August 14, 2011

Jorge G. Castañeda's "Mañana Forever? Mexico and the Mexicans"

My new VDARE column is a long review of former Mexican foreign minister Jorge G. Castañeda's new book Mañana Forever? Mexico and the Mexicans.
In 2001, Castañeda made a valiant effort to foist Mexico’s problems off on America—hey, you can’t blame him for trying. But today it’s obvious that America isn’t rich enough anymore to subsidize his country of 113 million. Mexico, therefore, is going to have to fix itself. 
Castañeda sees Mexico as doomed to perpetual mediocrity as long as it continues to indulge in its traditional worldview of victimism and anti-Americanism. If, as General Patton said, Americans love a winner, Mexicans love a loser.

Read the whole thing there.

I cover a whole lot of ground in this review, but something I'd add is that Castañeda has now come around to believing that Mexico's past and present is, relatively speaking, surprisingly nonviolent. In general, Castañeda seems to view Mexicans as being a little soft and childish, as being mama's boys.

This may seem unlikely, what with all the gruesome crimes in Mexico's current drug wars, but I can see that he has a point. 

Perhaps these opposing views can be reconciled by noting Mexico's traditional penchant for spectacular sadism, which goes back (at least) to Aztec priests ripping out captives' beating hearts on top of pyramids. You can't get much more spectacular or sadistic than that. But for sheer quantity of killing (as opposed to people dying due to side effects), it's hard to top Europeans in the 20th Century. White people had the organizational skills and the willpower and the ideological intensity to kill and die in ridiculous numbers.

70 comments:

Reg Cæsar said...

...the Mexican public just did not endear itself to the stricken American public. As Castañeda explains in his current book:

“Quite simply, there was no outpouring of broad Mexican sympathy, support, and solidarity for the tragedy befallen its neighbor. Fox’s supposedly slow response would be forgotten; Mexican society’s coolness would not.”


Compare to this: Mexico was one of the few countries that supported Ethiopia in her war with the Italians in the 1930s. The Abyssinians were so grateful, for so long thereafter, that when Mexico suffered an earthquake 50 years later, the Ethiopians gladly sent them aid money.

This was during their own famine.

Anonymous said...

"But for sheer quantity of killing (as opposed to people dying due to side effects), it's hard to top Europeans in the 20th Century. White people had the organizational skills and the willpower and the intellectual intensity to kill and die in ridiculous numbers."

But Europeans fought wars to create a new order due to existing tensions, not out of general disorder.
Minus the tensions, Europeans would have created and managed peaceful societies, as they've done post-WWII.
So, even though Nazis were evil, their violence was still purposeful and goal-oriented, even if those goals were sinister. Had they won, Nazis would have created an evil order but an order nevertheless. Mexicans seem incapable of maintaing order even in times of peace.

Btw, in terms of sheer horror in percentage terms, no one tops the Khmer Rouge and Hutus in the 20th century. And all they had were Ak-47s, machetes, and clubs.
And Mao managed to kill tens of millions in peace time. A dubious achievement to be sure, but a record breaker nevertheless.

Anonymous said...

Most of the explanations by Jorge Castaneda seem to be as bogus as the mystical books by Carols Castaneda.

1. Mexicans love losers in sports. Really? What about those crazy soccer fans not long ago?
I think white Americans are less obsessed about winning. White kids boo at Duke basketball(which is generally white dominated), white journalists demand more black quarterbacks(though blacks dominate just about all other positions), white people dont resist illegal invasion and affirmative action. And cowards like Don IMus get on their feet and apologize like dogs. (Maybe white Americans are less obsessed about winning cuz they figure they won too many times already. Winning isn't too exciting if your nation won a truckload of gold medals at the Olympics. Generally, lesser nations see greater symbolic value in sports victory. Sucky at everything else, they at least wanna take pride in sports. Another reason whites may be less into sports victory is they got used to losing to blacks.)

I recall Mexicans were crazy about Julio Caesar Chavez. I mean really crazy. Mexicans generally suck at sports not as a result of lack of enthusiasm but because short Mexicans are generally not as athletic as whites and blacks. But Mexicans are sports-obsessed. Mexican-Americans certainly loved Oscar Delatoya.

The business about Mexicans looking up to 'losers in history' is misleading and misconceived. So, that is the latest excuse for Mexican failure? But wasn't Jesus a 'loser'? And His Disciples all ended up dead too. Losers? Most Christian saints got killed, like Joan of Arc for example.
Germanic gods faced doom and gloom, waiting for defeat in Ragnarok.
Japanese mythology and tales are full of beautiful losers. Jewish history is rife with losers.
After WWII, Germans were into defeat, guilt, shame, and etc, but they still built a great economy from the ashes. So did Japan.

