Mexico is screwed

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I would not mock any US president seriously consideirng to invade and annex Mexico. Its not on the other side of the planet - its right on your doorstep.

However, you then end up in a seat comparable to the Israelis regarding the Palestinians.

Doomed if you do and doomed if you dont.

Walls sometimes are a reasonable solution. Especially when they are not meant to keep own people in (Eastgerman wall), but to keep bad guys out - man has done like that since many, many, many centuries and millenia with his towns and villages.

Its insane what a hopelessly perverted sense of "libelaism" today makes people i the West to agree to. Open boarders. Asylum for everybody. Endless payments to and endless patience for offenders. A whole industry building up around keeping these deformations of a free society alive.

Much of what the idea of free private cities is basing on, is missing in Western states today. And thats why they fail.

https://freeprivatecities.com/

To me, after 200 years of modern democracy and Western statehood, this concept by which the West wants to define itself, has failed. Law and order is in decline, often actively violated by the states themselves. The social systems cannot be maintained anymore. The military potence to defend oneself is being given up. No controls and no border protection there should be. People nmever havign done anything for their new country the ymoved to, imem dioately hslal have all benefits and rights, while all too often not compensating by giving back accordingly.

This cannot go well endlessly. It must crash down, by all rules of logic.

The question is what is driving it? we talk about open borders being liberal and progressive etc. but maybe that it just how its being sold.
I fear its all for cheap workers to do the low skilled jobs a bloated middle class wont, and pay in to /prop up a broken system that is going to run in to trouble when the aging population comes to a head (more people retired than in work). Those I think are the real reasons mass immigration is encouraged, the liberal 'multiculturalism' part is just a more effective way to sell 'population replacement'.
Aging population and Low birthrates are the inevitable result of the decline of marriage the nuclear family which has been driven by a multitude of things; mass middle class expansion, free education, women entering the work force, welfare state, wage stagnation etc. Explain the wests situation to anyone outside of it the and the response is usually the same: 'then why did you stop having kids you idiots?'

[Skybird]

^ Part of the truth all that is, yes. But our system sets the wrong incentives, for everybody. For private ordinary people. For politicians. The tragic of the common, as it is called, is omnipresent, everywhere. And socialism is successful only because its utopia depicts a land of milk and honey free from any hardship where your mere claim for happiness already makes people think they have claim for somebody else paying for their own happiness. Socialism appeals to some of the lowest and most despicable instincts in man, lainress, greed, and creative lethargy, thats why it is so appealing for many. In short, it appeals to emotions, and completely bypbasses the brain (reason, thinking, logic).


It cannot and maybe should not be tried to be replaced by force, such a fight is lost from beginning on, I think. It can only be made obsolete by somethign better showing up. My favourite idea is something similiar to the Hanse. Or Venice. Genua. The author of that book I earlier recommended in this thread, to my joy also referred to the Hanse as a good example, and as an admirer of the oldtown of Lübeck I must like the concept anyway . Ironcially, the Hanse was successful and influential as long as it stayed out of politics. From the time on when Lübeck occupied all administrative power and formed a caste of de facto politicians, they started "to do politics", and started to intervene elsehwere, and started to drive their thing full speed against the wall - the decline of the union began. In Switzerland, to stay out of foreign people'S disputes, is part of the state reason until today. Singapore is a successful (and militarily surprisingly strong!) free city - but hides its power and stays out of other's fights, cares for its own business. To my surprise I learned that such examples and zones are forjing up across the whole planet, in Honduras, China anyway (Shengzehn is just one special zone heavily focussing on economy), Chile, even Saudi Arabia plans a free city zone with explicit exclusion from Islamic and Saudi law codes (my jaw dropped oepn when reading that). Such a project is also planne don the Balkan. Once there are enough, hundreds and hundres of such places of different tastes where any animal can find its favourite pleasure, states cannot really escape anymore to accept competition with them and then taking these places' success as an exmaple by which they must reinvent themselves, people will vote with their feet if they must not switchz continents or states, but just cities - many of us already have done that when changing an expensive flat for a cheaper one, or one we just found more attractive. In China and Shengzhen this already happens, the zone has far-reaching own legislation that sets it apart from the surrounding Chinese territory. Huawei is the first private business corporation that enjoys far-reaching exclusion from party dictate and usual Chinese legislation, its as much a private entrepreneurship and capitalist company as it can get. Thats why it is successful, and thats why it financially pays off for China to let them run their ways. Market and capitalism beats planned economy (if that ain'T no old news). Even China sees that. Then there are Andorra. Of course Lichtenstein, Monaco: Places for already rich people, still - they teach states a lesson on how to keep your homework in proper order, they are stable, secure, and well-administered, and have reserves that natiosn and states can omly dream of. Sandy Springs. I recently heared of a global movement called I think Seafahrer. They plan to build autonomous private cities run as companies where citizens are customers and the city being a supplier of services citizens can - and in parts must - order and pay for, which means that citizen can hold the city administration fully liable and accountable if it fails on the contracts' agreed conditions, they can sue it. Private law, not state authority. try to sue your govenrment when it wastes your blackmailed taxes that you have to pay for stuff you never have ordered and never wanted! Its free trading versus dictatorship and slavery.



