Texas (...) fits here in my heart

 Texas (...) fits here in my heart

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

We have known the Lone Star State from a distance, it constitutes one of the spaces of the American Union with greater belonging to Mexico, not only for having been part of it and constituting one of the significant traumas of national identity, but also because it is a of the main receiving communities of Mexican emigrants for several decades, if not centuries.

However, the land of Arenita Mejillas represents the paradoxical ambiguity of the relationship between Mexico and the United States. He was a forgotten land due to the legacy of Spanish laziness that gave rise to the most abusive and shameful Mexican war; However, he has returned so much for Mexico that, at times, it is no longer known if the historical memorandum of rancor makes sense.

Governor Greg Abbott's actions to promote his candidacy for the presidency of the United States adopt the issues of immigration and drug trafficking as local solution strategies that could be implemented later, upon his arrival in the White House. If they worked, it would even be the best idea to also offer him the presidency of the Mexican Republic, but Abbott lies as Houston and Austin did to defeat General Antonio López de Santa Anna.

North American theological liberalism points out that it is useless to try to change the human nature of people, therefore it is appropriate to agree on interests. Probably, after bitter experiences for Mexico, that is why Texas represents the optimum of understanding that countries like the United States and ours can achieve, for the good and, above all, for the bad.

Texas is not the same as California, but it is very similar. Although in the immediate past both entities have distinguished themselves by radical and even xenophobic anti-Mexican policies, economic interests -mainly those of an informal nature- have forced them to institutionalize amnesties for Mexican immigrants, to leave things more or less similar to the previous state that was I wanted to solve.

A previous article by Dr. Samuel Schmidt seems to take up an idea that Carlos Salinas had when he envisioned the issue of drugs and the way they affected the Mexican-American relationship: the gringos do not want to solve the problem, they only want to regulate it. Abbot dodges issues of immigration and drugs, shipping them off to Washington just like when Houston and Austin sent Santa Anna on a ride with the threat of hanging him or leaving him locked up in an African-American slave room. If the Alamo caused so much pain, the worthy thing would have been to shoot the President from Veracruz. Worthy and honorable for all parties, but the interests overcame the nationalist sentiment. The same thing happens with Abbott, he plays the convenience to run as a Republican candidate for the Executive Power of North America, but he does not want to solve anything.

In Texas, as in other states of the American Union, millions of illegal workers arrive, as Joan Sebastián's song says. The search for the American dream and development that Mexico could not offer them, forces an interaction that is paradoxical, complicated, good and very bad. It is certain that Greg Abbott is found every day in the street to hundreds of

drug traffickers, bosses, businessmen and political criminals -natives of Mexico- who have decided to settle in Texas, legally or illegally, to launder their money, live peacefully from their robberies and even continue developing their criminal economy. they don't destroy them? Why doesn't he persecute them and send them to Alaska? Why do so many powerful Mexican criminals live comfortably in Texas? Because Abbott is not an asshole and, above all, he has no ethical principles or friends, he only has interests as dictated by the Monroe Doctrine. There is a vicious, reprehensible, corrupt and toxic circle in the Mexico-United States relationship, worse than the sins of Las Vegas or New York and that is represented in Texas; but Abbott doesn't want to fix it but to weigh the desirability of it. Abbot, like Trump, have forgotten that order is indispensable even to the most voracious liberalism.

Doctor Schmidt formulates scenarios that should be seriously considered towards 2024 by politicians and scholars in Mexico and the United States. The temporary convergence of the successions for power in both nations, can unleash what the futurist George Friedmann points out when the tortilla is finished turning against our countries.

Mexico is experiencing hundreds of Alamos all the time, a low intensity war that calls for arrangements and order, the convenient subterfuges between Mexico and the United States are going to end up infecting both States with Failed and Dangerous States. Lying politicians like Gregg Abbott, Donald Trump and the opposition to Morena - who recognize the failure of the military strategy but do not want to recognize the desperation that he feels for the lack of ideas - are the real danger for our countries and humanity.

