Civilizational Conflicts and a Parenthesis for Mexico

 Civilizational Conflicts and a Parenthesis for Mexico

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The situation in the Middle East has created an unexpected scenario for Mexico, allowing it to safeguard the country from conflict with Donald Trump. The conflicts in the Middle East reveal that the United States' problem is not Mexico, but the lack of war. The conflicts with Mexico are important, but less profitable than the conflicts with Arab countries. This suggests that US foreign policy is driven by strategic and economic interests. The tragedy of war saves Mexico from being Trump's center of attention.

In this context, Mexico faces an important challenge: to take advantage of this pause to organize its internal problems and strengthen its economy, while maintaining a prudent and strategic foreign policy. History has shown that Mexico can benefit from complex situations, but it also faces significant risks if not managed properly.

Despite the risk of nuclear energy in conflicts, the attacks on Iran immediately led to a rise in oil prices, a condition that offers the Mexican government resources to address its problems. The Mexican automotive industry remains ambivalent regarding the energy transformation. However, the question arises as to whether the government's current capacity to seize this opportunity and address some of its challenges. The Mexican opposition is reduced to hoping that Trump will once again consider the indirect benefits of the US productive apparatus for the Mexican informal economy; meanwhile, Morena is satisfied with Trump's new commitment to supporting the war in the Middle East.

The current situation raises questions about the future of Mexico-US relations and how Mexico can seize this opportunity to boost its economic and political development. The answer will depend on the Mexican government's ability to partner with the United States in a more open and direct manner. As in the case of Vicente Fox, external circumstances suggest that the problem is not yet solved.

The attention of the American electorate is now focused on problems with the Arab world, which could benefit the Democratic Party and supporters of progressive protest groups.

Gray or Failed State: Mexico and the United States Facing Drug Trafficking

 Gray or Failed State: Mexico and the United States Facing Drug Trafficking

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The narrative of the fight against drug trafficking has been a recurring theme in the relationship between Mexico and the United States. However, reality suggests that both countries have failed to address the problem effectively. US intervention in Mexico has focused on regulating the drug phenomenon, but not on limiting it or reducing the flow of psychotropic drugs into the country. Meanwhile, Mexican cartels have continued to operate with impunity, and violence in the country has reached unprecedented levels. The recent departure of drug trafficking leaders to the United States to negotiate with the White House is an indication that the balance of power between the cartels has spiraled out of control.

Some analysts suggest that the US government's intention is to weaken the cartels and impose its hegemony in the region. However, this hypothesis is difficult to understand in a context where violence in Mexico continues to increase. The flight of major drug trafficking groups to the United States is not unprecedented, and one might wonder whether the use of intelligence by the Americans will protect them from possible acts of defense or violence on U.S. soil. Rafael Loret de Mola's novels had already presented scenarios in which the Americans intervened in Mexico to capture the political class linked to crime, but the reality is more complex. What would happen if the war between the cartels also spread to the United States? This has happened with mafias in other countries and even with fights between fundamentalist or terrorist groups.

The relationship between Mexico and the United States has become a vicious cycle, in which drug trafficking and violence feed off each other. Canceling visas and confiscating capital and materials have not been effective in other Latin American countries, and they likely won't be in Mexico. The question is, what can be done to break this cycle of violence and corruption? The response of some intellectuals, such as Sabina Berman and Juan Carlos Monedero, has been to question whether US intervention has been effective in other countries. However, the experience of Panama, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Honduras after the US intervention suggests that these intrusions have been positive.

In this context, it is important to analyze the relationship between Mexico and the United States from a critical perspective. The official narrative regarding the fight against drug trafficking obscures the true intentions of both countries. The United States seeks to maintain its hegemony in the region, while Mexico is incapable of addressing the structural problems underlying drug trafficking. Cooperation between the two countries is an illusion, and the reality is that both are trapped in a labyrinth of violence and corruption. The reality is that both Mexico and the United States are failed states and gray areas in their own right, incapable of addressing the structural problems underlying drug trafficking. However, the nearly fifty million Mexicans living illegally in the United States should be asked whether they would like Mexico to be a protectorate or the 52nd state of the American Union. Berman and Monedero skew their interpretation and overlook this dynamic between Mexico and North America, which, fortunately, beyond politicians, intellectuals, and international organizations, presents an independent path.

The Meaning of the State in México

 The Meaning of ​​the State in Mexico

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

David Miller explains that Latin American states have attempted to shape themselves around the demands of North American imperialism, perhaps for this reason there are so many contradictions in the models they have tested. However, as is often the case with other perspectives of imitation, copycats try to be more representative than the original phenomenon; the imitator may end up being better than the original or generating a bizarre reality. This is how the process of neoliberalism has unfolded. Suddenly, among the various Mexican neoliberal analysts, there are enormous gaps between the arguments of those who speak of the need for a strong state to protect the market—internal or external—a state capable of fighting monopolies and crime, collecting taxes, and generating public order; however, others speak of a minimal state that advocates deregulation, decentralization, and allows the mercantile energies of the invisible hand to flow; the latter are part of anarchist libertarianism.

What is the ideal proportion? Everything depends, primarily, on the context. One of the errors that has underpinned the evolution of political and economic liberalism in our country emerges from the absence of liberal currents in the debate. Liberalism has become dogmatized by factional political interests, and each elite proposes the state model that suits its interests. Liberalism is a school of civilization and democracy that is denied in Latin America, where the Habsburg Model is imposed on democracy and capitalism—even on socialism.

Ideological and political impostures lead to the structuring of a transformist muégano that makes any kind of evolution and social change impossible. Rulers dream of governing, but in reality, the state barely survives the invisible power and barbaric strength of society.

The historical rupture in Latin America and the transformation of the feudal economic, political, and, above all, social structures are fundamental. The foolish republics must put their constitutions into practice and defeat the powers that deny their hegemony. Without this quantum historical leap, there will be no modernity or economic model to discuss. It's better to give the president a cassock and ensure the right of blood. The United States has found it useful to take advantage of institutional weakness in Latin America; however, in the face of the trade war with China and the geopolitical evolution of organized crime, solid states can prove to be more efficient allies and build stable policies. Given the current situation, Trump is increasingly resembling Morena and Hidalgo.

