Is the truck of the death that was found in Jalisco related with Fulgencio Nicolás Maduro Batista, son of Chávez, and/or with the Mexican 2006 general election?
It is definitely sad to write the present letters. But since we took such a deep look at the Mexican 2006 general election, and since there has been severe misunderstandings and lies, we pass, in the absence of a neutral and relatively informed voice, to explain those who did not vote or were not interested in that election, especially the people of Jalisco where the truck of the death was located; we pass to inform if that regrettable event derives from the war against the narcotraffickers started by Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa to get legitimated, as Andres Manuel López Obrador’s conception of reality makes him think, or, if that is not the case, then what really happened.
December five, 1998, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, before the election, in a very calm and collected way, dressed up as a civilian, said there was nothing to fear about him; that he was willing to leave power not just after the five years term, in the event he was elected, but before, if, according to the respective constitutional reform meant to generate a real democracy for the ‘until that moment’ Republic of Venezuela; if according to it, he did a wrongdoing or was a fiasco; he also said he will respect the media and that he had the best relationships with them, needing to prioritize though, the usage of the state’s owned channel for cultural and educative purposes; he also said that there was not going to be nationalizations and/or expropriations, inviting the foreign capital to invest in such a social movement, later called the twenty first century’s socialism; stating that the Republic of Cuba was indeed a dictatorship, not being correct to condemn it because of the right of the Cubans to their self-determination.
After he was elected, he became sternly authoritarian, changing his clothes for military and the atmosphere for an invasive one, surrounding the media with chavistas, in a clear populist style, with the supporters clapping to his answers and insulting the questions and the interviewer; as he was becoming more powerful, not liking to be examined, calling the legitimate queries fake and trash, and expressing he just cared for his people, not for the foreigners.
It is important to clearly express that we are not defending the Mexican administrations that governed from 1988 to 2018, but there are, before starting with the specifics, some relevant things to mention.
First, that, notwithstanding the future critics to the winner, the so-called fraudulent 1988 general election, failed to exist. The election was not fraudulent at all. The problem was, in contrast, that the system was so perfectly dictatorial and cliental, as described by relevant international voices, that there was no way for the official candidate to lose, hence, the loser candidate for the internals, who will have won through the exact same system, alas, empowered by his own father, a so-called “nationalizer” and “progressist” who sent Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz to the future “revolutionary” and “free thinker” “non-dictatorial” Republic of Cuba; who also, in an argumentatively populistic way, nationalized some industries, and is referred by Andres Manuel López Obrador as one of the best Mexican Presidents; thence his loser son, asserted there was a fraud, inaugurating an actualized version of such traditional clamours by the ones who form part of that particular realm. What indeed happened, was an abuse of a false perception, in the sense that Mexico City was his hot electoral market, so for logistical reasons and the impact it had in an obsolete registration system; for those reasons, that overwhelming advantage, was sold, in a semper idem loser’s claim, as the national truth. And again, not saying the official candidate, him, or whoever, was very popular, or not, but that the system was so organized, that, nationally, there was no way to lose; not him, not anybody. So, the so-called “original fraud”, notwithstanding the system could have been criticized, being him, a third party, or the loser, the candidates; notwithstanding it, the electoral fraud, not necessarily for the most legitimate reasons; him, the loser, do aspiring to be candidate in that same system; for that causes, the fraud, failed to exist.
Second, is natural to all democratic administrations throughout world history, to start with a big impact, and then for their legitimacy or popularity, to begin to decrease. Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz was right by pointing that Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías created the perfect system, objectively a hybrid between popularity and authoritarianism and clientelism and populism, a kind-of Roman electoral coliseum, where he was both the emperor and the gladiator, fighting and punishing in mediatic spectacles, companies like Polar Enterprises. It did satisfy its function as a legitimacy and resources provider to similar governments of the region, which had in common the same aspiration: to fight the empire. In other words, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías was entitled to be an “emperor” as long as he was both the gladiator and the emperor, fighting companies and foreign “empires”. His system was indeed so well established, that now we have in front of us the surrealistic reflection of all these statespersons’ revolutionary calls to action or their archetypical antagonist, id est, Fulgencio Nicolás Maduro Batista, son of Chávez, meat-while-the-people-have-no-toilet-paper-eater and banks’ histrionic advocate for “free willy” of paper money with less value than toilet paper.
