Mexico and the Magnificent Seven

 Mexico and the Magnificent Seven

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

There is something deeply comical—though the consequences are no longer amusing—about the way Washington imagines it can solve the issue of Mexican drug trafficking. In Delta Farce, three U.S. soldiers accidentally arrive in Mexico believing they are in Iraq; with the characteristic confidence of the ignorant—unaware of where they actually stand—they end up interpreting the country as a war zone. In ¡Three Amigos!, three confused actors arrive in a Mexican village convinced that their roles as cinematic heroes align with reality. Today, both films serve as unintentional metaphors for a U.S. policy that seeks to confront an extraordinarily complex problem with extraordinarily simple solutions.

The Donald Trump administration seems to expect Mexico to do the heavy lifting: fighting cartels, controlling territory, halting drug trafficking, and curbing violence. Meanwhile, Washington can harden the border, impose tariffs, deport migrants, and threaten extraordinary measures. The problem is that Mexico is not a chessboard where moving a single piece is enough to make drug trafficking disappear. The informal economy, inequality, local corruption, institutional weakness, and U.S. demand for drugs form a social structure far more resilient than any military operation.

The paradox is striking: while the United States demands results from Mexico, its own economic policies may erode the social conditions necessary to effectively combat crime. Tariffs, unemployment, deportations, and market closures can increase the vulnerability of entire communities. A strategy based exclusively on pressure may end up producing the very thing it seeks to avoid: increased migration, greater informality, and new incentives for criminal economies. Trump will multiply the problems he aims to solve and end up completely "Mexicanizing" the United States.

October is approaching, and U.S. politics is once again entering a season of election-year anxiety. Yet no electoral calculation will solve the Mexican problem. Nor will fantasies about bombing laboratories from across the border. Mexico needs a "Magnificent Seven," but not Hollywood gunslingers: it needs effective institutions, professional police forces, independent judges, financial intelligence capabilities, economic opportunities, and a crime strategy that simultaneously targets supply, demand, and money laundering.

For if Washington insists on showing up dressed as the Three Amigos or the Delta Farce, it may well discover the moral Hollywood already knew: Mexico does not need foreign heroes; it needs its own capabilities and a U.S. partner that understands this war cannot be won solely south of the Rio Grande.

The Messiah, the Bishops, and the Caesar

 The Messiah, the Bishops, and the Caesar

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The current crisis of governance in Mexico has ceased to be a matter of domestic politics and has become the epicenter of a geopolitical reconfiguration.

The State has exhausted its traditional mechanisms of mediation and is heading toward forced integration under Washington's aegis.

The Messiah narrative, embodied in the figure of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, represents the last gasp of a sovereignty that, paradoxically, has deepened the structural ties between political power and organized crime.

Like its predecessors, the current leadership has been unable to sever the umbilical cord with the powers that be, allowing the metastasis of drug trafficking to reach high levels of territorial control.

The Catholic Church has not been a mere spectator, but a historical intermediary that has skillfully woven networks of social containment where the State has deserted.

However, this mediation has crossed the line from pastoral care to organic complicity.

The infiltration of drug trafficking into ecclesiastical structures has created a social fabric where the sacred and the profane are blurred to legitimize the criminal order.

This symbiosis has failed in its primary objective of maintaining social peace, leaving a void that can only be filled by a larger external force.

The US presidential power, after years of observing the decline of its neighbor, seems ready to act according to a national security logic.

Friedman and Huntington had warned about the disruptive potential of an out-of-control Mexico.

Brzezinski's vision suffered from an alarming lack of perspective by underestimating Mexico's demographic and cultural power, focusing his attention on Arab fundamentalism while the real challenge was brewing in its own backyard.

Today, the rampant corruption and violence in Mexico represents a more existential threat to the United States than any insurgency in the Middle East, due to the porous nature of a border that no longer separates two nations, but rather two interconnected realities.

The outlook for Mexico points to a radical transformation: ceasing to be the American Sicily, an enclave of tolerated but contained illegality, and becoming the New Puerto Rico.

This process would not necessarily come about through a military invasion, but rather through a systemic intervention justified by the collapse of Mexican institutions and the pressure from the 50 million Mexicans residing in North America.

This demographic segment, weary of the ineffectiveness of governments in their country of origin, is beginning to look favorably upon an intervention by the Caesar that imposes the order that the Messiah and the Bishops could not.

Mexico's demographic capacity, far from being a barrier for Washington, becomes the social base that would legitimize a de facto external administration under the premise of regional survival.

The American war economy requires a minimum level of stability to guarantee its supply chains and nearshoring, which clashes head-on with the entropy generated by drug trafficking.

The failure of the social mediation of the Mexican Church and State opens the door to a technocratic and militarized protectorate.

