[Skybird]

I recently read a bit about the city satate oif Singapore. Singapore has some of the most "draconic" laws in rule one could imagine. For exmaple, drug offences all too moften trigger the detah penalty. But it is a city that has no major drug problems, and is one of the safiest citie son the planet.


The firat amndinstrator of the city experienced the occupation of China by the Japanese. This man said that although people were poor, were suffering and had not much to own at all, they remained to be hoinest and stayed away from becoming criminal. That was becasue the Japanese punished even minor crimes and offences with very drastically. Dratsical punishment does work, he concluded, and form the views of Behaviorism and the research for it done in the 50s and 60s, I also would say that it is expected to work.


What this man also concluded was that the Western law philosphy of resocialising b efore punishment, and endless patience, and that if people are well situated and live in a socially stable environment they would not become criminal, does not work. And that is my reasoning, too: it works at least extremely badly.



Somebody has to go into Mexico, and enforce a draconic sanctioning of crime and malicious anarchy. Three eyes for one eye, six teeth for one teeth - this kind of law and order. Were you see corruption, kill the corrupted. Wipe the cirminals out, no matter whether small fishes or big bosses.


This is th eonly thing that will work. Nobody likes ot hear that, I do not olike to say it. But that is the only thing that could work. Mexico more and more becomes a growing wound inside thr two Americas, and like any bodily infection it will start to - and already does - spread.



Not just since reading about Singapore I think that the Western law system is very severly messed up with it resocialising prioprity. It just does not work. I also do not like it for always putting emphasis on the interests and outlook of the perpetrator, and minimises the attention and interest for tzhe victims.



A wall is only a temporary measure a slong as it is not as tight as the inner German deathzone was, or the NorthKorean-SouthKorean border is - including shoot-to-kill orders. Mexico must be pacified, and you cannot have that without a full military invasion, and a super-tough crackdown on corrupted elites and organised crime. The US has messed arpound for far less riobust interests in Irak, afghanistan, Soimalia, and elsewhere. But Mexico it leaves untouched although of all these possible and/or real scenarios Mexico is the clearest and biggest danger to the US?


Okay. Not my place, not my interest. Just saying. Just one thing is clear by now: Mexico by now is a 100% failed state. With all negative consequences that come from that and that radiate into the neighbouring states.