So, the question is, being Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías’s answers to the same questions, and his attitudes, similar to the answers given by Andres Manuel López Obrador, and his attitudes; the question is: is desirable for the companies and the economic interests, and for the toilet-paper-loving people, as well, that Mexico aspires to become a copy of the [through a fraudulent process, against humanity criminally imposed, and through a squared fraudulent process, against humanity criminally sustained, de-facto de-facto] ‘Bolivarian’ Republic of Venezuela?
As was said, most of the administrations use to start strong; Carlos Salinas de Gortari, Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León, Vicente Fox Quesada, Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa and Enrique Peña Nieto’s administrations, notwithstanding the way they got to power, were not exceptions to that rule. And albeit there are many excesses and things to criticize, all contributed to the development of the State.
As examples, Carlos Salinas de Gortari modernized the country, even the electoral system and many institutions, in contemporary and innovative aspects like human rights, thence he once was seen as a global statesperson, signing the North American Free Trade Agreement; Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León, ratified The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; Vicente Fox Quesada opened the office, perhaps more than needed, to the critic, and make real the right for the people to be informed; Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa generated big projects; and Enrique Peña Nieto pushed strong reforms. We are mentioning these just as out of the blue examples. There must be, we assume, many more aspects to remark.
The problem is that since the “original electoral fraud” there has been an effective manipulation and a severe deficiency in the way the perception of the people has been managed by the State. For instance: the persons are surprised Andres Manuel López Obrador is surrounded by many women, but lack to be informed in regards that there is, even in some cases has been disloyally broken, a top-legislation approved by Enrique Peña Nieto’s administration and the legislative impulse that accompanied it, which, structurally, imposes that gender equivalence.
Thence, arriving to the subject that brought us here, without interest in defending Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa’s strategy against the organized crime; but not ignoring that, especially during the first three years of his administration, to act, following the out-of-control violence, was a popular, urgent and public demand from the people. In graphic terms, just the 3% of the violence that was occurring during the last years of Vicente Fox Quesada’s administration, would have made other countries go to war or start a civil rising or a revolution, being something unimaginable, for example, in the Kingdom of Sweden, or in the Republic of Finland, or in the Swiss Confederation. Despite those circumstances, we are not defending or attacking the strategy, alike to the one that persist to the present day, which in similar form, in fact, not necessarily under his leadership, was effective in certain territories.
The subject of study, though, is not the war against organized crime, being in the interest of that administration to defend it, or not. Also, is important to mention that Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa did brought to the table non-desirable and toxic actors, plus many other aspects that can be criticized from his administration.
Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa and Enrique Peña Nieto’s administrations, however, are the last shackles of a Chávez-type public opinion manipulation chain, that started in 1988, with the illusory and imaginary electoral fraud. Not saying that Carlos Salinas de Gortari was capable, or not, or willing, or not, to make an electoral fraud, but that these hallucinations, or any similar fight of fantasy, will be severely defeated when confronted with the dictatorial electoral system of that time, id est, notwithstanding who was the candidate, she and/or he was “destined” to win. As simple as that.
So, as we said at the beginning, these letters are truly sad for us to write. But things done by the now official party, the National Regeneration Moment, founded by Andres Manuel López Obrador, that emulate Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías’s modus operandi, making us validly think that the cheers to him by the actual President of such a party are topical and operational; such things, like the populist accusation that other party stole the colours of the Mexican flag, or trying to silence the opposition, or disqualifying the electoral authorities, threatening to impeach them for not acting as Andres Manuel López Obrador thought was correct, or judging elections from unearthly pulpits, even seeming to be legitimately superior in front of the electoral authorities; all these things, make us write these letters in English, so more people be informed.
What is happening, is exactly the emulation of the system the administrations from 1988 to the day have been trying, or being forced, to change. For example, the practice of sending vice-governors or analogical figures to the states, that started to finish with Carlos Salinas de Gortari, is coming back to life; the freedom to critic that is being attacked by the now official party, even Andres Manuel López Obrador acts as if he is open to it, which was an improvement done in Vicente Fox Quesada’s administration, is in danger; and the apparent gender equivalence sold to the public opinion, was brought as a legislation by Enrique Peña Nieto and the reformist movement that the National Regeneration Moment resentfully criticize.