Alejandro Armenta and the Morena crisis in Puebla

 Alejandro Armenta and the Morena crisis in Puebla

Diego Martin Velázquez Caballero

Even when Marinism seemed to disappear in the face of the rise of the leadership of Rafael Moreno Valle, it was preserved as a current political tendency for the triumph of Miguel Barbosa Huerta in the extraordinary elections and, probably, in the designation of a candidate as, as it seems to represent Alexander Armenta.

Alejandro Armenta saw his political career bear fruit by sticking to and defending the political group of Mario Marín, who sought to develop a career in search of the presidency of the republic. The scandal of the Lidia Cacho case exposed the structures and mechanics of an oligarchic and corrupt power that has not been able to banish itself from the state of Puebla.

The economic, social and electoral support of Marinism was singular for the support of the interim government, as well as for Morena to triumph in the elections against Enrique Cárdenas and Alejandro Armenta, as operator and architect of Mario Marín, Javier López Zavala and Valentín Meneses. , generated the consensus that made the traditional “green vote” work, which was imposed against Acción Nacional and legitimized barbosismo.

Almost immediately, Miguel Barbosa tried to distance himself from the authoritarian and corrupt vision of the Marinista group, which was already beginning to be a burden for the state government. Armenta himself starred in conflicts that revealed the dark side of Marinism to displace Barbosa from the Executive Branch. Despite this and other contemporaneous contempt for Marinism with Barbosa, it seems that Senator Armenta represents the way for Barbosismo and its social bases to build a political process capable of confronting Bartlismo and the still surviving PRIANRD coalition.

Marinism is in force in the figure of Alejandro Armenta and willing to generate a mechanics of cacique, migrant, business and PRI alliances so that the regional power of the historic priismo of Puebla is preserved. For its part, the National Regeneration party has failed to generate an efficient institutional architecture and the cost has been the storm of its internal state and national processes, as well as the lack of authentic candidates committed to the Fourth Transformation to succeed the government in power. the state of Puebla.

The scarcity of lopezobradorismo in Puebla has allowed the will and fortune of the regional chieftainships -such as Marinismo- to prevail and demonstrate their political craft against an incompetent leftist government and the local democratic transition.

Morena's conflicts in Puebla destroy the possibility of the permanence of progressivism in the entity and reveal the appetite of the opposition factions and parties to reach the governorship again. Puebla continues with an interrupted political transition and an authoritarian structure worthy of the old regime, as the aspiration of the Morenista more Marinista supposes.

SALINAS, GORBACHEV AND THE MEXICO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP

 SALINAS, GORBACHEV AND THE MEXICO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

In the shadow of the Failed State

 In the shadow of the Failed State

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

Although the hypothesis is not completely original since Soledad Loaeza has previously exposed her ideas on US imperialism -as well as other authors-, the important thing is that an academic voice authorized by the red circle of the national status quo allows us to recognize -with all crudeness- the geopolitical situation of Mexico against the United States (Loaeza, S. (2022) In the shadow of the superpower. Colmex). The totalizing Yankee imperialism in Mexico is beginning to be a platitude not only for the traditions of the left or right, but also for the neoliberals and democrats. Understanding the narrow margin of action that the Mexican political system has had against the overwhelming and hegemonic United States, constitutes a significant advance.

Mexico has gone from being a Spanish colony to an American colony. The regime of the revolution could not be consolidated without the approval of North America, rather, no Mexican government can last without the approval of the empire. The El Paso meeting or Henry Lane Wilson (not forgetting the unscrupulous Poinsett) are just traces of an interventionism that is absolute and does not diminish with the passage of time.

It is true that the president of Mexico is not the all-powerful Tlatoani of the myth, nor Viceroy, most of the time he only becomes a CIA agent. The omnipotent is North America, at least for what has to do with our governability.

