1,555 words
The United States federal government has been fixated for years on far-off conflicts while America’s backyard, especially Mexico, has slid into chaos. Nationalists for years have likewise demanded that our troops be stationed on the Rio Grande instead of the Euphrates.
Shouldn’t we welcome the recent talk of waging war on the cartels, then? Absolutely not, for several good reasons, and not just mindless contrarianism.
The latest saber-rattling began when four US citizens were kidnapped in Mexico, which left two of them dead. The fact that these citizens were Basketball-Americans by itself is not suspicious, but it is when contrasted with the disparate treatment of a white rancher in Arizona in an incident approximately a month before the kidnapping. George Alan Kelly is being wrongfully accused of murder because he defended himself against a group of armed and camouflaged men, one of whom pointed an AK-47 rifle at him. The mainstream media has only piled on him instead of crying tears of outrage, as they did for the kidnapped blacks. This hypocrisy clearly shows that the safety of US citizens is entirely irrelevant to the powers-that-be. It therefore cannot be the real reason behind any warmongering against Mexico.
Then there is the disturbing problem that the US government is probably too corrupt to effectively wage a war against the cartels. The cartels effectively control many of Mexico’s politicians, judges, and law enforcement agencies through a policy of “plata o plomo,” which means “silver or lead.” One can either take their silver (bribes) or take their lead (bullets). Even if the cartels can’t touch the US government (at least for now) with lead, they can certainly still corrupt them with silver, as seen in a recent Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) scandal, which seems to have involved more than just a single agent. Given the moral nihilism that prevails among the establishment, it is likely that many government officials would happily accept cartel bribes, if they haven’t already.
This corruption would severely hamper any serious war effort. On one hand, corrupt US officials would simply target those cartels and individuals who are the rivals of those cartels and individuals who control them. Instead of undermining the cartels, this would merely intensify the violence.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
On the other hand, it would put American operatives, who would most likely be from the elite and predominately white special forces, at extreme risk of betrayal via tipoffs to the cartels.
Besides corrupt officials, the risk of treasonous tipoffs would be further exacerbated by the large segment of the military that is now Hispanic. I have heard multiple first-hand accounts from sources across several branches of the military that Hispanic troops openly blare narcocorridos (songs that glorify the narco life of decadence and ultra-violence) from their cars and barracks on American bases without any consequences. The careerists will endlessly wring their hands about “extremists in the ranks” and “white rage” while turning a blind eye to Hispanic troops adoring terrorist organizations that are operating just south of the border. This is not due to the language barrier, either. (Would a serious military tolerate a “language barrier”?) Nothing is done even when anonymous complaints are made.
To illustrate this danger, consider how it is unknown if the 2011 downing of a Chinook helicopter carrying 38 personnel, including 17 from Navy Seal Team 6, was the result of an inside leak to the Taliban. The father of a slain cryptologist certainly seemed to think so at the time. If this tragedy was due to a leak, it is a painful lesson in how much damage a single traitor can inflict. A war against the cartels would risk being sabotaged by many more traitors.
Additionally, the cartels are better-armed and -organized than other forces the US has fought in recent memory. Combined with the danger of tipoffs, a war in Mexico would risk multiple catastrophes along the lines of the famous “Black Hawk Down” battle in Mogadishu in October 1993, which would waste white America’s most precious resource, healthy blood, on a fool’s errand.
There is also a danger that the cartels would bring their war to US soil. We have already seen rising fentanyl deaths and hordes of shambling drugged-out zombies, but the home front has been relatively free of cartel violence thus far, outside of low-level turf wars between rival street gangs over distribution. If the cartels are hit in Mexico, they will probably hit back here. I will not nauseate the reader with the details, but a casual glance at what passes as normal cartel violence in Mexico should give one pause.
Besides, what would be the endgame of a war against the cartels? Decapitating their leaders in surgical strikes would be almost pointless in the grand scheme of things. The narcos already do this to each other, in both intra- and inter-cartel conflicts. Any temporary loss of expertise would be made up for in the long run. For every high-level capo eliminated, there are multiple up-and-coming gangsters eager to take his place. The cartels are a pack of hydras with many heads.
