Post: #51

Senor Travesty, you can google it for almost any product requiring advanced technology, it is right there, being made IN Mexico by Mexicans.

And Mexico could be in space already, but does it need to?

Emphatic NO.

The space race frenzy in your own country was started because you were surprised that the Soviets made a successful space journey with relatively ancient tech.

It is not esoteric. Anybody who wants to do it bad enough can do it.

Post: #52

Please take a step back and view the situation of what we are discussing here very objectively.
Taking many things said here very subjectively and very personal.

I don't think many men here would be able to grow if they got angered, offended or what have you at whatever harsh truth was being lobbed at them from all angles. I'm not saying enjoy what's being said but don't also defened as if what is being said is not the truth.

But to me if I was raised around drugs, gangs and whatever else I too would probably join in. I was never exposed to it so can't comment if I really would have shied away. I'd like to think I would have been smart enough to become the engineer I am today while consistently being exposed to that "culture".
But keep that shit in Mexico. Though I know all that riff-raff isn't endemic only to Mexico I do take a stance on the riff raff in that their is enough of that in MY OWN COUNTRY, therefore why import more of it?!
Like Heartiste says: Import the 3rd world and your country will become 3rd world.

Post: #53

Senor Estraudi, what I say here, I say with due respect to everyone.

If Americanos stop wanting drugs, Mexicanos will stop supplying it. The drug lords will become comedians and back up dancers.

Market Economics 101.

Its that simple.

And truth?? Is that not a subjective thing????

Post: #54

What about MASA?



Again, it's cultural differences. I love Mexico too, been there several times. It would be a different culture if it went the route of the USA, but it didn't. It missed out on the innovation of the enlightenment. It's cool though, I think we are about to see more prosperity in Mexico because Trump is going to succeed with America. We can be good, prosperous neighbors with a nice big fence.

(02-16-2017 02:28 PM)Travesty Wrote:  Facts are facts IQs are IQs.

People get emotional and hate that argument because you can say "I love their people", "Their culture is not at fault', XYZ reason - you can't get around low intelligence and its effects.

Corruption and slow developing societies are the result of not enough high intelligently population in proportion to steer the country in the right direction.

Here is a great test for a country's potential of success:

Say outloud: "Mexican Spaceship"

Try to do it without laughing or smiling a bit on the inside.

Say outloud any country with Spaceship after...

American Spaceship - it works
Japanese Spaceship - I don't laugh
French Spaceship...
Swiss Spaceship...
British Spaceship...
German Spaceship...
Chinese Spaceship...

Ok ok now say "Somali Spaceship". Don't smile when you say it.

Post: #55

(02-16-2017 03:08 PM)El Padrone Wrote:  Senor Estraudi, what I say here, I say with due respect to everyone.

If Americanos stop wanting drugs, Mexicanos will stop supplying it. The drug lords will become comedians and back up dancers.

Market Economics 101.

Its that simple.

And truth?? Is that not a subjective thing????

So what you're saying is that if Americans finally quit using drugs that Mexicanos WOULD DEFINITELY stop farming and creating drugs?! Where is the logic in that!?
The drug lords are drug lords because that was the culture and has been the culture for a great amount of time. So what if Americans have a drug necessity?! Blaming Americans for Mexico's drug culture sounds like a huge disinhibitor of sorts.
Mexico would export and does export to other countries no doubt about that.
A wall would be a physical barrier, yes, that would help funnel people to border checkpoints and utilize checkpoints as an entryway to OUR country.

Will it stop all drug and human traffic?! Who knows, but why not take a shot and attempt to put an end to the lawlessness that is illegal immigration?!
We as a country have a right to do so and no amount of pontificating about mexico's issues and problems stemming from the american side will help one bit.
Your country is what it is, clearly that much is evident.
Our country is trying to correct the wrong path of many issues that has led us astray and one of those issues is creating and propping up much of mexico's economy. That has to stop. We will start with a wall and proceed from there.

Post: #56

Estraudi, If there's no demand, there will be no supply. How can you not see the LOGIC in that????

Also you're ignorant. Mexicans don't make most of the good stuff they export to you. They IMPORT them for RE EXPORT because YOU WANT IT AND WOULD PAY FOR IT.

How can you not see the logic in that?

There is no ''drug lord culture''. What the hell is that?? Drug trafficking involves people working with people in a heirarchy.

How is that different from your proud as peacocks corporations???

Repeat after me- if you stop buying, traffickers will go to school for their Masters in Finance.
America props up Mexico's economy??

You're very ignorant in extremis. I can't believe it.

Post: #57

One of the great things about this board is how you can learn from people who have more firsthand experience in an area than you do. When I originally posted in this thread, I thought that Mexicans as a people had made some bad choices, and who were now going to have to suffer the consequences from them. El Padrone has shown me, however, that I was very wrong.

After reading his posts I now know that Mexicans live in an extremely advanced, spaceflight-capable manufacturing society. According to him, there are factories Mexicans can work at making "any product requiring advanced technology".