The colonial socioeconomic structure was subordinated to the United States and the medieval hierarchy constitutes the state of affairs that informally subsidizes the Yankee war economy.

During World War II and, above all, during the Cold War, the Mexican government was neutralized under the anti-communist interests of the United States. The power of the North American military complex was an irrefutable reason for revolutionary nationalism to move from a sovereignist attempt to a submissive behavior towards the Capitalist Superpower. The anti-communist capitalist Nazi-fascist alignment was imposed on the PRI and subsequent governments, to the satisfaction of the local right-wings and the submission or extermination of the multiple left-wings.

And although the tacit warning of Dr. Soledad's recent academic work seems to have the performance of President López Obrador as its objective, although it seems like a contradiction, why not think that the course of things in the current government is allowed by North America? Didn't that happen in Cardenismo? Didn't the United States seek to buy time to impose successive conservative governments in which the socioeconomic structure of Mexico was balanced? The shameful economic remittances resulting from emigration and drug trafficking, aren't they also informal subsidies for the inoperative national economy?

The behavior of Ambassador Ken Salazar and the current Democratic administration also face a lack of time when it comes to the Mexican question. It is essential to stabilize the economy of our country, reduce the inequality that is causing an insurgent and anarchic culture that develops the Failed State and can put the Yankee hegemony in its own territory at risk.

There is nothing Mexico can do in the face of the military power of the United States. Indeed, as Loaeza points out, the Yankee invasions in Latin America and the coups promoted by the White House constitute a reminder of the Sword of Damocles that hangs over our rulers. For this reason, and for that reason alone, Andrés Manuel López Obrador remains in power.

The rebellious violence that is generating inequality in the country forces us to reconsider the New Deal policies that Mexico requires. I wish that AMLO had the capacity of General Lázaro Cárdenas, but they are not very similar because he has only copied the negative of socialist pragmatism. However, even Cárdenas supported his government with pins in the face of frank messages of an American invasion of our country.

George Friedmann imagines a war between Mexico and the United States in the year 2080, probably the environmental and human crisis that is being experienced have ended up catalyzing trends. Although Friedmann is wrong in his geopolitical perspective, the war will not be won by Mexico but by a mortar, a muégano of multiple castes and particularisms that will end up fragmenting the American Union to its anthropological limits in the Northwest. To inhibit such projection, modernity and social change in Mexico must be redirected.

Militarism and the transfer of drugs in Mexico are designed from the United States, it is the only way that has been found to correct a Hispanic colonial structure that is worse than neoliberalism. The disgust that the Spanish monarch showed in front of the Sword of General Simón Bolívar is proof that this colonialist viceroyalty structure does not yield in the face of historical change. Iberophony and Hispanidad will never save Latin America.

Mexico and the United States need time to postpone 2080. Neoliberalism and conservatism are not enough for our country to develop and competitively integrate into the American dynamic. If things continue as they are, if the optimum of our bilateral relationship is to identify ourselves as the North American Sicily, this will also end up dangerously hurting the United States. The problem is not populism or trying to build programs that benefit the precarious, the obstacle to development in Mexico is due to a cacique, corrupt, medieval and bandit economy, which is going to destroy us -sooner or later- and will lead to the grave as well to North America.

Since the colonial era, the political, economic and social institutions designed by the Spanish Empire have not worked. The mechanics of community order in our country is a corrupt synergy resulting from a balance between particularisms and mutual mistrust. It is the factual powers who become hegemonic, precisely the cacique and Creole institutions are established to provide the greatest order of things.

The curialization and national integration of the different communities is generated through urbanization and proximity to metropolitan centers, as long as the cities incorporate supply and economic development measures. Cities that maintain high levels of poverty reproduce social ruptures and pathologies with less impact, but are problematic for local governments. A brief review of the municipalities immediately highlights the cacicazgos and the total absence of basic services. The drug violence that comes from rural and dispersed areas that feed chiefdoms, organized crime groups and the informal economy, now also has the social order of our country in check.