Mexico faces the definitive loss of its autonomy in exchange for a peace imposed from abroad, marking the end of an era of pretense and the beginning of a new political geography where sovereignty is a luxury that institutional failure can no longer afford.

The survival of transnational criminal organizations in the face of an imminent intervention by the American Caesar would depend on a radical transformation: from being a collection of violent fiefdoms to becoming a para-state actor with strategic utility.

If drug trafficking groups in Mexico were to seek independent survival in the face of forced integration, their only path would be to mutate into a counterintelligence and territorial control entity serving Washington's national security interests, emulating the pragmatism of the Sicilian Mafia during Operation Husky in 1943.

In the logic of power, narco-politicians are now toxic assets that justify foreign intervention.

By promoting the capture and extradition of these figures, criminal organizations would eliminate the pretext of a narco-state that the Capitol uses to invoke forceful measures.

This "offering" would allow these de facto groups to present themselves as the only interlocutors capable of pacifying the territory, replacing a civil bureaucracy that Washington already considers failed and deeply infiltrated.

Mexican drug trafficking should shift its business portfolio to align with the United States' existential priorities: fentanyl and Chinese influence.

Just as the Italian mafia guaranteed the security of ports in New York and facilitated landings in Sicily to counter the Axis powers, Mexican groups would have to unilaterally eradicate the production of fentanyl and chemical precursors from Asia.

By assuming the role of guardians of American public health and a barrier against Beijing's economic penetration in the Mexican Pacific, these organizations would transform from a "terrorist threat" into "irregular allies."

Controlling migration flows and monitoring the infiltration of agents from adversary countries at the border would become their new currency.

To avoid being devoured by the American military machine, these organizations would have to demonstrate that their total eradication would create a power vacuum that could only be filled by chaos or hostile foreign powers.

By presenting itself as a state-sponsored mafia that protects the interests of the USMCA and expels the influence of Arab and Chinese capital, Mexican drug trafficking could aspire to survive under a regime of conditional tolerance.

Gerald Ford in the Impossible Triangle

 Gerald Ford in the Impossible Triangle

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Throughout history, relations between the United States and Latin America have been marked by actions that some might call imperialist. Although there is talk of the largest US military deployment in the region, such movements are nothing new in Washington's history. Experts like James Cockcroft have dedicated in-depth analyses to this topic, exploring how the White House's geopolitical interests have shaped its interventionist policy toward Latin America.

Today, the focus seems to be shifting toward what some call the "tripod of evil" in the region: Cuba, Venezuela, and Mexico. These countries, according to certain political discourses, represent a threat under the concept of narcoterrorism, a label used to justify extreme measures and open new fronts in US national security. Turning to this axis, figures like Donald Trump have expressed their intention to combat the "populist narcoterrorism" associated with these countries, in addition to addressing the growing international influence that alliances between these nations and the BRICS could have.

American strategic thinking is not a new phenomenon, but it finds echo in traditional perspectives such as those of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who analyzed Latin America's role within American interests and pointed to the historical disdain for the region, often perceived as having secondary influence. However, times are changing, and global dynamics are forcing a strategic reconfiguration. Alvin Toffler, for example, addresses the concept of "rapid change," highlighting the importance of adapting to the accelerated transformations that shape both societies and political systems. In this scenario, the United States seems to be rethinking its approach to Latin America, under pressure from new global and regional challenges.

The Trump administration, and more broadly recent American policy, may be taking note of these trends. The need to view Latin America in a new light makes sense in a global context where strategic and economic alliances are gaining greater importance. This potential shift would also respond to the direct impact on the United States of the structural problems of its neighbors south of the Rio Grande. The Mexican crisis, with its profound effects on society and governance, not only affects Mexico itself; its repercussions extend to other Latin American nations and also impact the delicate internal balance of the United States.

It is clear that Mexico represents an increasingly significant challenge to U.S. national security. While the neighboring country does not need to become a kind of Japan south of the Rio Grande to be relevant, it is emerging as a key player in the geopolitical and strategic landscape. If the United States wishes to maintain its internal stability while navigating an increasingly interconnected and competitive world, it must confront the challenges stemming from the political and social deterioration along its borders. What is happening in Mexico and other Latin American countries can no longer be ignored without serious consequences for the shared future of a region united by social, economic, and cultural ties.

Mexican Narco-State

Mexican Narco-State

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NarcoMexico: Today as Always

 NarcoMexico: Today as Always

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

It is carefully observed how certain situations, which at first might seem novel, actually resonate with historical dynamics within the Mexican political sphere. Mexico has been the North American Sicily for many decades, not only during the Morena administration.

A recent example is the case involving the former governor of Tabasco and current senator, Adán Augusto López Hernández.

