A conservative news and views blog.

Location: St. Louis, Missouri, United States

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Famine and the Rise of the North American Union

Timothy Birdnow

Mexico is suffering from drought, the results of La Nina, and the nation is on the brink of starvation as famine moves in.

According to the article:

"At least 50 percent of the municipalities of the country and 1.4 million hectares are affected by adverse weather conditions, specialist Emilio Romero told La Jornada newspaper.

In 2011, Mexico lost over 3.2 million tons of corn, 600,000 of beans and 60,000 head of cattle, according to official statistics.

Estimates show that 1,213 municipalities in 19 territories (50 percent of the country) have been affected by the worst drought over the past 50 years."

End excerpt.

Now, Mexico never suffered terrible drought when we had Global Warming; the terrible drought is occuring during a cooling trend. The Earth has been in a cooling trend for the last 15 years, or at least is not warming statistically, and now that we are no longer warming we are having famines. We need a little global warming! Historically, the warmer periods are the ones that have been more productive agriculturally. The Mound Builders of Cahokia flourished during the Medieval Warming Period, and their once-enormous metropolis failed when cooler weather set in. Ditto the Mayans, who were living in the Yucatan but ended up moving to Guatemala after the cooling began. Ditto the Incans. The Mongols poured out of the desolate Gobi desert when their food supply increased during the MWP. The Polynesians settled many of their Pacific islands during the MWP, yet by the time the Europeans discovered them many had fallen into barbarity. This is certainly true of Easter Island, where a civilization was able to build those big ponderous heads that so resemble Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama. Herman Melville speaks of evidence he saw on Nuka Hiva of an advanced civilization that fell. Why? Likely the end of the MWP saw the food supply drop.

And now we face famine in Mexico. This year's La Nina has shifted the jet stream, moving warmer, wetter air to the North and a strong Arctic Oscillation is keeping the cold air circulating around the Arctic, thus making a lower pressure region over the U.S. and Canada. In short, Mexico has been bipassed this year, and crop failures are the result.

But there's more; the ethanol mandate in the United States for gasoline has driven the price of corn sky high, and corn is one of the staples of the Mexican diet. Mexico just couldn't afford to lose any crops - but has done so anyway.

Couple this with the civil chaos that the drug cartels are causing (and much thanks for that can go to the Obama Justice Department, which has been supplying all manner of deadly weapons to the drug lords as part of "Operation Fast and Furious") and you have a recipe for disaster. Without oil Mexico would be finis.

And let us not forget that Mexico is STILL a socialist country, with the ruling party refusing any sort of reform.

NOW is the time for the U.S. to press for Mexico to scrap her socialist system and go fully toward a market-based economy. Now is the time to push for more openness in the Mexican government. This government in power has failed miserably because Mexicans do not enjoy the fruits of their labor. But the U.S. is moving in the direction of Mexico, rather than the other way around, and with the current socialist in power in Washington there will be no pressure to reform. We could also get Mexico to increase oil production to drive down oil prices, but with President Windbag Windmill in office I don't expect that to happen.

What will happen? If things are bad enough, the U.S. will bail out Mexico (which means we will have to be bailed out by China) and Mexico will become a client state. What does that mean?


Yes, the North American Union will be at hand. Should the U.S. bail out Mexico (especially without insisting on reforms) we will have to take over a number of Mexican functions (and this can be sold as a matter of national security) and voila, we have permanent ties to Mexico, ties that future politicians will only strengthen. And even more Mexicans will enter the U.S. illegally, because we WON'T insist on reforms, and there will be no way to make a living. As Mexico empties into the U.S. the concept of a border will grow vague, and eventually will be erased. North America will become another E.U., a misanthropic empire of disparate peoples under one system. After that? Let's just say World Government is the next logical step.

The E.U. is an abject failure, and yet we rush headlong into creating a North American version. There is a serious effort to create the North American Union, and there is a scheme to create a United States of Africa as well. Anyone who doesn't believe the end game is world government is kidding themselves. Why create super regional governments when the smaller local governments are failures? How is it an improvement to increase the size and scope of government when local government does not work? One would only believe that a U.S. of Africa is a good thing if you wanted world government; it would be but a means to an end. A U.S. of Africa would simply multiply the disaster that is Zimbabwe across the continent.

The theory with the NAU is that the U.S. and Canada would prop up Mexico, acting to dilute the poverty there. It's vintage collectivist thinking; we have too much wealth in the anglo north and we can simply share it with the Mexicans in the south. Creating a North American Union means being fair, not letting those evil American and Canadian people horde the wealth they were blessed with. That Mexico has an enormous bounty of natural resources and good land is immaterial; it's not a systemic failure, but the greed of the northerners. Put them together in one country and the "unnatural" boundaries will disappear as all share the wealth.

Not sure what wealth there is to share in a U.S. of Africa. South Africa and Rhodesia were, whatever their faults, prosperous under "colonial" rule; the integration of the new nations into inter-tribal countries has destroyed whatever prosperity they had - especially in what was Rhodesia and is now Zimbabwe. But again, that isn't the point. The point is to establish these uber structures that can then be integrated into a worldwide federation run by the U.N.

This projected famine in Mexico would not be a worry had Mexico not been a socialist state. It would have been tough, yes, but the Mexican economy could have absorbed the losses and found ways to come back. Mexico is facing famine because it does not have a free system. Command economies always fail under pressure. They are too weak, too feeble to turn lemons into lemonade. Nobody cares enough to take initiative. Mexico's answer to stagnant economic growth was to export her unemployed to the U.S. Outsourcing their poverty bought them some time, but did nothing to fundamentally reform the problems that Mexico suffered. Those problems are systemic. And now the winds of fortune are blowing down the house of cards that the socialists have built.

When will Mankind realize the utter stupidity of socialism? It never works, yet we keep trying, trying. Always, it's just a matter of getting the right people in charge "we are the ones we have been waiting for" yet it always produces poverty, inequity, misery. And every time it fails that failure is used as an excuse for more of what caused the trouble in the first place.

This Mexican famine will be a golden opportunity for the American socialists. Beware!

Muchos Gracias to Ron De Haan

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by