Another thing. What is meant by a 'loser'? A mediocrity, a good for nothing? Or a tragic hero? A tragic hero may lose in flesh but he wins in spirit. Zapata, in this sense, is not a loser but a tragic hero. He lives on as an inspiration. A tragic hero is not someone who sets out to lose. He tries to win but is brought down by fate, circumstances, conspiracy, betrayal. He inspires people, and Mexico has had many tragic heroes, and their example don't say, "just give up cuz it's better to loser" but "keep on fighting and finish what I've started." It's like in SANDS OF IWO JIMA. Duke gets killed--technically a 'loser'--but the men are inspired to carry on with the fight.

Castenada, like so many, look to trivial reasons. He overlooks four main factors:

1. Genetics. Possibly lower IQ among Mexicans.

2. Mestizo-ization, which made a mess of culture and history. What is a Mexican? Blanco? Indio? A Mexican is a culturally and racially confused somebody who still has yet to define himself.

3. Ultra-reactionary white Latino rule over Mexico where the elites kept the masses stupid, passive, and illiterate in order to maintain their own privilege. Instead of seeing the masses as human capital to raise up, the elites saw and used them as cattle.

4. Indigenous culture was poor basis for progressive civilization. Though history of white oppression was true enough, indigenous peoples were pretty crazy and backward too--though some of their achievements were indeed astounding.

Whiskey said...

The primary reason Mexico is so screwed up is rejecting European civilization. Cortes conquered a million Aztecs with no more than 300 men during almost all of his campaigns (aided to be sure by many natives but still only 300 Conquistadors). Europeans had a system, a proven "Moneyball" way of doing a lot with a little. No one in Mexico seeks to emulate Napoleon, or Caesar, or Wellington, or Nelson, or Charlemagne, or even Gottfried Daimler.

Could they reach the same heights? Probably not, but they could reach higher. Which is the point. Male cooperation and suchlike is almost nil among Mexicans. They can't even reach Al Capone levels of cooperation to limit bad-for-drug-business violence. Its as if they viewed "Yojimbo," "High Plains Drifer," and "Last Man Standing" (all the same movie) and decided that was their model for a society.

They're probably too violent and uncooperative. Not soft.

Anonymous said...

Ah!..., 'foist' now there's a word.
My trusty copy of Skeate's Etymological Dictionary of the English Langauge, published in 1890, and one of my very favorite books, one of the very few books I trust and rely upon, traces the roots of 'foist' to the Old Germanic 'fysten' meaning "to pass wind silently".
Well with regard to the American political class's policy (or rather non-policy) regarding immigration, I couldn't come up with a more apt word myself.

Anonymous said...

This article tops everything Sailer has written before in terms of American chest-thumping, self-boasting idiocy. No wonder the whole World hates you. Mexicans hate Americans for the same reasons a Gaulish or Cithian slave two millenia ago hated Marcus Licinius Crassus. Simple as that. Yes, Americans love "winning" and this is one of the reasons your society is so detestable. Winning means invariably stepping over other people and crushing them. What are considered loathsome and repprochable character traits in most societies and cultures are regarded as great personality traits in America.

And I honestly don't think the U.S is the greatest country ever. It isn't. the U.S has actually contributed very few if any fundamentals of Human civilization. What is American culture? Hamburgers? Coca-Cola? Blue jeans? Hell, even France, which you Americans love to trash so much, have contributed a lot more in terms of civilization than the U.S. Which country has given the World the greatest poets? Greatest artists? Philosophers? Mathematicians? The U.S is the most successful capitalist market society with the most consumerism, but that is hardly the same as being the greatest civilization. Having the most cars in the garage and the greatest amount of electronic gadgets does NOT make you a great civilization. Mexicans should not strive to become more like Americans. They would lose a precious part of their Humanity. Americans represent the epitome of petit-burgeoise mediocrity. The motto of American Society seems to be to consume so that you can produce, to consume more so that you can produce more, to consume even more so that you can consume even more etcetera ad nauseum. Mexicans have less material wealth than Americans, but are they necessarily less happy? They seem a lot warmer, friendlier than Americans and to enjoy life more, an their suicide rates are lower than Americans. It is a value-judgment that you make to assume that the U.S is "better" than Mexico. One thing the U.S is better is civility, even though Americans are hardly the most civil people on Earth. Even though I would much rather live in Mexico than the U.S(I know both countries well), the violence and macho mentality is something I don't like about Latins in general even though they are much friendlier in general than Americans.

On a final note, stop boasting about beating the Germans in World War II, retards. It was the U.S.S.R that defeated Germany and not you. 65% of German war casualties in WWII were caused by the Soviets, and 9 out of 10 of the biggest battles of WWII were between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army. In fact, when the U.S entered Europe in July of 1944 Germany was already on it's knees and would have lost anyway.

Reg Cæsar said...

... he makes an above-average New York public intellectual.

A couple columns (I forget whose) recently reminded us that "intellectual" was originally a pejorative, and the true compliment was "scholar".

So, is a "public intellectual" doubly worse than a private scholar?

... they simply assume that Mexicans must be the opposite of those evil rednecks in the Southwest that they hate.