In few words: this type of populist movements, go from Fulgencio Batista Zaldívar to Fulgencio Nicolás Maduro Batista, son of Chávez, also known as “the from-his-gut-Israel-curser”.
The natural question that must arise in the lector’s mind is: what are the sad issues that make us think Andres Manuel López Obrador is Chávez-similar or Chávez-aspirational?
Firstly, the emulation to those times ante the “original electoral fraud” that are bringing the hate so deep that they say a political party “stole” the colours of the Mexican flag. Or the Mexican Supreme Court’s voices, publicly sustaining, in order to get the sympathy of the “vibrational high ground leader” of this new movement that validly seems bringing Mexico to the past or who is “finally taking revenge from the original electoral fraud”; the Ministers’ voices declaring, as if they were politicians, to listen to the ballot boxes, all in order to push a populist punishment, that will only generate more poverty. Or the cutting the head to the reforms that brought enough interest in Mexico, placing it as a stable leader amongst its competitors.
The sad part of it, is that this ignorance, this false true, this excessive generation of expectations, this emperor-gladiator-legitimated-in-the-heroes fantasy, is stronger than a reality that one way or the other, yet with some excesses and corruption from all, is moving forward; not in the land of the fast-delusions, but in front of the world’s crude-time-to-time reality. So yes: the “original electoral fraud” is bringing back the time as it was before it existed, reinventing the exact the same system and practices, plus Chávez-alike improvements.
Andres Manuel López Obrador, amongst the in-order-to-attack-the-investors appeals, in the sense that “the people govern”, and that the people will vote for the new airport, but not for the Mayan train; among those examples, him, Andres Manuel López Obrador, words more, words less, communicated to the people the forthcoming statements: “the truck of the death [found in Jalisco some days ago] derives from the war against the narcotraffickers started by Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa to get legitimated”; “they did not win the 2006 election, they imposed the President, and him, to get legitimized [in front of him, the redeemer] decided to stupidly combat the organized crime [which 3% of what was happening during the last years of Vicente Fox Quesada’s administration, would have made other countries to go to war or start a civil rising], and hence [in his prism of reality] that is the reason for all the violence”; “the origin was the electoral fraud, we must not forget it. The country will not be like that, we must refresh our memory”; “the country [notwithstanding the investments and its position in front of similar countries] is in great decline, in a great crisis”; “what has been happening in thirty years [from the “original electoral fraud”] to the day, has been a resounding failure”.
Accordingly, once is clear that Andres Manuel López Obrador is not satisfied with the present, but that he persists in redeeming the past, that he persists in being seated in the dangerous chair of the perfect being; once that his vengeance “for the original fraud” pretends to bring back the system that existed before the “original fraud”. Once that he is playing with the emotions and the expectations of the people, as an austere emperor-Chávez-gladiator.
Once that all this is happening, we must remind him two things, first, that with great power comes great responsibility; and second, as the people in the streets say, is not the same being the drunk than the barkeeper.
Therefore, we, as neutral and relatively-informed voices, pass to explain to those who did not vote, id est, investors, millennials, etcetera, or those who were not interested in that election, especially those persons from Jalisco that are related with the truck of the death; we pass to inform what really happened.
We need to start by exteriorize that the no-reelection was imposed after a revolution with around two millions of deaths, particularly since Andres Manuel López Obrador sits in the dangerous chair of the perfect being; thus, the populist and absurd unilateral blazoning of him being the “legitimate president” of Mexico, if he is so perfect, according to article 83 of the Constitution of Mexico, invalidates him for being President again. Henceforward becoming interesting the political voices of the Supreme Court’s ministers that alienate with such a perfection; all this especially since him, as Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías said, is not interested in being reelected, no to say ratified, resulting sad that his period, unless a direct violation to the actual Constitution occurs; unless that happens, is tragic his period was over almost six years ago.
But the questions are: how he became “legitimate president” of Mexico? How he sits in the dangerous chair of the perfect being? Furthermore: how can the truck of the death be the direct consequence of the fraud against him, originated in itself in the “original fraud”?
All these tricky questions will have a realistic response, id est, the drunken, as the people calls it in a figurative and colourful way, will need to get in the other side of the party; the drunken will see things as they are, not as the expectations of the people see it, not as those who yearn free programs and gifts do, not as the nationalizations of the “progressists” assume.
