Post: #76

Funny thing about that mention about the natives never having seen a horse. Not true!

I went to a dinosaur museum in southern Alberta, in the badlands. Can't remember the name. One of the exhibits was about the North American horse. Apparently it had been hunted to extinction before the white man arrived.

ONE WITH NATURE YOU GUYS.

Post: #77

(02-18-2017 09:26 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  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.

Drugs are their main product. Only a limited amount of girls and women you can traffick and men you can kidnap before sawing their heads off out of boredom.

New drugs means new customers.

Yes they will double down on kidnappings and extortion but then you'd move onto other tactics to counter it. Mexico has a military, the military has guns, APCs and marines.

Kill the cartels and destroy anyone who comes close to making another. The reason they don't do it is because there is no will, corrupt people on powerful positions and the results would be horrific.

Post: #78

What you'd see there is something to the effect of a guerrilla war or even civil war that the media would go to great lengths to label as anything other than what it was.

Why? The cartels know that if the government ever went balls-to-the-wall to wipe them out then there would be no surrendering. Meanwhile the government seems to have a shortfall of forces to take all the cartels on at once.

Ergo if the cartels got wind of a plan for total warfare against them then there would be no reason not to go on the offensive. Having said that, I struggle to think of another nation on earth that has such a massively funded, wide reaching and ruthlessly violent paramilitary group embedded in every strata of their society.

Getting rid of the cartels via military force would be like trying to operate on a patient with chronic stage 4 cancer.

Hell, if the cartels lose their number one source of income they might just look at taking the whole enchilada and deciding that the only acceptable replacement for their riches is literally the state of Mexico itself.

That's not to say I think they should be accommodated. They need to be crushed, but there are realities in play here that have to be accepted.

Post: #79

If I would be mexican. The first thing I would do would be to legalize and organize drugs producing only for exporting. It´s not Mexico problem. It´s US problem to ensure it´s not bought. There´s a demand. And Mexico can fullfill it producing the drugs they want. Mexicans should legally produce all type of drugs. Since it´s a sovereign state. The income from this production would be brutal. Probably the biggest industry in the country.

At some point Escobar offered to pay the national debt of Colombia. The english did the same to the chinese.

Post: #80

^How are you going to move it north?

If the Mexican government itself openly flaunted US drug laws then the US would be left with little choice but to roll south and install a more suitable government.

Post: #81

Pretty funny idea Troller even though it would never happen. I actually read a while back that North Korea actually produces meth and exports it along with giving it to it's people so they can work harder, and to supplement proper medical care. Any country that would do such a thing would quickly be labeled a rogue state and dealt with quickly especially if they share a border with the US.

Post: #82

Full disclosure - I'm mestizo but i'm not ethnically mexican.

Isn't it common knowledge that the CIA, which operates for the deep state, runs firearms and drugs across the border? (Most likely to FUND their Black Projects)

Sure Mexico is in a rough spot, but there are more factors in play than just the narco culture and a seemingly complacent population..

Post: #83

(02-19-2017 05:31 AM)Matrixdude Wrote:  Full disclosure - I'm mestizo but i'm not ethnically mexican.

Isn't it common knowledge that the CIA, which operates for the deep state, runs firearms and drugs across the border? (Most likely to FUND their Black Projects)

Sure Mexico is in a rough spot, but there are more factors in play than just the narco culture and a seemingly complacent population..

Yes Operation Fast and Furious revealed that the USG was somehow involved in running weapons across the border- one of which was later used to kill a US Border Patrol agent.

I don't remember all the details but it was shady as fuck.

Post: #84

^Something along the lines of a Narco Captain who got caught in the US but then revealed that he was immune because he was a CIA asset

Post: #85

The United States in no way, shape or form, prop up Mexico to prevent it from becoming a "failed" state. Any efforts to "prop" up anything in Mexico will just be another power grab by the corrupt leaders all the way at the top. How did that Arab Spring turn out for us? How about "supporting" "moderate" Islam "freedom fighters"? Enough with the bullshit. If Mexico wants (or is capable) of fixing its own problems, let them fix them. It is actually quite racist to suggest the white man (America) has to fix the brown man's (Mexico) problems. We've seen time and again that Mexicans (on average) are just fine with corruption, as long as they are on the take. I lived in Chicago for several years, I know the culture of corruption when I see it. If you want all of America to resemble the violent, corrupt bloodbath that is Chicago, please import more Mexicans with a chip on their shoulder and no marketable job skills.

In happy news, Trump's DHS just announced hiring 10,000 new border patrol agent job spots. The gangbangers need to be the first to go. Next, the welfare leeches. That's what I call progress.

Post: #86

Man, this is a fascinating thread. I appreciate that you all are challenging and disagreeing with each other because I would not have learned so much if only one perspective was dominant.

