SALINAS, GORBACHEV AND THE MEXICO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP

 SALINAS, GORBACHEV AND THE MEXICO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

The electoral campaigns have moved forward in Mexico and the United States, perhaps for this reason the political climate is so intense that nothing can go unnoticed, for example: the death of Mikhail Gorbachev and the consequences of the frustrated modernity that Russia is experiencing, particularly reflected in the Russian-Ukrainian military conflict. The last president of the USSR is a benchmark of the change of era that affected the world and now, as well as at the time of the disappearance of the USSR, his absence invites us to reflect on the Western liberal-democratic globalizing failure.

Carlos Salinas de Gortari wrote one of the best diagnoses regarding the torn modernity of our country's political system: Mexico: a difficult step towards modernity. And even when the technocratic group is accused of implanting a counter-model to the structural characteristics of the Mexican Republic, the truth is that it was also intended to generate a nationalist modernization that would be synchronized, at least ideologically, with the United States. Mexican liberalism is nothing more than the path of social transformation to abandon the humanistic medieval Hispanism that gave rise to Mexico, but which was not useful in containing North American imperialism. However, this Mexican liberalism also has a terrible dimension identified with the ugly aspect of Mexicanness: violent factionalism.

The Mexican people may be as liberal and Darwinian as anyone else, but incapable of accepting political modernity and inclined to live in an eternal collectivist cycle of violence and structural poverty to protect their particularisms, whatever the cost. Mexico has a primitive and barbaric liberal root that manifests itself in uncontrollable cacicazgos, anarchist social movements and civil disobedience.

The sterile comparison made between Carlos Salinas and Gorbachev is controversial, especially because it is produced motu proprio from the former president. However, Salinas is not only comparable to Gorbachev but also to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and other modernizing leaders, as the late political scientist Samuel Huntington stated; but, above all, with General Plutarco Elías Calles. Mexico, Russia and Turkey are representatives of cyclical, failed and cumulative schizophrenic modernizations.

Our country, like the Tsarist Empire and the core of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, are hinge nations between antagonistic civilizations and breaking points for civilizational expansion or defeat. The Anglo-Saxon axis that determined neoliberal globalization was not able to share the complete recipe for successful modernities: the construction of the State. On the contrary, the interpretation of the Minimum State was confused -conveniently- with the Famished State, mainly that of limited governability -or ungovernability- at the service of the de facto powers, the groups of organized violence and, especially, imperialism. . More neoliberal than Salinas were the dinosaurs of the Revolutionary Family, the cassocks of the religious extreme right and the criminal caciquism disguised as drug trafficking, social movements and rurality. These dark forces, historical enemies of the Mexican State, found the dismantling of the National State and its subsequent liberalization more than useful to continue limiting the Mexican Prince.

Unlike Mexico, in Russia an elite emerged from the military forces that knew how to recognize the flower-scented poison that neoliberalism implied and, despite significant costs, set fire to Western modernization to rebuild the Russian state and resist the imperialist demands of the West that forgot the democratic, political and social compromises with the Baltic Slavic civilization. The United States is afraid of Russia and that is why it has always sought to destroy it, the Russo-Ukrainian war cannot be written without such a script.

Mexico and the United States are already at war. The fight against drug trafficking is but another version of the Mexican-American conflagration that took place throughout the 19th century and with some significant intrusions in the 20th century. Mexico and the United States have always coexisted under the scenario of low intensity warfare. Yankee interventionism has no measure and, in addition to forcing national governments to submit to its war economy, it invests in different drug trafficking groups and factual powers to destabilize the country. Who is who in this new patriotic war that we are going to experience? Who is the main interested in that the Mexican State does not finish consolidating? Manuel Camacho Solís pointed out the historical knots that the armed forces must destroy to consolidate the Mexican State, in addition to the criminal groups.

Organized crime, the ruling powers and the invisible power have established their realities in the United States, but what is the reason that in this space they are not risky? The political and institutional capacity of the North American government to regulate, control and take advantage of the socioeconomic interests of said entities. In Mexico, the State is increasingly limited and a pact of healthy coexistence cannot be generated with the hindrances of the old regime, although they disguise themselves as modern conservatives, they continue to be an obstacle for any government. The powers that be in Mexico have ended up devouring the State and López Obrador has had to recognize the failure of the Fourth Transformation because it is becoming more and more notorious that the powers that be order, not the president.