The problem, unfortunately, is the time it will take for the reality to respond; the problem is if Mexico wants to pay that price; if Mexico wants to go back to the times before the “original electoral fraud”, and fill the trashcan with the gradual advances of those thirty years that have been a “resounding failure” in the eyes of that type of redeemer who fails to ignore the reality of the world as it is and the position of Mexico in it; who fails to observe the analysis of the professionals and who apparently ignores that the austerity plans are proven-to-fail-poorness-generators. Abundance attracts abundance. Poorness attracts poorness. Low vibrations, “flag-colours-robberies” and hate, produce those same fruits.
The problem, in a nutshell, is if Mexico will wait until it needs to face a Fulgencio Nicolás Maduro Batista, son of Chávez, and what is going to happen in the so-called [through a fraudulent process, against humanity criminally imposed, and through a squared fraudulent process, against humanity criminally sustained, de-facto de-facto] ‘Bolivarian’ Republic of Venezuela, or if it gets rid of the emperor-gladiator-combating-the-empire aspirations before becoming realities.
So how did Andres Manuel López Obrador, in his mind, became the “legitimate president” of Mexico? How can the truck of the death be the direct consequence of the fraud against him? How is him deserving to sit in the dangerous chair of the perfect being?
July two, 2006, at night, Andres Manuel López Obrador, even worse than Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías himself, who, in an intense election, acted with responsibility and courage, when, putting the stability of the State before his interests, accepted the defeat in his pursue for getting super-powers to reform the Constitution of Venezuela, in that emperor-gladiator so-called revolutionary regime; naught, Andres Manuel López Obrador surpassed Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, and said: “I am respectful of the institutions and particularly of what the electoral institute decides. Nevertheless, I want to inform the Mexican people that, according with our information, we won the presidency of the Mexican republic; we have information that we have at least five hundredth thousand more votes”.
All this was not just against the data of the electoral institutions, but based in nothing, there was no proof of it; all the info, generated by Mexican and foreign companies (even French leftists who were more than impressed how he massively crowded the Zocalo [not say the French right who cutted relationships with the elected Mexican Government due to objective, structural, crimes, to criminally impose subjective crimes to a French citizen whose nationality was part of the yellow bombast of such cacophony]); all was putting him in the second place. Furthermore, all the information from private parties and the electoral institutions, indeed, matched; finally matching with the conclusive result. Actually, him, Andres Manuel López Obrador, in an apparent intent to delegitimize the polls before the actual results occur, alleged he was ten points away from the first place, not presenting evidence for that, neither: just his sayings.
It is valid for a regular person who loses, to get mad, but for someone who presents himself for a general election, is invalid to express such demands and excite the people against the State, with no information, id est, solely for trickery and untrue purposes. And more invalid is to bring those facts of a deceitful past, to a different present, turning his reality, from the “original fraud” to the signalized fraud, in the persistent attitude of a loser. Which, in fact, is irrelevant, since it is in the past and is a falsehood; but acquires relevance in proving, even in front of Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, his true character, his true colours. That will be relevant for all, from the investors, to the media, to the ministers of the Supreme Court themselves, even if, in their paltriness, think they can actually get something from such a character.
The strategy was simple: as in the his previous political movements, anything that was against his interests will be a complot or a fraud, anything that was not his voice will be a lie, anyone who contradicted him, will be an enemy of the people; and ironically, the people, as puppets of his emotional motivations rooted in the dividends of the low vibrations, were just means, not ends, to his ravenous aspirations.
Otherwise: why will the intentional and conscious falsifications exist, if not for fooling and betraying the people, and for playing with their nescience and lack of knowledge and poor understanding, in his, from this perspective, unscrupulous aspirations for power? And what do those unscrupulous aspirations become in front of the sayings, regarding the truck of the death being the direct consequence of that, alas, fraud against him, the perfect being seated in the dangerous chair?
This lack of tolerance to defeat is a pathology that all that deceived and mislead people will, sooner or later, have to face, and pay its price. The question is not if, but when.
The results of the 2006 general election were, as a matter of fact, very close, thus, previous re-counting those relevant cases, it was an election that, as happens in many other democratic countries, needed to be brought before the judicial authorities.