I can't contribute on the discussion of Mexico. I don't know much about it. I did want to speculate, if only to learn how I'm wrong, on a few things I know a few things about. If any of you HBD enthusiasts have a ready response to any of my points, good, help me flush these out.

(02-18-2017 12:47 PM)Malone Wrote:  Funny thing about that mention about the natives never having seen a horse. Not true!

I went to a dinosaur museum in southern Alberta, in the badlands. Can't remember the name. One of the exhibits was about the North American horse. Apparently it had been hunted to extinction before the white man arrived.

ONE WITH NATURE YOU GUYS.

Your post is a little bit of a distraction. By the time the natives saw a horse for the second time, they had long ago forgotten the horses their ancestors saw and killed off.

And yet, it's an important point. Too romanticize Native Americans gives them both too much credit, and too little credit. They get too much credit for being egalitarian, peaceful, environmental, spiritual, etc. They were not "at one with nature" - anthropologists speculate that they caused the desertification of the American southwest. Where a rich civilization (the Anasazi) had at one point developed, pointing towards some resource wealth in the region that was squandered leading to the collapse of the CIV. Others speculate that the natural state of North America at the time of colonization was only possible because nature had reclaimed land following the depopulation caused by those great plagues like smallpox.

They also get too little credit, because by the time the colonizers had arrived to North America, the population was decimated by diseases that had travelled from Mexico and had also been marinating for a few generations after Hernado de Soto's marauding army introduced the feral pigs to southeastern US. Just like everybody else, the natives found pigmeat to be irresistable and so gladly incorporated those delicious beasts and their diseases into their diet. By the time they figured it out, it was too late. Also, a lot of their smartest leaders would have been the first to be killed or enslaved by de Soto's men.

I do not have a unified theory of why NA intelligence is lower than white (I am only assuming this is a true statement). But as speculation, I offer an alternative theory: the Spaniards would have killed the elite leaders first and allowed their relatively dumb followers to remain as subjects. The spanish didn't colonize quite like the N Europeans did in North America, rather than displace they ruled over the natives.

My own idea on why the Natives didn't advance technology like the Europeans had: Religion. Long before the word Europe was known, it was called Christendom and was united under a common monotheistic religion which seems to be more stable than polytheism. European nobility could invest in their land with relatively less fear it may be burned down tomorrow (unless permission for war had been granted by a pope).

On genetics, this is a very young field, and one of the growing focuses of this field is the interplay between nature and nuture. Times of hardship and poverty imprint themselves on the DNA, becoming nature. I am not the right person to jump in depth on that subject.

Why canoes rather than roads and wheels? Perhaps because water travel was enough. The size of the Mississippi river basin allowed the greatest NA civilization in Cahokia to control a large portion of the US landmass by leveraging the mobility and trade routes of the river. Also, to dismiss as canoes is a little reductive. The Polynesians were able to create a great power with their navy, and the people of the pacific northwest had great war canoes that were much more seaworthy than modern canoes. The Unungan Kayaks were perfectly fitted to their use, and when the Aleuts were vassals of the Russians, they were known to travel in their kayaks as far as California to obtain furs for their overlords. Still, it is clear that European technology including navy was dominant at the time of contact.

I merely bring all these points up to show the other side of the coin: the technologies and empires of Native America are given short thrift because we romanticize them as simple people living in trees and skin huts. Certainly many of them did, but at times, those nomadic natives were subjugated and united by more advanced American cultures.

So what the hell is my point? I don't believe in inherent racial superiority. Why were the nates so bass-ackwards compared to the Spaniards? A lot of factors, but I think circumstances and environment played a larger part. Why were the Romans and Greeks at one time so much more advanced than the rest of Europe? Were they genetically superior or were there other factors? I'm not requesting an answer to that question, it's just a challenge to consider.

Post: #87

(02-18-2017 07:29 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  What you'd see there is something to the effect of a guerrilla war or even civil war that the media would go to great lengths to label as anything other than what it was.

Why? The cartels know that if the government ever went balls-to-the-wall to wipe them out then there would be no surrendering. Meanwhile the government seems to have a shortfall of forces to take all the cartels on at once.

Ergo if the cartels got wind of a plan for total warfare against them then there would be no reason not to go on the offensive. Having said that, I struggle to think of another nation on earth that has such a massively funded, wide reaching and ruthlessly violent paramilitary group embedded in every strata of their society.

Getting rid of the cartels via military force would be like trying to operate on a patient with chronic stage 4 cancer.

Hell, if the cartels lose their number one source of income they might just look at taking the whole enchilada and deciding that the only acceptable replacement for their riches is literally the state of Mexico itself.

That's not to say I think they should be accommodated. They need to be crushed, but there are realities in play here that have to be accepted.