During the Cristero War and until the Cardenismo, even during the Delahuertista revolt, one of the strategies used by the Mexican government was the bombing of rural areas: generating ultimatums for the populations to move to the cities and neutralize the resistant communities. This warmongering has been maintained in the Mexican Bajío and is reproduced as an example in various parts of the country.

Although this seems like an authoritarian measure, in the past it has been effective in reducing the violence that plagues different parts of Mexico. Different literature, specifically cristero from the Bajío, bitterly recounts this type of action that devastated towns and put an end to the agricultural wealth of the towns (eg Acámbaro in Guanajuato). Even the high hierarchy of the Catholic Church accepted these terms because there was no other way to reduce the confrontational mood that continued in rural communities. Even the development of the water system of dams during the regime of the revolution buried -literally- some of the towns that were distinguished by their governmental opposition.

Most of Mexican society rejects modernization, the culture of poverty does not want to pay the cost that it implies, it does not want to become Westernized or establish itself as a strategic partner of the United States. The country has failed in its modernization and there is no coincidence between the elites and the popular classes. The negative expectations of the Mexican economy no longer make the association with the United States viable, the country is not competitive nor does it have the infrastructure that even keeps pace with North America in the cybernetic, digital and artificial intelligence era that has arrived.

Loaeza considers that there is a margin of creativity and institutionalization of the Mexican rulers to contribute to the development and sovereignty of the country. However, it has been the ungovernability of factual groups that defends sovereignty, but at the cost of disorder and instability.

But things are reaching the limit and the decomposition of the social fabric in Mexico is reaching such a degree that a benign order can no longer be sustained in any way. The drug violence that is being provoked in Mexico is authorized by the United States. The ability of the United States to take advantage of what is happening in Mexico is imminent, but the supposed benefit of the narco-economy is no longer optimal for anyone. If communism implied the risk of civilization for North American governments, don't you consider that drug trafficking is a worse social engineering? Do you remember what England did to China? Are we approaching an imminent conflict with the United States? have we won lost with the mafia narco-republic? Remittances and profits from crime and illegality are tripled by the development of our country. The same logic applies to the United States. How much has Latin American immigration cost you from the perspective of Huntington, Brzezinski, Kissinger and Friedmann?

Soledad Loaeza's work aims to highlight the institutions and formalization that the different Mexican governments have developed; however, the Mexican political class has always been at the service of the exterior and, in recent times, exclusively at the service of the United States; therefore, it is hardly credible that any of its members are nationalists. What is evident from her study is the statement regarding the absolute totality exercised by the United States over Mexico. For this reason, the criticisms towards the alleged authoritarianism and militarism of López Obrador that the author implicitly makes are surprising. Would the Americans allow an autocrat like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro in Mexico? Wouldn't they have eliminated him immediately? Loeza's own narrative destroys the indications of the excessive power that AMLO concentrates. The absolute power in Mexico is held by the United States.

After understanding that Mexican presidents have always been threatened by US missiles, which is why many decided to become CIA agents (Litempos), why would López Obrador escape this continuity? And if he has escaped, why have the Americans let him continue?

After the 1914 invasion, General Francisco Villa's attacks on Columbus and other consequences of the revolutionary process in our country, North America has realized that it can approach a total victory over Mexico, but even the defeat of the country is not Synonym of control. It has happened in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq; and it will happen in Mexico. Few Mexicans will defend the territory, the mob will penetrate - to a greater extent - the American South.

Nazism deployed one of the largest military offensives to break the 3,500-kilometer Soviet barrier and reach the Ural Mountains, the failure was resounding with everything and Western support. Why does the IV Reich of the United States think that it could achieve in Mexico what the Nazis could not achieve in Russia?