But he also tells me that Mexicans spurn these jobs and join the drug lords because they think it's the only way to get "money, pretty buchones, cars, houses and power." According to him, they'd rather spread misery and death, both in the United States and their own country, than try to acquire wealth honestly.

If what he says is true, then Mexicans are MONSTERS!

I trust El Padrone's opinion on Mexico far more than I do my own. He's clearly an expert on the country in ways that I'm not. If he says that Mexicans are a terrible, wicked people, who'll spurn honest work in search of a quick path to "pretty buchones" and "power", then I believe him. I thank him for opening my eyes to this, and showing me that Mexico and its people were far worse than I imagined.

I think the only solution to dealing with the awful place El Padrone describes is to make the wall ten feet higher. And maybe not put any gates on it.

Post: #58

(02-16-2017 04:09 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  One of the great things about this board is how you can learn from people who have more firsthand experience in an area than you do. When I originally posted in this thread, I thought that Mexicans as a people had made some bad choices, and who were now going to have to suffer the consequences from them. El Padrone has shown me, however, that I was very wrong.

After reading his posts I now know that Mexicans live in an extremely advanced, spaceflight-capable manufacturing society. According to him, there are factories Mexicans can work at making "any product requiring advanced technology".

But he also tells me that Mexicans spurn these jobs and join the drug lords because they think it's the only way to get "money, pretty buchones, cars, houses and power." According to him, they'd rather spread misery and death, both in the United States and their own country, than try to acquire wealth honestly.

If what he says is true, then Mexicans are MONSTERS!

I trust El Padrone's opinion on Mexico far more than I do my own. He's clearly an expert on the country in ways that I'm not. If he says that Mexicans are a terrible, wicked people, who'll spurn honest work in search of a quick path to "pretty buchones" and "power", then I believe him. I thank him for opening my eyes to this, and showing me that Mexico and its people were far worse than I imagined.

I think the only solution to dealing with the awful place El Padrone describes is to make the wall ten feet higher. And maybe not put any gates on it.

   

Post: #59

SamuelBRoberts I was trying to piece together the logic as to why Mexicans feel the need to send vague threats to Americans regarding the border wall.

After all, if it is the closest thing to the garden of Eden since original sin, with technology 30 years ahead of ours, why do they care if they can come here?

Your reading comprehension is greater than mine, as you were able to interpret the answer: the absolute wickedness of the Mexican people.

Apparently killing and poisoning people in the United States is a far more attractive lifestyle then picking up a book, or hammer, or in general breaking a sweat.

Post: #60

(02-16-2017 04:09 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  One of the great things about this board is how you can learn from people who have more firsthand experience in an area than you do. When I originally posted in this thread, I thought that Mexicans as a people had made some bad choices, and who were now going to have to suffer the consequences from them. El Padrone has shown me, however, that I was very wrong.

After reading his posts I now know that Mexicans live in an extremely advanced, spaceflight-capable manufacturing society. According to him, there are factories Mexicans can work at making "any product requiring advanced technology".

But he also tells me that Mexicans spurn these jobs and join the drug lords because they think it's the only way to get "money, pretty buchones, cars, houses and power." According to him, they'd rather spread misery and death, both in the United States and their own country, than try to acquire wealth honestly.

If what he says is true, then Mexicans are MONSTERS!

I trust El Padrone's opinion on Mexico far more than I do my own. He's clearly an expert on the country in ways that I'm not. If he says that Mexicans are a terrible, wicked people, who'll spurn honest work in search of a quick path to "pretty buchones" and "power", then I believe him. I thank him for opening my eyes to this, and showing me that Mexico and its people were far worse than I imagined.

I think the only solution to dealing with the awful place El Padrone describes is to make the wall ten feet higher. And maybe not put any gates on it.

I think a more articulate Mexican should provide his perspective on why that place is in such deep trouble. El Padrone's made the mistake of getting triggered and there went his arguments. He shouldn't have gotten emotional and could have provided a more thought out answer. Mexico has contributed a lot to the world, just as there are lots of outstanding Mexicans in nearly every field, from sports to medicine. He could have made a better case by listing those accomplishments.

There's a more nuanced answer to this. Mexicans aren't a monolith, just like not every American conforms to the stereotype of an arrogant boor who thinks the rest of the world ain't shit.

Regarding the border wall, it's seen as a rejection of Mexico and the Mexican people in general. Of course, that's inaccurate (it's about security for the US), but the Mexicans are a very proud people who love their country, fucked up as it may be. I don't think anyone actually expected them to answer: "Yessss meester Trump, we'll pay for your wall, hoow much?"

I'm not defending Mexico (I'll leave that to the Mexicans) or making any excuses for them, I just think some perspectives in here are very simplistic, on both sides of the argument.

Post: #61

Well, I have read your arguments and if you think that Mexico is collapsing you're wrong. Mexico was collapsing in 2008, now is a little bit better however that's difficult to understand.

