Mexico is screwed

[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.