Salinas and Calderón reflect the dilemma of imposing laws and authority on Mexicans, as well as the failure of authority. Samuel Huntington analyzed the furious Mexican 1994 from the perspective of a conservative people that refused to modernize and a president that was unable to consolidate the armed forces to use legitimate violence. López Obrador faces this situation: without the honest awareness that the Mexican Army is going -again- to war with drug trafficking, the national State will not be consolidated and the Yankee Empire, as it has always done, will find the incentives and interests to come to an understanding with the powers that be: there will always be exploitation for the emigrant lumpenproletariat, possibilities of money laundering for all those interested in not paying taxes to the Mexican State and, mainly, an exalted market for the vice of addictions.

The Mexican Army has never stopped protecting the political system, the 20th century of our country cannot be explained without the strength of the Official Party, which was nothing other than the extension of military officers to regularize the political dispute, and it worked. There was a limited democracy, but also governability.

State public institutions are in a state of decomposition similar to that of the Santanista era. The Failed State is a plague that forms in our country and also infects the powerful neighbor to the north, however, mutual destruction cannot be the optimum of our futures.

The climate of opinion that develops around the relationship between Mexico and the United States forgets that they are completely different civilizations and countries. Particularly our country conflicts when it has to assume Hispanism, indigenism and Catholicism in the face of an Anglo-Saxon culture that determines everything from a rational liberal perspective. It is not easy to live next to North America.

For an economy like the Mexican, the institutional agreements with the United States have been of little use, the best understanding has been that of the informal economy. The FTA-TMEC has only benefited North American companies, while Mexican society receives income from emigration and, above all, drug trafficking; the rest of the population must endure public or private underemployment.

Mikhail Gorbachev's naivety explains the current circumstances in Russia, while Mexico's innocence and ambition regarding the good intentions of the United States also puts us on the verge of formal war.

Echeverría and the Nomenklatura

 Echeverría and the Nomenklatura

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

After the death of Luis Donaldo Colosio and the failure of his project of social liberalism, Carlos Salinas de Gortari blamed the nomenklatura and, specifically, the faction of Luis Echeverría Álvarez for sabotaging the modernization of Mexico. Over time, Vicente Fox's political impotence was also pointed out by his collaborators as activated by the Echeverría Álvarez device. In reality, more than Echeverrism, Salinas – and other analysts involved in modernization – proposed this political clique as a scapegoat to justify the enormous difficulties involved in transforming our country. Problems that even the LEA itself faced and that it resolved with an authoritarianism similar to that of the CSG; though both failed.

Mexican despotism is explained by a colonialist structure that unites, in the form of muégano, patrimonialism, corporatism, cacicazgo and corruption. The Latin American anti-liberal regimes must face the enormous challenge of forming Nation States in order to modernize; on the authoritarian, liberal or socialist path.

Echeverría and Salinas were more similar than dissimilar, only that the first was the socialist path implemented by the North Americans and the second, the neoliberal path implemented by the Americans. As well as the joke that the Nazi scientists that the gringos had were better than the Nazi scientists that the Soviets had.

Latin American anti-liberalism, populist or capitalist, left or right, liberal technocrat or socialist technocrat, reflects the colonial model of Spanish colonialism where the different castes remain united in a dynamic space, but without consciousness of fusion. The castes in Latin America are united, but not concentrated; and therefore there are no nations. The rulers and the people only understand each other in the conservative-authoritarian key that inhibits any attempt at social change.

Echeverrismo is a window that allows us to understand the colonialism of Mexico with respect to the United States. In addition to this political clique, other social conglomerates, nations and characters; They also benefit from ruling the social control of the country.

Most Mexican presidents have had to behave like Luis Echeverría, including resorting to violent, authoritarian and public control measures to control some groups for the benefit of others. Sometimes it is thought that this is the least cost, compared to a military intervention by the Superpower, as has occurred in other Latin American latitudes.