I spent ~10 years in Mexico and know the place fairly well, I know people that were kidnapped, killed, everything in between. So, no, it's not a safe place, however, under any metric, Mexico is better right now than 20 years ago:

11th largest GDP in the world by PPP, per capita is worse, 65th. Economically the problem with Mexico is inequality and distribution. The dominant class is the same as 200 years ago: European descendants, the more amerindian you get, the more poor, the correlation is almost 1

Continuing with the economy, Mexico decided in the 90s to become a manufacturer to the US and the world, by opening its economy Mexico lost its agriculture but won several direct investments in the manufacturing sector, that's why Mexico is right now the most diversified economy in Latin America, people praise Brazil which is a complete commodity exporter but ignore Mexico...really?

I think that El Padrone referred to Mexico as an specialized manufacturer because it is the sixth largest electronics exporter in the world after the US, China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan; and the fourth largest exporter of cars.

Snapshot of Mexico exports:


The problem with Mexico is that it is a pure assembler and not a creator of technology.

So in conclusion, Mexico economy is a tale of two worlds: world class companies that compete at a big level (America Movil, Bimbo, among others) with microenterprises that are some of the least productive in the world. McKinsey wrote something around that story:
http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/am...wo-mexicos

Just FYI, people in Mexico do not dream anymore to move to the US, that's a blatant lie, at all levels. I had the opportunity to talk to a lot of students that come to the US and just 5/80 wanted to make a career here, all of them wanted to come back, they knew that hard work/cost of living in Mexico for a foreign educated person was a better deal than staying here.

For the poor people who used to emigrate illegally, that trend is also reversing:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mexican-imm...1447954334

I had the opportunity to collaborate with an NGO that tackled this topic and most migrants say that they have family over here (US) but do not want to leave as they children are now getting educated, have friends and access to internet, shit like that. Most illegal migrants to the US are now from Central America.

Now let's move to the violence side. Mexico is a violent country, yes. Most of the violence comes from narcos and petty crime, yes. But Mexico is a huge country, narcos do not have a big battle in the center of Mexico City, however, there are some parts of Mexico that are under complete narco control (Tamaulipas, Guerrero) but there are less states under narco control than a few years ago (Coahuila is an example of a recovered state). Mexico has a homicide rate of low 20s, comparable to that of Brazil, and I never see articles saying that Brazil is a failed state...

The problem as you guys say is that Narcos control lots of politicians and the economy, yep, that's true, what happened with Mexico is that it was under total presidential control before 2000 -- this huge aparatus worked just fine: the president controlled the states, the narcos, the "municipios" (counties), the press, it was an oiled machine that worked under a single party (a little like the Chinese?) But, democracy, that bitch...so there was a new party at the presidential level and in some states but the older party (PRI, 71 years in power) dominated most of the states and almost all the counties so chaos ensured, narcos got out of control, the press too and that's where violence ensured.

I will not get into the debate of supply and demand as its a philosophical discussion. Gringos consume more drugs than anyone and Mexico supplies it, yeah, that's true. Becoming a narco in a country with low opportunities is a high risk/high return, yep, true as well. There are few opportunities in Mexico, true as well.

But saying that the country is a complete chaos, a failed state and that every kid dreams to move to the US and learn English is a misconceived view of the neighbor down south.

My conclusion is that institutions are fragile, there's corruption everywhere and everyone looks just for themselves, however that's changing little by little. The average Mexican is not a bad person, is not educated, not the most intelligent, but it is hardworker at a certain level. The average Mexican does not dream with a Porsche, he just wants to provide for his family and be happy, not overly ambitious, but, is that bad?

The wall will not do anything to curtail drug and money flow, but every country is free of doing whatever it wants.
If you guys want to discuss Mexico's problems in a civil discussion I'm happy to do it.

Post: #62

(02-16-2017 02:55 PM)El Padrone Wrote:  Senor Travesty, you can google it for almost any product requiring advanced technology, it is right there, being made IN Mexico by Mexicans.

And Mexico could be in space already, but does it need to?

Emphatic NO.

The space race frenzy in your own country was started because you were surprised that the Soviets made a successful space journey with relatively ancient tech.

It is not esoteric. Anybody who wants to do it bad enough can do it.

No, Mexico could not be in space already.

Fixing potholes comes before putting men in space.

There's an order to these things.

Mexicans do a lot of things well, like getting fat, producing blindly patriotic people, and blaming their problems on everyone but themselves, but being orderly isn't something they do well, and that's a prerequisite for a space program.

Could Mexico launch a space program?

Sure.

And the ship would most likely blow up at launch, if it ever gets launched. Most likely the funds would be diverted for hookers, blow, and mistresses for a politician.

There's some on-point Mexicans, but by and large, they aren't setting the agenda or implementing it.

That could change in the future, and I hope it does, but things could also just get worse.