While his situation has generated worrying conversations, accusations linking the political class to complex relationships rarely lead to decisive consequences. North America has always known that the political class is permeated by drug trafficking, yet it does nothing about it.

A precedent of this nature, which still resonates, is that of former Secretary of Public Security, Genaro García Luna, whose legal process, so far, does not seem to have brought any tangible benefit to the country, but rather the opposite, leaving a taste of uncertainty and frustration. Drug trafficking, corruption, and violence are unstoppable over time.

Since the late 1980s, literary works by authors such as Rafael Loret de Mola and Tom Clancy, through their revealing contexts, have suggested the urgent need for more decisive intervention by the United States to effectively combat drug trafficking.

However, historically, the neighboring nation has maintained a stance of restraint. This dynamic has led some observers to consider the possibility that certain factions within organized crime may be, in some way, linked to the interests of the "Yankee empire," a hypothesis that seems more logical than that of a White House solely concerned with the health of American youth.

However, this perception may be changing, especially in light of statements by former President Donald Trump, whose positions suggest a possible departure from the approaches traditionally adopted by both Democratic and Republican leaders.

In certain strata of society, the link between the political class and drug trafficking has become normalized, paradoxically viewing government actions as extraordinary gestures within this complex network.

For its part, the North American narrative often evokes legal justice regarding the context of drug trafficking in the 1980s; however, time has moved on; we are now in 2025.

Currently, in Morena's second six-year term, both drug production and trafficking have reached unprecedented levels of sophistication, and it seems that the expectation of effective control has vanished.

Unfortunately, beyond the media glare and the news stories that capture public attention, a profound resolution to these problems seems distant.

Even if figures like García Luna are apprehended, the elusive nature of both illicit money and certain political actors suggests that the essence of the situation in Mexico could remain unchanged.

It is a reminder that solutions to these challenges deeply rooted in the Mexican social fabric require a comprehensive and persistent approach, beyond the news cycles.

Narco Land

Narco Land

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

A large part of Mexican society seems to disagree with the centrality that emigration and drug trafficking enjoy in the economy and structure of the social order; However, it seems inevitable to begin to recognize this role that they also share with other crimes in the daily environment of our republic.

It is not the first time that the United States intends to expose officials and members of the political class through a drug scandal. The phrase “narco Mexico” is a tautology, and the link between professional politicians or high officials and drug trafficking seems so common that it no longer surprises anyone.

But, if Mexico is a neighbor of the United States, why does the most important democracy - and empire - in the world do little to inhibit the commission of these crimes, specifically drug trafficking? The point is that Mexico and the United States have a complicit and ambiguous relationship regarding both the consumption and transfer of drugs and that long-standing relationship is an open secret. However, by having more resources, the United States has greater responsibility in the task of correcting things. Mexico is not the only supplier of drugs to North America, but it does constitute the main space of territorial approach for different groups, including international ones, dedicated to the transfer of psychotropics, to take on board American consumers. Health, as it applies to addictions, is not important in public policies in the United States; That is to say, although the number of deaths from fentanyl in young North Americans is stated bizarrely, their own country does not have prevention programs, projects or models, drug consumption in North America is increasing disproportionately and only the American government could change it.

Given its military capacity, the United States could take down drug trafficking groups in a jiffy; not only legalize its use so that drug addiction becomes formal and responsible consumption takes place in a controlled and peaceful environment. That is to say, while drugs are legalized in North America, Mexico is experiencing a low-intensity war that every day weakens the formal government and empowers too many cartels and associations. If the White House put the same effort into preventing addictions in American youth, in the same way that it serves the pentagonism; Mexico and North America could reach an optimum on this issue.

Maintaining the route that has been followed until now implies that soon the scenario set by George Friedman for 2080 will be brought forward. In the perspective of this geopolitician, the south of the United States becomes a settlement of criminal groups who, later, will carry out a true invasion and destruction of the Yankee empire. Now, to try to avoid this catastrophic prediction, North America is increasingly increasing actions and evidence that fuel a total war against Mexico, while preventing it from maintaining alliances with other countries dangerous to North American hegemony.

Friedman points out that Mexamerica constitutes the most important fracture zone for North America, greater than the importance of the regions of Russia and China. The United States thinks that Eurasia represents the greatest risk to its future; but not. The real risk is

Mexican knot. Affecting Mexico can cause the destruction of the United States in any sense.

The cartels have indeed moved to the southern border of the United States and the White House government knows who they are. Why don't they capture them? What does it mean to make an agreement with them to showcase the Mexican political class? It is increasingly shown that the State in Mexico lacks the resources to confront drug trafficking and impose order in the various regions of the country. Under these conditions, what is the point of making a public complaint and further weakening the government of our country?

