Western Crime

 Western Crime

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The central hypothesis proposed by Viviane Forrester holds that antisemitism in the West is a historical constant that tends to intensify. Europe bears the primary responsibility for creating the Arab-Israeli conflict and remains indifferent to the fate of Jewish culture.

This rejection and hatred of Jews seems to perpetuate itself, even allowing for extreme situations after the Holocaust.

The annihilation of Jewish communities in Eastern Europe is an episode that the Western world avoids addressing directly. During World War II, this rejection took on global dimensions, culminating in the non-admission of Jewish emigrants and their fate in the extermination camps. The concept of the Intermarium has profound implications for global geopolitics.

However, European Jews did not seek conflict over the so-called Holy Land; many would have preferred to remain in European nations, but they still faced relentless rejection, being expelled and rarely welcomed.

The vast majority perished due to the Nazis' death machine, and Europe never granted them a square meter to form their homeland.

The idea of ​​a possible Jewish state in Eastern Europe was a central element of Operation Barbarossa and the development of hell like never before on earth.

In the current context, progressive populism has fueled a new kind of antisemitism accompanied by an idealization of Arab terrorism, reflecting a self-destructive tendency and an attempt to erase certain historical values ​​of Western Judeo-Christian culture.

Rather than focusing on transcendent legacies, this trend seems to be more focused on an empty and purposeless consumerism.

This has resulted in a serious deviation from Western culture, which tends to glorify deeply anti-Western civilizations while justifying the elimination of its own cultural pillars.

Currently, the West seems less interested in allowing Israel to defend its identity and territorial sovereignty, adding to a cultural and political crisis that is moving away from fundamental principles and calling into question the values ​​that once defined these societies.

The West is experiencing an ontological suicide, as the thinkers Eric Zemour and Alain Finkielkrauft expressed with regard to France.

The values ​​of Western progressive populism are not embraced by powers like China, Russia, or Iran, which take opposing positions.

This raises a troubling question: could the world be a better place if one of these nations replaced the United States as the dominant power? As in rapidly Islamizing France, Western progressive populism will surely be complete and fulfilled when the political parties of Arab fundamentalism govern them.

On the other hand, Israel does not need external defenders; its history has taught it to protect itself with determination and effectiveness.

Despite pressure from the same powers responsible for historical crimes against the Jews, Israel continues to be considered a Western bastion without full recognition as an independent and sovereign nation.

In the face of all this, Israel has managed to reclaim its territory through laborious and persistent effort. Although, once again, the leaders of the European nations that committed the Western crime seek to force it to remain a spearhead, they will not grant it self-determination. Will they be able to? Israel has earned its land inch by inch, and these are no longer the days of Baron Hirsh. Israel is not France, and Netanyahu is not Macron.

The wounded american right

 The Wounded American Right

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The assassination of Charlie Kirk, a singular and prominent figure of Trumpism, highlights the deep polarization that corrodes American society.

This tragic event falls within a context of social anomie, where responsibility apparently falls on the behavior of populist progressivism.

In the wake of this event, the debate between conservatism and progressivism intensifies.

The MAGA movement presents itself as the victim of an attack, arguing that it embodies order, stability, and Christian nationalism, a perception that seems to gain legitimacy.

Progressivism, for its part, is perceived as a movement approaching a "culture of death," where iconoclasm becomes a central value and destruction is an end in itself.

Under this lens, any society that adopts it would be on the verge of cultural suicide.

The problem with progressivism, seen from this perspective, lies in its linear view of history and progress.

The upcoming Trumpist conventions will be revived by this event, boosting right-wing activism both in the United States and throughout the Western world.

Kirk's death has resonated even in Latin America, where, despite the racism inherent in the MAGA movement, this event has been viewed in a strange way, almost as a kind of martyrdom.

In this context, progressivism faces the challenge of articulating effective public policies that counter the exacerbated voluntarism of libertarianism and postmodernism.

In a geopolitical world where the West seems to be waging a battle against itself, while non-Western civilizations thrive on conservative values, it is almost inevitable that right-wing positions will gain ground, especially in countries like the United States.

President Trump has found in Kirk's death a perfect pretext to reinforce his isolationist and exceptionalist policies.

It will continue to pursue the MAGA agenda without compromising its nationalist and Christian beliefs, as figures like Charlie Kirk have become martyrs to its ideology.