Drug Trafficking. A Mexico-United States Bilateral Treaty

 Drug Trafficking. A Mexico-United States Bilateral Treaty

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The Mexican state's capacity to control drug trafficking is increasingly diminishing, and increasing social anomie is manifested by rising violence and corruption. Despite the White House's pressure on our country with tariffs and even military intervention, Mexican governance in terms of national security is simply weak. Mexico's capacity to combat drug trafficking is historically insufficient; it lacks the institutional capacity to reduce the power of the cartels or to capture the members of the various criminal networks.

The institutions of the Mexican political system must allow the United States to take charge of controlling drug trafficking by allowing its members to enter the country. Just as during the Second French Intervention, liberal Mexicans turned to the Americans to contain the strength of the conservative monarchists, now the drug trafficking situation may provide a basis for joint action by the United States and the Mexican army. During the delahuertista rebellion, the Cristero War, and other circumstances, "Bucareli Agreements" have had to be developed to secure definitive US support in the balance of forces in Mexico. According to Miguel Basañez's hypothesis, the struggle for hegemony in Mexico is not determined for anyone, and only those who establish effective alliances with the United States can temporarily consolidate their strength. The government, the formal representative of the State, merely represents one more actor in the dynamic vectors of political dialectics; without the United States, it seems that no one rules in Mexico, or rather, that the United States is the one who truly rules the country.

The flow of Mexican emigration to the United States may be a factor in the reduction of Mexican nationalism with respect to a major military intervention directed from the White House. Although the emergence of an element dissatisfied with interventionism is likely, the truth is that the porcupine has been stripped of its spines by the enormous internal violence. George Friedman's 2080 scenario cannot be ignored, but it must also be considered that migrants and a significant national sector have been optimally integrated into the North American socioeconomic structure since the late 20th century.

Collaborative approaches such as those proposed by the McLane-Ocampo Treaty also allow for the restoration of the USMCA, nearshoring, migration, and even the transfer of psychotropic drugs demanded by the North American population. Mexican nationalism needs the capitalist impulse of the United States to develop and modernize the productive and social structures of the Habsburg Model. If the government of the Fourth Transformation isolates itself from North America, it will inevitably be held hostage by the most radical conservatism of Hispanic Catholic nationalism, which freezes time and only knows how to manage poverty. Without international support, Mexico cannot win the war against drug trafficking and corruption.

The Trumpist Security Strategy in Mexico

 The Trumpist Security Strategy in Mexico

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Although the ultimate purpose of the national security policy built on Donald Trump's demands and regional demands is still under debate, the truth is that important changes are being perceived. The actions of the Armed Forces, the National Guard, and the Ministry of Security are affecting the intermediate levels of some organized crime sectors. Narco-politicians have begun to fall, and this is important, especially because the groups leading the low-intensity war in Mexico can reduce their violence if the influence of politicians who manipulate conflicts to their advantage is limited; or, alternatively, they represent the apex of power in certain entities.

The Mexican State has been forced to implement measures to control organized crime in accordance with North American interests; however, there are other problems that affect the civilian population and are outside the Trumpist sphere. Claudia Sheinbaum's anti-drug trafficking strategy must correct Trump's demands and make it clear to the US government that its implementation can also contribute to generating effective governance for Republicans. The violence and impunity that have multiplied exponentially in Mexico are also contributing to the US problem.

The Mexican government must insist on subsidies and material support from the United States and various international organizations for the implementation of actions against insecurity in our country. Something has been lacking in the lack of economic understanding on migration and the fight against drugs since the López Obrador administration. Trump's demand for Mexico to resolve drug trafficking to the United States requires extraordinary budgetary amounts that were not contemplated by local or federal governments. Now, the circumstances facing Mexico may call for the participation of other international entities and extraordinary support to try to address a situation that affects drug use in the United States and around the world. The genocides confirmed by the narco-masses in Mexico reveal a problem beyond the capabilities of the National State. This is something more complex than terrorism; it resembles African civil wars.

Claudia Sheinbaum could propose securing resources and understanding with the United States, as well as other organizations, to ensure that Donald Trump's anti-drug strategy is effective and to guarantee the efficacy of the measures implemented. In fact, Mexico is a safe third country in terms of migration. Will the same happen with other dynamics such as drug trafficking and health?

The immediate capture of some narco-politicians and the control of certain regions will allow for improved governance; however, the government of the republic will have to seek funding for the anti-drug macro-policy proposed by North America.

Colonialist Geopolitics

 Colonialist Geopolitics

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Donald Trump behaves like Kaiser Wilhelm II of the Hohenzollern dynasty regarding the global territorial division; his megalomania only meant the preamble to greater damage. Pan-Germanism was not inhibited by the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it became radicalized until it reached the hell of the Second World War. Wilhelm II was the facade of Adolf Hitler. What will follow after Donald Trump?

Understanding the primitivism of the Trumpist elite that governs the White House can shed light on the prospects of the new world order.

Although it is said that Eurasia represents the new axis of global control where Donald Trump represents the Russian doll, the truth is that the Anglo-Saxon and neoliberal plutocrats can hardly be dominated as happened with the oligarchs under the aegis of Vladimir Putin; the silovik nomenklatura cannot control the world even if it tries to. The realism of force is absolute in the present and surviving democracies, as well as colonized societies, have to consider it.

For Mexico, it means that traditional American imperialism has gone out of control and anything can happen; the prospect of a national future similar to what happened between Ukraine and Russia does not have to be ruled out; Trump's insistence that Canada join the United States can translate into an order for Mexico that can hardly be ignored if the national government and the Morena regime continue adrift.

Since the six-year term of Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, when Mexico was forced by the Mérida Initiative of the Americans to promote a low-intensity war against drug trafficking, the limits of governability were reduced exponentially; now, the presidency of the republic has to reduce the capacity of mobilization of the powers that be and return to the centralism of public administration to ward off a manic expansionism representative of the Trumpists. The impact of Trumpism on the world has been alarming; however, Mexico is the most affected nation of all.

