From the Sierra Morena, descending like Fidel Castro and Manuel Fraga

 From the Sierra Morena, descending like Fidel Castro and Manuel Fraga

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The manifest rupture of the dominant coalition in the Fourth Transformation and the departure of López Obradorism to the Old World, particularly Spain, resonates with an echo that is neither of the Revolution, nor of the indigenous peoples, nor of Juárez's liberalism. It is the echo of the "homeland of the Creole," which Severo Martínez captured in ink and which today, with crushing irony, seems to be the true roadmap of the progressive national left. Martínez taught us that the homeland was not forged by the mestizo, nor by the indigenous, but by the Creole minority who, clinging to their Spanish heritage and colonial privileges, built a nation for themselves, on the backs of those below.

The relationship between Fidel Castro and Manuel Fraga at the end of the Cold War is a case of "realpolitik" and, at the same time, of the Hispanic Creole connection. Fraga and Castro, despite being on opposite sides of the political spectrum (post-Franco Spanish conservatism and Cuban communism), shared

a defense of Hispanic heritage. Despite being a communist leader, Fidel Castro was a fervent defender of the Spanish legacy in Latin America. For him, Cuban identity was a "wonderful mix of Spaniards, Indians, and Africans." Unlike the indigenist current of other leftist movements in the region, Castro viewed mestizaje and the Spanish legacy as central elements of national identity, a heritage to be defended. This stance, which remained firm even during the height of the "Day of Indigenous Resistance," directly connected him to the Hispanist vision of the Spanish right, which also defended Spain's legacy and culture throughout the world.

Loris Zanatta, in his work "Fidel Castro, the Last Catholic King," establishes him as a leader who defended morality and tradition, a "king" who legitimizes himself through Catholic tradition and morality, seen as a manifestation of the persistence of the colonial legacy in contemporary politics.

Marcos Roitman criticizes the lack of an authentic ideological identity in Latin America. The region's political and cultural elite have become "cipayos" of their own identity, prioritizing their connection to the Spanish "motherland" over the construction of a genuinely Latin American political project.

The presence of Beatriz Gutiérrez Mueller in the Motherland, legitimized by the intellectual and academic circles that now don't know where to place their radicalism, triggers a lack of clarity about one's own identity and a tendency to take refuge in the former Ibero-American metropolis.

In the end, Lopezobradorism and the Fourth Transformation did not seek a Marxist utopia, but rather the reaffirmation of a Hispanic, autocratic, and paternalistic worldview, where the caudillo stands as the defender of morality and tradition, a "king" who guards the "mother country" against the evils of the world.

Lopezobradorism is committing the same capitulation that Roitman criticized: Hispanic criollismo, exemplified by Fraga and Castro, the Morena elite is behaving like a "sepoy" of its own identity, a "criollo" who, unable to build a truly Mexican project, prefers to surrender to the Spanish lordly life. The true "flight to Spain" is not political exile, but ideological. It is that of the officials and intellectuals of the 4T who, unable to generate their own model, are forced into internal colonialism by their populist incompetence.

The rupture of Lopezobradorism and pragmatic defection go beyond the Fourth Transformation. In the end, the gachupines that Roitman denounces are not those who come from outside, but those who have taken root in the thinking of those who, in their supposed struggle, have been unable to escape the "homeland of the Creole" or the scepter of their own "Catholic king."

The Intermarium and the European Wars

 The Intermarium and the European Wars

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Although the narrative of Western civilization indicates that it enjoys stability and control over the world, it is also true that it presents cleavages and conditions of confrontation that have ended up generating chaos. Modernity has not been an easy conquest for the West either; on the contrary, the origin of the First and Second World Wars lies in the imperialism that ensnares most of the European countries. The conflicts that derive from this ancient practice characterize the testimony of pain and resentment that feeds history. An example of this is the fracture between Europe and Eurasia as a trigger for serious conflicts that continue to take the lives of millions of human beings. In this context, one of the aspects of European imperialism that fuels the civilizing conflict lies in the attempt of Catholic nationalism to impose itself against the Slavic and Baltic elements of European multiculturalism.

The scenario of the Russo-Ukrainian war seems to give validity to the main meaning of Tolstoy's War and Peace; the rejection and confrontation towards Russia also seem inexhaustible. But, even though Europe has justified reasons to oppose Russia, the question of the possibility of a more plural integration continues to arise. Old mistrust has prevented the opening between civilizations, as well as the development and participation of Russia in the West. The destruction of the Tsarist Empire was followed by European subordination to the United States during the Cold War; the Americans even dispensed Nazism, which deserved all the vengeance of the communist reds. Things continue as they were then, but with one constant: Russia wins wars. Perhaps in the most unfair way and with the greatest possible sacrifice; nevertheless, it is necessary to assimilate that Russia will not be destroyed and that Zbgniew Brzezinski's geopolitical strategy has failed. All, however, must follow the path of America in terms of security to avoid economic chaos.

Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary and the Catholic Church have all been willing to build a complicated geopolitical leadership against a powerful figure like Russia; there are no other options. The federalism and economic opening of the Intermarium proposed by Jonathan Levy suggest a model that can include Russia. It is not too late; the heroic defence developed by Ukraine also demonstrated Russia's limits. The inclusion of Eurasia is a necessity for the West.

PRESENTACIÓN DEL LIBRO: ANTICOMUNISMO, NACIONALISMO CATÓLICO Y GEOPOLÍTICA. EL IMPACTO SOBRE MÉXICO

https://www.lajornadadeoriente.com.mx/puebla/publicacion-del-libro-anticomunismo-nacionalismo-catolico-y-geopolitica-el-impacto-sobre-mexico/ 

Cold War and subordination of the Mexican political class

Cold War and subordination of the Mexican political class

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

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

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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