Monday, April 23, 2012

TO WHOM DOES THE "UN-ANNEXED" HALF OF MEXICO ACTUALLY BELONG THESE DAYS????

WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER HALF OF MEXICO
I guess it was what, a little over 160 years ago that the USA seized about half of Mexico under the pretext, well, really no pretext, the USA just wanted the land and all....oh, and "Remember the Alamo."


I am starting to wonder if we have already seized the other half.  It is sometimes hard to tell in the Age of Empire what is what exactly.  I mean, who really controls Mexico?  


Certainly not the Mexican people...we can be pretty sure of that.  


Is it maybe the Drug Enforcement Administration in cooperation with the US military?  Could be, unless you figure the Drug Lords really aren't lined up with both "sides" of the War on Drugs.  I don't know.


How about the big corporations?  That would be  multinational corporations, but many with ties still to the mother country known as the USA.  However, then the question is whether or not there really is a USA, or is it really the UCAW (United Corporations of America and the World).  I mean in the Age of Empire and Global Capital, the USA is still a big deal but I am not sure it is really the big deal it and most of us think it is.  Although there are all those nuclear weapons and Green Berets and drones and stuff, but still...


What about the Mexican government.  That's a good one.  LOL as the say.


Maybe the Zapatistas and their indigenous supporters?  Well, that might be nice, but truth is they aren't even interested in State Power.  How odd.  How quaint.  How freakin right on!


Maybe Mexico is really New New Mexico, but then we have to wonder what New Mexico actually is...or isn't.


It is sooooooo confusing.  It was so much easier to get a grasp of all this in the good old days of good old imperialism...


The following is from Watching America (originally from La Jornada).



The Territoriality of Domination



By Carlos Fazio
Translated By Jonathan DeYoung

Edited by Lau­rence Bouvard

The current phase of the United States intervention in Mexico is a response to the global military agenda of the White House as defined in a Pentagon document from March 2005. As part of an imperial war of conquest, the plan, which supports the interests of United States corporations throughout the world, includes military operations (direct, psychological or covert) directed against nations that are not hostile to Washington, but that are considered strategic from the point of view of the military industrial and energy complex.



One aspect of the document concerned establishing partnerships with weak states. In turn, under the guise of the War on Terror and the containment of rogue states, it promoted the deployment of Special Forces (Green Berets) in military operations to maintain order (police duties) and small teams of culturally savvy soldiers to train and guide indigenous forces. Part of these activities would be carried out by private military companies subcontracted by the Pentagon and the Department of State.



As part of a comprehensive war of occupation, the ongoing United States intervention responds to new Pentagon concepts of the definition of enemies (the asymmetrical, unconventional enemy, for instance, the terrorist, the radical populist, the drug trafficker) that have derived from the asymmetrical wars of today, and which are not limited to the rules established in international law and which evade state border restrictions.



The comprehensive occupation of Mexico comes under full spectrum domination, a notion designed by the Pentagon before Sept. 11, 2011, which covers a combined policy where military, economics, media and culture have common objectives. Given that the spectrum is geographical, spatial, social and cultural, in order to impose domination it is necessary to manufacture consent. That is, plant common concepts into a society which, once repeated enough, become incorporated into the collective imagination and introduce, as unique, the hegemonic vision of world power. Ergo, conformist masses uncritically and passively accept authority and social hierarchy for the maintenance and reproduction of the established order.


Images and narrative of mass media, with their myths, lies and falsehoods, are key for the manufacture of consent. Appealing to psychology and other tools, an image of power is constructed through the media (with its logic of crushing other worldviews, historical memory and utopias) and a culture of fear and denunciation is imposed on society.


The manufacturing of collective images seeks, in addition, to facilitate the intervention-occupation of Washington based in the useful, propagandistic discourse of United States national security and/or hemispheric security. With that purpose, concepts are imposed, like the so-called security perimeter in the geographic space that contains Canada, the United States and Mexico, which, as part of a plan for the de facto rearrangement of territories, was introduced furtively to our nation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP, 2005).



SPP (or militarized NAFTA) includes cross-border energy integration that is subordinate to Washington and transnational capital megaprojects that subsume economic criteria in those of security – justifying actions that would otherwise not be admitted for being violations of national sovereignty – and a supranational regulation that on the one hand sets aside legislative control, while imposing counterinsurgency laws that criminalize protest and poverty and globalize social discipline.



The management of private media under monopolized control also permits doctrines to be established such as that regarding failed states which, constituting a risk to U.S. security, should be left under its control and tutelage. Yesterday Colombia, Afghanistan, Iraq. Today Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Mexico.



The media manufacture of Mexico as a failed state during the Bush/Obama transition in the White House (January/February 2009) included the prediction of a rapid and unexpected collapse, which, according to the Pentagon’s Central Command, would be left with no choice but direct military intervention from Washington. Therefore, the possibility of a collapse was attributed to the action of economic criminal groups and brought an accelerated militarization of the nation, with the direct interference of the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the DEA anti-drug agency and other United States appendages in its national territory, under the screen of the Mérida Initiative, similar to Plan Colombia.



Suspiciously, with greater militarization – via the presence of the Army and the Navy in the nation’s streets and highways – comes more violence, a chaotic and apparently insane violence, covertly encouraged and promoted by paramilitary groups and mercenaries that act under the façade of private contracting companies, according to the guide designed by the Pentagon in March 2005. This occurred earlier in Colombia and Afghanistan and, after the invasion, in Iraq. 



But given that the rebel movements in Mexico remain in an armed truce, accumulating forces, opinion matrices have been imposed through media terrorism that permit the application of counterinsurgency practices related to full spectrum domination and comprehensive war of occupation, such as narco-insurgency and narco-terrorism. These are utilized repeatedly by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and other United States officials.