Additionally, Mexico is intensely patriotic with a strong national memory of invasions by foreign powers, especially the United States. The Mexican government is rarely particularly popular, while the cartels for their part provide charity to win popular support — when they aren’t causing collateral damage to civilians. A war against the cartels is therefore almost certain to cause a backlash which will only further cement the ties between the cartels and the Mexican people. A war for the hearts and minds of Mexico would be lost before it even began, and we have already seen the futility of counter-insurgency without popular support in the Middle East.
Furthermore, an ulterior motive behind the latest anti-cartel rhetoric could very well be the need to increase recruitment numbers due to a quiet “white strike” that is depriving the US regime of the manpower and talent which it has relied on for decades. The regime may be hoping that gullible yet well-intentioned white men will sign up with the expectation that they will fight against the cartels for their nation, so that they can then be thrown into a meat grinder against the Eurasian powers. Perhaps one day individual troops, mercenary companies, and states will be able to dictate the terms of where they are sent and why in an age of archeofuturist warfare, but that era is still a long way off. To enlist is to become the property of the occupation government.
But the most sinister and likeliest trick is that a war in Mexico would end up being the ultimate example of “bomb the Third World, invite the Third World” in action. The foreseeable rise in instability would end up producing an even larger tidal wave of immigration. We were told that we had to accept swarms of foreigners after the fall of Afghanistan, many of whom were despised by their own countrymen for good reasons, such as being Leftists or criminals. With Mexico it would be even worse, with RINOs trotting out Yellowstone-style “hick lib” rhetoric about why we need even more immigration.
Of course, even if such a war is instigated, planned, and incited by the neoconservatives, it would not be surprising if they would miraculously shed all responsibility for any negative outcomes. As described in The American Regime, this would be similar to how Israel and the neoconservatives cynically encouraged anti-Muslim hatred to manufacture consent for the Iraq War and then subsequently framed the blame for the war on rural and suburban whites — despite the fact that they have virtually no actual ability to make policy.[1]
The cartels poisoning our country with drugs are a real problem, but the proper solution is not offensive measures in Mexico but rather defensive measures on our side of the border. Building a real wall as we were promised in 2016 — buttressed with a secondary wall in select locations and constant surveillance by patrols, drones, and cameras — would cut the tide of both immigration and drugs into America. Harsh sentences for narcotics trafficking instead of kid-gloves treatment by Soros-funded district attorneys would also discourage drug dealing.
These policies would both preserve our people and starve the cartels of revenue, thereby striking at the heart instead of the heads of the narco hydra. But precisely because these policies would benefit white America, they have little chance of being implemented under the current regime.
The border crisis is another reason why we need a national divorce. Ideally, Trump in a second term would implement the aforementioned policies. But if the federal government cannot be trusted to handle the border crisis in a manner that is not evil or incompetent, then that duty should fall to the states and municipalities that can be better trusted to handle it.
Immigration is technically under the purview of the federal government, not the states. It is admittedly an inherently federal issue. But the original intent behind this jurisprudence could never have envisioned a dystopian future in which the states’ “police power” to regulate the health, safety, and the morals of their citizens is recklessly and even intentionally undermined by a federal policy of open borders, combined with clumsy warmongering.
A peaceful national divorce, not another tragic war, is the answer.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Note
[1] An Anonymous January 6th Prisoner, The American Regime (Quakertown, Pa.: Antelope Hill Publishing, 2023), pp 199-200.
18 comments
And let’s not forget that the CIA is the world’s biggest drug smuggling gang, which hardly would be helpful.
Great article. War with Mexico is not the answer to anything. It would boomerang on the US and be used by our corrupt leaders to impose wartime restrictions on political dissent. The peaceful national divorce part also leaves something to be desired, but it’s a step in the right direction.
If anything the feds problem with the cartels is they are slowing down immigration.
Find a war in the US that was not used – in the long run – to make things worse for dissidents of all kinds and the White race in general. War is a tool for social and demographic engineering. Would the White race be in the position it finds itself were it not for the murder or mutilation of millions of White men over the last century? When the most courageous were thrown into one meat-grinder after another, how can we keep our race strong?