In the end, Salinismo turns into Echeverrismo, mortar bogeymen who, more than individuals or cliques, represent a culture, the anti-liberal one, but which always ends up linked to North American imperialism to guarantee social control and modernization; for a moment.

The common denominator of these authoritarian, psychopathic and violent trajectories is represented by anticommunism and the national security of the United States, elements that social analysts and alternative groups in the country must begin to understand better.

The destiny of Mexico is ineluctably connected to the United States and, because of them, various social groups have benefited from characterizing weak or marginalized groups -sometimes more Mexican than others- as evil, ungovernable, communist, narco-satanic, indigenous, etc.; causing the authorization of the Yankee Empire for the exercise of violence and budget spending.

To avoid the Echeverrías and Salinas, relations between Mexico and the United States – as Robert Pastor rightly says – have to change, be more original and authentic. The Mexican oligarchy continues to offer itself as "Polkos" who can order the Comanche territory, but they make things worse every time; until the Union Army and Ulysses S. Grant come along. Güeritocracia supremacy has residence in Madrid or Rome.

The Conservative Pact

The Conservative Pact

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero 

It is not the first time that a president of Mexico tries to imitate the government period of Gral. Lázaro Cárdenas del Río. The initial event occurred with Luis Echeverría Álvarez -LITEMPO, a CIA agent- who had the Yankee task of replacing the leftist leaderships in Latin America. Echeverrismo built one of the most important political networks in the Mexican political system, but it is nothing like Cardenismo. Now, López Obrador tries to carry out a scheme similar to that of Cardenista revolutionary nationalism and he is wrong, as much or more, than LEA. The ruler faithful to the Cardenista style of governing, paradoxically, has been Carlos Salinas de Gortari, only with adverse results to the Michoacan revolutionary: Cardenismo is one of the symbolic branches of the Revolutionary Family, Salinism was expelled from the technocratic domain and the PRI cliques.

However, salinismo and cardenismo were equivalent in deactivating the risk pivots for the Mexican political system and restructuring the lines of governance, at least during their six-year period. Both constitute formal attempts at modernization in contemporary history.

The president's criticism of the middle classes and the universities shows that, as a LEA, he is a pillar of salt looking to the past. The only thing that cannot be stopped is time, but the president - along with the usual dinosaurs - is determined to maintain the medieval colonized society that is afraid to look into the eyes of the future.

The millions of Mexicans who voted for his option, considered that the fight against corruption and rebuilding the Mexican State were MORENA's main tasks. Neither one nor the other. The purpose is to rebuild the modus vivendi and solve conservatism everywhere. The Mexican State has to respond to the challenges of a globalized, digital, robotic and spatial world, which is just around the corner. Will it also be necessary to bury as it was done with the pyramids? Mexicans will be able to face globalization when the cancer of corruption is over.

Why are the universities and the middle classes enemies in the president's rhetoric? Why is Carlos Salinas de Gortari the arch-enemy of Mexican populism? Claudio Lomnitz constructs an interesting hypothesis regarding the non-Jewish anti-Semitism that revolutionary nationalism contains. Populists and conservatives of the Porfirian era, rejected - perhaps with justified reason - the role played by the scientists and technocrats of the incipient positivist dictatorship. The scientist (university, intellectual, academic, Piarist) was described as a Jew - an archetype of the fascist insane myth - by the protagonists of the Mexican historical dialectic and, as no one wanted to modernize, a revolution was made. North America was also interested in the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution, according to research by Friederich Katz.

The university was constituted as the sounding board of reason and science. In less than 500 years, the West achieved hegemony thanks to the liberalization that developed in higher education centers. The tandem of the Enlightenment and modernity was structured in the universities that allowed the passage of the medieval order to modern societies.

Reason became autarkic, poetic, systemic and referential thanks to the instruction, mastery of technique, freedom and dialogue that European universities built as a route to modernization.

This is the reason why the Catholic Church, the monarchs and the State (sometimes understood as the Army), try to control it and do it in their own way.

University thought can upset the world, find that extreme relativism that leads to nihilistic agnosticism and also provoke cultural revolutions that change the hegemony of values.

The institutions of the old regime observe in the University Pandora's Box, the Socratic school that can pervert the generations and break the social order. This is what happened with the hegemonic loss of the Catholic Church in Europe.