One of the crucial factors that lead to the Nazi's demise is the destruction of their logistics by bombing and by various forms of Sabotage.

And currently with the war against ISIS Oil smuggling trucks and oil rigs are routinely bombed and its likewise cut off from Turkish border where ISIS can get recruits,money and arms. Along with destruction of its arms depots, factories ,warehouses and so on.

Cartel Logistics and the flow of arms and money across the border are crucial to the Cartel armed strength by ensuing a steady supply of arms and money with which they use to recruit.

However a barrier like the Trump wall will go a long way to cutting off that money supply since Drugs are the most lucrative revenue flows that ensued the Cartel survival and power.

Striking at their logistics and revenue flows in the USA as well as kicking out all the criminals will go a long way to weakening their power as well as forcing things to come to a head with the Mexican government.

And should the Cartels win and overtly control the state of Mexico the international community will likely not tolerate a criminal state in its midst.


The cartels still have other revenues however like human trafficking, migrant smuggling and illegal mining:
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysi...fits-by-30

Cracking down on all the sources of their revenue is needed not just Drugs. Illegal mining and oil smuggling is especially important alongside human trafficking and migrant smuggling.

Reducing addiction rates and reducing their clientele whether they are aware or not is just as important alongside cracking down on money laundering and protection by corrupt officials.

The hydra is many headed but without money it will starve. Cutting off revenue alongside physical extermination is needed.

Post: #88

(02-16-2017 03:52 PM)El Padrone Wrote:  Estraudi, If there's no demand, there will be no supply

if you stop buying, traffickers will go to school for their Masters in Finance.

America props up Mexico's economy??

Google "Opium War".

Dude, they hardly finished grade school and suddenly they will get a Masters degree? Mexican politicians DID study at Harvard and La Sorbonne. Im sure they will stop being corrupt the minute you stop slipping them money. Yeah. Im sure.

Yes. America props up Mexicos economy. If the US closes the border for good Mexico (and the rest of Latin America) would go down in flames within a week.

(02-16-2017 06:24 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  I think a more articulate Mexican should provide his perspective on why that place is in such deep trouble.

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),

Give me a few days to think it over.

A border wall would also benefit Mexico in many, many ways. It will for one staunch the flow of weapons that Hillary started. Not saying that weapons should remain illegal in Mexico, but that the situation becomes very unfair for the common citizen when the only ones that are armed are police and drug dealers, and they both are working together. (There was a point in the drug war when the police where just enforcers for the mafia.)

Post: #89

Bumping this thread.

I found some shocking translated videos of cartel bosses and hitmen
who are captured confessing the things they did within their organizations. Its very interesting and it just shows you how crazy these guys are.





^^^ This guy is crazy. Talks about killing people like making sandwiches. Another day another killing.





^^^ La Barbie

Post: #90

^It shows you what Mexicans go through to give you your good steuff. Mexicans suffer to give you your roofies! Its a labor of love anyway, what are neighbors for, heh???

Post: #91

(01-07-2018 04:00 PM)El Padrone Wrote:  ^It shows you what Mexicans go through to give you your good steuff. Mexicans suffer to give you your roofies! Its a labor of love anyway, what are neighbors for, heh???

Yeah its a big problem with a lot of money interests involved on all sides that profit from the drug war.

Honestly I say we should just legalize marijuana and be done with it once and for all.

Post: #92

(02-18-2017 07:29 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  What you'd see there is something to the effect of a guerrilla war or even civil war that the media would go to great lengths to label as anything other than what it was.

Why? The cartels know that if the government ever went balls-to-the-wall to wipe them out then there would be no surrendering. Meanwhile the government seems to have a shortfall of forces to take all the cartels on at once.

Ergo if the cartels got wind of a plan for total warfare against them then there would be no reason not to go on the offensive. Having said that, I struggle to think of another nation on earth that has such a massively funded, wide reaching and ruthlessly violent paramilitary group embedded in every strata of their society.

Getting rid of the cartels via military force would be like trying to operate on a patient with chronic stage 4 cancer.

Hell, if the cartels lose their number one source of income they might just look at taking the whole enchilada and deciding that the only acceptable replacement for their riches is literally the state of Mexico itself.

That's not to say I think they should be accommodated. They need to be crushed, but there are realities in play here that have to be accepted.

The reality is Mexico, the cartels and all of the crime they commit are not and should not be the white man's problem. Build the wall. Bar their entry into the U.S. Deport them out of the U.S. Mexicans can put on their big boy pants and do something about their national problems. Mexicans are not pets to be adopted from the pound. It's time to get a fucking grip.

Post: #93

(01-08-2018 03:32 AM)HornyRamone Wrote:  ...