Different actors, national and foreign, cause ungovernability in Mexico; they weaken the presidency of the republic not only to prioritize their particular interests. Now, the gaze of the North American empire is more abusive and perhaps the national government can take advantage of the situation to overtake the powers that be.

Felipe Calderón made the mistake of considering that the national institutional forces had the capacity to contain the pressure of the different interest groups - legal and illegal - in the country, the Mexican State accumulated one of the most significant defeats to its credit. The logic that a monster serves to scare away other monsters may be significant now, Sheinbaum can use the ambition of Yankee imperialism to return governability to Mexico as occurred during the government of Ernesto Zedillo and Miguel de la Madrid.

There is no dispute over the nation in Mexico due to different national development projects, there is an exponential factionalism caused by an internal colonialism and an authoritarian multiculturalism that has reached its limit and is encouraged by the historical enemies of state institutions.

Mexico does not have the organizational capacity of the Ukrainian State; however, under the situation of anarchy, a scenario of problems for society can develop that sets the tone for social displacements towards Central and South America and, even, a dystopia that harms North America. Mexico is to Donald Trump what the Russian winter was to Hitler and Napoleon.

Recovering governability in Mexico can guarantee the permanence of various social groups and, surely, would allow a safer collaboration with the United States for all actors.

Trump comes and his hegemony is raw, his pretension to take over the country is more than absolute and national unity is obligatory in the face of the impact it represents.

The ability to govern in Mexico

 The ability to govern in Mexico

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Marcelo Ebrard's visit to the United States to lobby for the negative situation that Donald Trump has raised about Mexico, is evidence not only of the limited governability of our country but also of the constant decrease in communicating vessels between the North American and Mexican governments. The government of our country has historically only served to generate intermediations that, in general, are temporary arrangements to appease problems. Samuel Schmidt calls it "Planned Ineffectiveness," telling everyone yes; but never when. Schmidt coordinated, at the end of the last century, one of the original works on the concept of governability. The texts collected in this work, fundamentally the work of Yehezkel Dror, raise the need for ethical political leadership and a project for the future; Indeed, without community goals and objectives, the country is adrift, it is a ship that is driven according to the whims of the powers that be and, as the protagonist of the Tin Drum, it is a sign of emotional immaturity, a State that does not want to grow (Ikram Antaki).

Can the Mexican government still maintain the “quinceañera syndrome”? Probably not. The political situation in Mexico has been demanding definitions for some time and the scenario that Donald Trump poses is more than threatening. The threat of Trumpism is radical against Mexico, we are all enemies of Trumpism and the consideration of terrorism implies a complete denial of Mexican society. It is true that the current times of the “Sugar Daddy” profile can lead to considering that Trumpism is full of old fools and easily manipulated; however, this is not entirely true, at least not for Mexico. If Donald Trump does not prevail against Mexico, it will be evident that the United States does not win wars, not even cultural ones, the American defeat in Mexico will be worse than Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. This time, the risk of failing in the operation against Mexicanness will not only be an unfulfilled promise for the Republican electorate but also a sign of decline in the face of the world; even the failure of the United States to impose governability in Mexico will be a sign of an emotional codependency similar to drug addiction. That is, the United States only wants Mexico as a piñata to ward off its traumas. Mexico has been constantly disapproved of by North America, there have been hundreds of studies that show the Mexican impossibility of American assimilation; therefore, the reason for remaining attached without a radical American intervention is complicated by so many problems that the neighborhood generates.

Claudia Sheinbaum's government can take the support of the United States to establish the minimum levels of governability and call for a national pact that underpins a new social and political leadership. Manuel Camacho Solís proposed national agreements since the terrible 1994 to inhibit governability directed from North America; It is therefore urgent to depolarize the country and call for a national project before the United States decides to turn Mexico into its Latin American Ukraine.

Johnson. Hawk or Dove?

 Johnson. Hawk or Dove?

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Although the presence of an ambassador as the future Trumpist envoy has generated alarm among the analysts of the inner circle and some specialists, the truth is that -with all that risk-, there are also probabilities that Mexico will maintain its sovereignty and capacity to govern to a minimum. The North American military interventions have been multiple, although, with the exception of the loss of half of the national territory in the 19th century; afterwards, there have not been conflicts in the same proportion. It is true that many conservative groups would be delighted with a military intervention by the United States in Mexico; however, this would be unthinkable in the immediate scenarios because, it has been pointed out in the perspective of authors as ambivalent as Pablo González Casanova, George Friedman and Samuel Huntington, the most probable thing is that North America will lose a war against the many Mexicos.

The problem of a conflict between Mexico and the United States poses for the Americans a guerrilla war similar to Vietnam, the fight of an eagle against flocks of turkeys or chickens; surely it will capture some, but it will not be able to take them all. Therefore, the reasons for a total armed intervention and even war are not rational from the American point of view; at least, this is not indicated by the presence of Ronald Johnson.

Although Vietnam constitutes a shameful example of the war history of the United States, in essence, it is its main object of development. The Cold War represented for North America the speculation of war in a permanent and gradualist way; military victory is important, but less than economic victory.

Since the six-year term of Luis Echeverría Álvarez, the United States wants control of Mexico more than military domination and, in fact, there have been American ambassadors more willing to state coups and nothing has happened even though the country is on the border of chaos. Military gradualism serves to develop the US war industry and financial system. The US intervention in Colombia is an example of the significance of the drug trafficking issue; officials like Oliver North are more important than Chris Kyle. US militarism remains trapped in the logic of lions for lambs.

The political defection

The Political Defection

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero 

 

When the Cold War represented the reality of global life, the superpowers made political agreements with extremely authoritarian actors to justify control of space.

Each alliance involved a few bastards who suited them for reasons of geostrategy.

The political defection of our time can be expressed in this way.

The hegemonic party takes the elements and cadres it needs without questioning too much about their ethical performance.

They represent positions necessary for total domination.

Defection changes when it is to the left or right.

The left is oriented under anthropological pessimism and liberalism moves in optimistic defection.

During the transition to democracy, defection was considered necessary because it would imply the development of independent and convinced political offers as in those post-communist societies.

The formation of free and autonomous political offers would allow society to choose between consolidated and institutionalized political parties.

Defection represented possibilities of liberation and learning.

