[2][3] An outgrowth of the aftermath of the Cristero War and the disputes in Mexico over the introduction of Marxism into the state-ran education system, the organisation developed along staunch anti-communist lines, as well as positioning itself as opposed to what it claimed was a "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.

Like the communists who they opposed, Los TECOS developed a number of front groups, with mass membership (not bound by the oaths of the secret society), which it sought to control and direct from behind the scenes.

Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, were pioneers in forming the sedevacantism thesis, while El Yunque upheld the post-Concillar Vatican City-based claimants to the Papacy from Pope Paul VI onward as legitimate.

The origins of Los TECOS finds its roots most directly in the conservative and Catholic pushback to political developments in Mexico in the 1920s, which came to the fore in the Mexican Revolution, in the aftermath of the fall of the moderate liberal-regime of the Porfiriato period.

Although General Porfirio Díaz was a Freemason himself and adhered to Liberal Party positions, he did not actively enforce anticlericalism (even though this technically remained on the books), so as a compromise, his reign had been relatively tolerated by Mexican conservative elements.

[8] After radicals launched a coup known as the Plan of San Luis Potosí, which overthrew the moderate Díaz, some conservative opponents of the revolutionaries and politically active Catholics backed the rise of General Victoriano Huerta (who had been supported in this venture by the German Empire), but his reign was only short lived.

[9] After the increasingly radical anticlerical additions to the Mexican Constitution of 1917 which enforced secular education as mandatory, saw the state take control of Church property and made it a requirements for priests to register with local government authorities to operate, a Catholic backlash grew, which was centered on the ACJM.

The Cristeros, though in many ways traditionalist, were not purely reactionary, endorsing a social Catholicism based on Rerum novarum, which saw them gain support from some of the peasantry and indigenous communities in their revolt against the liberal and radical "masonic" ruling-class.

During the years of the Maximato, when Calles continued to control affairs behind the scenes, the PRI began to take a more socialist direction; in 1931, Narciso Bassols, an atheistic materialist, became the first Marxist to hold office in Mexico as the Secretary of Public Education.

With an anticlerical and anti-conservative speech entitled the Grito de Guadalajara, Calles openly announced a plan to enter a "psychological revolutionary period", where the state would take control of all education in Mexico to "seize the conscience of childhood" for the Revolution.

Although never a member of the Mexican Communist Party, Lombardo Toledano was nevertheless, strongly pro-Soviet and his Jewish ancestry was used by elements of the ultra-right as evidence of the Cárdenas regime being a "Judeo-Masonic-Communist" conspiracy and the Bolshevisation of Mexico as taking place.

[17] What he did there is clouded in mystery, but the Andersons and others have speculated that he was there, in contact with German agents, to potentially organise setting up a formation sympathetic to the Axis powers on the Rio Grande as an insurance policy against the United States.

In the early 1930s, the young Cuesta Gallardo had already been obsessed with the concept of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy and was a fan of literature to this effect from outside of Mexico, such as the International Jew by Henry Ford and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, likely by the Russian Okhrana, according to a contemporary Luis Calderón.

Julio Meinvielle, a Jesuit priest (they would go on to create in a few years time the Movimiento Nacionalista Tacuara), in addition to this, they built up connections with members of the Arab League, such as the Saudis, with whom they shared a mutual opposition to Zionism and an obsession with "Jewish conspiracies.

The biggest windfall was secured in 1962, according to Stefan Thomas Possony, who said that "after years of financial starvation, Guadalajara UAC received money from the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations as well as from the Agency for International Development (AID).

In October 1962, with the opening of the council, a document entitled Il Complotto contro la Chiesa ("The Plot Against the Church") under the pseudonym of Maurice Pinay was anonymously distributed to all attending, causing great controversy.

Leaño put forward the position of Los TECOS, proposing that they should all declare that the seat of St. Peter was now vacant, based on the claim that Paul VI (Giovanni Montini) was actually a "Jewish infiltrator"[a] and thus could not be a true Catholic Pope.

Specifically, this took place at Guadalajara during a number of secret sessions, chaired by Ku Cheng-Kang (the President of the World Anti-Communist League), José J. Roy, Raimundo Guerrero and Rafael Rodríguez López (the main leaders of FEMACO).

Due to rumours of the Mexican group's activities, the ACWF prepared an internal report, authored by Austrian-born American Stefan Thomas Possony, about Los TECOS control of CAL.

"[34] Seeking to distance themselves from Los TECOS in light of the report, without losing face politically, the ACWF adopted the following resolution worded by Reed Irvine, "Anti-Semitism is incompatible with enlightened, civilized conduct and we condemn the communist states for the practice of it.

However, the British representatives, the Foreign Affairs Circle under Geoffrey Stewart-Smith (a Member of Parliament and leading Conservative Monday Club figure) entered into a dispute about some of the characters who had been allowed to attend the Mexican-hosted conference, in particular Jesús Palacios Tapias, from the Barcelona-based CEDADE, who had appeared in uniform and stated that Marxism was simply a "tool to install the tyranny of the Jews.

[35] However, the Taiwanese generally allowed the local chapters to run their own affairs and thus did not interfere with the operations of CAL led by Los TECOS and in any case, had their own reservations about the sincerity of Anglo-American "anti-communism", appearing more irritated by Stewart-Smith's obstructionism.