We do not hold politicians and central bankers accountable for their lies, cheating, betrayals and fraud and crimes. No matter the damage their clever plans bring, they must not fear any responsibility, and they can keep all their gold and priviliges. No wonder that they do not care for the consequences of their deeds, and serve their own pocket-filling only and their own power ambitions. In Germany, short before the football championship now, the SPD, on its historically low score, tries to pushes through a raise in its financial payments from the voters. The system was meant to "compensate" parties for their campaigns and advertising (why, I ask?), and smaller parties get a bit less than bigger parties, it is according to the election results. Now the SPD wants to get money as if it still would get heyday results, in other words, the punishing vote of last elections shall have no consequence for them. In the shadow of football fever, they hope to sneak it through without anybody noticing it. It tells you all about the mentality of this scum that you need to know about them.



There can be no freedom in the presence of policians doing politics. The first is only possible in the absence of politics and politicians. Private-law-depending relations between people is the alternative, a private law basing on just two base principles: reciprocity, and the Golden Rule. You then see that polticians are not needed at all.


Sorry, got carried a way a bit. But it is not completely unconnected to the topic.

[JU_88]

if you you mean like a society that that puts entitlements and 'rights' before responsibilities. I agree, that is one major thing we have royally screwed up.
Not sure i quite agree with you on the socialism comment, I agree socialism breaks more than it fixes in the long run, But i don't believe all those to advocate it are evil, I believe for some part their intentions can be considered 'good' (e.g thinking of what will benefit others besides themselves).... but you know what they say about the road to hell, paving and all that.
I don't view left or right wing people as inherently good or bad, just different.

I think posted this before here, but this is pretty good on the subject.

[Skybird]

In the end, ignoring the nature of man never will lead to lasting positive results, because it is against the nature of man then.



And if you constantly nurse the lazy and uncreative options in man'S motivation, and always appeal to his lower instincts instead of his reason and sense of responsibility, how could one expect to get something good from that? If you want to harvest good fruits, you should not bring out bad seeds on an acrid field.



You get out of the black box what you put into the black box. Attract all weakness, dependency and parasitism of the worlld, and that is what you will get. Add more and more weak links to a chain, and you get not a stronger chain, just one that is longer, but as strong only as its weakest link. A longer, weaker chain. EU is a prime example. Ever more new candidates. But no strong ones, only net receivers. Thanks, but no thanks, man.


I never believed that the company of the weak makes you stronger, and that also would be against my - modest - life experience. It makes you being handicapped, thats all. There can be reasons imagined, in the field of private relations, why you and even me would accept that, but you should nevert assume it increases your degrees of freedom, gives you more options, makes you "strong". Weakness is weakness, nothing else.


Watchign the vidoe now.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In the end, ignoring the nature of man never will lead to lasting positive results, because it is against the nature of man then.



And if you constantly nurse the lazy and uncreative options in man'S motivation, and always appeal to his lower instincts instead of his reason and sense of responsibility, how could one expect to get something good from that? If you want to harvest good fruits, you should not bring out bad seeds on an acrid field.



You get out of the black box what you put into the black box. Attract all weakness, dependency and parasitism of the worlld, and that is what you will get. Add more and more weak links to a chain, and you get not a stronger chain, just one that is longer, but as strong only as its weakest link. A longer, weaker chain. EU is a prime example. Ever more new candidates. But no strong ones, only net receivers. Thanks, but no thanks, man.


I never believed that the company of the weak makes you stronger, and that also would be against my - modest - life experience. It makes you being handicapped, thats all. There can be reasons imagined, in the field of private relations, why you and even me would accept that, but you should nevert assume it increases your degrees of freedom, gives you more options, makes you "strong". Weakness is weakness, nothing else.