The Territoriality of Domination




La actual fase de intervención estadunidense en México responde a la agenda militar global de la Casa Blanca definida en un documento del Pentágono de marzo de 2005. Como parte de una guerra imperial de conquista, el plan, que apoya los intereses de las corporaciones de Estados Unidos en todo el orbe, incluye operaciones militares (directas, sicológicas o encubiertas) dirigidas contra países que no son hostiles a Washington, pero que son considerados estratégicos desde el punto de vista de los intereses del complejo militar, industrial, energético.


Una orientación del documento era el establecimiento de asociaciones con estados debilitados. A su vez, bajo el disfraz de la guerra al terrorismo y la contención de estados delincuentes, se promovía el envío de fuerzas especiales (boinas verdes) en operaciones militares de mantenimiento del orden (funciones de policía) y equipos pequeños de soldados "culturalmente espabilados" para entrenar y guiar a las fuerzas autóctonas. Parte de esas actividades serían realizadas por compañías privadas de mercenarios subcontratadas por el Pentágono y el Departamento de Estado.


Como parte de una guerra de ocupación integral, la intervención estadunidense en curso responde a nuevas concepciones del Pentágono sobre la definición de enemigos (el enemigo asimétrico, no convencional, verbigracia, el terrorista, el populista radical, el traficante de drogas). Lo que ha derivado en las guerras asimétricas de nuestros días, que no se circunscriben a las reglas establecidas en los códigos internacionales y evaden las restricciones fronterizas de los estados.


La ocupación integral de México forma parte de la "dominación de espectro completo", noción diseñada por el Pentágono antes del 11 de septiembre de 2001, que abarca una política combinada donde lo militar, lo económico, lo mediático y lo cultural tienen objetivos comunes. Dado que el espectro es geográfico, espacial, social y cultural, para imponer la dominación se necesita fabricar el consentimiento. Esto es, colocar en la sociedad sentidos "comunes", que de tanto repetirse se incorporan al imaginario colectivo e introducen, como única, la visión del mundo del poder hegemónico. Eso implica la manipulación y formación de una "opinión pública" legitimadora del modelo. Ergo, masas conformistas que acepten de manera acrítica y pasiva a la autoridad y la jerarquía social, para el mantenimiento y la reproducción del orden establecido.


Para la fabricación del consenso resultan claves las imágenes y la narrativa de los medios de difusión masiva, con sus mitos, mentiras y falsedades. Apelando a la sicología y otras herramientas, a través de los medios se construye la imagen del poder (con su lógica de aplastamiento de las cosmovisiones, la memoria histórica y las utopías) y se imponen a la sociedad la cultura del miedo y la cultura de la delación.


La manufactura de imaginarios colectivos busca, además, facilitar la intervención-ocupación de Washington con base en el socorrido discurso propagandístico de la "seguridad nacional" estadunidense y/o la "seguridad hemisférica". Con tal fin se introducen e imponen conceptos como el llamado "perímetro de seguridad" en el espacio geográfico que contiene a Canadá, Estados Unidos y México, que, como parte de un plan de reordenamiento territorial de facto, fue introduciendo de manera furtiva a nuestro país en la Alianza para la Seguridad y Prosperidad de América del Norte (Aspan, 2005).


La Aspan (o TLCAN militarizado) incluye una integración energética transfronteriza subordinada a Washington y megaproyectos del capital trasnacional que subsumen los criterios económicos a los de seguridad –justificando así acciones que de otro modo no podrían ser admitidas por ser violatorias de la soberanía nacional– y una normativa supranacional que hace a un lado el control legislativo, mientras se imponen leyes contrainsurgentes que criminalizan la protesta y la pobreza y globalizan el disciplinamiento social.


El manejo de los medios privados bajo control monopólico permite, también, el aterrizaje de doctrinas como la referente a los estados fallidos que, por constituir un "riesgo" a la seguridad de Estados Unidos, deben quedar bajo su control y tutela. Ayer Colombia, Afganistán, Irak. Hoy Libia, Pakistán, Siria, México.


La fabricación mediática de México como Estado fallido durante la transición Bush/Obama en la Casa Blanca (enero-febrero de 2009) incluía la previsión de un "colapso rápido y sorpresivo", lo que según el comando central del Pentágono no dejaría más opción que la intervención militar directa de Washington. Entonces, la posibilidad de un colapso fue atribuida al accionar de grupos de la economía criminal y llevó a una acelerada militarización del país, con la injerencia directa del Pentágono, la Agencia Central de Inteligencia, la Oficina Federal de Investigación, la agencia antidrogas DEA y otras dependencias estadunidenses en el territorio nacional, bajo la mampara de la Iniciativa Mérida, símil del Plan Colombia.


De manera sospechosa, a mayor militarización –vía la presencia del Ejército y la Marina de guerra en las calles y carreteras del país– mayor violencia. Una violencia caótica y de apariencia demencial, que de manera encubierta fue alentada y potenciada por grupos paramilitares y mercenarios que actúan bajo la fachada de empresas de contratistas privados, según el guión diseñado por el Pentágono en marzo de 2005. Igual que antes en Colombia y Afganistán y, después de la invasión, en Irak.


Pero dado que en México los movimientos rebeldes permanecen en una tregua armada y de acumulación de fuerzas, a través del terrorismo mediático se han venido impulsando matrices de opinión que permitan la aplicación de prácticas contrainsurgentes afines a la dominación de espectro completo y la guerra de ocupación integral, tales como "narcoinsurgencia" y "narcoterrorismo", utilizadas de manera reiterada por la secretaria de Estado, Hillary Clinton, y otros funcionarios estadunidenses.

1 comment:

rahul said...

Thanks for great information you write it very clean. I am very lucky to get this tips from you.


Manufacturing in Mexico