Mexico does not have Commander Winter on its side, however, it does have Commander Relajo (Portilla) who has already positioned himself in the South and East of the United States, he has reached the Ural Gringos. The emigration of Mexicans (approx. 50,000,000 inhabitants), with all the schizophrenia that it implies, has established cells and beach missiles in almost 80% of the US territory. Who controls who?

The historical Mexican ungovernability has been a riddle for North American imperialism, they made the double mistake of manipulating it and believing in the ineffective Mexican rulers (which always distinguishes their limited capacity despite Soledad Loaeza's arguments), which is why they have the State Failed before your eyes (just look at the governments of Texas, California and Florida).

The geopolitical relations of North America are overwhelming against Mexico. In this sense, the militarization and centralism that the country is experiencing, the false democratization and the cacique feudalism that has taken violence to the extreme must be understood.

Soledad Loaeza's findings must be validated for the reality that Mexico is experiencing in the era of the Fourth Transformation. The fearsome Yankee sword is over our country and it is important to find new optimal forms of relationship between such different countries. The economic divorce from the T-MEC will not be so serious if the border is still there, however, if we continue with the path of fury and criminal violence that the daily path of our country maintains, only the strong performance of a military authority will be able to regulate the uncontrolled violence exercised by rural groups devoted to the transfer of narcotics. And the war of the streets in Mexican cities will spread to American cities.

End of Catholic Hispanism

 End of Catholic Hispanism

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Dr. Elio Masferrer Kan has established that Mario Bergoglio is renewing the Catholic Church and, as far as possible, contributes significantly to achieving the values ​​of the Second Vatican Council as well as a hierarchical diversification corresponding to social progressivism. Bergoglio's strategy is a response to the exacerbated nationalism that can fracture the hegemony of Catholicism in the world. But it is also a necessary action in the face of the abuses of the ecclesial bureaucracy and spiritual imperialisms like the Spanish that hurt, and continue to hurt so much, millions of people. The consequences of the adverse measure against Opus Dei are so varied that a message of an exhortation to the Spanish colonies for integration with their communities, for the construction of a universal society, is even transparent. Bergoglio's recent visit to Canada has symbolic elements of his religious message to Opus Dei.

Opus Dei is forced to contemplate its gap in the face of social reality, above all, to understand how anti-Catholic the combination of religious traditionalism with the Spanish counter-reformist casticism is. The organization is encouraged to change due to its excessive traditionalism, economic attachment and classism. The message of the Catholic religious authority is addressed, above all, to the intransigent Spanish Catholic nationalism twinned with the pro-Nazi regime of Francisco Franco. Catholic Nazifascism is increasing all the time, even now the United States is proposed as the starting point of the IV Reich for the future Holy Roman Empire.

Catholic Hispanism has been fundamental for the socioeconomic structuring of Ibero-America, but its virtues are overshadowed by a series of elements that block modernization: classism, traditionalism, colonialism, racism and dispossession. Geopolitically, the degradation of Opus Dei implies that in the Ibero-American world there are possibilities to bring the religious institutions of Catholicism closer to the people. Bergoglio has coordinated a renewal of the baroque vision of Catholic colonialism: the mentality of the excellent and oligarchic minorities. The deposition of Opus Dei promotes various Latin American theologies: Liberation, Indigenous, Feminist, Migrant, Labor, Homosexual. Plural, as Ibero-America has always been.

The intransigent integral Catholicism has been lost during most of the 20th century, the imperialist and Nazi-philosophical vision that was imposed on the Spanish Republic and contributed to the conservatism of the totalitarian madness, is forced to denazify itself to get involved with society, "ALL" the society, from a human and less institutional perspective. The papacy of Francisco, Mario Bergoglio, has made correspondence in the Catholic community a priority. Religious authorities must be more neutral, democratic, fair, inclusive. Social work is undoubtedly complicated and arduous. It is probably the last chance to maintain the universality of Catholicism.