The criticism pointed out to the UNAM by the President of the Republic obeys this tenor. Mexican society despises its youth and university students. Left and right will never be satisfied with the university, they are incapable of responding to the role and critical nature of the institution.

Carlos Salinas de Gortari was a neoliberal technocratic university student who took seriously the economic liberalism that the PAN only proclaimed, but also understood the necessary economic modernization that legal liberalism required, he called it social liberalism. Salinas is considered the Plutarco Elías Calles of the 21st century, although he was called to be the Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of Mexicanness, the silent revolution of the technocrats was the change of the young Turks to rebuild a civilization.

The objectives of the Mexican revolution were lost as political civilism, modus vivendi and corporatism advanced. The political degeneration of Mexico could be stopped during Salinas, but the cost implied integration into North America and the national group was not willing to take the next step. What followed was a neoliberal comedy that disguised the distorting and degenerative inertias of Mexican political culture to radiate a corruption and social decomposition that has led to the Failed State.

Cárdenas and Salinas managed to correct the degenerative trajectories of the Mexican political system by restructuring the political class and the military sector of their cliques for just one six-year term. Salinas and Cárdenas invited the conservatives of the time to the modernizing pact, both - like Colosio - were betrayed. The Caciques-Holy See-United States nomenklatura was imposed to continue colonizing Mexico. Lázaro Cárdenas and Carlos Salinas de Gortari had different preparation, but they had in common the youth in power and the strong will to modernize the country. Nothing to do with the 4T.

Manuel Gómez Morin was a modernizer who gave up the opportunity to be a Cardenista because of the false consciousness of belonging to different social groups. General Cárdenas wasted no time analyzing whether Catholics will one day be modern. The Cardenistas made their institution of higher education, the noble National Polytechnic Institute, which has done so much good for Mexico. Only time will see if the 4Q university school proposals have similar results. To the Normals and Teachers of Cardenismo, the country owes the incalculable.

Gómez Morín and Cosío Villegas kept the ideas as weapons to influence the medieval university cloisters and generate a current like the one represented by Carlos Salinas de Gortari fifty years after the Cardenismo. In the end, Gómez Morín and Cárdenas had more coincidences. Hopefully the Gomezmorinian cry "Mexico exists" will be heard by Hispanists who continue to see the country as a bastard (Carlos Sola Ayape) and who think of the university as an Opus Dei community of a different "social group".

Luis Paredes Moctezuma, an organized Catholic nationalist, pointed out that the best ally of uncompromising integralism was AMLO. Indeed, the criticisms of the middle class and the universities are an example of a Mexican revolutionary conservatism like the one that Claudio Lomnitz points out. Francoists, freemasons and caciques are happy with the governments of the 4T. Doesn't Mexico have the right to modernity? The Francoists, Freemasons and Caciques, do not love Mexico; they are foreign and matriarchal; But the development of the national state and its historical consolidation is a task that takes more time than the democratic transition. Are there democracies without territory, law and population? The relationship between the state and democracy is not the chicken-and-egg dilemma.

FAR-RIGHT: CIA Agents

Far-right: CIA agents

Diego Martin Velázquez Caballero

The elections that take place this year have as a paradigm the clash between two forms of Mexican time. 1. The construction of a form of authoritarian obedience and 2. Democratic anarchism.

In the illiberal Ibero-American Catholic culture, strong leaders are indispensable, democracy generates conflicts that public morality does not know how to resolve. Ibero-America is distinguished by a deep sense of chaos. Informality and immorality are imposed on the character of the peoples and only in exceptional or minute cases, some are distinguished by honesty. Democracy is bad for the Latin American peoples, their elites do not have the capacity to govern with quality. Nor does a civic condition survive in the largest minority reached by the government.

Phenomena like Franco, the PRI, Perón, Pinochet, Ortega, Somoza, Castro, etc; they are part of a tradition that values ​​strength more than freedom. From a distance, they seem neither totalitarianisms, nor fascisms, nor anything, just plain authoritarianisms that managed to govern a numerous factionalism.