Promoting instability in Mexico only leads to the government being increasingly ineffective in the fight against drugs and narcotics consumption increasing in the United States. In a good neighborly relationship, Mexico would expect greater collaboration and responsibility from the North American government in a situation that significantly harms everyone.

The war on drugs in Mexico depends on help from North America. Media exposures do not fix anything and constitute the classic ping pong game to influence public opinion, meanwhile, American and Mexican youth die in their hundreds due to the drug phenomenon.

The fight against trafficking cartels must be more than strategic and must begin from the American south, where the main centers of drug trafficking operations and finances are developed. The invasion of Mexico by the United States continues to be a valid option and, even, quite necessary. But, as George Friedman points out in his analysis: what if the United States loses the war with Mexico?

2024 and Narcopolitics

 2024 and Narcopolitics

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Moises Naim and Carlos Fazio agree that global society is in the middle of a war between factual powers of various kinds. The Cornwall Consensus and the Davos 2030 Agenda constitute timid approaches to restructuring the political sphere in the face of the subjugation of the market that puts the human race on the brink of extinction. Multiple formats of formal and informal economy are dominating all aspects of life; But, nevertheless, the defense of politics and the institutionalization of the State are essential for humanity to survive.

Drug trafficking is one of the main global economic activities. In Mexico it is even considered one of the largest employers, in addition to preventing the marginalization of its members in all aspects. The empowerment of drug trafficking in our country seems to have no limits.

It is undeniable that Mexico is a Narco-Society, but it is at the service of the Narco-Empire called the United States. Mexico has been configured as the Sicily of the United States since World War II because the pentagonist military industrial complex is subsidized by Latin American drug trafficking. The main promoter of the drug economy is the United States.

Ronald Reagan and Oliver North are reproduced in each Mexican six-year term, at each of its levels of government. However, each nation's ability to better address the problem depends on internal strength.

The United States does little, almost nothing, to prevent the transfer of drugs and their consumption in its society. The Yankee empire is capable of bombing a country where some American soldiers were victims of terrorism, but it does nothing against those who poison its youth - by the millions - from within and even from its neighbors.

Mexican drug trafficking cells have migrated to the southern United States and coexist with North American authorities and taxpayers. The White House neither sees them, nor hears them, nor does anything to them; as well as the bizarre ones of Donald Trump, Abbot or Di Santis.

American political processes are marked by drugs more than any other country. What does the United States do when its government agencies handle the movement of drugs in various parts of the world? Nothing, who certifies the United States in its fight against addictions or drug control? Nobody. Thousands of books, reports and scientific reports confirm the evidence of the political links with organized crime of the North American government.

Mexico is experiencing a low-intensity war by the State against the Drug Cartels financed by North America and another one superimposed on the competition for the market by the same protagonists of drug trafficking. How long will the US government and its political class be serious about drugs?

The narco-empire

 The narco-empire

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

North America handles the most extreme pragmatism in its international relations and, in the case of Mexico, the dose applied is always higher. The main drug trafficker on the American continent is the United States, this is a truism that only intellectuals and journalists under the control of the CIA do not dare to recognize with the greatest amount of evidence, studies and consequences.

Drug trafficking and human trafficking constitute the informal economy of the main totalitarian democracy: the United States.

From the cultural, academic and journalistic sphere supported by pentagonism, Mexico is accused of receiving all the money in the world derived from drug businesses. The narrative of George Friedman, Dolia Estévez, Andrés Oppenheimer, Leonardo Curzio and the bipolar red circle is wrong, it turns out to be completely false when trying to answer when confronted with a single question: where is the money?

The myth of Mexican drug trafficking is as false as the myth of the Jewish Masonic Communist conspiracy. Both have served to enrich the American power elite to the maximum.

Money cannot be hidden, it is like love; Then, Mexico would live like Holland or, at least, like any autarkic middle power if a little of those stratospheric economic resources remained in our country. This is not the case, poverty and ungovernability continue to be the characteristic note of the majority of Mexican communities, poverty triggers a war that suddenly takes on a hint of being civil.

Drug addiction is not a priority concern of American public policies, nor is the possession and trade of weapons. The savage North American liberalism is nourished by drugs and weapons, because they constitute the basis of the power of the plutocracy that governs said nation.

It is more likely that the Yankee oligarchy will impose a drug trafficker as president of the semi-sovereign American people than that they will contribute to the healthy development of his youth.

Mexico fights a hybrid war against the US drug empire. Drug traffickers are worth more to the United States than Augusto Pinochet himself.

The Red Circle of Ignorance will continue its work of denying the sacrifice of anonymous heroes in the fight against the drug empire. The hybrid war and humanitarian crisis caused by fentanyl will continue because the United States is not interested in the issue of its youth.