Change as the fate of the person, the destiny and the teaching of life.

On the left, especially the one that interprets Marxism in a fundamentalist way, defection is seen as a temporary necessity, but with the possibility of exhausting it in the immediate future.

For the left, defection has no solution or remedy, the defectors are disposable and, therefore, the Stalinist purges are observed in a context where it is thought that society is the same as communities of amoebas, bees or ants.

Political liberalism is a path of civilization and social optimism; populism is not.

For the dictatorship of the majorities, the cadres that defect to Morena and that are now theirs, do not have the capacity for regeneration and in the immediate future they will be discarded because there will be no possibility of development for them, the path is to support the riddle of popular sentiment.

The justification of transfuguism as established by Sabina Berman and company, represents the death of politics, that is, the death of the solution of conflicts through civilized and parliamentary means.

Berman considers that politics has to be done by other means, violence, for example, because that and nothing more than that, represents the Yunes Clan and in those canons they came to establish agreements with Morena; as the PRI and the PAN did.

Sabina Berman cancels freedom and politics. She recognizes in her conciliatory argument with Yunism that the parliamentary, ideological and governmental capacity of the Morena is ending and an authoritarian cooptation is approaching as the communist and Nazi regimes initially practiced.

Amlo: The Next Santa Anna?

 Amlo: The Next Santa Anna?

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Compared to the United States, most Mexican presidents have been surrenderists. It could not be otherwise, nuclear diplomacy and internal factionalism establish a scenario where tribal survival is the highest priority. As a tributary state of North America, Mexico must pay its quota or floor right and sacrifice what is necessary. Each Mexican president establishes a governance agreement where he accepts the balance between American demands and the internal demands of interest groups. Some Heads of State in the country have preferred to hand over remote control to the United States, others try to do a little with the little power that the Yankee empire allows. The idea of ​​the powerful president who can do almost anything is just a myth given the Mexican neighborhood.

According to the perspective generated by Fernando Escalante Gonzalbo and Roger Bartra, the post-pandemic and economic recovery processes are generating severe crisis scenarios for North America where emigration, organized crime and social problems make the insecurity of the United States polysemic and only the invasion remains. to Mexico to inhibit the gigantic accumulation of immigration from Latin America and particularly from our country. According to the rhetoric of the Republican Party - and the Mexican red circle - the issue of emigration and social conflicts in Latin America attack the neighborhood with the United States, mass emigrations seem to be proposing a replacement of the Anglo-Saxon population. Where is Mexican and Latin American emigration headed? To take North America. And the externalities that this situation causes can cause the disintegration of the American Union. The idea of ​​open doors that American society had had to emigration seems to be running out in the event that electoral support is directed to Donald Trump. For this reason, an invasion of Mexico is taking shape and, apparently, the government of the Fourth Transformation seems to be identifying with this situation because it is incompetent to remedy the problem.

The scenario of the War against Drug Trafficking deeply weakens the Mexican State and its Army. The blurring of national sovereignty in the face of organized crime leaves the free will of the United States to establish a cordon sanitaire to protect them. And, according to the rhetoric of American Republicans, the decision – although reckless – will not take long to be carried out.

From this point of view, the development that López Obrador is proposing in the South of Mexico has no other objective than to hand over the North of the country to the United States. The national security crisis that Mexico has in the face of drug trafficking determines that the United States takes control of the civilizational limits that José Vasconcelos proposed for the Mexican Republic. The territorial points that are contemplated to be co-opted by North America are strategic for the Maquiladora Industry, Assembly Plants and Development Zones where immigration can be stopped and the fight against drug trafficking can operate. The Mexican south is changing in its infrastructure and metropolitan area; But, now, the evils that influenced Mexican misgovernance are also migrating to this region, particularly drug trafficking, as well as the patrimonial bureaucracy and neo-extractivism that represents capitalism by distinctive dispossession of the Latin American oligarchies. Chiapas is a serious example, although other entities such as Puebla are not far behind.

Apparently, as in 1847, the president of Mexico has been a collaborator of the geopolitical strategy of the American Union. General Santa Anna shared significant information regarding access routes for the invasion, collateral damage, weak points, fortifications to take and all the information necessary so that, in a short period, the Americans could settle in the republic for almost a year. Even Santa Anna carried out a purchase and sale transaction. It should be noted that the Catholic Church also proposed the annexation of Mexico to the Yankee Empire.

For the red circle that seeks to deepen North American intervention, Mexico will be split if the Fourth Transformation continues for more than two periods. Nearshoring and the uncontrolled dynamics that the interaction between Mexico and North America has taken will lead to the North and West of our country being grafted to the American Union; However, in 2024 the vote for Morena was the majority in most of the northern states.

The perceived threat of Mexican ungovernability calls for AMLO to collaborate with the United States to avoid major problems. The United States manifests the true dynamic of protectionism towards Mexico, but the limits have reached the extreme.

The Pact for Mexico, one more Santanista act, ended up developing the harmful effects of neoliberalism, nor was the country modernized and the policies to close the economic and social gap were not implemented. Now, everything has become complicated. Drug trafficking is the most radical, savage and totalitarian de facto power; Mexico can no longer face it without dragging the United States into disaster.

North America faces the scenario of managing the situation of its imperial decline and economic crisis in the best possible way. She needs Mexican slavery and has the capacity to militarize the territories that her industry requires more than effectively. The border states in northern Mexico have left their nationalism as an increasingly distant echo; the economic and social reality represents a de facto integration.

Mexican nationalism is dependent on the United States, therefore, the degree of colonialism is not only reflected in the historical flirtation of the elites but also of society. Mexican emigration to the American Union has been more than a diaspora in the second half of the 20th century; However, even with a population greater than a whopping 50 million compatriots in Anglo-Saxon land, Mexico could not take over the United States; the opposite is logical. The Mexican economic dependence on North America signed since the Treaties of Guadalupe Hidalgo and reaffirmed with the Treaties of Bucareli, NAFTA and TMEC, which imply not opposing any resistance to North American interventionism.

The economic policies of the fourth transformation do not make progress in closing the difference between Mexico and the United States. The Huntington and Fukuyama gap extends, like the McLane-Ocampo Treaties, to the City of Palaces.

