HIR mailing list
















1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10    11

 En español









In the last century, US policy was never so violent against Mexico as in the Bush Jr.-Obama period. What changes with Trump is just the style—and that’s the clue that this is a con—.









Historical & Investigative Research – Sep 2017, by Francisco Gil-White













print friendly




(Disclosure: I am a Mexican citizen, writing from Mexico City.)

Suppose you could show that earlier US presidents were, in their policies, every bit the anti-Mexican bully (or worse) than Donald Trump. Wouldn’t that expose the contrast between Trump’s in-your-face racist boor and Barack Obama’s urbane cosmopolitan charmer as nothing more than a façade?

Yes, it would. Or rather, it will, for I can and do show below that, in the last century, US policy toward Mexico was never so violent as in the Bush Jr.-Obama years.

One might perceive in this, however, a contradiction with the HIR model. Why? Because our model claims that, in the US, both main parties belong to a covert ruling cartel that also owns Trump (Part 4). If cartel policy was already anti-Mexican, and if it was expertly concealed, why pull back the curtains on it now with a visibly anti-Mexican president?

Because the cartel wishes to continue with its—also expertly concealed—pro jihadi policies (Part 2, Part 5), which are meant to scare us into exchanging our liberties—‘for our protection’—for greater State powers. And it turns out that, if you kick Mexico where everyone can see you, you get to keep your jihad.

Wait. What?

It sounds baroque, but that’s why it works: because we can’t see the game. By harnessing ‘political grammar’—cultural norms that determine the political consequences of doing and saying certain things—you can crank emotional lever A here, move a series of grammatically articulated gears (B, C, D…), and get the desired result there.

It’s psychological warfare.

Let’s spell it out. First, the lever: A) Trump, adopting a racist style, attacks Mexico in glee. This B) causes the ‘left’ to hate Trump. Henceforth, C) ‘leftists’ wish to disagree with anything he says—for example, that jihad must be confronted, that we must support Israel. In consequence, D) it becomes impossible for them to join the ‘right’ against jihad; in fact, E) they defend Islam as another victim of Trump’s racism (and equate Zionism with racism). And thus, F) unwittingly, they’ll give the cartel what breathing space it needs, allowing it to continue, under Trump, its pro-jihadi policies (Part 5, Part 6). This G) produces more violence, which H) makes the ‘right’ cry out for greater State powers, which in turn I) eats away at Western liberties. Voilà.

Intrigued? Okay. First, we will show that, policy-wise, Trump is Obama. Policy was already profoundly and violently anti-Mexican; what’s new is just the media circus of Trump’s anti-Mexican attacks. Done with that, we will say more about why the cartel needs that circus to balance the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ in perfect equipoise.

The big picture: a quick snapshot of the Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine (from 1823) was the US power elite’s shot across the bow to European powers that they should keep out of the American continent. This wasn’t opposition to colonialism as such; just to the European kind. For Uncle Sam viewed the Americas as his playground by right, and developed his own, quite underhanded, form of colonialism. He blossomed, in fact, into a top-grade bruiser, trailing a whole gang of sidekicks: Latin-American thugs whose repressive coups he secretly organized and protected.

It is well-known, for example, that the US government assisted the repressive coups in Guatemala and Chile, and armed and trained terrorists in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Less well-known is the US role in Operation Condor,

“a secret intelligence and operations system created in the 1970s through which the South American military regimes coordinated information and seized, tortured, and executed political opponents in combined cross-border operations. …Condor was assisted and encouraged by U.S. military and intelligence forces.”[1]

Resultado de imagen para operation condor

The bloody hand of Operation Condor (Telesur).

They’ll tell you this was all ‘well-intentioned’—support for right-wing strongmen in South and Central America was ‘necessary’ to win the Cold War against communism. Two problems with that. First, US policymakers branded any Latin-American leftist as a ‘communist,’ and in fact destroyed democratic regimes (e.g., Guatemala). Second, and more importantly, even if these leftists had all been communists, you can fight communism by supporting democracy.

So, we must put a hypothesis on the table: perhaps democracy is what the US cartel always meant to destroy. It is a natural hypothesis for the HIR model, which claims that the US is run by an antidemocratic cartel.