Our racial enemies are always looking for ways to get Whites to slaughter themselves (and turn a profit while doing so).
Whites must fight no wars for anyone else.
Waging war in Mexico will just drive more racial aliens into North America.
Find a war in the US that was not used – in the long run – to make things worse for dissidents of all kinds and the White race in general.
The Mexican War
A direct war would be useless as stated. I do believe militarizing the border for say a mile everywhere would take care of drug and people invasion. Buying up properties and such would take time, but moving military installations to the border moves them out of the rest of the country and removes some of the pork involved in their locations. I’ve never understood why the border was so open? Moneyed interests as usual.
“Find a war in the US that was not used – in the long run – to make things worse for dissidents of all kinds and the White race in general.”
Absolutely! No war with Mexico; no war with any country the corrupt ruling class decides to invade.
The tales of the openly treasonous Mexican servicemen is ominous.
You are a great writer and a great thinker. I enjoy your articles and your ability to articulate clearly and to think through consequences with our interests in mind. Do you recommend any great writings on the topic of archeofutureist warfare? It seems like a subject we all need to make a proper study of.
Thank you! As for future reading on the warfare aspect of archeofuturism there isn’t much at this time. Guillame Faye wrote two books, Archeofuturism and Archeofuturism 2.0 on the subject. I admittedly have only read the first book, which mostly deals with archeofuturism from a social aspect instead of war. In Archeofuturism, the narrator of the short story at the end is part of a diplomatic corps that keeps the peace through honest, real politik deal making which has lessened the need for war.
Starship Troopers, Dune, MechWarrior/BattleTech and Warhammer 40k (40k while comically exaggerated still has its merits) have archeofuturist themes of the future more resembling the past than the present with a strong emphasis on war. The Left likes to use Star Trek as a thought experiment to explore Progressive ideas, so I think it wise to follow suit and use science fiction to explore Traditional ideas.
Great. Thank you. Archeofuturism is on order. I look forward to reading more of your articles.
It is amazing how the establishment uses bad policies (open borders) as an argument for more bad policies (military involvement in Mexico).
I actually disagree with this even though I am almost always antiwar. This would finally be a war against terrorists who actually affect white lives. Finally these bastards would be punished. This stupid country would become anti-Hispanic overnight. It may become so uncomfortable that these savages go back home voluntarily. Suddenly, these Oompa Loompas would be forced to pick a side, which would ostensibly be the white side. They may even enlist and do the fighting themselves. So much has been misdiagnosed. There is no ‘La Raza.’ These people almost instantly assimilate and lose their Spanish or indigenous languages. They don’t want to be Mexicans. So many of the illegals actually return home part of the year or after they have made their money. I don’t think immigration can get any worse than right now. So many of these countries have emptied out their youngest demographics up north already. Something has to give. There won’t be a war with Mexico, but it would be great if there would be.
I’m not calling for war, and I agree with Steuben that a border wall and more peaceful measures are best, but war may rouse ethnic emnity and inspire enthusiasm for stopping illegal immigration. It can’t make things worse anyway. However, going to war just to stop drug cartels is stupid because it ignores the much bigger problem of Mexican immigration. Making a big deal about the smaller problem almost detracts from the bigger one.
Regarding your oompa loompa characterization, many have that phenotype, but some are taller, like whites. It’s a spectrum, but theirs indeed contains more squat people.
One time I had to go to the bathroom and stopped in a major fast food joint. There was one unisex bathroom open. A squatamalan woman emerged from inside but beckoned one of her many kids to come use it and kept this chain migration to the toilette going with her and her accomplice’s kids. Can’t picture a white family doing that.
Immigration is technically under the purview of the federal government, not the states. It is admittedly an inherently federal issue.