Roads of Michoacan

Roads of Michoacan

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

From the perspective of some neoliberal geographers, part of the explanation of poverty in Mexico is related to dispersion. The conclusion of this perspective on development prescribes simple situations, although many times impossible to carry out.

In the south of the country, this strategy developed under technocratic and authoritarian impulses, distinguishes concepts such as Rural-Cities, Smart Cities or Cluster Cities.

At a sufficient distance to interpret the results, the only thing that can be evidenced is the neo-extractivism and gentrification behind these projects, in addition to the accompaniment of organized crime, sometimes foreign mercenary, as well as totalizing government corruption.

Chiapas, one of the starting points of post-neoliberal neo-extractivism, is dangerously close to situations of ungovernability and very serious regional conflicts. The conflict is generated to promote the displacement of human groups to the cities, the central and northern states; or, the United States of North America, where the subjects become cheap labor, cannon fodder for organized crime or a floating consumerist population.

The Zapatista Army of National Liberation has been an example of self-defense, social identity, defense of the territory, and even a postmodern revolution, as Alain Touraine pointed out. Zapatista militants, like the Navi in Avatar, fight to save the world of life, isolate themselves from the contradictions of capitalism, modernity and even progress. And the cost for the EZLN has been a peculiar conflict with the Mexican State and with the mercenary forces of imperialism and internal colonialism.

The EZLN's war has spread to many regions of Mexico, such as Michoacán. US imperialism is not only looking for lemons, avocados or drugs. The Zeigeist of the time marks lithium, gold, copper, water, tin, etc. And it has mercenaries –like Blackwater- in many pivotal areas to sow terror and appropriate territories, landscapes, entire worlds of life.

The American technocrats, like the Nazi technocrats who recruited and ended up training them, do not stop thinking of the world as their East Indies and disposable subjects.

The war against drug trafficking in Mexico covers up the process of neo-extractivism that is advancing relentlessly. People are forced through the mercenary terrorism of organized crime to migrate, to leave their territories and resources to US economic interests.

As in the case of the EZLN, the Latin American governments and the Mexican one in particular, observe the massacre and torture in a stoic, but tragic way; with few possibilities of confronting the terrorist force and trying to resort to resistance measures that work less and less.

Mexico faces a hybrid war by the United States on various sides, the drug war is the most visible channel of this conflict; but, without a doubt, US imperialism intervenes wherever it wants, for example the Broad Opposition Front. It is necessary to avoid denial to understand the perspective of Yankee interests on the Mexican political system.

Even when neoliberalism came to power, neoextractivism does not stop or become human; On the contrary, Michoacán, like the country, is tangible proof of the neo-extractivist war that we are experiencing. Multilateralism, national resistance, the ability to react to US imperialism even if it is in a symbolic way, the denunciation of what is really happening, is the only resource left. The United States is going to destroy the world, but first it will destroy Michoacán and Mexico.

Mexico, the functional anomie of the United States

 Mexico, the functional anomie of the United States

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

What kind of international crisis can cause a conflict towards our country like the Mexican Revolution? A global crisis like that of 1909 for which the Political System was not prepared and which lasted until the first post-revolutionary governments (1940).

World War II generated the empowerment of the United States as a superpower and the industrialization of Mexico to be the manufacturing yard of the North Americans.

The global setting is more like the first decades of the 20th century and at times heralds events like World War II. Why can't we leave the 20th century? Why continue under the aegis of the United States?

In effect, the condition of changing the era is being prevented by the US, which is obsessed with continuing to exercise its imperial dominance.

The post-covid 19 world seems to be neither a post-neoliberal nor a post-EU world. The great changes announced even by the Davos Forum are stopped by the US with all its might and the cry of war against whoever.

The question is where the space that increased violence and the US economy will be executed. From Russia to Mexico, space is the least of it. The United States is not willing to cede its hegemony or share world leadership.

The backyard could go back to being like it was on the long night of revolutionary violence with the risk now of infecting the United States.

North American hegemony has become an unjust system, but it requires greater violence, iniquity, and contamination to continue. Could humanity endure another World War? Third? What was not considered impossible because it means total extermination?

The neo-Nazi intellectuals of North America point out that there is no other route than war so that the 20th century, and thus the century of the United States, does not end. And they proclaim that it is essential to attack Russia, however, as in World War I and World War II, America does not know how to fight. The Americans are not capable of sending fighters. America always wants the others to fight.

Mexico has become another pivot of the war for the US, although the costs are strong for the empire of the American Union.

The sabotage that North America intends against Mexico will no longer be like the one that triggered the Mexican Revolution. It will be worse. And for this reason, North America should no longer intervene in the 2024 elections, only Morena is capable of maintaining the welfare state that, despite its deficiencies, stabilizes the continuum of drug war that is coming.

