The student massacre in Mexico

 The student massacre in Mexico

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Mexican anti-communism is particularly reflected in the student repressions and the extermination of revolutionary guerrilla groups in the sixties and seventies of the last century, although it prevails against some symbolic rural guerrillas such as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. The student massacres were oriented by the fight against communism, the fight against the Soviets was financed by the United States in satellite governments such as the PRI regime. However, it is necessary not to lose sight of the climate of opinion and culture determined by actors such as the World Anti-Communist League (WACL) where the membership of various actors in the Mexican political system is recognized. The WACL now persists in organizations such as the World League for Freedom and Democracy or the Conservative Political Action Conference, and maintains Nazi rhetoric coming from Eastern Europe. The religious and neoliberal right flows as if the Soviet Union were everywhere.

Within the multiple hypotheses that articulate what happened in the Tlatelolco Massacre, some configure the intervention against the presidential succession, or the insertion of a ruler more than linked to the geopolitics of the United States. The truth is that, despite the radical distinction between the six-year terms of Díaz Ordaz and Echeverría, both characters were affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and were unceremoniously subject to what the White House imposed in Mexico. From a distance, both actors supported Washington.

How much does US-led anti-communism persist in our country? What are the true possibilities of geopolitical sovereignty of the Mexican Republic?

Antonio Velasco Piña interpreted the tragedy as a sacrifice that motivated the spiritual awakening of Mexicans; Probably the students of '68 constitute another grain of sand in the search for national freedom. The student massacre can also be seen as an indispensable sacrifice to stop the arbitrariness of the Aztec chief called the United States who, like his Nazi friends, never tires of asking for blood.

Echeverría, AMLO and Gelatine Populism

Echeverría, AMLO and Gelatine Populism

September 22, 2020

Diego Martin Velázquez Caballero

https://www.semanarioelreto.com/single-post/2020/09/22/Echeverr%C3%ADa-AMLO-y-el-Populismo-Gelatina

Why is the clique of President Luis Echeverría Álvarez still so important in the Mexican political system? Since the neoliberal modernization of our country began, the members of the Echeverrismo have manifested themselves as an independent political project that has been present, for and against, from the delamadridista administration to the current government. Carlos Salinas de Gortari pointed to Echeverrismo as the most reluctant and gloomy part of the transformation of the Mexican political system: the Nomenklatura.

Echeverrismo perfectly represents the diarchy between the Revolutionary Family and the Far Right in the Mexican political system. Although Carlos Fuentes affirmed that support for Luis Echeverría Álvarez was preferable instead of Fascism, this nomenklatura has the most violent methods of political control, the LEA's six-year term shows the high murderous training that a North American intelligence agent can have. the presidency of the republic.

The end of 1968 was an important time for the presidential succession of the 1964-1970 six-year term, within the Revolutionary Family there was a relentless struggle to occupy positions of power, Díaz Ordaz contemplated a communist operation in the country where the large intelligence centers of Russia and the United States, as well as old political cells of Latin American socialists. During his time at the Ministry of the Interior, before being President, Díaz Ordaz was characterized by being a hard-line boss, his objective was always to comply with the system, with the State; perhaps, these antecedents made him feel an exaggerated dangerousness of the youth demonstrations.

There are different versions of what happened on October 2, 1968 from the different positions of intellectuals and protagonists. Most point to the overt authoritarianism of Díaz Ordaz as the main cause, the few point to the students as the perpetrators, but another also points out that the student movement may have been manipulated to obtain benefits in the presidential succession.

For this tendency, it is the Secretary of the Interior who makes rigid decisions at critical moments of the conflict, which did not clarify the panorama of the President, on the contrary, they deplored him. Díaz Ordaz learned, shortly before the sad events in Tlatelolco, much of the truth and found in the crossing of the information that he himself made, clear signs of the mediatization of the movement in the merciless fight for the presidency.

It is Echeverría's loyalty to the black circle of the system that surprises the Revolutionary Family, demonstrating that he was capable of anything and thus being chosen as his successor. Echeverría knew how to use the controls, the confidence of the PRI structure and reached the luminosity of power. Echeverría was considered the only and fully responsible for the student massacre, since it fostered all that social and political environment to be favored politically and publicly during the presidential succession.

Echeverrismo is not an economic model but a style of government: gelatin populism. This ability to adapt, to take any form to remain in power, is due not only to the survival of this clique but even to reproduction. Porfirio Muñoz Ledo and Emilio Gamboa Patron are examples of this political pragmatism, the situation is more terrifying when the military, academic, religious and social side of the group is observed: MURO, Halcones, Compañera Esther, Emilio Uranga, Paramilitaries, Progressive Jesuits, Battalion Olympia, CIA. Sons of bitches.