It is important to mention that in that hypothetical fraud accusations concurred, as electoral functionaries, about a million people, as well as political parties’ representatives, as well as international observants, plus the more than thirty million people who voted and observed the election. Therefore, being them where the legitimacy of the election was rooted, only in those cases when there was a valid reason to do so, the packages were, in that moment, opened. Otherwise, the election, notwithstanding who was complaining, less than being more legitimate, would have been diminished in its legitimacy.
Each vote, each ballot box, and each polling station were counted.
Although the data persevered being the same, Andres Manuel López Obrador, his followers and his electoral team, started a campaign in the media in order to show the evidence of the fraud. That campaign, that for unequivocal reasons was insensible to the economic and social impacts it was going to cause and that finally caused; that campaign, in appearance meant to prove the electoral fraud, included bringing people to camp and sleep and obstruct the most important and widest Reforma Avenue in Mexico City, under the patronage of Alejandro de Jesús Encinas Rodríguez, the City Mayor, who no-doubt, at least for many of the affected people, acted more like the subordinate of Andres Manuel López Obrador than like a public functionary.
This extreme, yet not violent, way of pressing or protesting in the streets, was solely mediatic and de-facto, because their most relevant demand, id est, counting each vote, each ballot box, and each polling station; that request, was not even asked to the electoral court in their plaint. They neither challenge all the electoral districts, nor all the ballot boxes or polling stations.
In other words, again, no matter the abundant evidence of the defeat, they bamboozled the people making them believe they were fighting for something viable, despite they did not even ask for it to the electoral court. Still the court did order to open around thirteen thousand ballot boxes in the justified cases, with few to none variations in the result, nonetheless the opened ballot boxes were the ones with the clearest irregularities.
We can, in the forthcoming links, behold another example of how that kind of understanding mistakes and fallacies can be effectively manipulated to get meaty dividends in front of the public opinion: (English: https://magnacartalex.com/en/blog/aristegui-v-mexico-freedom-of-expression-or-offense-against-the-judiciary/) and (Español: https://magnacartalex.com/en/blog/caso-aristegui-defensa-a-la-libertad-de-expresion-o-una-felonia-en-contra-la-justicia-federal-mexicana-2/).
Finally, it is mandatory to take into consideration that the results of the election were very much accepted in regard to the senators and the representatives, which were essentially the same as the results for the presidential election.
So wherefore was the election so controversial?
It was a very competitive election. Many people, including the former President, Vicente Fox Quesada, were very active. This may sound not understandable in democracies as that of the United States of America, where a very rough competition and the active presence of all the people, including the elected officers, is normal. But in Mexico, precisely rooted in the system “pre-original fraud”, this used to be not acceptable. According to the former presidential system, which inspired Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías’s twenty fist century socialism and other regimes; system that now seems to be even emulated, yearned and missed by the Mexican Supreme Court; according to that way of organization, the President used to not “objectively” participate, even the official candidate was de-facto selected and elected by pointing her and/or him with the finger.
Ergo, where does the problem start?
The problem emerged, notwithstanding it was not very democratic, in the instant the in-that-moment Mexican President, Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado, selected, pointed with his finger, Carlos Salinas de Gortari as the next President of Mexico, and failed to do so with the loser Cuauhtémoc Lázaro Cárdenas Solórzano, son of the so-called “nationalizations champion”, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz’s promoter, and, in Andres Manuel López Obrador’s perception, “one of the greatest Presidents in Mexican history”, Lázaro Cárdenas del Río, also known as the “Tata”. Thus, it is not a democratic problem, since both of the hypothetical candidates knew the system was not democratic at all, it is an egoistic problem, which persist and subsist, as we can see, with Andres Manuel López Obrador. And the problem are not the consequences, we know the consequences, just look out of your window at the Republic of Cuba, or the [through a fraudulent process, against humanity criminally imposed, and through a squared fraudulent process, against humanity criminally sustained, de-facto de-facto] ‘Bolivarian’ Republic of Venezuela or the Republic of Nicaragua; we know the consequences of that kind of “progressist” and “newfangled” regimes and/or revolutions. The problem is if Mexico, that has slowly, and yet with certain abuses and corruption; if Mexico that has advanced and is now a paradigm in many aspects; if Mexico is going to succumb to that low-vibrations discursive that is effective in intoxicating the people, even to the point where something that was made the law of the land by a regime, like the gender equivalence, is forgotten by the public opinion when it alludes that regime, and cheered when replicated by its critics.