Whacking Mexico before Trump

Mexico also gets bullied. Here follows a quick summary of the immediate historical context: the Bush Jr.-Obama years.

For 71 years, Mexico was run by a party dictatorship. This never seemed to bother the US power elite—quite to the contrary. Then, as Bush Jr. took office in the US, an opposition party for the first time did the same in Mexico. The long-awaited democratic transition had come.

This was a ‘natural experiment,’ for only one candidate hypothesis of US policy—‘fighting communists’ or ‘destroying democracy’—could now survive, as if God, playing in his World Lab, had controlled the variables.

Here’s why. The party that got replaced in the democratic transition was the PRI, traditional custodian of the Mexican Revolution, a ‘bolshevist’ movement according to many. The new party in power was the PAN, the right-wing Christian-democratic party of the middle classes, whose ideology is (guess what?) anticommunism.

So, if the US power elite was opposed to communism but not to democracy, they should have supported this change. But if what they really meant to destroy was democracy, this was the moment to launch an attack.

What happened?

The new PAN authorities were just getting the hang of it when they heard a knock. Opening the door, they were instantly chilled inside Uncle Sam’s totemic shadow, and made to shiver. He seemed… friendly? He came bearing ‘gifts’: secret agreements that would allow his Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to operate in Mexico without any supervision from Mexican authorities. You know, to ‘fight crime’ (sign here, beaner). His eye twinkled, but was that a smile?

Uncle Sam, as seen from Mexico

We’ve known since the 1920s that drug prohibition and interdiction only make crime syndicates stronger. After ‘fighting drugs’ for a half century, getting illicit drugs in the US has never been easier.[1a] There were grounds for suspicion, therefore, in Uncle Sam’s new initiative. Why, for example, did he want that no-supervision clause?

Because these gringos, as it later transpired, didn’t come to fight crime—just the opposite. They came to help their pet Mexican mafia, the Sinaloa Cartel, outgun its rivals, and crown the DEA capo di tutti capi—the godfather—of organized crime in Mexico.[2]

It was a con.

Officially, the US claims the Sinaloa Cartel got benefits in exchange for information about rival gangs. This, no doubt, is meant to evoke a scene from US cop shows: a small-fry criminal, already in custody, gets a break for rolling on someone higher in the food chain. Two problems. Here, the guys getting breaks (and lots of help) were Joaquin (“El Chapo”) Guzman Loaera and his associates, who were not in custody but operating freely. And they were—by far—the biggest fish in the Mexican pond.

At the time, Chapo Guzman’s Sinaloa Cartel was the biggest organization and had infiltrated the Mexican State with tentacles of corruption more thoroughly, and higher, than anybody else. And he was getting bigger. In 2001, right after escaping with mysterious ease from the Puente Grande prison, he organized a meeting with other big-time narcos and formed ‘the Federation,’ which fused the Juarez and Sinaloa cartels and made them ready to conquer their rivals. “A new phase was about to begin in which shootings, blood, torture, and beheadings would spill over and out without control.”[3]

It was right before this, according to a year-long investigation by the Mexican newspaper El Universal, that the DEA’s stealth intervention—which involved meeting with, and assisting, the Sinaloa Cartel out of sight of Mexican authorities—began.[4] Is this why Chapo Guzman felt so confident that he could conquer the entire country?

But Uncle Sam wasn’t in the mood to take chances. US authorities—including DEA, ICE, ATF, FBI, IRS, Homeland Security, and the US Attorney’s Office—deliberately allowed thousands of weapons into the hands of their preferred Mexican criminals: the Fast and Furious ‘gunwalking’ scandal. It was happenstance that this came to light, thanks to what emerged in a US homicide investigation.[5]

Officially, US authorities claim they were tracing the weapons to catch the criminals. “But relevant agencies of the Mexican government were never informed about the operation, and it seems that there was no actual effort to track the weapons once they crossed the Mexican border.”[6]

We have another ‘natural experiment.’ If Democrats and Republicans were truly rivals, then Barack Obama had a golden opportunity to expose Bush Jr.’s dirty tricks policy. Instead, he chose to continue and expand it, and fought tooth and nail to avoid releasing the relevant documents.