The reality is Mexico, the cartels and all of the crime they commit are not and should not be the white man's problem. Build the wall. Bar their entry into the U.S. Deport them out of the U.S. Mexicans can put on their big boy pants and do something about their national problems. Mexicans are not pets to be adopted from the pound. It's time to get a fucking grip.

Cocaine is not a poor man's drug.

Which race is the predominant end-user of all that cocaine?

Based on the obvious answer, why then is it not the white man's problem?

Post: #94

(01-08-2018 05:13 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 03:32 AM)HornyRamone Wrote:  ...

The reality is Mexico, the cartels and all of the crime they commit are not and should not be the white man's problem. Build the wall. Bar their entry into the U.S. Deport them out of the U.S. Mexicans can put on their big boy pants and do something about their national problems. Mexicans are not pets to be adopted from the pound. It's time to get a fucking grip.

Cocaine is not a poor man's drug.

Which race is the predominant end-user of all that cocaine?

Based on the obvious answer, why then is it not the white man's problem?

Narcotics will always be popular. There's no sense in banning them as that exacerbates the problems of increased usage and violent crime that comes with the underground drug trade. Cocaine could be legalized and its trade could be conducted legally between the U.S. and Columbia. Forget Mexico. It's just the middleman

Post: #95

Step two. Who determines American legislation regarding criminalisation of drugs?

Mexico? Or White male dominated congress?

Once more. How is this not the white man's problem?

Post: #96

(02-20-2017 09:14 PM)Grodin Wrote:  My own idea on why the Natives didn't advance technology like the Europeans had: Religion. Long before the word Europe was known, it was called Christendom and was united under a common monotheistic religion which seems to be more stable than polytheism. European nobility could invest in their land with relatively less fear it may be burned down tomorrow (unless permission for war had been granted by a pope).

If you're interested in this topic, there's a pretty good book I read a few years ago by the anthropologist Jared Diamond. It's called Guns, Germs and Steel.

Here are the e-notes. https://www.enotes.com/topics/guns-germs-steel

From what I remember, his theory about why European and Asian civilizations advanced much faster than their American counterparts was largely due to geography. Europe and Asia more or less span east to west, whereas the Americas span north to south. This makes a huge difference in terms of agriculture due to the latitudes.

A succesful farming method could be transfered from east to west, all across Asia and Europe, whereas in the Americas it couldn't because when you move north to south, the climate changes, crops change, and a method that might work at one latitude wouldn't be transferable to the next. This greatly hindered the development of succesful agriculture in the Americas.

The exposure of Asians to Europeans also ensured that the germs would be shared among the various populations, creating greater immunities in both populations. The native Americans had no such luck.

Post: #97

^ Jared Diamond's thesis on the factors behind economic success has been soundly debunked in the book Why Nations Fail. Think, whats the difference between the two Koreas? The two Germanys?

Post: #98

Gunz germ and steel is way too simplistic and takes for granted any individual or tribal accomplishments by simply leaving everything to geography, climate change and luck.

Post: #99

Some thoughts about this bizarrely-named thread:

1. Mexico is not collapsing. Never has been. Yes, the country has serious problems. Some of these are regional only. None of them are fatal to the country at large. Not a 'failed state'.

2. Many of the problems come not from 'corrupt politicians' or 'bad laws' but from cultural values. Mexicans care more about their families than about their communities or the society in general. This lack of civic duty leads to not taking action to solve societal-level problems. Mexicans are passive aggressive. Most won't complain about being abused. Historical reasons are cited for this.

3. If your contact with Mexico is via reading the English-language press, you probably have a warped idea of what daily life is like in Mexico. For most, their biggest problems are things like running out of spending money before pay day.

4. If your contact with Mexicans is through English, you are not getting a representative feel for what local people think. Someone whose English is good enough to have a comfortable, articulate conversation with you is an extreme outlier in how they view their country. It's amusing to see which locals the lazy reporters in the international press choose to interview during their 12-hour layover in the country.

5. At this point, Mexicans care very little about Trump. There's been no anti-Trump hysteria here for over a year. They collectively figured out that it doesn't really affect them. Their focus is currently on which corrupt politician they should choose for president this July.

6. Mexico could collapse if their oil runs out. It's a major source of revenue, along with tourism and remittances. 'Human capital' is weak here (low educational levels; dysfunctional public education system). Many people do jobs that could easily be replaced by machines/technology. This is not a society capable of doing high-level work on a large scale. There is a growing sector of skilled professionals (there always has been) but statistically they are a minority. They can't hold the country together even if they wanted to.

7. Second-generation Mexican-Americans and fresh-of-the-boat Mexican illegals in the US have little in common with each other. In fact, their interests are often opposed. And Mexicans in Mexico (or 'Mexicans', as I like to call them) have even less in common with these groups beyond language and food preferences.

Post: #100

And just to reiterate, Guns, Germs, and Steel was written by (((Jared Diamond))).