Nor can America continue to sabotage Russia, the American century is over. Samuel Huntington warned of the vital need to revive the American identity. It's time for America to go home: green go home. If the war comes, it will be the end of an empire, the Yankee.

The invasion of the narcorepública by the narco empire

 The invasion of the narcorepública by the narco empire

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

The alleged US invasion of Mexico is a more than urgent need. The point is that the war must begin in the south of the American Union, particularly in states like Texas, Florida, Arizona or California.

Although the levels of violence have increased notably in the country, the case of Genaro García Luna illustrates that the bosses of the mafia and the real bosses of the cartels have established their centers of financing and economic power in North America, taking with them a large number of people, workers and hit men. Returning to George Friedman, Mexican drug companies have moved to North America, perhaps to conquer from there their share of the US market or to integrate with their Yankee partners.

The crisis of neoliberalism led to the fact that for a long time the caciques, cartel leaders, hitmen, accountants, traffickers and, in general, powerful men and women in drug trafficking structures, live comfortably in the southern United States, camouflaged as decent people and businessmen, they live in the neighborhoods, traffic lights, churches and prestigious restaurants with the bulk of the WASP population. The washing machines are, like García Luna's industries, on that side. It is necessary for the United States to throw all its weapons -including nuclear weapons- and have the greatest number of military troops available against the drug trafficking groups, but it is important to consider that these groups have moved to North America and from there they fluently manage the various businesses that strengthen their economic power and control structures over Mexico.

The conviction of the United States to seize Mexico is historic, it is not surprising because that is how it stole Texas and Northern Mexico, with strategies and forms full of abuse and cruelty. From a distance, nothing can oppose the purpose of the Yankee Empire now, since the condition of a Failed State that leaks everywhere is the main characteristic of a Mexicanness that, it is important to repeat, has its main mafia solidarity system in the south of USA.

The resources available to Mexico to defend itself count for nothing. Instead, the country must be cautious and allow the United States to intervene to subdue dissident groups in various regions. Northern Mexico no longer has any condition of governability and in several municipalities the power of organized crime is reflected in the families that have historically dominated their regions. The north of Mexico, which is the south of the United States, does not distinguish between Texas and Tamaulipas, for example, the attacks, settling of scores, levels of extreme violence, etc.; They are common.

Capitalism due to underdevelopment stimulates violence and informality, there are not always opportunities for North America to try to contribute to the formal governance of the country. Hence, the initiative of the American Republicans must be taken with courage and expect the strict attention of their armed forces. Hopefully they are more capable than General John Pershing, because we already know how punitive expeditions end. If the United States comes to liberate the regions controlled by drug traffickers and caciques, they are welcome; However, if they are only going to select new mercenaries, then drugs will continue to poison the youth of the United States, and the appearance of Mexamerica that will wipe out Mexico and the United States will be a reality in order to have full autonomy and the right of force to poison everyone. the world.

The cover depends on the White House

 The cover depends on the White House

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

Governance in Mexico depends on the geopolitical interests of the United States. The conflict that has been generated between the models of authoritarian nationalism and technocratic-neoliberalism regarding control over Mexican society has nothing to do with the guidelines for growth or development that suit Mexicans, but rather what dictates the North American hegemonic vision. The next ruler of Mexico must submit to the subterfuges of colonialism.

Although for some it is unthinkable and catastrophic that the United States decides to have a country like Mexico at its side, seen the issue from the North American geopolitical and rational perspective, there is nothing more convenient for the empire. What kind of country is more in the neighborhood of the United States? A newly industrialized middle-class country or a mafia republic? The perspective of drug trafficking, for example, no matter how criminal and dirty it may be for society; it comes in handy in the global geopolitics of North America. The profits from drug trafficking are essential in a Darwinian competition scenario as the global economic model results.

Drug trafficking is Mexico's true complementary economy towards the United States. The flow of thousands of tons of drugs, thousands of weapons, and billions of dollars are not invisible. The authorities cooperate in the exchange of these products and Mexico is the main shortcut to the North American informal economy to subsidize its imperialism. How to convince North America that our country can contribute to the regional economy wealth other than that produced by emigration and drugs? It is impossible in the short term.

The transformation projects of the Mexican economy are one hundred years or more, and require changing the colonial structure of the country. The economic need of the United States and the challenges it faces in international relations, however, do not allow time for pauses or recesses where the country's economic infrastructure gets a chance to modernize. The Mexican narco-republic is not going to disappear as long as the United States does not find new ways to “democratically” sponsor its hegemony. Before the globalization period, the romanticization of the American superpower included highlighting the role of the American taxpayer; however, neoliberalism brought the narco democracy that has not been able to detach itself from the American dream. To bring liberal capitalist democracy everywhere, America has had to turn its taxpayer into a drug addict and its allies into drug gangsters.