It all fits rather well with the hypothesis that a cartel runs the US, and that Obama was just a new version of Bush.

Bush started it; Obama followed through, grew it, protected it.

We didn’t have a perfect country, and had already suffered some worrisome drug violence, but US-instigated gang warfare destroyed any semblance of equilibrium and became the public argument for a Mexican ‘war on drugs.’

It’s not really against drugs, but it is a real war. CNN writes that “Mexico’s drug wars claimed 23,000 lives during 2016—second only to Syria, where 50,000 people died.”[7] We are also like Syria in style: lots of beheadings, corpses displayed in public venues to make a point, and other ISIS-type gore.[8] A quarter million Mexicans, according to the Guardian, have been killed or made to vanish since our decade-long ‘war on drugs’ began.[9]

A quarter million Mexicans… (That’s an estimate; it may be worse.[10])

What’s this about? Our hypothesis: those who call the shots in the US are enemies of democracy and mean to destroy it everywhere (see ‘Operation Condor’ above). Thus, when Mexico took its first democratic steps in 2000, they went to work and found a fix: provoke and manage a war between the Mexican government and the drug gangs, giving the gangs an incentive to thoroughly conquer the State. They succeeded: the drug lords “have penetrated the local, state, and national governments and control entire sections of the country.”[11]

This is killing Mexican democracy in the cradle.

In 2012, ordinary Mexicans, disgusted with the violent transformation of their country, returned to power the old PRI, the party that had ruled Mexico for 71 years. The PRI immediately got to work with reforms that undermined the effectiveness of Mexico’s electoral institute.[12] Meanwhile, the ‘war on drugs’ violence—and all sorts of other violence, for the crime syndicates have branched out and diversified—continued and worsened. Does it still matter which candidate Mexicans choose in 2018?|

Of course, there are side benefits (no reason not to make a buck while you destroy Mexican democracy). Seventy percent of guns used by our drug gangs, per a US congressional report, are ‘Made in the USA.’[13] And the Mexican government buys tons of US weaponry to (guess what?) ‘fight the drug cartels’!

We die by the hundreds of thousands; US weapons manufacturers get fat. Perhaps you can forgive us for feeling bullied.

In sum, the above establishes what we announced: the pattern was already firmly in place. The US bullies Mexico; Trump didn’t start it. What changes with Trump is just the style.

Donald Trump

But, boy… did the style ever change! When Donald Trump arrived, the bullying became a truly grand media spectacle.

Trump accuses that Mexico is the second-most violent country in the world, after Syria. Our Mexican authorities, like characters out of a Ionescu play, reply with dignity: we’re not the second; maybe the fifth…[14] Good grief. What they should say is: Yes, we are a violent country but who’s to blame? US policy is responsible for the orgy of violence in Mexico—and, by the way, also in Syria.[15]


But Trump goes beyond rebuking Mexico for its internal violence. As “Build That Wall” became a hypnotic mantra for his starry-eyed followers to chant during the campaign, Trump blamed us Mexicans for violence in the United States. Did I mention a quarter million dead Mexicans? This is like regaining consciousness on the prison floor, in a pool of your own blood, to hear the guards, your attackers, blame you (because, look, one of them has a scratch).

And this is where the style takes on a rather unmistakable tone. Because it makes sense, I shan’t deny it, to worry about illegal entry through the southern US border—it’s legitimate—. Build that wall. But to yell with glee that you’ll force Mexico, the struggling country you bullied and destroyed, to pay for it—that’s just mean. And to slander, by way of ‘supporting’ this policy, most illegal immigrants as rapists and murderers—that’s racism.

And the symbolic and media investment here is so huge that we are forced to ask:

Is that racism impulsive and frank? Or is this another con?

Perhaps Trump really is an impulsive racist. He seems unmanaged—wild, even. Perhaps he can’t help himself. Or perhaps Trump is an actor, as our ‘cartel’ model suggests.

In the US, says the model, a cartel owns both main parties (Part 4) and also Donald Trump, who isn’t anti-Establishment (Part 5), or pro-Israel (Part 3), or a counter-jihadist (Part 5, Part 6). Despite the telegenic appearances, the traditional pro-jihadi and anti-Israeli cartel policies (Part 2) are ones that Trump faithfully carries forward.