If organizations like Opus Dei do not understand the importance of the link with the masses and, above all, with unprotected groups, the demands for sovereignty will end up building National Churches that are capable of doing something for their faithful believers, especially for the groups of the precarious Camels and needles, as León Felipe pointed out, are more Catholic than the Theology of Prosperity. Catholicism is universal, not just Spanish, not just traditionalist. The successful advance of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity in Latin America is proof that Opus Dei and its extensions do not rescue anything, well, only the smell of gold and incense.

There cannot be a universal Catholicism with visions as exclusive and racist as those of Opus Dei. Since the arrival of Pope Francis, his role has been attacked and questioned by Catholic traditionalism and he is identified as an enemy of the Church. The option for these religious groups has been schism. The formation of Guerrillas Blancas is not Catholic now, nor crusaders, nor crusaders, nor messianisms.

In Mexico, Opus Dei is distinguished by its attachment to the business economic elites and the Spanish Colony. One of its most representative characters is Miguel Alemán Velasco, as well as a host of politicians, businessmen, intellectuals and conservative groups - members of various far-right facades - whose common denominator is Iberian casticism and oligarchic conservative modernity.

I hope that the measure imposed by Pope Francis on Opus Dei and Spanish Catholic nationalism is understood. Despite the optimism that it implies, the invisible power of uncompromising integralism has been the enormous obstacle to the renewal of Catholicism since the Second Vatican Council. The resignation of Benedict XVI, which shook the Catholic Church to generate changes in the attitude of Catholic nationalists such as Opus Dei and various Secret Societies, was useless. The Catholic Church is on the verge of extinction due to aspects such as the philo-Nazism of intransigent integral Catholicism, not due to Bergoglio or due to different groups that are awaiting and guiding a natural and contemplative spirituality; but they do not have white skin nor do they have many economic resources.

In Latin America these measures contrary to Opus Dei, and implicitly towards the Secret and Reserved Societies of the Far Right, would imply a change of the oligarchies in the control of the socioeconomic structure that has generated so much poverty and underdevelopment. In the first place, the Catholic schools -public and private- where the social doctrine of the church has been a resounding failure, one only has to look at its results, the hegemony of Catholicism in education is responsible for aporophobia, classism, racism and poverty that distinguishes our countries. Second, the lay Catholic leadership that traps political systems in authoritarianism, chiefdom, opacity, and violence. Alois Hudal or Jesus Christ? For the sociology of religions and psychology, the Lucifer effect of alienation caused by blind obedience, which offers so much evidence on traditionalist Catholic pedagogy, remains.

The political turn in Chile and the degradation of Opus Dei are proof of the defeat experienced by intransigent integral Catholicism, but also of the necessary renewal and reunion towards the Second Vatican Council. Latin America needs to get out of the Middle Ages, millions of human beings must be assisted by Catholic corporations to resist the world crisis, the indolence of the powerful can no longer hide behind Catholic membership. The true political transition is just beginning in Chile. The change inflicted on Opus Dei can have invaluable changes in Peru, Argentina, Mexico and all of Latin America where history is common.

Pope Francis, like the renewed Jesuitism of the sixties of the last century, speaks to the hearts of Catholics with his proposals and actions, his measures are endorsed by religious authority but depend on the people, on the popular flock, on the true church. The international crisis of the Catholic Church is also significant and the degradation of Opus Dei implies the withdrawal of Spanish Catholic nationalism so that the new Catholicisms begin to renew the representation of a universal church.

Biden: The real good old boy

 Biden: The real good old boy

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

The president of the United States of America implemented a strategy to standardize his government with the great figure of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. In the campaign, Biden decided to use less radical motivating concepts of unity and reconstruction than Donald Trump and with this he achieved the title of the US executive power against ultra-Christian conservative nationalism. The rhetoric of conciliation, employment, inclusion, equality, communitarianism and liberal progressivism was more powerful in an Electoral College destined to preserve the aristocratic sense of North American democracy.

