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.

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.