García Luna and the Mexican succession

 García Luna and the Mexican succession

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

The trial in the United States of America against the former Secretary of Public Security during the government of Felipe Calderón may have various purposes depending on the geopolitical convenience of North American imperialism. If the American Union conceives that its world hegemony is extinguished and it is healthy to concentrate on continental exceptionalism to better face a new Cold War after the fact, then García Luna will be evidenced as the architect of corruption in Mexican narco-neoliberalism from Vicente Fox to Enrique Peña grandson; which would end up sinking the presidential aspirations of the Mexican right. On the contrary, if the US Narco-Empire decides to continue confronting Russia, China, Brazil, India and the Middle East, to finance the war economy that the Pentagon is absorbing, ergo, Genaro García Luna will be Commander Oliver North of the PRIANRD, now indispensable to implant bureaucratic-technocratic-military-narcocaciquil.

The Mexican-American double standard regarding narcoterrorism depends on the circumstances. The United States financed the anti-communism of its period of containment with respect to the Soviet Union with drugs from Latin America, the Middle East and Asia, the Iran-Contra scandal is a small sample of a whole narco-economy that feeds an extensive military-industrial complex. The Mexican political class and other distinctive fiefdoms of our structural condition benefited in spurts from anti-communism, as well as from drug trafficking. The influx of dollars that consolidated political parties, universities, dependencies and liberal democracies; It didn't just come from the American taxpayer.

Even though AMLO and Morena are going to use the trial against García Luna as a way of demonstrating the opposition's links with narcopolitics, the truth is that -despite the irrefutable evidence of the case- the imperialist reason of state will prevail against what be.

What must be considered important for the future of the relationship between Mexico and the United States, mainly from the national perspective, is the way in which our country will be judged. Mexico is assimilated to a Terrorist Drug Trafficking Zombie that offers the possibility -as it happened in the 19th century- of being a new training camp for the US military.

It is not only the insane claim of Donald Trump to launch missiles against the narco-municipalities from the different North American bases and aircraft carriers. It is the real cause of narcoterrorism for the benefit of the pentagonist war economy that is increasingly considering intervening in Mexico because of the prevailing anarchy and ungovernability.

The authoritarian nationalism/military technocratic bureaucratism pendulum has always been linked to the narco. Everyone has their García Luna or Oliver North.

The staging of a media coup

 The staging of a media coup

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

The attack suffered by Ciro Gómez Leyva has tried to demonstrate the repressive capacity of the Fourth Transformation against opposition journalism and, nevertheless, the communicator's own actions have ended up demonstrating that the members of the red circle are not champions of liberal capitalist democracy but mercenaries of the American drug empire in charge of carrying out an Operation Success in Mexico. True heirs of Jorge Prieto Laurens more than of Manuel Buendía. Or does Calvo Sotelo already feel?

From the moment the journalist approaches the home of Manlio Fabio Beltrones, the dilemma that arises between going to the corresponding authorities or the help of the magical godparents is observed. Gómez Leyva has been the promoter of a soft media coup against Mexico, by victimizing himself as a node of freedom and reflecting all the negative things that happen in the country during the AMLO presidency and not for years. Gómez Leyva does not trust the Mexican government, as hundreds of compatriots do in their usual reality, impunity has always been the whole of Mexico, not now. Mexico has been one of the most dangerous countries in the world for decades to practice journalism, it is not a current issue. I hope that the journalists of the red circle soon realize the aggressive reality that thousands of Mexican communicators live. The stupidity of Ciro Gómez Leyva to accuse that AMLO destroyed Mexican Denmark after 2018, shows the degree of corruption, cynicism, influentialism and affluence that aristocratic journalism lives.

Despite the fact that Gómez Leyva's critical ethics leads him to refute government results every second, the first thing he does is communicate with representatives of drug trafficking to request information regarding his mishap and almost propose a Sicilian pact while listening to the audience. This is not the case of other journalists who have inquired with the protagonists of drug trafficking groups to understand the logic of the struggle and government corruption, p. eg Julius Scherer. What happened to Gómez Leyva happened to thousands of Mexicans, from the combi or minibus to the domiciliary residences; but it must be recognized that his journalism encourages impunity and motivates violence as do the television series of the companies where he has worked.

The classism and aporophobia of the commentocracy of the red circle has no limits. Why does nobody remember the journalists from La Jornada and other local media outlets killed by organized crime in different entities? How many of the Mexican journalists have armored trucks? How are those in the red circle going to be the victims with so many billions in agreements? Ciro is not Manuel Buendía, on the contrary. Why isn't Gomez Leyva so critical of Loret de Mola despite the evidence of his lies and corrupt associations? Why doesn't he criticize the multi-million dollar agreements historically made by the companies where he has worked with the political parties in power?