Even though the polls generate an adverse climate for the Joe Biden administration, it is important to analyze the conduct of the US electoral system. The idea that whoever has the popular vote does not always reach the support of the electoral commissioners is a warning for political moderation and campaign prominence. Donald Trump is right in several critical aspects focused on the Yankee pentagonist, financial and imperialist monster; but his proposals are neither rational nor common sense in a historical moment like the one humanity and his country are experiencing. Trump has exposed the oligarchic interests that the gringo Leviathan represents; however, he does not have a public agenda to replace the military financial industrial complex, nor the bureaucratic giant of public administration. The power of his government was demonstrated in the presidency in charge of him.

Hence, Joe Biden, with his attempt to reflect Roosevelt -the old man-, but with greater prudence and wisdom, represents the lesser evil for the inner circle of the American political system. The so-called "Deep State" of the United States understands that if Donald Trump wins this time they cannot deceive or disobey him. Trump intends to arrive as an Alexander the Great who breaks the knots of public administration and federalism, even if this means dividing the American Union and giving rise to the nine historic nations.

The last Democratic administrations have been unfair to Mexico, they are right in considering that the obligation of order corresponds to the Mexican government itself. However, the Mexican neighborhood affects them more because of their stubbornness in neglecting colonialism. Mexico cannot govern itself because it depends, for better or for worse, on the United States.

To Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mexico owes the notion of a bureaucratic rationality in the construction of the Welfare State. Cardenismo and Avilacamachismo constitute a bridge of Mexican governability and connection to the national security of the United States. However, Mexico cannot grow at the rate of the United States. The political control of the country also generated a gradualism in its evolution

Developmentalism and neoliberalism considered that things could be done faster, the error is probably found in the ephebocratic impulse of some moments.

Despite the contradictions between Mexico and the United States for now, AMLO promoted the metapolitical figure of FDR to make American power aware of the need to moderate financial liberalism and nationalist conservatism. When you think about the post-war period of history until the decades of the utopian imagination in the 20th century, things were probably quite regulated, however, the ruling gerontocracy made positive decisions so that humanity did not exterminate itself. That democratic nostalgia that Anne Applebaum talks about probably refers to those years when Nazism, neoliberalism and libertarianism were as controlled as communism. Nixon questioned those leadership styles, but neither Kennedy nor Nixon resembles FDR, Charles de Gaulle, or Adenauer.

Which Roosevelt will the US Electoral College choose this time: the old or the young? Although Trump's diagnosis may be correct on many issues, in reality his style of government presents the traits of the "Peter Pan Syndrome" as dangerous as the extremisms that put the world on the brink of extinction.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is in fashion and that can change many things in the future of Mexico and the United States. Neoliberal nostalgia lies in not weighing its failure properly and recognizing the importance of public order, while the compass is lost for uncivilized liberals, radicalism will advance to the living room and dining room.

Although the magnetism of López Obrador also attracts Donald Trump, and the character considers him his “socialist friend”, the missiles are a point of advance over the wall and, in serious politics, these data cannot be ignored. Which Roosevelt is the favorite of the PRIANRD? Isn't it time to address the ideas of Ken Salazar and Jesús Reyes Heroles?

Probably the bad electoral trends that mark the Democratic Party in the next midterm elections and, above all, presidential elections in the United States, are the hidden purpose of AMLO's visit to North America. Either Biden and the Democrats agree with AMLO to take the Latino vote, or Trump - despite his anti-Mexican propaganda - makes friends with López Obrador's common sense and reinstates the empirical conservative nationalism that brings order despite the Yankee financial and Hollywood aristocracy.