The point of these policies is to destroy democracy. The principle is simple: as jihadi violence is made to rise, so too does anti-jihadi sentiment rise, and with it a demand to trade individual liberties for a stronger State (‘to protect us’).

This is an old game—but delicate, and fraught with danger for its managers.

For suppose the anti-jihadi sentiment were to become unanimous. What then? The system would tip the other way and tie the ruling cartel’s hands! Why? Because a united citizenry would render impossible many important overt and semi-covert pro-jihadi policies (for example, Trump’s $100 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia). And this would severely weaken jihadism because, let’s face it, without the Western cartel, jihadis ain’t much (they can’t beat the Kurds in Syria, whom nobody helps). If the jihadi threat subsided, Western citizens would again demand their rights and liberties, and take back the system.

To succeed, therefore, the cartel must contain and control the counter-jihad movement, and limit it to no more than half the citizenry. How? By conning the ‘left’ and the ‘right.’ To shepherd to your liking the counter-jihad movement on the ‘right,’ give them an ‘anti-Establishment’ leader who, in fact, is wholly owned by the cartel. And to limit the appeal of the counter-jihad position, make this leader viscerally offensive to the entire ‘left.’

This latter move is sheer genius.

Picture it. If you are on the ‘left’ you can’t help yourself: you hate Donald Trump as a racist. Why? Because he bullies Mexicans—it’s his signature move. And since you do hate him, your gut pulls you to reject anything he says. You’ve been ‘immunized.’ When Trump warns that Islam is a great danger, you see that as more racism and reject it. In fact, you wish for nothing better than to spite that odious racist by defending Islam.

There you have it: the ‘anti-Mexico’ con.

The cartel gets the best of both worlds. Half the citizenry demands greater State powers ‘to fight jihadism,’ helping morph the system by degrees into a Police State; the other half defends Islam as a ‘human rights battle,’ giving cartel owners breathing room to continue supporting the growth of Islam in the West, which undermines Western freedoms by being Islam.

Political management via psychological warfare, and a neat balancing act to boot. That’s our hypothesis.

Now, it would certainly help our case if we could show that Trump has an accomplished record as a career con artist. Even better if it turned out that he’s conned us once before by talking about Mexicans.

I turn to this next.




















































Related Readings









What is the Council on Foreign Relations?

THE US AND IRAN: Friends of foes?

NOW YOU SEE IT: Just Where Did ISIS Come From?








Footnotes and further reading

[0] To get a sense for the effect of Saudi Arabia’s dollars, consider Sweden. As Wikipedia explains, “The governments of Saudi Arabia and Libya have financially supported the constructions of some of the largest Mosques in Sweden.” What Swedish Muslims hear in those mosques is consistent with the reigning ideology in Saudi Arabia: Salafism or Wahhabism, which preaches the application of totalitarian Muslim Sharia law and the murder of ‘infidels.’

According to an article in the Swedish media (Dagens Nyheter), the number of ‘no go’ zones in that country, where even the Swedish police dare not tread (given the levels of religious extremism and criminality), has been rising steeply. In fact, there has been a 50% increase in such areas in just the last two years. And they are getting larger. In some of these places, even the Post Office no longer delivers, judging them too dangerous (read about this in English here).

More widely, Saudi dollars cause plenty of other trouble, for

“Saudi Arabia plays the lead role in financing contemporary Islamist movements, within the Arab-Muslim world but also in Africa, Asia, and Europe.”

—Labevière, Richard. 2000. Dollars for Terror: The United States and Islam. New York: Algora Publishing. (p.231)

In June 2012, it became public that Obama’s CIA—Trump’s alleged nemesis—was running a program to arm the—allegedly democratic—‘Syrian opposition’ to Assad. “The arms themselves,” the report stated, “are coming from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.” As a Pentagon secret report confirmed two months later, the ‘Syrian opposition’ (except for the Rojavans) was entirely jihadi, including the recipients of CIA-sponsored weapons. And yet, immediately after that report, Obama gave his favorite ‘Syrian rebels’ more weapons and military training, after which they joined ISIS—Trump’s other alleged nemesis—en masse.

