are proof of its lamentable intellectual and moral capacity: the Americans no longer want them or of servitude. The closure of the North American president to our country, must be the impulse to look for new allies, technologies, infrastructure, markets, exchanges; in short, the world.
Mexico must fear the consecration of the Anvil that the Holy See promotes in the PRIANRD and, unfortunately, also in MORENA.