Post: #63

(02-16-2017 07:47 PM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  Mexicans do a lot of things well, like getting fat, producing blindly patriotic people, and blaming their problems on everyone but themselves,

Sounds familiar...

Post: #64

(02-16-2017 07:49 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 07:47 PM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  Mexicans do a lot of things well, like getting fat, producing blindly patriotic people, and blaming their problems on everyone but themselves,

Sounds familiar...

Haha, neighbors tend to be alike!

Post: #65

(02-16-2017 07:33 PM)Gunner Wrote:  Well, I have read your arguments and if you think that Mexico is collapsing you're wrong. Mexico was collapsing in 2008, now is a little bit better however that's difficult to understand.
....

...there are some parts of Mexico that are under complete narco control (Tamaulipas, Guerrero)...

...

But saying that the country is a complete chaos, a failed state and that every kid dreams to move to the US and learn English is a misconceived view of the neighbor down south.

"Parts of this country are actually run by drug cartels, not the government" is pretty much the definition of a failed state.

But putting that aside, what this analysis fails to take into account is the dependency of Mexico on the US, a country which is RAPIDLY turning against them. I'm not just talking about Trump. The mood of the American people is turning sour towards Mexico, and it's turning sour fast. Here's a story in the NYT today about Mexican farmers hauling heroin across the border because they want "cows or tractors, to finish a house, or simply to spend like kings for a while." I've been dealing with the tertiary effects of a heroin addict in my own life, and I can tell you that if I had that one of those farmers in front of me, he wouldn't leave the room alive. I can't even imagine how it's playing in the areas that are most devastated by the heroin epidemic. (Which, by the way, are the nation's most important swing states.)

Remember that Trump proposed a 20% tariff, and there's already been talks of a heavy tax on remittances as well. And that's just what we're opening with now. A few more years of Mexican illegals mocking our laws, Mexican heroin devastating our communities, and Mexican workers taking our jobs, and I can't even imagine what we'll see.

The Mexican government is already warning of a Venezuelan style collapse if the relatively minor things that Trump has suggested come to pass. And I've read multiple sources from Mexico saying that when the wall gets built, Cartel violence is going to massively increase as they fight over the fewer remaining paths into the US for their drugs. How well will Mexico's government react when its biggest trading partner is infuriated with it, and its cartels, which as you say are already in complete control in parts of the county, are forced to get even more violent?

If Mexico isn't collapsing now, it will be soon.

Post: #66

(02-16-2017 01:21 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 01:27 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  If the cartels are causing this much trouble, shouldn't Mexico WANT a wall and tripled border enforcement?

It sounds to me like they're willing to let their own country go to shit rather than lose the opportunity to take the US's money.

I'm not an expert, but there are positive sides to the cartels, which the U.S. media conveniently likes to keep quiet. How often do you hear about the cartels donating hospitals, funding roads, or any kind of philanthropy at all? Not very often and although I don't have an exact figure, I would say they contribute millions and millions of dollars toward positive causes. All that being said, the negative impact of the cartels far exceeds the positive impact and they need to go. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

What good are hospitals if the doctors don't leave their house because they are afraid of being kidnapped?

What good are hospitals if the doctors aren't there because they were held for ransom, their family paid the ransom, and the kidnappers threw the body in a ditch?

If someone shot your dad, raped your mom, illegally occupied the land you should have inherited in order to use it for their narco-business purposes, kidnapped you, then pimped you out or forced you to get high on meth in order to have the nerves to work as a child hitman, but then they built a hospital, we should give them good PR by covering for that?

The gentleman-narco is a myth, Merenguero.

Mexico can keep these "free" hospitals that are out there somewhere.

That wall's gotta get 20 feet higher.

Post: #67

Will Mexico still be a competitive destination to export these goods to the US once automation makes the need for low cost labor irrelevant? Add in cheap energy prices in the U.S. from fracking/alternatives and the political instability in Mexico and it doesn't seem like a great deal anymore to build a factory there. Sure, some companies are still tempted but in the long term I don't know.

Steve Sailer noted that Mexico basically is an amalgamation of native Indian descendants and Spanish descendants. The Spanish descendants still rule the country, and they push as much of the uneducated underclass into the US as possible to get rid of them and so that remittances can keep the poor in Mexico happy. Cut that off, and all of a sudden Mexico's poor aren't going to be too happy about their lack of economic opportunity.

About the grinding poverty crushing student's dreams? Give me a break. China, Korea, Taiwan, etc were all at one point FAR poorer than Mexico is but because they had cultures that valued education they realized that going to school was a better path to stable middle class wealth than becoming a gang banger.

Mexico remains in the pits when it comes to average student performance - just look at the recent PISA test:
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-resu...-focus.pdf

Tourism is unlikely to grow significantly, oil prices are low (and with electric vehicles around the corner, increasingly irrelevant) and remittances will likely be cut significantly. Trouble ahead.