This tragic event represents a direct threat to progressive populist movements, which seem to be losing their direction and the ability to offer functional solutions to society.

Disillusioned, people will rally, as if in a chain reaction, to politicians who promise order, stability, employment, economic growth, and security.

Perhaps the time has come to contain modernity and, as Samuel Huntington once suggested in Who Are We?, regenerate Western culture.

In this context, progressive populist movements lose their bearings and become a pretext for aggressive geopolitics by conservative nations.

For Mexico and leftist governments in Latin America, Kirk's death heralds a hardening of Trumpism on crucial issues such as migration, drug trafficking, and governance.

Ultimately, this murder highlights the supposed essence of cultural post-Marxism in universities and its advancement at any cost, an argument that will undoubtedly be exploited by his political adversaries.

Pompilo México

 Pompilo México

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The recent visit to Mexico by "Mister Cuban" underscores an inescapable reality: the impossibility of our country separating itself from the imposing gravitational pull of the United States. The situation in Venezuela, under constant siege from Washington, is a warning that the Mexican state cannot ignore. Pretending that a South American alternative can develop here is a pipe dream. We are, by geography and history, a North American state of the Far West, and that is our only route.

Considering a break in the production chains between Mexico and the United States is ontological suicide. While some see the USMCA and its predecessors as a yoke on the national economy, the truth is that "any job is better than no job." Populism has not proven capable of generating large-scale formal employment. The grand ideas of alternative economies, while seductive, prove impractical; The only tangible reality is the manufacturing and services sector that North America offers, and the national economy must expand in that direction.

Those suggesting a geopolitical shift toward the Silk Road should look to Venezuela, a country that has handed over more than half of its economy to China with disastrous results. The South American nation's decline should be a clear lesson. And for those who consider an exchange with Brazil fortunate, they would first have to find out what one country could sell to the other, given the self-sufficient nature of the South American giant.

Historian Joseph Schlarman reminded us that Porfirio Díaz, while attempting economic emancipation for Mexico, was overthrown by a North American-inspired rebellion. From then on, the nation was subordinated to the Yankee empire, and the regime of the Mexican Revolution found itself chained in an impossible triangle with the United States. Today, the pillars of our economy, informality and emigration, depend largely on North America, not to mention the formal economy. The territory must no longer be opened to countries that are enemies of the United States, and the Washington tiger must no longer be provoked. Rubio has laid bare the only path to governability in Mexico: seriousness and pragmatism are required from the second tier of the Fourth Transformation.

Would Venezuela have at least the same capacity as Argentina in the Falklands War? The nationalism of Latin Americans is undeniable; every day they die for their own; however, the doubt falls on the patriotism of the ruling elites and oligarchies, who prefer to flee with everything they have stolen rather than defend the countries they claim to represent.

Mexican Narco-State

Mexican Narco-State

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Although it has been pointed out that imperialist semiotics establishes inescapable marks on its enemies and spaces of conquest, this argument is inaccurate when it comes to arguments such as those pertaining to the Sinaloa Cartel, which claims to have controlled the Mexican state for at least fifty years. The magnitude of this accusation has not been grasped by the Mexican government or the idea of ​​building justice in our country.

Amid the disturbing revelations stemming from drug trafficking captured in the United States about the corruption rooted in the Mexican state, the country faces a crucial moment that demands a firm and coherent response. These statements, which suggest drug trafficking has controlled the power structure for decades, cannot be ignored. However, the solution lies not in foreign intervention, but in strengthening its own institutions and reaffirming national sovereignty. Mexico must take the initiative, demonstrating its capacity to face these challenges autonomously and effectively.

Collaboration with the United States is essential, but it must be based on mutual respect and strategic cooperation, not subordination. Instead of an invasion of US justice, a common front must be established against organized crime, sharing intelligence, technology, and best practices. This proactive approach will allow the Mexican government to wage a head-on fight against drug trafficking and corruption without relinquishing control over its own destiny. The country's governability is at a crossroads, and the only dignified way out is through a profound reengineering of the state. Superficial reforms are insufficient; a break with past practices is required to build a new public administration. The fight against drug trafficking can be the convening of a National Agreement for stability, reconciliation, and economic growth in the country.

