TIERRA DE LOS SUEÑOS - cosmopolitanglobalist.com/tierra-de-los-… One of our readers writes, " The cartels? We [the US] and our weakness for drugs – are the wellspring from which the cartels flow. And we are too weak to do anything about it." I've heard this before:
and I suspect it's partly right--obviously, it doesn't help that the US is the biggest multi-trillion dollar drug suck in the world. But I suspect that even if we turned abstinent overnight, these guys wouldn't say, "Gee, business is lousy" and become peaceful sugarcane farmers.
They'd just flow into every other domain of organized crime (as they have already): human trafficking, extortion, arms smuggling...there's always enough sin in the world to support organized crime. So I'm not as inclined as our reader to blame the US for all of Mexico's problems,
even though, in this case, the charge is more credible than it usually is, and there's more real moral responsibility than the standard claim of "It's all the Americans' fault" would have it. This involves a massive breakdown at the Mexico level, too:
Canada didn't become a narco-state in response to our enthusiasm for drugs, and for the most part, neither did we--or at least, we maintained a more diversified economy and managed to keep most of the country out of the hands of the cartels.
The problem in Mexico is, clearly, a combination of its northern neighbor's insatiable demand for drugs *and* pathological state weakness. You need both to have this kind of state collapse.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"If it is difficult to look at the twentieth century with a steady eye, so terrible are its crimes, the temptation is great to allow one’s eye to wander. Steven Pinker is, in this regard, one step away from clinical strabismus." cosmopolitanglobalist.com/the-best-of-ti… Part I
"Poorly defined problems very often lead to absurd solutions, the ensuing circle having, in the case of homicide rates, the virtue, at least, of long-term stability." Part II cosmopolitanglobalist.com/the-best-of-ti…
Stay tuned for Part III, today.
Pinker's book was widely hailed as "amply documented" and "counterintuitive."
It was counterintuitive because it was wrong; and the sources collapse on scrutiny.
If you missed it yesterday:
You've doubtless heard the claim, popularized by Steven Pinker, that we live in the most peaceful time in history.
This week @cosmo_globalist, we're running a three-part essay by my father, David Berlinski: cosmopolitanglobalist.com/the-best-of-ti…
Pinker writes, "Believe it or not … violence has declined over long stretches of time, and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’ existence … it is an unmistakable development."
Don't believe it. He's wrong.
By the lights of this Whig theory of history, the world is becoming more and more peaceful, less and less cruel. Humanity is improving, and any intuition you may have to the contrary is a mistake. Since the publication of Pinker's book, these claims have been accepted as truisms.
Journalists, analysts, academics, writers: @cosmo_globalist is looking for people who live in, and can write well about, Taiwan, Central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. Our writers right now are excessively concentrated in Europe and India:
not that there's anything wrong with Europe and India; there's lots going on in both places, but it's unbalanced. Also: If you live in Russia or China and want to write for us, we'd love to talk to you. We'll let you write under a pseudonym if need be. Iran, too.
This is who we are: cosmopolitanglobalist.com/about-us/
We're looking for people who have a depth of knowledge that you can only acquire from living in a country for many years and speaking the language,
Let's look closely at this "geopolitical logic."
If you-
a) have a history as a grand power; and
b) have "the might to back it up," then
c) You can invade other countries, *and*
d) Those who object should be silent, lest they start unnecessary wars.
But geopolitical logic, as you call it, has obvious correlates.
Suppose, for example, that you're a country that doesn't want to be invaded by its bigger, grander neighbor.
I'm not sure, but I think the set of such countries must be identical to the set of every country in the world (n) - 1 (the biggest). I may be wrong, but I don't think any country wants to be invaded by a bigger one, no matter how grand that country is.
"Ourr man in America."
"Tucker Carlson ... for Americans, this person is really significant, Time magazine included him among the 100 most influential people ... he determines the worldview of millions of Americans ...
"He even determines whether Trump sends missiles to Iran ... so this is someone the Americans themselves think is super-influential .. he's had a long and interesting career, and well, in short, he's the most famous and popular TV presenter in the US.
"Now Tucker is of course a very pleasant person ... frequently quoted in the Russian media, often comments on the Ukrainian crisis and Washington's negotiations with Moscow, and, as it seems to many, from a pro-Russian position. ...
Dear @TuckerCarlson,
The other evening your guest, Clint Ehrlich, came on the show to explain that the conflict in Ukraine was "simple" and owed to the aggression of "unserious warmongers" in the US who are "insisting" that Ukraine join NATO.
You said, "Those seem like fair points!" You turned to the camera and said, "If they're wrong, go ahead and explain how they're wrong. We'll listen."
Well, they're wrong. I've begun explaining this here, although there's much more to say. claireberlinski.substack.com/p/dezinformats…
I'd be happy to elaborate on any of these points.
You also asked, "What is NATO, and what is its purpose?" You said you couldn't find anyone who could answer this. "Not one single person."
So I'm sure you'll be exhilarated to learn that I can!