Post: #68

(02-17-2017 05:27 AM)Arado Wrote:  China, Korea, Taiwan, etc were all at one point FAR poorer than Mexico is but because they had cultures that valued education they realized that going to school was a better path to stable middle class wealth than becoming a gang banger.

No no no again complete blue pill horse shit.

China, S.Korea, and Taiwan are all in the top 4 rankings for IQ (all 104+ average). They didn't realize shit because of culture. They are drastically (beyond drastically) smarter than Mexicans overall.

Mexico is way down the list at 88. I bet if you returned all the illegal immigrants or even legalized ones that are first generation born Americans, Mexico's average would go even lower & magically America's would raise! Can you believe it? Mexico is at the danger zone IQ level where you have just enough smart people to run large well organized crime syndicates and corruption with a shit load of dumb people to put up with it & couldn't figure out how to beat it if literally their lives depended on it!

Intelligence shapes culture. All nations with 100+ IQ averages are nothing like Mexico and will never be anything like Mexico. It has zero to do with taco bowls and tequila.

---

I think the sentiment in America is turning into, we have wealth and technology in the 21st century, and we are starting to look around have extreme intolerance for anyone that impedes tremendous progress for us - no longer caring for muh culture, muh feelings, muh history, muh abuela.

Saying this I would be the first to support a higher tax on myself and Americans if we got to a point where our military could clean up Mexico with little to zero loss of American life. Also would happily pay extra taxes to clean up and reshape Mexico once every cartel member and corrupt politician is gone with martial law instilled.

The vast majority of Mexicans are not to blame. They will just never have a solution on their own.

At this point though, no I would not want to risk American life trying to clean up Mexico and its problems. Hence why people like the idea of the wall at this point. We'll send the UFO drones with heat rays over to visit in a few decades.

Post: #69

(02-17-2017 11:21 AM)Travesty Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 05:27 AM)Arado Wrote:  China, Korea, Taiwan, etc were all at one point FAR poorer than Mexico is but because they had cultures that valued education they realized that going to school was a better path to stable middle class wealth than becoming a gang banger.

No no no again complete blue pill horse shit.

China, S.Korea, and Taiwan are all in the top 4 rankings for IQ (all 104+ average). They didn't realize shit because of culture. They are drastically (beyond drastically) smarter than Mexicans overall.

Mexico is way down the list at 88. I bet if you returned all the illegal immigrants or even legalized ones that are first generation born Americans, Mexico's average would go even lower & magically America's would raise! Can you believe it? Mexico is at the danger zone IQ level where you have just enough smart people to run large well organized crime syndicates and corruption with a shit load of dumb people to put up with it & couldn't figure out how to beat it if literally their lives depended on it!

Intelligence shapes culture. All nations with 100+ IQ averages are nothing like Mexico and will never be anything like Mexico. It has zero to do with taco bowls and tequila.

---

Come on, we're practically making the same argument. Culture and genetics/IQ feed into each other. If you read Nicholas Wade (genetics journalist)'s book A Troublesome Inheritance: Race, Genes, and Human History he talks a lot about how many cultural differences between societies are due to just slight genetic differences between the average citizen. I understand and accept the IQ argument, but I use the word "culture" because it works better in persuading blue pillers. Trust me, our society is NOT ready to accept the IQ argument. Perhaps after 8 years of Trump and genetic research permeating the media/internet, but not right now. Culture is the most tangible thing that people see on a daily basis, and as of now it's easier to make rather than the genetic argument.

All these East Asian countries have cultures that respect education because of their natural ability to do academics...or it could be the other way around. Many researchers suggest that for thousands of years, these civilizations selected advisors to the Emperor based on the confucian testing system. These advisors all had better lives and higher survival rates than peasants, so those test taking/academic abilities gradually permeated throughout the population, and, poof, you have the continued economic rise of East Asia that we see today.

In fact, the PISA tests that Asian countries routinely top are pretty parallel to IQ results around the world.

Post: #70

There is no argument to be made that the US should prop up Mexico to avoid it becoming a failed state. The more aid that is given the less responsibility the locals will take for their own plight and the more corruption will ensue to hoover up the easy money.

There are a million analogies for it, probably the most common one being that of the person that provides all the living expenses for an alcoholic, ostensibly to better that person on the assumption that one they have a nice suit, apartment, food, water, electricity etc that a switch will flip in their minds and they'll turn their life around.

The reality of course is that the uncomfortable alcoholic simply becomes a comfortable alcoholic.

This is not only relevant for the US's international outlook but also for the one it has at home, subsidising the stupidity of large portions of its people on various pretexts, all of which have been incredibly destructive in the long run.

The Wall™ and its attendant foreign policy is the last chance the US has to escape the black hole gravitational suck of the welfare vote. It's miraculous in the sense that I though the US was already too far gone, but here we are. The Wall™ is actually the only way for the US to AVOID the greatest level of bloodshed, because understand this for a FACT that failure to de-Mexicanise the US WILL result in the biggest civil war the world has ever seen.