And that is how the subversion is allowed to take place. Federal judges et al. will cry, “immigration is federal jurisdiction!” as the federal government is derelict in its duty. It’s the Achilles heel of the system to reference your previous article. “Whelp, a federal judge said we can’t do it, guess we can’t do it.” All it will take is a border state to simply declare the subversive federal judgement moot, and channel Andrew Jackson, “the court has made its decision, let them enforce it” as the governor puts the national guard on the border.
The thing is, this is highly unlikely to happen in 3 of the 4 border states. California and New Mexico are solidly blue and with lots of Hispanics. Arizona just got flipped and that guy Kelly is from Arizona and is getting the Bonfire of Vanities treatment. So that just leaves Texas which will likely be a blue state in as little was 3 election cycles due to demographics. It may be too little too late.
I concur with the theory here. It’s sort of an inversion of the subsidiarity principle – if the federal government is derelict in its duty, then the state government must step in, because someone has to get the job done. In this case, it’s willful dereliction. The Bidet junta can (and probably will) raise holy hell about it, but if it’s played right, they’ll embarrass themselves by making it ever more clear that they refuse to protect the country because they want to flood it with little brown invaders as fast as they can.
If America were still a real nation, the nation of my ancestors, then of course this kind of exercise would be at least worth considering, assuming the border had already been impregnably walled and militarily garrisoned (and tens of millions of illegal aliens summarily deported). This is because these types of illegitimate entities (the cartels) do pose very complex and long range threats to civilization itself, as well as liberty under law. If they could be annihilated, it would be good for whites, albeit indirectly. Also, it’s not good for us to have a lawless hellhole right on our border, even if walled.
The problem is that the US is no longer a blood and soil nation, and worse, we are living under an incestuous Occupationist overclass that controls all levers of power and has made whites into second class citizens – the truly oppressed of today (but always remember: with the help of tens of millions of white traitors, as well as sheer dolts). So the author is right that nearly anything the US does, especially overseas, boomerangs and harms whites, and thus should be eschewed. The path we advocate is always to hunker down, pull inward, circle our own wagons, recognize that our main enemy remains within, and focus on, first, white protection measures, and, second, ultimately recovering our racial liberty and sovereignty.
“The war in Mexico was Trump’s coup de grace. Begun five years ago this Thursday, its smashing success propelled the Donald not only toward sustained and strengthened Republican majorities in both houses of Congress in the Midterms, but also to a runaway victory in the 2020 Presidential election.
His plan was simple but masterful. First, conduct a massive bombing campaign over swaths of rival cartel territories in a reign of fire not seen since the winter days of the First Iraq War in 1991 but do so—with a tip of the cap to Obama—using (almost exclusively) targeted drone strikes.
Next, launch massive, defensive ground operations south of specific points of the border—from California, Texas, Arizona and possibly New Mexico—and potentially branching east and west upon a five-mile penetration into Mexican territory.
Finally, establish a “No-Fly Zone” over Northern Mexico while establishing a permanent buffer region south of the border to first house all the illegals from the Caravan and then to completely finish the promised wall. The plan even included hiring some of the housed illegals waiting for their asylum hearings to help—along with a special service corps of Americans enlisted for the wall-building purpose, in conjunction with “Made in the USA” private contractors building the wall itself, guard towers and moats across the 1700 mile border.
In a stirring speech to Congress, Trump presented his plan to the nation, using recent deaths of ordinary Americans to drugs, to the crime of illegals and even to gangs north and south of the border to martial support.
Congress was captivated and immediately voted in favor of his “special military operation” dubbed ‘Operation [Mojave] Desert Storm’”.
The campaign which officially only lasted four months and during which time incurred 370 American deaths along with 1400 additional casualties, continues to this day with a permanent American military presence along the entire five-mile buffer zone south of the US-Mexico border. The legacy also includes, of course, the most-formidable and, potentially, the most-enduring modern structure ever created: now know as THE WALL.
Paid for largely through taxation of the remittances of illegals and legals alike to home nations, THE WALL has reduced illegal immigration by 97% since being completed in March of 2020 and has initiated a sustained economic boom across much of South Texas, California as well as other regions adjacent to the new structure on the U.S. side of the border…”
I am a Californian and no way do I support a National Divorce. I would rather have Fascism .
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.