Ciro Gómez Leyva, like Kate del Castillo, knows that the Mexican State has its limits and, sometimes, frankly in the majority, does not want to, cannot, confront the narco-power. The construction of a State depends on the governmental structure and the disposition of a people to form citizenship. The State without soldiers, bureaucrats and citizens, especially the latter, only exists in the imagination. The characters in question are not good Mexican citizens, nor are they willing to be, like the vast majority of society and, specifically, the groups that have greater economic privileges. The bourgeoisies are more prone to liberal anarchy than marginalized social groups, this can also be evidenced from historical inferences regarding the social order.

And, then, what is Ciro Gómez Leyva complaining about if with his actions he assumes that he prefers another type of patronage? Businessmen, drug traffickers or the CIA; that to harm Mexico are the same? What do you ask of the Mexican State if you know that it is defeated in the face of the drug addicted Imperialism of the United States of America?

The defeat of the Mexican State against US drug trafficking is total. The war cannot be won when everyone submits to the drug empire and the imaginary state is required to do something. Without taxpayers, without soldiers, without citizens, who is being asked to bring order? Over time, most of the actors submit to the account of the Yankee drug empire, it is easier to be part of the problem instead of building a solution. The narco-empire gives Ciro and Kate armored trucks and CIA agents, but contributes to the extermination of thousands of journalists who broadcast the war in their communities. It is not a self-attack, it is a coup and betrayal of Mexico.

Manuel Buendía and the American Challenge

 Manuel Buendía and the American Challenge

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

During these dates, the criminal act that took the life of one of the most important columnists of contemporary times in our country is bitterly remembered. Little has changed in the situation of Mexican journalists since then.

Throughout these years, various reports and analyzes have shown the triangle of the United States, Authoritarianism and Drug Trafficking as the trigger for the violence that has marked our country to the point of configuring it as a Narco Republic oriented towards a Failed State. The Mexican dictatorship lost control of the country when the Cold War ended and became involved in a labyrinth of criminality that US hegemony claims. Mexico has a deep parochial and subject political culture, but North America defines the limits of growth, development and democracy for our country.

The analysis that cost Manuel Buendía his life evidenced the clues that over time have shown the United States as the true narco-empire that promotes drugs and weapons for the benefit of its hegemony. The columnist pointed out the connection that links Yankee imperialism with the business of criminality through the façade of fascism. It is now common knowledge that the United States is the most powerful Drug Cartel.

George Friedman should read Manuel Buendía. If all the money that is conceived as a product of drug trafficking and organized crime reached Mexico, the country would effectively have come out of underdevelopment and backwardness decades ago, the entire nation would have been urbanized. The per capita income from narco-profits would have formed a business class more powerful than the Russian oligarchs and surely the Mexican government would have the weapons of mass destruction to confront North America. None of that is true. Shortly after going through the columns of Red Privada, George Friedman would realize that his vision of Mexico should be reconsidered. Buendía showed that the Reagamaniacs were never going to solve the economic crisis and the US deficit, which is the underlying problem. Neoliberalism dedicated itself to sowing paramilitary groups dedicated to the transfer of drugs and weapons to finance the Yankee hegemony during globalization. The great drug-trafficking washer is called the Pentagon and its bosses work for the CIA. You don't have to have all the resources George Friedman has to prove it.

Manuel Buendía's school of journalism has made it possible to confirm the imprint of Yankee imperialism on the path of drug trafficking and the non-existence of cartels. The historical lesson of his work is the need to seek an alternative development model to the dependency and vocation that the United States has assigned us. Mexico has the obligation to create a socioeconomic model that reduces the disastrous drug violence and the excessive emigration of human resources. The terrible economic results that six-year period after six-year period have occurred for Mexico are not going to change because of the will of the United States. Pentagonism is also destroying American society and its Darwinian liberalism seems doomed to destruction; but Mexico does not have the economic and social capacity to withstand a future like that.

Mexico is forced to rethink its relationship with the United States beyond populist nationalism and reactionary ideology. Neither the right nor the left will be able to govern Mexico if they do not first understand the interests of North America. The American Union is heading for a civilizing war that may have the highest costs for Mexico, it can even be said that they are being paid from now on. The intellectuals of the establishment wasp want things to get worse and will never recognize the significant findings made by researchers like Manuel Buendía. As long as the Mexican political class is not capable of proposing a collaborative game with the United States through the appropriate incentives, which go through consolidating the State, justice as well as liberal democracy, the North American cartel will continue charging high quotas of the right of floor.