I feel bad for Mexicans but they have to deal with their own problems, and the best thing the US can do for them is to force them to stand on their own two feet.

Post: #71

Sort of related, but John T. Reed posted up a sparring match he had on Faecebook, the subject being the curious inability of Latin America and Africa to pull themselves out of the shit...

http://johntreed.myshopify.com/blogs/joh...-or-africa

Why no Disneyland in Latin America or Africa?

Danilo Josue reposts one of Reed's posts...

Quote:Post from John T. Reed about politico-cultural differences between Anglos and Latin-Americans written in his brash style. However, the great Simon Bolivar beat him to the post 202 years ago.
No need to get angry but self awareness is the beginning of change.

"The Economist magazine has a Big Mac index for comparing price levels and ascertaining whether a currency is under or over valued. A Disneyland test similarly occurs to me.

You can tell where the nice continents are in the world by where Disney puts its “lands.” There are six: Anaheim, Orlando, Paris, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. Why none in Latin America or Africa? Because those continents suck. There are none in Australia or Antarctica because they don’t have a large enough population.

I have long been intrigued by the existence of two whole continents that stumble incompetently through the centuries. Africa and Latin America are not the same. Africa is endless brutal tribal wars. Latin America never has wars. I think two countries down there now have no militaries. The rest should get rid of them. All they do is suppress their own people.

There is an elephant in the room with regard to Latin America. Tucker Carlson talked about it tonight, but the media and politicians rarely do. The reason we have something like 5 million illegal Latinos in America is Latin America sucks. And why is that? It’s not lack of natural resources or land or bad weather. What is the difference? Latin America is run by Latin Americans; America, by Anglos and various others including some Latinos.

People accuse Trump and others of racism because they want to stop illegal immigration and deport illegals, who are apparently disproportionately Latino. But what strikes me as more racist is people leaving their native land because of who runs it. Trump may want to deport illegals because he is obligated to do so under the Constitution. It’s the law of the land. But I don’t think the Latinos sneaking into the US are looking for colder weather.

Some would say they want jobs. So get a job in Mexico. There aren’t enough there? Whose fault is that? Fix it. What’s different about Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California from the northern states of Mexico? Nothing but the laws and the people. So change the laws. Just copy ours. They are not copyrighted. And to the people down there: Clean up your act.

Stop complaining about racism on the part of Americans when your very presence in America is a far more profound denunciation of the people Latin America." John T. Reed.

Josue went on to add this:



""Those institutions which are perfectly representative are not adequate to our character, customs, and present light ... As long as our compatriots do not acquire the political talents and virtues of our brothers to the North, those systems entirely popular, far from being favorable to us, will become our ruin I am afraid ... We are dominated by the vices that are contracted under the direction of a nation like Spain, which has only distinguished itself in ruthlessness, ambition, vengeance and envy." Simon Bolivar. (Letter From Jamaica 1815)

A young SJW named Yaser Martinez Palenzuela came in with the usual passive-aggressive...

Quote:"But what strikes me as more racist is people leaving their native land because of who runs it"
Now try to follow that logic from the perspective of native americans, does that mean that all current "anglos" are "racists" and should be deported back to England, Ireland, etc?

John Reed's reply?

Quote:Racism is not grounds for deportation. My European ancestors came here legally. Some fled a potato famine. They were joining fellow Brits in America in a still British system of government, not hoping for a “path to citizenship” in, say, the Cherokee Nation (the tribe of one of my ancestors).

The strength of America and other former British colonies—Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.—is the preservation of Anglo laws and customs.

Palenzuela implies my post is inaccurate. But conspicuous by its absence is her alternative explanation as to why the net flow of immigrants is from South of the border to north and not the other way around. What do the immigrants get in the North that is not available in the South.

I was not aware of Bolivar’s comment, but I am aware that he was a South American hero, not just another observer of the scene.

I will offer another explanation that I credit Daniel Hannan for. Latin America is Catholic, a top-down religion. North of the Rio Grande is Protestant, a bottom-up (more democratic) religion. But there must be another factor because although Catholic southern Europe lags behind Protestant northern Europe economically and in other ways, the disparity is greater in the Western Hemisphere.

A difference between southern Europe and south of the Rio Grande is a higher average incidence of Native American DNA than in North America. The Caribbean has a higher incidence of African DNA.

The extreme backwardness of Africa and Latin America compared to North America need to be explained by someone. I am not sure I know.

Actions speak louder than words. If North Americans are racist toward Latino Americans, why are you coming here? What are you running away from? What are you getting here that is not available in your native country? And why is it not available there?

SJW realises he's in the shit, tries to deflect:

Quote:I didn't mean that they should be deported because they are racist. My point is that by your logic if people leaving their native land are racist that would make all anglo-immigrants including some who signed the constitution racist too.