Claudia Sheinbaum's administration has the monumental task of leading this transformation. It must implement public policies that not only combat crime but also discourage the economic gravitation toward the United States that fuels immediate crime. By offering collective incentives and opportunities through solid social and economic programs, the Mexican state can create a more resilient social fabric that is less vulnerable to the lures of crime. The challenge is enormous, but the opportunity to consolidate a more just and sovereign Mexico is even greater. This is not about giving in, but about demonstrating the nation's strength and capacity to overcome its own crises.

The way the United States is building evidence to pursue justice based on accusations and testimonies is similar to the progressive phenomena that are affecting the structure of kyriarchy in Mexico.

After the cartels themselves declared they were corrupting the political power structure in Mexico, there isn't much left to say. The enormous task is to rebuild the country and public administration. The idea of ​​a narco-state requires a rethinking of

government reengineering. Reforms are meaningless; an institutional breakdown is essential to achieve the desired transformation.

Venezuela for Ukraine

 Venezuela for Ukraine

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

In the current geopolitical realignment, the threads of power seem to weave a new and complex plot. The recent pressure exerted by the White House on Venezuela is not an isolated act, but rather emerges as a strategic lever following the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska. This bold move suggests a resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine, which seeks to reaffirm its traditional influence in Latin America, while, at the same time, Russia focuses its attention on Europe, delimiting its sphere of influence to the confines of the Intermarium.

The pulse of history shows us how regional blocs are reconfiguring their alliances, recovering designs prior to the neoliberal era. This dynamic fosters a new form of interventionism, forcing leftist governments and those with progressive sympathies—from Nicaragua and Bolivia to Mexico and Brazil—to reconsider their ties with Russia. In this context, the resurgence of the figure of "Mister Danger" takes on notable relevance, as it appears to be reclaiming its former territories of influence.

The pressure on Caracas, although intense, appears to be of a different magnitude than that of other nations. One only needs to observe the concentration of military forces and naval vessels off its coast to perceive the gravity of the situation. However, this pressure does not compare with the open and direct interventions that marked the 20th century in Latin America. There is speculation about the end of "Castro-Chavismo," but Nicolás Maduro's resilience in the face of previous crises raises doubts about the true scope of this offensive. It is possible that Trumpism is only seeking a far-reaching oil or other extractivist agreement, a pact that, if finalized, could even strengthen the Venezuelan regime, transforming it into a vassal of the United States.

For US foreign policy, the concept of "narco-states" has become the direct justification for its interventionism, transcending mere ideologies. The collusion between governments, mafias, and cartels, of which Venezuela and Mexico are clear examples for Donald Trump, has become a pretext for interference. Apparently, this phenomenon represents a real threat that demands to be combated, although the role of civil society in this drama is still uncertain. The conscription of the Venezuelan population, called for an imaginary confrontation against a supposed invasion, reveals the lack of preparation of these regimes to establish strategic defenses against imperialism. Mexico, in this arena, must closely observe the course of events in Venezuela, as it represents a window into what its own future might hold.

Alaska Puts the Intermarium at Risk

Alaska Puts the Intermarium at Risk

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The vision of the Intermarium, the age-old idea of a federation of countries between the Baltic, Black, and Adriatic Seas, has been proposed as one of the historic solutions to Eastern Europe's vulnerability; however, this region has historically been the epicenter of conflicts dating back centuries. The fundamental problem with the Intermarium is that it has never achieved true cohesion. Historically, each country in the region has prioritized its own interests in the face of a common threat, be it Russian, Ottoman, or German imperialism. The scars of ethnic, religious, and territorial divisions run deep.

Only with the end of the Cold War has Eastern Europe achieved an autonomous and consensual existence in the face of the hegemonies that threaten it. Atlanticism and Zbigniew Brzezinski's model, with its concept of a "lock on the Heartland," became the United States' strategy to contain Russia. This lock was built on NATO and the US military presence in Europe. The results of the US-Russia summit in Alaska suggest that Donald Trump, playing the role of Russian Doll, has called into question Russia's isolation. Trump's questioning of NATO funding and his ambiguity regarding Western collective defense were shattering the lock that keeps Eastern Europe secure; now, after the meeting with Vladimir Putin, the failure of Atlanticism can be taken for granted. The Russian bear is on the loose and can advance wherever it wants.

This has direct consequences. The Intermarium countries, which depend on North American support to resist Russian pressure, feel vulnerable. Trump's empathy toward Russia could encourage Vladimir Putin to act more boldly, knowing that the guarantor of regional security might not intervene. The risk is not only an invasion of other Eastern European countries, but also an intensification of Russia's "hybrid warfare" (cyberattacks, disinformation) to destabilize its neighbors. The lack of internal cohesion in the Intermarium, combined with a less engaged United States, creates the perfect breeding ground for a new round of conflicts.