The Technocracy, the business sector, the Left and the PAN, tried to make pacts with this clique to guarantee, they do, an economic model to start the transformation and the awakening of modernity in the country. Echeverrismo was with everyone and they betrayed everyone. In recent assassinations, the CIA-Ultra-Right-Nomenklatura triangle is useful to explain everything.

The 4T every day is more echeverista and less competent. Economic growth, modernization, political liberalism, and democracy are stifling. Even though it is possible to agree that the welfare state in Mexico is necessary, to dress the prince in his attire, it is also true that no economic strategy supports the politics of perversion. The decade of zero growth is more a product of a political style than an economic policy.

Although the LEA had some successes in the economic empowerment of the State, the subordination to the Revolutionary Patrimonial Family, is what generated the permanent economic crisis and the contagion of failure to the following models. Echeverrismo is the Santanismo of the nineteenth century. Even when Roderic Ai Camp speaks of a renewal of the power elites in Mexico, this has not happened, the Revolutionary Axis-UNAM-ITESM remains the same. No rupture has been generated that allows the replacement of the Revolutionary Patrimonial Family.

No historical breakouts in 4T. As in the case of Porfirio Muñoz Ledo, it only continues to be rhetoric. Liberalism, Democratic Consolidation, Development, Secular State, Social Welfare, Sovereignty, etc., are only words of the Seducer of the Homeland.

Cold War and subordination of the Mexican political class

Cold War and subordination of the Mexican political class

https://www.semanarioelreto.com/single-post/2018/10/02/Guerra-Fr%C3%ADa-y-subordinaci%C3%B3n-de-la-clase-pol%C3%ADtica-mexicana

http://quoruminformativo.com.mx/index.php/2018/10/03/guerra-fria-y-subordinacion-de-la-clase-politica-mexicana-2/

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The international scenario after the Second World War determined the geopolitical position of Mexico as an ally of the United States of North America, for it played a fundamental role clerofascism. Between 1926 and 1942 a harassment against the Mexican State was generated by the Holy See and the elements of Catholic nationalism that disturbed US foreign policy. After the attacks of Pearl Harbor, North America forces the Mexican government to admit the sinarquismo in the governability of the country. This situation should be highlighted when studying the structure and conformation of national elites. Peter Smith describes the labyrinths of political power in Mexico, but he forgot to study the drainage of catacomb catholicism.

During the Cold War our country was constituted as a right-wing system. A civil right and a religious right, were the lanes where the Mexican political system was structured. Like other experiences in Latin America and the world, social frameworks were consigned to characters that oriented a conservative modernity without risk for the balance of nuclear containment.

Repression and harassment have been measures against those who seek to build an authentic nationalism or disagree with the liberal western model. The binomial CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) -National Catholicism has been the core of the PRI, PRIAN and PRIANRD in recent times.

Connoted politicians, businessmen, priests and diverse characters, were at the service of pentagonism to "save the world from the Masonic communist Jewish conspiracy." Justify crimes against humanity, upset the facts, hide evidence and encourage the dispossession of the poor, are the tasks of the apostles and evangelizers of Occidentalism. The Latin American right does not defend the values ​​of liberal democracy, it is subordinated to the American war economy and will hardly change in the short term.

1968 should be the reminder of the cost involved in building a free nation against the interests of the superpowers. The authoritarianism and dirty war that continued at that time, are the sign of the risk implied by the absence of true citizenship in Mexican society. 1968 is the memorandum that American and Vatican control of our country is deeper than the shameful neoliberal clauses. Now that communism has been replaced by drug trafficking as the new enemy of the United States, it is highly probable that this political class is willing to turn Mexico into a stage for Tom Clancy's novels.

The Cold War implied the beginning of youth killings and the disappearance of social movements in Mexico. Representatives of Catholic Nationalism such as Gustavo Díaz Ordaz, Fernando Gutiérrez Barrios, Luis Echeverría Álvarez and the technocratic generations that have continued, have sacrificed thousands of people in our country to be part of the oligarchy subordinated to North America. However, they have been the worst managers of US imperialism: Mexico expels millions of emigrants and drugs, the United States is increasingly poor and addicted. The clerofascismo seems to be the unbeaten actor of the postwar period.

The construction of a new regime in our country coincides with the real weakening of North America. Something serious must happen in the country of bars and stars if in the foresight of George Friedmann and Samuel Huntington, the Mexican question is a civilizational risk without comparison or understanding. The societies of both countries must understand that the cost of a control like the one that was put into practice during the Cold War era is onerous for all. Pentagonism is no longer an option for North America, the United States is an empire that must begin to federalize. Mexico must value the circumstantial independence that fate provides in the current context, it is essential the secularization of all social structures and the full awareness of the damage that Catholic nationalism -the right- has caused -and intends to continue to cause- in the evolution from the country.

Rusophobia, anti-Semitism and Mexico

Rusophobia, anti-Semitism and Mexico

http://quoruminformativo.com.mx/index.php/2018/02/05/rusofobia-antisemitismo-y-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.