Reed comes back:

Quote:Show of hands of how many reading this think Anglo immigrants to America (mine came in the 1600s and the late 1800s) came here to get away from a nation populated by Anglos because it was populated by Anglos.

I think it had more to do with a new frontier, land, lack of mobility between classes, monarchy, religious persecution, none of which apply to Latin Americans sneaking into the US..

Still waiting for the explanation as to why Latin America and Africa are permanent basket cases millions of whose native-born people can’t wait to flee.

The SJW tries passive-aggressive "Wow just wow":

Quote:So you are saying the reasons Anglo immigrants had to flee their land are just and noble while the reasons why latin people flee their land make them sneaky and racist. Now I get it.

Reed's not having it:

Quote:Still waiting for you to tell us the noble reasons why Latinos are so eager to leave Latin American countries to go live with Gringoes who hate them for racist reasons. Why are you here instead of me being there?

SJW reveals himself as an idiot European, probably in Spain:

Quote:You would have to ask Danilo Josué about that because I don’t live there in the US. I am actually confused about my own situation and was hoping you could help. A couple generations ago my ancestors left Europe to go to America as it was called at the time. Like your ancestors they entered legally because fortunately some europeans before them had already took the land from the natives so there were no traces left of the old native law. A couple years ago I decided to leave my land and come back to Europe, the birthplace of my ancestors. I was wondering how I and my ancestors fare in the "sneaky and racist" department? Are we 2x more racist because we left lands two times?

Danilo Josue comes in:

Quote:I think that taking the heart of the argument from John T. Reed and Simon Bolivar's letter we get the obvious truth that cultures are objectively different and that those differences matter. And that the socio-político-economic-religious culture of the English speaking colonies and the countries that evolved from them are superior to their Spanish counterparts on the aggregate when it comes to provide an environment that is conducive to individual freedom, equality under the law and economic and political participation.

Because of this tacit acknowledgment of cultural superiority when it comes to systems of laws and freedom of opportunity disadvantaged Latin Americans and others flee their own land while disadvantaged Americans do not flee to those Latin America countries.

John Reed, makes what I take to be a tongue in cheek remark interjecting "racism" (an inaccurate term) to describe the rejection of Latin American migrants of their own Latin American political leadership and politico-economic culture. However, the left uses the same equivocation of terms using "racism" to refer to any cultural criticism.

The same I said for Latin American countries goes for African and Native American culture.

Finally, claims that treat native Americans in the XV and XVI centuries and European colonizers as if their situation and legal standing and national organization was the same as Nazi Germany invading France during WWII or Russia invading Crimea two years ago are ludicrous and an oxymoron devoid of historical context.

Reed replies:

Quote:Wow! Danilo. Very astute and objective.

I give up on getting the lady with too many names to explain as you did why Latin Americans have come into the land of the gringo racists by the millions. She won’t because she can’t without admitting I got it right.

She is real fond of the word sneaky. People who come into the US by walking through the border guard checkpoint and giving the guard the finger are not sneaky. The approximately 6 million illegals did not do that. They either lied on a visa application or hid in the trunk of a car or walked across a remote border when they thought no one was looking.

Sneaked is the verb.

I think the Europeans who colonized America would have been glad to pay the Indians for land. They did in Manhattan. But the Indians were so hopelessly backward—stone age literally—and their way of organizing society—acquisition of territory by conquest, no division of labor, hunter-gatherer the only occupation—was so ridiculous that the Europeans treated it as they would treat a small child’s suggestions on government policy.

The Disney depiction of Indians as better than us on nature and living a different but equal culture is absurd. Want proof? Go find an Indian who lives that “way of life” today. They denounce us but imitate us about 99%—except for the occasional head band to get tenure as a college professor.

The Stone Age ended in the Eastern Hemisphere between 8700 and 2000 BC. When the Europeans arrived in America in 1492, they had finished with the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age and recorded history, Classical Antiquity, Post-Classical antiquity, and the Middle Ages. They were just entering the Renaissance and Age of Discovery. The Stone Age did not end in the Western Hemisphere until the whites appeared on the horizon in intercontinental sailing ships armed with cannons and blunderbuses.

The Indians acquired their land by conquest like some sort of street gangs without streets. When the Europeans offered money, they got blank stares in return. So they switched to the Indian’s way of acquiring land: conquest.

All the whining by three-names lady about conquest is because the darling of the liberals underdog Native Americans started losing. They were just fine with conquest as long as they were the conquerors. Then, when the Europeans came along and defeated the Indians easily with superior weapons, organization, and unwitting germ warfare, the Indians and their liberal benefactors have whined about the immorality of acquisition of land by conquest.

Before the Europeans got here, Indians got their land and other things by stealing, murder, and kidnapping. Europeans figured the land in America was not owned by anyone as far as they could tell. Nothing but a bunch of nomadic aborigines murdering each other then murdering the whites. So they staked their claim on unmarked land then defended it as the Indians did not or did not effectively.