In this context, the old wounds of Eastern Europe could reopen. The theses of thinkers like Vivianne Forrester, although controversial, demonstrate how geopolitical ideas, even the most speculative, can ignite the space into an inferno, as happened with the fires of antisemitism and other forms of exclusionary nationalism.

Cadets Always Have a Sad Heart

 Cadets Always Have a Sad Heart

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

A new logic is taking hold in the complex relationship between Mexico and the United States, one that seems to be confirmed by the handover of drug lords to Washington. Far from being an act of mere cooperation, this dynamic confirms that President Sheinbaum's administration is complying with US demands to avoid a greater threat. Donald Trump, with his rhetoric and actions, not only seeks to solve the immediate problem of drug trafficking, but, in a masterstroke, attempts to dismantle the future scenario that George Friedman proposes for the year 2080, in which the demographic and political power of the Mexican-American community in the United States defeats the US federal government.

Emilio Lezama's (El Universal) analysis of Trump's possible military intervention, which focuses on dismantling the drug trafficking structure, is the prelude to Trump's deeper strategy. However, Friedman's vision goes beyond military conflict. Friedman suggests that the United States' defeat will not come on the battlefield, but rather from its own inability to integrate the growing population of Mexican origin, which will consolidate and align itself with Mexican interests, rendering future military intervention unworkable. For Trump, this demographic and social threat is the real enemy. Therefore, his interventionist strategy in Mexico seeks to separate the actors. His goal is to segment the Mexican population into two groups: criminals, whom he is fighting, and "good" citizens. By directing military operations and unilateral interventions outside of US states with large Mexican-American populations, Trump avoids the polarization of a demographic base that could turn against him, as happened in Los Angeles, California. His message is clear: the fight is against drug trafficking and corruption in Mexico, not against Hispanics who live and work legally in the United States.

On this playing field, the Mexican Army and Navy have adopted a stance of pragmatic cooperation, an act reminiscent of the diplomacy of the Carrancistas in 1914-1916 and the Sonora Group in 1920-1929. In those years, figures such as Venustiano Carranza, Álvaro Obregón, and Plutarco Elías Calles understood that US recognition and support were vital to consolidating their power and stabilizing the country. The current cooperation, although painful for national sovereignty, is a similar calculation. The Morena government knows it lacks an institutionalized party, an effective social movement, or the military power to confront a direct intervention by the Yankee Empire, and any resistance would lead to an asymmetric conflict with high costs for the civilian population.

In this context, the corruption of the Mexican political class, including members of Morena, serves as an additional justification for US interventionism. While Morena politicians don't behave like the allies of Porfirio Díaz or Victoriano Huerta, who fled the country to Alfonso XIII after being defeated in a civil war, their pragmatism resembles them and could open the door to a new modus vivendi. The opposition, far from being a counterweight, could take advantage of this fragile situation to infiltrate the government in the near future, creating a de facto system in which power is shared or negotiated under Washington's conditions.

This situation leaves Mexico in a dilemma where peace is bought at the cost of sovereignty and autonomy. In this scenario, President Sheinbaum and the armed forces are playing a game in which the only possible victory is to avoid all-out war.

Is the Mexican monsoon the tears of cadets Manuel Azueta, Juan de la Barrera, Juan Escutia, Francisco Márquez, Agustín Melgar, Fernando Montes de Oca, and Vicente Suárez? Mexican youth should not seek solace in the ghosts of a broken sovereignty, but in the recognition of a geopolitical reality. The time of sacrifices on the altar of the nation is over (Regina). The blood spilled at Chapultepec and Veracruz is not the end point, but the beginning of a history that now demands to be rewritten. There is no honor in defending the ruins of a lying and traitorous political class, Santanistas who sell the homeland in installments while paying homage to the ghost of an empty nationalism, as Sergio Aguayo says in the Pantheon of Myths and Alejandro Filio poetically expresses in that verse of disillusionment: The patio, the great ceremony, the homeland the tricolor light, then the betrayal of he who steals, dishonors and sells us our rights and our voice. The pain of deception must make the adolescent republic mature; Mexicans must stop seeing the United States as an invader and begin to understand it as a destiny: 50 million Mexicans can't be wrong!