So, Trump is making massive transfers of weapons to Saudi Arabia because he is different from Obama? Because he is sincere about fighting jihadi terror? I hope the sarcastic tone is coming through. Obviously, the ‘free market’ model of US politics cannot account for this evidence.

[1] McSherry, J. Patrice. 2002. “Tracking the Origins of a State Terror Network: Operation Condor.” Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 29, No. 1, Brazil: The Hegemonic Process in Political and Cultural Formation. pp. 38-60. (pp.38-40)

[1a] “Despite growing resources directed at supply-side enforcement, the illicit drug market has continually expanded, and is now estimated by the UN to turn over more than $330 billion a year, a figure that dwarfs the GDP of many countries.”

SOURCE: “The War on Drugs: Wasting billions and undermining economies”; Count the Costs: 50 Years of the War on Drugs; by Transform Drug Policy Foundation

[2] “Under these secret agreements, US DEA agents met repeatedly with high-level members of particular drug cartels, especially the Sinaloa group, to obtain information about rival organizations. Informants served as go-betweens in contacts between the DEA and “El Chapo” Guzmán, the head of that cartel. …The DEA arranged to dismiss drug trafficking charges that were pending in the United States against some of their Sinaloa Cartel informants. In other words, it allowed the cartels with which it worked to continue business—and murder—as usual.”

SOURCE: “The US’s ‘War on Drugs’ Has Spiraled Dangerously Out of Control: It didn’t work in Afghanistan, so let’s do it in Mexico”; The Nation; 23 March 2015; By Rebecca Gordon

[3] Atentamente, El Chapo”; Nexos; 1 agosto 2010; por Héctor de Mauleón

[4] La Guerra Secreta de la DEA en México”; El Universal; 6 enero 2014; por Doris Gómora

[5] ‘Fast and Furious’ became a scandal because US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed in Arizona with one of the guns that US authorities had supplied to Mexican drug cartels, and the investigators in charge of that murder doggedly followed their leads. This is chance. Happenstance. Other such operations to undermine Mexican democracy may exist, but without the same stroke of ‘luck’ (apologies to Terry’s family), we may never find out about them.


Federal judge reopens ‘Fast and Furious’ controversy”; CBS News; 21 August 2014; By Jake Miller.

Brian Terry family sues ATF officials in Fast and Furious”; CBS News; 17 December 2012; By Sharyl Attkisson.

[6] “In the debacle known as ‘Fast and Furious,’ the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) allowed ‘more than 2,000 weapons, including hundreds of AK-47-type semi-automatic rifles and .50 caliber rifles,’ to ‘walk’ across the border and into the hands of the Mexican cartels. Its ostensible purpose was to follow the guns in hopes that they would lead to the arrest of high-level cartel leaders. But relevant agencies of the Mexican government were never informed about the operation, and it seems that there was no actual effort to track the weapons once they crossed the Mexican border. The weapons turned up at crime scenes in both Mexico and the United States. On December 14, 2010, near the Mexican border in Arizona, one of them killed Brian Terry, a US Border Patrol agent.

ATF wasn’t the only agency involved in ‘Fast and Furious.’ Personnel from ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, the DEA, and the US Attorney’s Office in Arizona also participated, along with the FBI and the IRS.”

SOURCE: “The US’s ‘War on Drugs’ Has Spiraled Dangerously Out of Control: It didn’t work in Afghanistan, so let’s do it in Mexico”; The Nation; 23 March 2015; By Rebecca Gordon

[7] Report: Mexico was second deadliest country in 2016”; CNN; 11 May 2017; By Elizabeth Roberts

[8] Mexico’s drug cartels

“behead people by the hundreds… heap headless, handless bodies along roadsides as warnings to those who would resist their power.”

I remember a different Mexico. As a kid, at the barber shop, I would ogle clandestinely this horrific tabloid, ¡Alarma!, which collated, as a kind of pornography, gruesome photos of mutilated and burnt bodies and stories of back-alley tortures. Those were the good old days! For only the innocent can be thus titillated. There is no market for that today, when every newspaper has become ¡Alarma!