Watchign the vidoe now.

Yes i agree^ Victim hood culture is also big part of it, if you repeatedly convince a person they are a victim, they will only ever be able to live like a victim. They will never be strong, they will never strive to do better, they pass all responsibility for improving there life on to everyone else around them, they live by a narrative where all problems can only be solved by external forces.
its makes people perpetually weak and infantile- yet at the same time it is addictive like a drug. They might still fight and struggle, but only to tackle other peoples behavior and never their own.

[Skybird]

And the wellfare industry. The more you redistribute from the haves to the have-nots, the more have-nots you get. The more you "fight" poverty, the poor people you get. A surrounding ecospystem of helping, managing and else concerne dpeople emerges. They want to be paid, they want to get pensions. Soon, like with any bureaucracy, the interests of these organsiations and structure grow to the importance level of the social cases they were founded for to help them. And again some time later these organisations overrule the importance of the poor they are managing, the organisation's selfinterest becomes what the show is being run for, the poor, the socially dependent people are just the ore that gets mined and refined to keep the indtry running. So, the incentive is to keep people poor, to make them beleive they are poor, to define them as poor, and to push them into poverty. Or dependency. Or insert any social quality you want.


You see it everywhere. The higher the generla welath of our societies is, the more poor get counted - althoguh they are poor on ever and ever higher levels of metrial own "wealth". Many poor people today would have been extrenely well-situated people less than 100 years ago. The poor 100 years ago were much better off than the poor before the industrial revolution.



Then the problem of attracting foreigners. The more social you are, the more welcoming you are, the more caring yo are, the kindier oyu are - the more will come, right because of this behaviour of yours. You cannot talk reasonably about keeping migration down if being so welcoming to it and if you even allow yourself getting abused by foreigners wanting stuff from you, and you think you have the duty to comply with somebody elses demand just because he raises it. This schizophrenia is especially popular here in the EU.



A very good, now dead, old-school correspondent and adventurer of French-German heritage, Peter Scholl-Latour, once said: "If f you invite half of Kalkutta, you do not help Kalkutta, but become yourself Kalkutta." Any questions...?

[Rockstar]

113 Politicians Have Been Killed Ahead Of Mexico’s Election. There Are Still Two Weeks To Go.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/karlazablud...2EN#.mqLRoQbA0

...“Violence is altering the profile of candidates,” Alejandro Hope, a security analyst, told BuzzFeed News. “Who sticks around? The reckless and those who collude [with criminals].”

..."This is evidence of Mexico’s decay,” said Figueroa, adding that volunteers couldn’t enter a handful of neighborhoods in Durango State, in northern Mexico, to hand out flyers, because it was simply too dangerous.

...Analysts say organized crime and local criminal groups are behind many of the murders, though some appear to have been committed by political rivals.

...And yet, people are focused on election day, as if “the entire country will end on July 1 and the entire country will be reborn on July 1,” said Cossío, the Supreme Court judge, who called the current state in Mexico an electoral fog.
“I’m worried about July 2.”

[mapuc]

I hope they will have solve all these problems before 2026.

Markus

[Skybird]

Hope for global warming coming to an end before 2026. That gives you a better chance for success.

[mapuc]

I was thinking about FIFA World Cup 2026, which are to be held in Canada, USA and Mexico.

From what I understand, there are plans for 9-10 games in Canada and Mexico.

Markus

[Skybird]

An idiotic decision that illustrates the complete desinterest in the sports by this hopelessly corrupted, criminal organisation named FIFA (or IOC or UEFA, for that matter).

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Mexicans are allowed to buy and own firearms.

Legally they can per their constitution, but there is a catch. It's rather costly and regulated, but the kicker is, there's only one location ran by the govt in all of Mexico a gun can be purchased, so legal ownership is very low. However, say some law was passed with a mass arming of citizens, I don't know that would solve anything since there's no true system of law and order in many towns. You would almost need a revolution of righteous people, but the economics aren't there to back it up. Mexico is really in a state of war and I would put our military on the border to shut it down.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I don't know that would solve anything since there's no true system of law and order in many towns.

NUTHIN' GOOD GOES OUTTA STYLE...HOMBRE!

[Sean C]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Hope for global warming coming to an end before 2026. That gives you a better chance for success.

I thought civilization was going to collapse by then.

[Reece]

I'll certainly collapse by then!!