The nauseating transfuguismo that is experienced in all political parties and tendencies is a sign of the little value that freedom has in the political class, there are few leaders with principles, almost none. The decomposition of the Mexican political system did not finish showing itself in the EPN administration, it still reaches the current one and continues to gangrene it.

How many Lily Téllez are going to come to Morena this time? Transfuguism in Spain or Latin America is distinguished by its legislative vein and, perhaps, that is necessary for the government to disabuse itself of the limits and traps that its allies are going to set. This is the case of the characters who reach the seat for a party and then decide to sell their vote to the highest bidder. The recent experiences of Guatemala, Peru, Honduras and some historical ones such as Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Brazil, are an example of the poisoning that these practices solve in the political apparatus. A severe conflict looms in Mexico between the Legislative and Executive Power.

Some years ago there was mention of politicians in the style "Manuel Camacho Solís" and the abrupt changes that his attitude caused in the evolution of the Mexican political system. What are politicians like "Lily Téllez" going to provoke now?

During the PRIato the possibilities of a coup d'état or foreign intervention were reduced due to the internal discipline that the Official Party kept. The cost was represented by a gigantic corruption that was administered from the State. That is the problem that Morena has now.

The similes between Carlos Salinas de Gortari and Andrés Manuel López Obrador remain constant. When George Bush - father - did not win reelection, the Salinas neoliberal project began its permanent decline and now the same can happen with Q4. We have argued that Mexico does better when the Republicans rule in the US.

If Bush - father - had won the elections for a second presidential term, perhaps Colosio would not have died, CSG would have led the WTO and, probably also, would have already governed Mexico again, the 1995 economic crisis would not have occurred and, still, the Solidarity Party would maintain power under a social liberal neo-corporatism. Everything failed. Salinas went from being the Mexican Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to a vile oligarchic thief, Mexico had an emigration of close to 10 million people (which increased seriously with drug trafficking) and society had to face subsidizing the financial dilemma of the new liberalism economic. Not to mention the lack of control and ungovernability that began to live in the nation.

4T begins to experience an anticipated scenario of this crisis regularly caused by the Democratic party. Probably your dolphin will not be sabotaged, it will not be necessary if the relationship with the Legislative Power becomes complicated. While Salinas regained a legislative majority and there was even speculation about a re-election that the social group seriously considered, it is risky to assume that AMLO will have a peaceful relationship with the Legislative Power.

Salinas imitated Lázaro Cárdenas in the strategy of generating governance. And it was not enough. López Obrador does not control the governors - not to say that each one misgoverns in the most radical way possible on a scale that ranges from extreme crime to cave-dwelling barbarism. However, Lázaro Cárdenas did not manage to transcend beyond his six-year term, Salinas became a dark villain and the errors of the 4T add up and add up. Morenoism is becoming more and more like the 2nd Spanish Republic that did everything so that Falangism came to power.

The severe adjustments that financial capitalism will implement in the post-pandemic world are going to be terrible in the Mexican case: emigration, financial circuses, crime, ungovernability, etc .; It is the democratic recipe for good neighborliness between Mexico and the United States. Morena's internal groups have shown a more than damaging particularism, the capacity for harm, a failed intelligence, that distinguishes fools. Who told progressive groups that good government is one that only thinks about homosexuals, abortionists and vegan bicycle riders? Good government is the one that governs for everyone. Does the nexus between feminism and conservatism show us that the far-right turncoat learned to overtake the left?

The coup does not have to be military, or even abrupt. At the right time, the Legislative can cause chaos and a permanent blockade of the Executive. Joe Biden (the CIA and the DEA) are not going to allow it to govern. A relationship like that of José López Portillo and Jimmy Carter is envisioned and, as soon as we remember ……, we were screwed.

After World War II, the Mexican extreme right became an employee of the CIA. The fight against communism earned them influence, conspiracies, business; even power. However, just as Spain wonders what being a Catholic has served it, Latin America should question what being pro-Yankee has served it. North America subsists thanks to the mafia republic that is Mexico, but the cost is paid from here.

Vladimir Putin has built a legal scaffolding to guarantee impunity and try to preserve power, at least until 2036. The Russian leader understands that with the Democrats he can end up like Gaddafi or Osama, the serious scenario for his people also influences so that China distance itself from US interventionism.