Trump and the pro-American right

Trump and the pro-American right

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero 

The campaign for the presidency of the United States reactivates different tendencies of Trumpist groups in Mexico.

Republican Mexico, Eduardo Verástegui and a minimal PAN faction - separately - begin activism that seeks to generate sympathies towards the accused former North American president.

The meaning that the radical right takes on in our country depends on the future that Trumpism develops in North America.

The prospect of restoring integral and intransigent conservatism in Rome influences the former collaborators of North American anti-communism to recover lost islands of power in the face of populist progressivism.

The power of Marcial Maciel's followers, former phil-Nazi groups from Guadalajara and various national oligarchs, are eagerly awaiting the triumph of Donald Trump to regain power in the Vatican and position themselves in the power structure in Mexico.

The radical right in Mexico has not been shaped by the marginalization that the Hispanic right makes of the pro-US right.

However, once the PAN has been torn apart by adverse electoral results and ideological confusion, the space of the radical right appears as an ontological necessity in the country's partisan spectrum.

The idea that the opposition is non-existent after the electoral tsunami of 35 million votes only leaves room for radical and extremist movements.

Donald Trump's campaign for the presidency of the United States will also be an invitation to critics of the Fourth Transformation and, especially, to the enemies of left-wing progressivism.

Given that conservatism has a wide range of influence in national political culture, including Morena comprising various right-wing groups collaborating in its humanist coalition, now the possibility of a far-right party - even in satellite status - is not only an option alternative electoral, but it can also contribute to dissolving North American pressure.

Movimiento Viva México, México Republicano, Nueva Derecha Hispanoamericana, VOX, etc., represent the facades of probable electoral institutes that intend to join the crest of the conservative wave that is beginning to gain strength in Europe and North America.

North America and the Mexican succession

 North America and the Mexican succession

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero 

Although it is an open secret, some historians such as Joseph Schlarman or Friederich Katz agree that the United States contributed to the fall of the dictator Porfirio Díaz for reasons of geopolitical and economic competition.

The formation of a national bourgeoisie, the growth of infrastructure, the consolidation of a national market and the intervention in Central America were elements of greater importance than inequality and injustice in Mexico, for North America to sponsor opposition and anti-reelectionist groups against Porfirio Díaz. ; Also the Yankee support for Pancho Villa and Francisco I. Madero was more than noticeable.

In the end, the United States decided to assassinate the Apostle of Democracy to continue guaranteeing its economic hegemony and insert Mexicans into a maelstrom of violence for almost twenty years. The United States has always feared the development of “Japan below the Rio Grande.”

Yankee interventionism in Mexico's political processes has occurred since moments prior to national independence.

From there we have to read the attack on the Mexican Embassy in Ecuador that the puppet government of Daniel Noboa carried out. The message is forceful: something is happening in Mexico that aggravates the United States.

Is it the economic recovery? Is it the advantage of Donald Trump? Is it the development of infrastructure? Is it the permanence of populist progressivism in the government? Is it the end of neoliberalism? Or is it everything at the same time? time? The relationship between Mexico and the United States is one of the most schizophrenic.

Although the final destination is integration, we do not see everything that has to happen for this objective to be met.

It is considered a process of cultural and civilizational disintegration before the expanded formation of the United States of America.

Among the closest scenarios is the one proposed by George Friedman, derived from the narcopolitics shared by the informal economy of both nations.

It seems that the Democratic administration of Joe Biden wants to advance it a little; although a virtual invasion of the United States to Mexico would be detrimental, in no way, to the American Union.

Drugs, cheap labor, emigration and natural resources; They constitute the main lines of a complicated relationship between the US and Mexico. What is missing, or what is left over? Given membership in the impossible triangle, Mexican diplomacy cannot make a meaningful decision.

The argument of international law – the weapon of the poor and weak – continues to be the route where a weakened Mexican sovereignty attempts to defend itself.

However, Daniel Noboa's offensive against Mexico should not confuse us as to the sender; the aggression - as always - comes from the United States.

The historical agents of phil-Nazi anti-communism, such as Ricardo Salinas and Lilly Téllez, did not miss the opportunity to identify with the anti-Castro right in Miami.

The Mexican-American fusion will not be peaceful or benevolent in the short term; On the contrary, many contrasts and conflicts show that the lack of assimilation of Mexicanness to Anglo-Saxon culture triggers the isolation of our country.

Assimilation or Subordination? What does America want? The official candidate's agenda should not waste more time thinking about it.

Trumpism in the succession agenda of the Mexican presidency

 Trumpism in the succession agenda of the Mexican presidency

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Masses have begun to take place in the Mexican Catholic rite so that the Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States of America does not come to power. A large part of the regions that send migrants in our country and Latin America observe with concern the nationalist and conservative discourse of the Republicans who talk about closing the doors of North America in every sense. How serious is Trumpist rhetoric as a government project for the future of Mexico?

During the presidency of Enrique Peña Nieto, the government decided to anticipate the scenario of Republican victory and summon the US presidential candidate to generate some type of agreement that would guarantee peace and non-aggression against our country which, according to the current narrative of the Republicans, only He deserves the atomic bomb. Things weren't so bad for Mexico after all, the republic could have suffered a fate like Ukraine and it didn't happen. Now Donald Trump returns to the fray and public opinion in the United States demands true paths for the proposal to enlarge the Yankee Empire. The WASP status quo is taking the Hispanic challenge as a serious risk.

Despite Peña Nieto's terrible mistakes, his decision was the right one to make peace with Donald Trump. What are the different political forces doing now? Outside of the late Eduardo Verástegui, no one takes seriously that Trump is in the anteroom of the White House and with thousands of horsepower behind him.

Republicans and the public opinion that favors them think that the time has come for radical measures against Mexico - and they are not wrong - on the issues of trade, migration, drug trafficking and geopolitical security. A Morenista legislative majority will be of little or no use if the United States decides to invade Mexico.

The candidates for the presidency of the Mexican Republic have not considered how our country will face the review of the USMCA, the probable return of millions of illegal immigrants, the bombing of areas identified with drug cartels, the actual construction of the border wall and the way in which the civilian population will be protected in a scenario of military conflict. Why doesn't the INE (Instituto Nacional Electoral) invite Donald Trump's candidates to debate?