SOURCE: “The US’s ‘War on Drugs’ Has Spiraled Dangerously Out of Control: It didn’t work in Afghanistan, so let’s do it in Mexico”; The Nation; 23 March 2015; By Rebecca Gordon

[9] Mexico's war on drugs: what has it achieved and how is the US involved?”; The Guardian; 8 December 2016; by  Nina Lakhani and Erubiel Tirado in Mexico City.

[10] Alejandro Madrazo, a respected analyst of the Mexican ‘war on drugs’ working out of CIDE, in Mexico City, explained to me that these are (reasonable) estimates. But nobody really knows, and the numbers could be higher. (personal communication)

[11] The US’s ‘War on Drugs’ Has Spiraled Dangerously Out of Control: It didn’t work in Afghanistan, so let’s do it in Mexico”; The Nation; 23 March 2015; By Rebecca Gordon

[12] Frustración y esperanza”;  El Diario (Coahuila); 27 de Junio 2017; por Onésimo Flores Rodríguez

[13] Halting U.S. firearms trafficking to Mexico: A report by senators Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, and Sheldon Whitehouse to the United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control; One Hundred Twelfth Congress, FIRST SESSION; June 2011.

[14] México no es el segundo país más violento: SRE a Trump”; Milenio; 22 de Junio 2017.

[15] NOW YOU SEE IT...: Just where did ISIS come from?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 23 Nov 2015; by Francisco Gil-White



  1. Will Trump be different? 


Will Trump be different? Israeli patriots expect him to be. After all, he postures as an enemy of Iran and ISIS. But, what evidence will be diagnostic that Trump really is delivering on his Mideast promises?


  2. Can Trump buck the trend?


Can Trump (assuming he wants to) transform US foreign policy in the Middle East? To get a sense for how difficult this might be, we must appreciate how traditional the pro-jihadi policy has been. (It wasn’t just Obama.)


  3. Trump & Netanyahu: How to interpret their summit?


According to many in the mainstream media, the Trump-Netanyahu summit evidenced a ‘pro-Israeli’ turn. That would be a direct challenge to the HIR model. But we don’t see it. The result of the summit, we claim, was ‘pro Iran.’ To say otherwise, as we show, requires important historical omissions.


   4. Is Trump the boss?


Is US policy-making run by a bipartisan elite cartel? Perhaps the president is a figurehead; the media show changes, but the long-term goals—chosen by the CFR—are always the same. If so, Trump’s Middle East policies will feel different, but they will yield familiar fruits.


   5. Who makes foreign policy for Trump?


When we examine the backgrounds of those chosen to make foreign policy for Trump, we find they are Establishment figures with a history of supporting pro-jihadi policies.


  6. Why does Trump bully Mexico? (It’s a con)  


What does Trump’s bullying of Mexico have to do with supporting jihad and undermining Israel? Oddly enough, everything. By thus tugging at people’s identity-based emotions, Trump’s handlers divide the political field and weaken opposition to their dangerous policies. It’s psychological warfare. Trump is a con artist. And you’ve been conned.


  7. Obama, too, was a bully   


In the last century, US policy was never so violent against Mexico as in the Bush Jr.-Obama period. What changes with Trump is just the style—and that’s the clue that this is a con—.


  8. Trump!: He’s conned us before 


In the year 2000 a well-known businessman and media personality announced himself as presidential candidate in order to fight racism, denounce border walls, and defend Mexicans. His name was Donald Trump.


  9. Political grammar of the anti-Mexico con 


To preserve the West as the refuge of human rights and modern liberties, we need to be, simultaneously, pro-liberty and anti-jihad. But the identity-driven emotions stirred by the anti-Mexico con make Westerners either 1) anti-jihad but fascist; or 2) pro-liberty but pro-Islam. Either combination dooms the West.


  10. The anti-Mexico con and Trump’s foreign policy


Trump, naturally, makes a few noises to satisfy those who expect him to implement an anti-jihadi and pro-Israeli foreign policy—these are obligated moves, forced by the political grammar. But if we look at what Trump is achieving, we find that, like his predecessors, he is making radical Islam stronger and Israel weaker.


  11. Why the US pro-jihadi tradition?


Even granting that the US is run by a power-elite cartel, it may be difficult to accept that it would want to support jihadism and destroy Israel. But if we consider the cartel’s history, we shall find nothing implausible in this.




Notify me of new HIR pieces!