The Morenoist creed in the White House has echoes for the Democratic Party and, particularly, for Joe Biden. The North American oligarchy wants progressive individuals linked to Obama, Kamala Harris or the Clintons as Democratic candidates. But what if Biden plays Franklin D. Roosevelt to stop the untimely Donald Trump – also similar to Roosevelt but called Theodore? Hence the patience - albeit brief - of sleepy Joe and the Yankee establishment's concessions to Amlo's populist expressions.

The success of López Obrador is reflected in the approval of US geopolitics to keep Ken Salazar, approve the legitimacy and magnetism that AMLO accumulates in his social bases, and pay attention to a Mexican agenda to provide results for ordinary people. In addition to gasoline, Americans can come to Mexico to get contraceptives and other things. If Mexico becomes the store across the street -which always has something more-, the vocation of narco-republic assigned by Zbigniew Brzeziski may be forgotten.

The polarization in North American society that derives from the economic crisis throughout the world can lead to Donald Trump attaining political power and implanting a radical conservatism that puts the civil liberties and rights of that country at risk. Within the framework of the AMLO-Biden meeting, it should be noted that the visit of the Mexican president is a support for the influence of the Democratic Party in its conquest of the Latino vote. Likewise, Biden is promoting a welfare state project based on common sense, also important in Anglo-Saxon empiricism. If Donald Trump is so successful, it is because he has added WASP nationalism to common sense, and that is dangerous for North American liberal hegemony, not to mention for plural progressive conquests.

Trump's conservative nationalism is becoming a valuable reference for marginalized and vulnerable Anglo-Saxon groups, Trump is obvious and that is why he seems more honest than the Democrats; but he is also a geopolitician who wants to return to exceptionalism and regional dominance, which would put the Republicans for a long time in the presidency of the United States and in other bastions of power -as has been the case in the judiciary-. If the Republicans and Trump win heading into 2024, will the Democrats ever return?

Ambassador Ken Salazar has recommended that critics of López Obrador in Mexico stop confronting AMLO and help him govern. Could it be that Joe Biden understood the practical advice?

Donald Trump, with everything and his anti-Mexicanism, also managed to get along with AMLO, calling him his “socialist friend” in the days before the meeting with Harris and Biden. Is AMLO the faithful of the balance in the conquest of the Latino vote in the US? Most likely not, but it is important to point out that the crisis of liberalism is raising the need to use common sense in politics, respect it, dignify it, even in Darwinism people expect something from their authorities to survive a little longer. It is not populism but humanism, mercy, what the people of the powerful are asking for. Before they are encouraged to perform other actions, because it no longer makes sense to conserve life.

AMLO's triumph is political, at least it reaffirms his support in Mexico and he won the arm wrestling against Yankee imperialism. Biden took notes with Morena, as Ken Salazar has suggested.

Economic and social relations will change slowly between the United States and Mexico, but the Mexican issue is becoming more important for the empire every day. It is necessary to change and develop many things so that our country can offer something more than basic services and products to the great Polar Bear. But the elements of the exchange do not depend on the presidents, they advance on their own, like the tacos, tequila, soccer and culture that Huntington and Friedman are so scared of. The Mexican plot goes.

Joke

Two Mexican analysts from the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness (IMCO), comment extremely concerned that people are becoming lopezobradorista.

One says to another:

-My nephew converted to lopezobradorismo

The other answers:

-My daughter and her cousins ​​too. I don't know where we're going to stop

-For more anti-amlo campaigns, nothing else can be done

-You have to go to the US Embassy to receive instructions

At the embassy, ​​​​in charge of the desk -once he has heard their information-, he answers them afflicted:

-Ambassador Ken Salazar also converted to López Obrador. Let's go see Uncle Sam so he can explain to us what's going on.

Once in front of Uncle Sam, the Caesar of the most powerful empire in the world, they point out that the people, the leaders and the North American ambassador become faithful followers of AMLO.

Completely sad and confused, Uncle Sam tells them:

-What can I tell you? My son Joe Biden also became a López Obrador friendly!!!!