Mexico's enemy is not AMLO or FAMXX, once again one of the most important risks for today's Mexico arises in the overloaded Donald Trump. We do not have the military and political capacity to confront a war with the United States; guerrilla warfare would prolong complete and contagious ungovernability even for imperialism; but Republicans want to take the risk. It is essential that Mexico knows the future president of the United States better and needs to act preventively to avoid greater risks. Trump has expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin and his peculiar way of resolving geopolitics. The analogy between Ukraine and Mexico is compelling. The political parties in dispute for the presidency of Mexico must dialogue with Donald Trump before experiencing the persecution of Volodomir Zelenski.

The Cancellation of Plan B

 The cancellation of Plan B

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

The conflict between the neoliberal faction that is represented in the PRIANRD polypartisan pragmatic alliance and the political project of the Fourth Transformation, has taken an extreme difference in regard to the dispute over the INE. While the neoliberals bet on maintaining the electoral structure that bogs down the Mexican political transition in a delegative democracy, Lopezobradorismo gains in popular sympathy and confirms before society the hypothesis of institutional autonomy as a reference of the factual powers. The cancellation of Plan B does not contribute to weakening President López Obrador; Quite the contrary, in front of the bulk of the population he is transformed into a republican and nationalist Caesar who could count -if the polarizing spirit continues- with the social support to promote a reform that removes the hindrances of the old Mexican regime.

Delegative democracies lock the countries that maintain them in vicious circles. According to Guillermo O'Donnell, a sultanist government like that of Rafael Moreno Valle in Puebla and a progressive democrat like that of José Mújica fit into this context. The question is that the quality indicators of democracy, human development, economic growth, competitiveness, human rights and, above all, accountability; they are always on the decline, that is, failed.

Does defending the INE mean protecting Delegative Democracy? Of course. The trajectory of the Federal Electoral Institute and later of the INE, are accomplices and responsible for the delegative democracy that has made the interregnum between the old and the old regime in the country eternal. Critics of Morenista populism do not want to understand that they are the cause of radicalized social movements that destabilize the Mexican political system due to the meager results of neoliberal governance.

The exponential growth of vulnerability and the precariat in Mexico explains the arrival of the Fourth Transformation. Why does the PRIANRD defend a senile institution like the INE that no longer adjusts to the democratic challenges that Mexico faces in a post-covid world? Does the PRIANRD hope that the cycle of delegative democracy will last as long as the hegemonic dominance of the old Official Party? It seems that it is so.

Luis Carlos Ugalde has been one of the media references to observe the process that the debate regarding the INE has followed. The joke is only told, they say out there. But it is worrying that in addition to using the most retrograde forms, the defenders of the INE are also interested in polarizing as much as possible. They say they don't want civil war, are they sure?

Isn't that Claudia? Is it Augustus?

 Isn't that Claudia? Is it Augustus?

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

Since 1994, the President of the Republic is subject to clear rules on succession within his political institute, that is, the designation of the candidate who intends to extend the domain of a partisan administration; However, one of the most current myths in our country is Tapadism, that is, the idea that the President chooses a successor in the candidate of his organization: the successor, who prepares with great care, and who occupies the thought of the commentators, who describe it in a generic way due to its invisibility. This political game complicates matters and is a sign of what it takes to have a civic political culture.

Once the alternation arrived in Mexico, the practice of tapadism has also been a temptation for the PAN and now for Morena. For this party, the hope of imposing the successor, or successor, seems to falter before the wear and tear of the internal struggle, which is beginning to be perceived in the government results and its corruption with political clientelism.

For some groups, the failure of Claudia Sheinbaum's candidacy and the spectacular appearance of Adán Augusto López, a native of Tabasco, like the President, and member of a family linked to power, is more than evident. The head of government and her presidential aspirations, on her part, begin to diminish thanks to her erratic administration as head of government of CDMX and the lack of political independence in the face of opposition media attacks.

Adán Augusto, like other secretaries of the interior who have reached the country's first magistracy, has begun to govern early, with the permission of the executive, in many matters and with little criticism to his credit, except for the repeated provocations of a brother of the President, who insists on supporting Sheinbaum.

An authoritarian culture tends to pay tribute to strong leaders who achieve their objectives even if they are wrong, acting promptly by defining specific objectives. This is how the behavior of the government secretary is understood, who well understands the role of being the subject closest to AMLO.

The President will have no other option than to allow the person who has developed the governance mechanisms to pass. But this behavior has not always been a reflection of the ideas of the Fourth Transformation, from which Adán Augusto López seems to be further removed than Marcelo Ebrard and, perhaps for this reason, the Secretary of the Interior captivates and cultivates the affections of AMLO's opponents. . In any case, Adán Augusto will be the most practical candidate and at times the most rational of the prospects despite his progressivism.

Atlanticism versus Eurasia

 Atlanticism versus Eurasia

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

The war in Ukraine causes great paradoxes that consolidate the ambiguity of the moment, it seems that Russia is beginning to recover the territory of the Slavo-Baltic civilization and, on the other hand, the West is advancing Atlanticism despite the pandemic and the economic crisis they represent severe problems for the whole world.

The Ukraine-Russia war is probably showing its true radical face, beyond the dispute for "the heart of the world" on the great continental island, the whole purpose is to confront China or try to persuade it for a cooperation between super powers. With the People's Republic of China, America claims what it could not achieve in the 20th century; rule the Pacific. The Atlanticist Anglo-Saxon order has not been able to subdue Asian domination. During these first years of the 21st century, it has been possible to observe that Asian culture begins not only to take over the Pacific, but also to perfect and build a new silk route. For the North American Deep State, the enemy was not Vladimir Putin or Russia, but the asian giant.

The Western crisis is far-reaching and America does not want to see it, since doing so would imply accepting that its economy is in decline and Yankee imperialism cannot control the world.

What at one time seemed like a new delirium of Operation Red Beard, reveals hidden stages and scenarios, the United States is intervening in the Ukrainian-Russian war to obtain Chinese financing and solve its economic crisis, and even build a new diarchy with the Asians to rule the world.