The ultra-right involves infiltrating several dozen candidates for the legislative branch to change jackets - like Lily Téllez - at the right time. The second half of the six-year term does not show a smooth relationship between AMLO and the legislative representatives of the upper and lower houses. The alliances that MORENA has established with conservative politicians show sterile results.

Alfonso Reyes, according to Gabriel Zaid, pointed out how harmful the subordination to the United States by Mexican politicians would be; the best thing would be to hand over the country to them so that once and for all they try to govern it seriously.

Manuel Bartlett: CIA and the Intermarium

Bartlett: the CIA and the Intermarium

August 20, 2018

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

https://www.semanarioelreto.com/single-post/2018/08/20/Bartlett-la-CIA-y-el-Intermarium

 

What is hidden in the historical trajectory of the anti-communist struggle in Latin America? While it is true that Manuel Bartlett's past is as it is, the remarks about the inclusion of this character in the next government of the republic move to reflect on the use and fear of geopolitical strategies for groups that benefited from the context of the cold war and they do not want to lose their privileges. In the absence of intelligence, but above all of legitimacy, the Mexican right insists on maintaining the fallacy and conspiratorial astuteness as the only strategy to achieve power.

Bartlett is a passive asset of Mexican and American security groups. Maybe that's why the right fears him so much. Maybe that's why the US government will never act against him as Rafael Loret de Mola supposed. The events in which this character played were always guided by the fascist consensus that linked the Holy See and the United States of America against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. One of its edges is called Intermarium.

During the second half of the 20th century, the fear of the communist Masonic Jewish conspiracy caused the Americans to grant the Nazis, intransigent integral Catholics, businessmen and conservatives; infiltrate all Latin American corners. The actions to maintain Latin America within the "free world" were diverse. From the promotion of academic programs of political science, liberal press, Catholic universities, to the formation of white guards, control of public administration, formation of a business class, infiltration of national security and, lately, the governance of the organized crime.

Revolutionary nationalism in Mexico constituted a myth, an approach impracticable by the geopolitical context after the Second World War. The patriotic fraud was called Intermarium and it served so that the different rights were succeeded in the political and economic power. The Mexican right can not pretend surprised by the behavior of the "men of the system", with whom they coexisted and instructed. The fear of Manuel Bartlett is nothing other than the fear of a set of actions that they created and developed in a common way. They can not exonerate themselves, historically they are more responsible.

The neoliberal globalization constituted a reactivation of the common interests between the Latin American and Anglo-Saxon rights; however, at the time of the balance, North America maintains losses and errors like those of the USSR in relation to its political satellites. The United States has suffered a total erosion due to the lack of correspondence and autonomy of the other emerging liberal and capitalist nations. The signals of Donald Trump to the political and business class of Mexico are more than certain, that is why the North American geopolitics is changing and emancipating itself from fascist consensuses such as the Intermarium. Mexico did not become the average liberal power that is adequately related socially and economically with the neighbor to the north, as promised by the right when it was assimilated to the anticommunist strategies of the CIA and the Intermarium. Raymundo RivaPalacio wonders if it had not been more successful, in this strategy, that Manuel Bartlett had been president of Mexico instead of Carlos Salinas de Gortari.

The Cold War ended and Russia is closer to a government of the Black Century than Bolshevik. Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin agree on interests to protect their respective nations. In the case of the United States, a cleansing of the intelligence apparatus is generated, as well as a disconnection of the "freeloaders" who took advantage, to the excess, of a fear of Russia that was always false. The crusade against corruption in Mexico must go through a similar strategy: emancipate many areas of the country that the right dominates, for example, higher education.

Donald Trump builds policies against Mexican immigrants in North America to retaliate for the abuses that powerful and corrupt Mexicans commit; however, in the situation of characters like Manuel Bartlett, the US government and the new Mexican regime must pay attention. The Mexican right only knows how to create demented myths that contribute nothing to the development of a country, its leaders are conspiracy experts where the abusive, racist, clerical and gachupines of always exist. Mexico's new government will not rebuild relations with the United States as long as the corporate sector refuses to pay its historical responsibility. Mexican corruption is deeply rooted in private initiative, men like Manuel Bartlett know it and that explains the deep fear that they have