Whites are accused of using germ warfare against the Indians, like giving them germ-infested blankets.

Uh, the whites did not know there was such a thing as a microscopic pathogen until the 1880s. They arrived in the New World in 1492 and started having trouble with the Indians almost immediately. True, the Indians died in great numbers from the white men’s germs, but that was when the white men were too ignorant to know of the existence of germs.

The problem was the Indians immune systems sucked. Why? They did not get out much. The whites had been world travelers or at least Eastern Hemisphere travelers for millennia. The immune systems of the whites were quite robust because of being exposed to all the pathogens in the Eastern Hemisphere. We had sailing ships and navigation by stars and shooting the sun with sextants (starting in the early 1700s). The Indians had canoes. Their immune systems probably had never been exposed to any pathogens more that 100 miles from their birthplaces.

Josue:

Quote:Actually, the reason for the immune deficiency is geography. The Americas run from north to south (just like Africa) and Eurasia runs from East to West. Crops and animals run in the same climate from east to west but not north to south. The pathogens brought by the conquistadors were in the farm and domestic animals. The horse, the dog, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc. These animals are the source for the chicken pox, flu and many other pandemics. The majority of the conquistadors were immune to the majority of these plagues (being the descendants of the survivors of Europeans plagues for Millenia including the bubonic plague) while the Indians were not. It has not much to do with not traveling far but being completely isolated for 10,000 years from, other than the Andean Llama, what we know as farm and domesticated animals.

Reed:

Quote:They isolated themselves from the animals. Because they were not the brightest bulbs on the human tree. Why did the Indians not discover Europe first? Why did they not go back to Russia at Christmas and Thanksgiving and notice the farm animals and bring them back to the Americas?

They were less bright, less inquisitive. How come the Europeans figured out to domesticate all sorts of animals but the Indians did not? Less bright. The use of animals was not given to the Eastern hemisphere nor denied the Western hemisphere. Both groups had equal chance to figure out domestication. One did. The other did not. No isolation involved.

Speaking of domestic animals, I love how Indians are so much associated with horses and horsemanship. They never laid eyes on a horse until the White men brought them to America. Then the Indians rode bareback in spite of seeing the white men attacking them or being attacked by them using saddles and stirrups to fight from horseback. Wikipedia says, “The stirrup, which gives greater stability to a rider, has been described as one of the most significant inventions in the history of warfare, prior to gunpowder.” The Indians did not even adopt the stirrup when it was being used against them.

Josue, this time getting hilarious:

Quote:Also Yaser Martínez Palenzuela is a he. ? Another example that culture is not tied to race is the English speaking Caribbean islands, who are mostly populated by black, are more stable in their socio-politico-economic- development than their Spanish and French counterparts in the Caribbean.

I think this goes all the way back to the enlightenment and Southern Europe's heavy cultural inheritance of the Roman Empire. But that is another conversation.

Reed finishes the fucker off:

Quote: I must have confused him with Miranda Veracruz de la Hoya Cardinal. He talks like a girl.
Signed, Juan Teodoro Ricardo Reedo

Well worth the read and absorption.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #72

Brutal.

Post: #73

^^ Indeed. The fact is that when guys like us boil the matter down and put it into a single sentence or two, you start to see that all the responses to it are nothing but excuse after excuse after excuse.

It's like dealing with children who didn't do their homework.

Why not?

"Because the dog ate it."

Why didn't you lock up the dog?

"Because he keeps the cat in check"

Why didn't you lock up the cat?

"Because he keeps the mice in check."

Why didn't you kill the mice?

"Wow. En serio? You hate mice and cats and dogs and children! You are a horrible person!"

No. I just want you to do your fucking homework.

Post: #74

(02-16-2017 03:08 PM)El Padrone Wrote:  Senor Estraudi, what I say here, I say with due respect to everyone.

If Americanos stop wanting drugs, Mexicanos will stop supplying it. The drug lords will become comedians and back up dancers.

Market Economics 101.

Its that simple.

And truth?? Is that not a subjective thing????

You're joking right? I hope you are at least. Perhaps this is some subtle SA humour I'm not aware of.

Hoping groups of people in a large population don't want drugs is living in Disney Land. They will always find people to buy their poison and if not existing drugs today, then they will create other drugs to get new customers tomorrow.

Did blood thirsty conquerors become sated when they conquered? Or did they keep going until they were beaten?

Post: #75

People talk about cartels and immediately it's all about drugs, as if they do nothing else other than produce and sell narcotics.

The reality is that they engage in every illegal money making racket there's a name for, and probably even some there aren't names for at all. If the drug trade vanished tomorrow you could sadly be assured that they would double down on kidnapping, gambling, blackmail, extortion and prostitution (of every sick variety imaginable), selling stolen goods along with good old robbery and murder-for-hire.

Vanish the drug trade and you would immediately see a sudden surge in violence south of the border. How long it would take to diminish, if indeed it ever would, is anyone's guess.