In both scenarios, Latin America and -particularly Mexico- are facing a complicated situation. While it is true that Chinese influence in Latin America has been scant, despite the enormous racial and cultural ties that extends in a millennial way; The constant presence of Mister Danger in Latin America means that, whatever the prospective scenario, we cannot escape the hegemony of the North American State.

Perhaps it is time to assume the integration with North America and understand the impossibility of our historical, religious, economic and political utopias. The Ukraine-Russia war has left a series of deaths as a product of imperialist ambition, it is a pity for human evolution that political interests prevail over humans

Mexico-Poland: a far-right party Hector Alejandro Quintanar

Mexico-Poland: a far-right party

Hector Alejandro Quintanar

The World Cup in Qatar is approaching and, as Bertrand Russell recommended about soccer, it is time to think about humans and their political disputes. Within this framework, on November 22, Mexico will face Poland in the debut of both teams in the fair. Time to remember ideological links in both countries.

As he did in recent days to invite the march in defense of the INE, on July 2, 2005 Vicente Fox also invited the right-wing –both the assumed and the shameful– to take over the Angel of Independence to celebrate the day of democracy Disguised as a remembrance of the alternation in 2000, the act was an attempt to show strength in the streets, since the obradorismo had recently overwhelmed them against the authoritarianism of lawlessness, and the 2006 election was approaching. Fox's act had as a star guest the former Polish president Lech Walesa, stamp of Catholicism turned into a political project, whose presence sought to shine a stage dominated by figures from the Mexican ultra-right, such as Luis Luege or Velasco Arzac.

More than anecdotal, the event was a reminder. Researchers and journalists such as Samuel Schmidt, Diego Velázquez, Patricia Campos or Maciek Wisniewski have pointed out a crucial fact. At the beginning of the 20th century, Intermarium was a Central European geopolitical project that sought to unite countries between the Baltic and the Black Sea, with centrality in Poland, to form an ideological wall against the Russian revolution, based on one element: geopolitical anti-communism with Catholic roots. , which since the 19th century has been obsessed with an alleged Jewish-communist conspiracy to dominate the world, an obsession that masked an anti-secular and anti-enlightenment crusade.

Just 100 years ago, Pius XI (formerly nuncio to Poland) was elected Pope, an emissary of an intransigent conservatism and an admirer of the theses of the Polish Intermarium, which were also an inspiration for Mexican far-right organizations such as Los Tecos and El Yunque. Thus, Central European Catholicism – afraid that the Jews would found their State there – and the Mexican post-Cristero veins, opposed to constitutional secularism, had communicating vessels, both united by fear of the Jewish-communist conspiracy. The connections are not trivial: already in the cold war, the Vatican took up the theses of Intermarium promoting reserved groups in Latin America, which led to this intolerant inertia having a place in Mexico –as was the case in Puebla– and later found space in bread. From Warsaw to Cholula, the threat was one: the Judeo-Freemasons-Communists.

One hundred years after the accession of Pius XI; 100 years after the rise of the Intermarium, 100 years after the USSR was consolidated (and then dissolved), today in Mexico a conclave is coming: a forum in Mexico City on November 18 and 19 organized by the Political Conference de Acción Conservadora (CPAC), with exhibitions, among others, by Pinochetista Antonio Kast or Mr. Javier Milei, a madman who represents that sector of people who, unable to socialize healthily with others, disguise their antipathy as an ideology of exacerbated individualism. The axis of that forum is predictable: the reactionary counterculture against reproductive and sexual minority rights; mix anti-communism and anti-populism, and regurgitate geopolitical conspiracies, perhaps Cuban, Venezuelan or even Russian again.

Who will complete the conclave? Lech Walesa, who today, like 17 years ago, will once again be in Mexico to wash the face of reactionary groups with the prestige of his Nobel Prize, just as Vargas Llosa does, flattering Díaz Ayuso in Madrid or urging them to vote for Bolsonaro. With Walesa will be Eduardo Verástegui, a Mexican actor who became an ideologue of this post-Cold War right, in a touch of entertainment reminiscent of when Alicia Villarreal, singing, gave a better and more profound speech than Fox's in that meeting at the Angel in July from 2005.

The traces of intransigent Polish and Mexican conservatism have been connected. While in Poland that expression governs, in Mexico it lies in an opposition that is supposedly diverse but that is less and less afraid of being articulated with each other, headed by unpresentables (as was the cocktail of liberals marching with electoral delinquents to save the INE), while the right dura becomes visible as it is, as in the CPAC forum.

In 100 years much of the world has changed, but in the global party of reaction, whether Polish or Mexican, its right wingers remain anchored in the 18th century, while those who believe they are centers or brilliant forwards do not realize that they share the field with retrogrades more than they wanted. I wish the field that is being talked about here was not political, but soccer.

Taken from: 

Periódico La Jornada. 16 de Noviembre de 2022

Semanario El Reto. 17 de Noviembre de 2022 

GUACA-CIA

 GUACA-CIA

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

During these days, the soft coup d'état has been launched, which was observed so much in different Latin American spaces where the left has tried to remain in government. The espionage to which the Mexican government has been subjected has an indelible and identifiable mark on the Ibero-American trajectory. Only the signature of Henry Lane Wilson was missing from the report.

Illegally obtained information is intended to weaken the Mexican government more than the party in power. The opposition, which also punishes the President of the Republic, shows itself to be a faithful lackey of imperialism and a total factionalist. However, the hoaxes that North America sows so that Mexico is subordinated to its interests, affect us all.

If Mexico falls, the United States falls. This concept has been repeated ad nauseam in many academic, political and economic forums.

North America loses sight of the conflicts that ungovernability has generated and that no party, no matter how fascist, neo-liberal and extreme right-wing it appears, can fix.

The time has come for the colonial structures of the viceroyalty era to be modified forever in Latin America and particularly in Mexico. The United States must allow the independence of the Mexican State against the factual powers that have dominated it since Spanish times.

The secret reports, the foreign support for the opposition, the financing of mercenaries who fight the National Army and the smear campaign that has been deployed are not new things. Leaving North American experiences aside, the drug issue can be pointed out in the Mexican case. What has been the use of so much pressure on the Mexican governments to do what is convenient for the United States on the issue of drug trafficking? No problem. Every six-year term things are worse for Mexico and North America.