In simple terms: they are not progressists or newfangled revolutionaries, they are manipulation experts, legitimacy leeches, who, sooner or later, end up like Fulgencio Nicolás Maduro Batista, son of Chávez, and expropriator and nationalizer apprentice. In other words, in order to know what its fruits will be, smart people need not to wait for a rotten seed to bloom. Is not an “if”, is a “when”. And if they lived in boats in the ocean, nobody will care, but a considerable amount of persons depend of that, and is now visible in the [through a fraudulent process, against humanity criminally imposed, and through a squared fraudulent process, against humanity criminally sustained, de-facto de-facto] ‘Bolivarian’ Republic of Venezuela, where so many people and so many neighbours, notwithstanding their ideologies and/or political affiliations, are being perturbed by those nationalizations paladins and legitimacy leeches, who, in fact, do outstand in manoeuvring the people’s low-vibrations.
As for the specifics of the 2006 Mexican general election, it is valid to state that the main problem arose when Andres Manuel López Obrador was “guided” through “tricky” questions to compare himself with a religious figure, what certainly awoke many deep feelings amongst the people.
Thence, going back to that general election, although such a fierce electoral contest was new, is just necessary to look to the coverage of it, to observe the ferocious competition was bilateral and equipoised; for example, Andres Manuel López Obrador, AMLO, was referred as “MALO*” (which means “bad*” in Spanish language) and Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa was referred to as “FECAL” (which means “feces” or “excrement” in Spanish language). Also, even the businesspeople’s confederations did make marketing warning their fears, the labour unions also publicized their views. Both sides attacks were, in sum, symmetrically responded. Howbeit, apropos the so-called “media veto”, is important to indicate the existence of media monitoring that with facts, disregarding that in some regions the favourable opinions where for one candidate, and in others, for other, and that the third place contestant coalition was the one that comprised the biggest political party; neglecting all that, the veto proves to be objectively false, as erroneous was the hereof alluded apparent intent and/or electoral tactic to question the polls before the actual results occurred, alleging he had ten points of advantage in regards to who later became the first place.
It is also important to bring up the fact that in his willingness to prima facie prove the fraud, Andres Manuel López Obrador said his representatives were traitors; misled and lied to the public opinion by presenting people as cheaters, when it was then proved they were just doing their job; and last but not least, he sent empty boxes “full” with all the evidence of the electoral fraud, what, by the way, was not solely a pretentious trap for fools, but an incident witnessed and authenticated by a public notary [yet latter, under his term and/or him saying zero, all the evidence of many sold companies was burnt, (as more than 300 people criminally against humanity alive, live, under the public concessions of the State, were burnt to death, in Tlahuelilpan, Hidalgo); all such evidence was burnt in a poorly safeguarded cellar in Monterey, Nuevo Leon].
After all that, Andres Manuel López Obrador, in the Zocalo of Mexico City, on November twenty, 2006, was declared the “legitimate president” of Mexico, ending his mandate, even if we need to attend article 39 of the actual Constitution of Mexico for secondary interpretation; especially since him, as Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías once did, promised not to be reelected or ratified; ending his mandate, thus, as stated in article 83 of the Constitution of Mexico, on November twenty, 2012.
Consequently, is up to those who did not vote or were not interested in the 2006 Mexican general election, in specific the alluded people of Jalisco, to reach their own conclusions and form their own particular judgment, however those persons perchance will find some inspiration in the [through a fraudulent process, against humanity criminally imposed, and through a squared fraudulent process, against humanity criminally sustained, de-facto de-facto] ‘Bolivarian’ Republic of Venezuela and its outstanding leader, Fulgencio Nicolás Maduro Batista, son of Chávez; in its seeds, in its fruits, and what will end up being its rhumb and/or its thumb.
Notice: however the actual façade reality might be, fails to be logically sound to state that Mexico will follow this or that country or ideology or form or style of government, etcetera, since, per example, the Mayan, Olmec or Aztec civilisations were in its soil long before that, for instance, José Julián Martí Pérez, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, Simón José Antonio de la Santisima Trinidad Bolívar Palacios Ponte y Blanco, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, Hernán Cortés de Monroy y Pizarro Altamirano, et alia.