Skip to main content

Is the United States a failed Narco State?

Drugs confiscated in Mexico, some of it was destined for the appreciative nostrils of the chattering classes.

There are demonstrations by political opportunists on the left and drug baron-financed protesters against the war on the drugs trade in Mexico, and suddenly articles pop up in western newspapers in support of these demonstrations. Predictably, they criticise Mexico's failure to tackle the drug trade.

One could legitimately ask if these journalists have not actually been paid off. A bank transfer would do it, taking only a few seconds. The drug traffickers don't just buy off locals. They buy off officials and journalists and politicians in any country where it suits them to do so. Applying 'international pressure' in the media would be one effective tactic drug traffickers could use against the measures being taken against them. They could plant stories.

Mexico's war against the drug traffickers is the US's war. If Mexico has failed to defeat the drug traffickers on one side of the border then the US has failed to defeat it on the other side of the border. The head honchos of the drugs cartel are US citizens, not Colombians or Mexicans: yet to British journalists, apparently, an international drugs trade generated by consumers in the richest country in the world suddenly becomes a national problem. The problem of Mexico.

At the same time we are still in the middle of a cultural war. Modern conventional wisdom suggests that taking drugs can make you into a more mature, well rounded and tolerant human being. So, according to the conventional wisdom, we should all take drugs. It's "normal" they tell us. Many western journalists take drugs. No shit, they do.

This means we have people who actually use the substances that cause the deaths in Mexico (the 85,000 drug related deaths so far, and counting). These are the creeps who label the drug war a 'Mexican problem'. This is an example of perfect double speak. people doing lines of coke or popping pills, condemning Mexico for 'failing' to tackle the problem of drugs and advocating deregulation of drug use. To be more honest about the international drugs trade for the press is very difficult.

In fact the US is primarily responsible for the drugs trade. It is the centre of the trade and compared to Mexico it does little or nothing to combat this within its own borders. In almost every school and workplace in the whole of the USA a variety of drugs are available for distribution to every home, every student or employee. Drug taking is normal and widespread. Reflect on that. A nation of over 350 million people where most of those people can get access to illegal drugs if they want them.

Think of the massive and undisturbed distribution network that must exist in a country like the US for almost every US citizen to have access to drugs. Think of the vast numbers of policemen and officials that must be on the take for that distribution network to operate.

Then understand: in the USA no one is fighting the drugs mafia. If they were fighting the drug mafia it would mean all out war and instead of the 85,000 you see dead in Mexico there would be 200,000 - 400,000 dead. The numbers would be proportionate to the extent of the drugs operation. Three times, ten times the size of Mexico..

The supply side, very often, doesn't even begin in Mexico. Mexico is a conduit. The conduit passes across the border and continues to operate in the US. But what happens when it is in the US?

By racialising the drug business and saying that it is black people and Latinos that distribute it you cover up the reality. It's a relay race and the baton is passed across the border to US citizens and officials involved in the drugs trade. In fact, it would not be a mistake to call the US a failed narco-state, if it were not for the fact that the country is so huge and rich that not even the drug business is big enough to define it.

But one things for sure. When it comes to reporting on the drug war in Mexico many of our our British journalists behave like creeps. They are creeps because they are apologists for the drugs trade.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Aerogramme from Lisa and Richard

To: Mr & Mrs J. Hall, Box 49 Eikenhof (TVL) Johannesburg Afrique du Sud. 28.3.76 Dear John and Nola, Today a week ago we were still in New Delhi with Eve and Tony and the boys and the whole thing looks like a dream. We arrived on the 28.2 in New Delhi and were happy to see the whole family fit and in good health. The boys have grown very much, Phil is just about the size of Tony and the twins are above average. We stayed untill the 22nd March, as our visa ran out and we did not want to go through all the ceremony of asking for an extension. It also got hotter and I don't know how I would have supported the heat. The extra week would also have passed, so we decided not to go to all the trouble with the authorities and leave on the 22nd. I cannot tell you how happy we have been to see such a lovely family, so happy and united. It is rare to experience sucha thing and we have both all the reasons to be proud of them (when I say goth I mean you and us ). There is su

Guardian: Kate Harding's reactionary censorious blog on CiF

It should go without saying... ....that we condemn the scummy prat who called Liskula Cohen : "a psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank" But I disagree with Kate Harding , (in my view a pseudo blogger), posting her blog in the Guardian attacking bloggers. It's a case of set a thief to catch a thief. The mainstream media is irritated by bloggers because they steal its thunder and so they comission people like Kate Harding , people with nothing to say for themselves, apparently, other than that they are feminists, to attack bloggers. I'm black. So I can legitimately attack "angry white old men". I'm a feminist, so I have carte blanche to call all anonymous bloggers "prats." Because yes, that is her erudite response to bloggers. No I don't say that the blogging medium can't be used to attack progressives in whatever context. Of course it can. But to applaud the censorship of a blogger by a billion dollar corporate like Google, and moreov

Guardian books blog fringe: Norman Mailer

FLASHING THE GUARDIAN -- A BOOKS BLOGGERS' REBELLION :  The unheroic censor with a death wish Part 1: In which Norman Mailer stars in an experiment in search engine optimisation By ACCIACCATURE 3 February 2009 When Norman Mailer died in 2007, informed opinion – in the blogosphere, people who had read at least two of his books – was split. The army of readers who saw him as one of the most despicable misogynists writing fiction in the 20th century was perfectly matched by warriors on the other side, who raged that the label wasn’t just unwarranted but tantamount to heinous calumny. Before commenters returned to bitching-as-usual, tempers were lost on literary sites all over the net in debating temperatures high enough to bring to mind tiles burning off space shuttles re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. After I'd agreed to a spontaneous suggestion by our good friend Sean Murray -- a pioneer and stalwart of the comments section of The Guardian’s books blog – that we re-