Is it that the United States wants more immigration, drugs, financial crime, narco-terrorism and violence in different spaces of the American Union?

The Moreno government, despite everything, has endured a severe crisis derived from the neoliberal era and the pandemic that spans more than half of the six-year term. The country could be worse off and it is enough to remember Donald Trump's speeches in his first campaign and the social psychosis he generated when he spoke of returning a few million migrants to our country or solidifying the border wall. With two serious situations and the implicit conflicts they have generated, MORENA -in the federal government- does not present completely inadmissible results.

Breaking the balance that Morena has generated and that is held with pins, is not going to pay off in something positive for North America. The empowerment of the Mexican extreme right only pays back Donald Trump and the supremacist Republicans.

Narcopolitics in the mexican presidential succession

Narcopolitics in the presidential succession

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

Around 1994, the power of criminal groups was glimpsed when one of the most considered hypotheses indicated that the death of Luis Donaldo Colosio corresponded to a drug-trafficking mafia embedded in the government. The successive assassinations put the country on its face, criminality was willing to generate all kinds of ungovernability. The country was on the verge of chaos, as Andrés Oppenheimer pointed out and continues to say. The situation of violence unleashed was the script for new novels and video games from the perspective of Tom Clancy.

In 1994, drug trafficking made a surprising presence to show that it was no longer anyone's violent force but rather a protagonist in the configuration of the Mexican political system. The situation in the country shows that various cartels have generalized the behavior of being endorsers of power. The mafias dedicated to the transfer and production of narcotics are at the level of the United States and the Catholic Church for what interventionism means against the different levels of public administration and the making of public policies.

It seems that these representative actors of different interest groups were synchronized to finish off Mexico. The regularization of growth, development, security, education and, at least, the goods that Abraham Maslow's configuration considers as minimum for the human being, cannot be structured without the informal consideration of these factual powers. The Mexican government is going through a war against powerful enemies, the State is besieged by a criminal imperialism that has canceled, forever, the possibility of Mexico consolidating itself.

The SEDENA and SEMAR, also infiltrated, barely carry out a significant job so that the country does not end up exploding.

The objective of imperialism is to influence the designation of the different presidential candidates and, if possible, to configure the elections to affect the party that is in possession of the federal public administration.

The United States and the Catholic Church will never grant a respectable place to Mexico, the Darwinism of international relations motivates our country to remain an island of domination. Hence the need for MORENA to rethink foreign policy with North America and digest imperialism that is geographically absolute. Nationalism is not only recovering the traditional and populist styles of the political form that Mexico has, but promoting intelligent measures to change the destiny that the powers that be intend to determine.

Mexico. The Ukraine of a bizarre world

 Mexico. The Ukraine of a bizarre world

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

The former Polish ambassador to Mexico and an American journalist sparked an interesting debate on social networks as a result of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict in Eastern Europe. Broadly speaking, the line of the arguments criticized Russia's sympathy for confronting Yankee imperialism; Several Mexican Internet users were warned that a similar aggression was the robbery of Texas and the Californias in one of the best-known Anglo-Saxon looting. Updating the geography and time, he wondered what Mexicans would feel if the American Union took Chihuahua or Baja California by force. Although it is true that the war of 1836 and 1847 continues to be a painful trauma in national history; Times have changed and Mexico is resigned to a solitude where -as well as or worse than Ukraine- no one supports it in the civil conflagration that it is experiencing due to drug trafficking.

If the United States will take the north of the country militarily, it is most likely that other states will ask to be integrated, it happened in the 19th century and it is also likely that other Latin American nations will ask to be incorporated as US protectorates. It happens at the OEA. Mexico is only missing Mickey Mouse ears.

The United States has behaved worse with respect to Latin America than that of Russia with respect to Eastern Europe. Neither the former ambassador of Poland, nor the journalist specialized in Mexican-American relations, question the pentagonism that feeds weapons and dollars to the drug trafficking groups that are tearing the country apart. Nor do they question the new slavery that Mexican emigration means and that the real Mexican economy makes alms of its avocados.

Just as a large part of the Ukrainian population historically identifies with Russia and, in part, conceives a hegemony over Eurasia. Many Mexicans emigrate to the United States and a large part of the Latin American population would prefer to live in North America. Mexico, like several Eastern European countries, is a puppet of the Western powers that plays the role of suicidal internal colonialism. Some interesting point of the cybernetic debate pointed out, what would the Anglo-Saxons feel if Russia set up military bases and nuclear missiles in Baja California, Chihuahua, Nuevo León, Sonora and Tamaulipas? And the Guns and Roses fell silent remembering the taste of free Cuba.

Eastern Europe is described as being the "Trojan Donkey" of the Holy See, Germany and the United States. Mexico is the asshole of Hispanidad. Just as Eastern Europe has been sacrificed several times to frighten Russia, Mexico cultivates an internal colonialism that does not help it at all and only constitutes a Spanish mortgage that structures the pigmentocracy of poverty. Vox, the Franco regime subsidized with dollars, a few days ago, questioned and declared war on Latin American drug trafficking by discriminating against it in all forms and, in addition, adding the label of communist. Does the Spanish Colony really have the courage to oppose the drug cartels on the continent with all its might? Will the Franco regime question the socioeconomic structure that reproduces poverty and crime that Hispanic heritage inherited? Is the Spanish Colony going to confront the Narco-empire that is the United States? Well no.

Samuel Huntington suggested isolationism and abandonment of the Brzezinski model of world control to the United States. Mexico and North America can build Spanglishdad. There was always the fear of Francoism so that Mexico would replace Spain as the axis of Hispanidad, all the forces of the dictator were concentrated on burying the Second Spanish Republic in Mexico and burying our country. And it was successful. But the natural tendencies indicate that Hispanic people have died in Mexico and their discourses and identities remain hollow in the face of reality. The Mexican lumpenproletariat that shames and discriminates against Hispanics is building Mexamerica. Just as millions of Ukrainians run into the arms of Russia and millions of Mexicans run into the arms of the US, empires must recognize the hegemonic nature of geography.