Truth be told, they hate blue-blood Yankees a hell of a lot more than they do "evil rednecks", whose only crime, in their eyes, is voting Republican, a recent phenomenon.

It wasn't all that long ago when Southerners and their drier Soutwestern cousins were embraced by NYC and DC "intellectuals" as the salt of the earth. And the embrace was somewhat mutual-- the WPA photographers had to tell them to stop smiling and look suitably oppressed for the camera.

[I must be a "big stupid stupid-head" as well-- originally putting this comment on the wrong post.]

Anonymous said...

"Hell, even France, which you Americans love to trash so much, have contributed a lot more in terms of civilization than the U.S."

But US saved France twice.

Anonymous said...

"The U.S is the most successful capitalist market society with the most consumerism, but that is hardly the same as being the greatest civilization."

Only a snitty pampered petit bourgeois brat who soaked up pop marxism and consumerist hipster leftist from college professors and rolling stone magazines could go on yammering like this.

Meanwhile, I'll stay here while he will presumably go to touch 'humanity' down in Mexico where people are still one with nature--like living next to piles of manure and having lice on their pubes.

Anonymous said...

"Winning means invariably stepping over other people and crushing them."

I dunno. We beat the Germans and Japanese, but they didn't do so bad. And if Mexico love poor Mexico and hate rich America, why do they keep coming here? To be crushed by winners or to look for jobs which only winners can create?

Anonymous said...

'Mexicans don't like conflict and confrontation'.

An interesting theory, but what I've read about the sheer ruthlessness of the zetas (who simply must be the baddest-asseed criminal fraternity of all time), the murder rate and the piles of heads that pop up occasionally (left by the fairies I presume), tend to think otherwise.

no one expects the Spanish Armada said...

re: windy philippic above (Mexicans should not strive to become more like Americans, burgers, Coke)--I think the "mutual non-interference" line was pretty clear.

The commentary about Mexico City traffic was specially funny to me because earlier this year I drove down to L.A. to visit the folks, and exited the freeway near Sylmar to look for a gas station. Trying to get back to Foothill Blvd or the 210 I became temporarily stranded amid some citizens on horseback, a cavalry of about a dozen or so, who were sort of off to the side but inevitably veering into the street. This was 9 o'clock at night. Let's not exchange transportation customs please!

Anonymous said...

Generally, great article. I'd like to quibble with this line, however:

"In summary: Mexicans do not appear, from Castañeda’s detailed account, to be a terribly formidable people."

Mexicans are indeed formidable when they perceive an American or Americans in between them and a last ditch effort to recover from disasters they caused themselves or at least allowed to happen.

Fred said...

The first Anonymous makes some excellent points. There are tragic hero "losers" in many cultures, including successful ones. The French have the Legend of Roland, The Ancient Greeks had the Spartans at Thermopylae, Israel today inducts its elite troops on Masada, where the Zealots made their last stand, etc.

Also, his last point, about the weaknesses of indigenous civilization is worthy of further exploration. There is probably some rich material to be mined there by a motivated political scientist or historian. Instead, political correctness requires the emphasis of such study to be on the Aztecs' most impressive achievements. What about their inability to develop the wheel, or to advance beyond a religion based on human sacrifice, etc.?

Anonymous said...

Mexicans tend to be fatalistic in their attitudes toward life. I'd bet that makes them sympathetic towards losers and passive in general.

dearieme said...

"But US saved France twice": once. It was the British who saved them the first time. On the other hand, by winning at Yorktown, the French created the USA.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I believe that around 1900 or so the USA and Mexico were pretty level pegging regarding GDP per capita.
What really clinched the enormous gulf that opened in the 20th century was the fact that the USA could consistently put on a few per centage points per annum on growth rates compared to Mexico.Nothing spectacular mind you, just 1 - 2% over the course of decades does wonders.
Anyhow the mass importation of low skilled low paid mexicans as advocated by The American poltical class will do nada to boost per capita growth rates.

amazed said...

"It isn't. the U.S has actually contributed very few if any fundamentals of Human civilization."

How about starting with the machine you are typing on?
While I usually avoid responding to trolls, kooks, liars and 12 yr olds, even the most critical America-bashers must be scratching their heads over that howler. Yankees are famous for nothing if not their ingenuity.
Remember the Constitution? The development of a democracy to while the whole world wants to come? A Civil War where well over half a million white men died fighting over, among other things, black slavery?
The typewriter? The telegraph? First one from D.C. to Baltimore: what has God wrought, 1844?
The sewing machine? The airplane? The modern compupter? The internet? TV started in Germany but was developed and manifested on a mass scale in America. The automobile? Henry Ford's assembly line that the Japanese copied? a host of mechanical farm machinery that revolutionized agriculture in the 20th century? Trains and steam power were invented in Britain but the Americans developed the railroad system and new forms of engines; space exploration; jets; telephones; telgraph; any number of munitions from rifles to nuclear bombs. Not sure that's a contribution but it sure shows inventiveness.
Mathematicians: plenty of those but I'm only up on the more obvious and doubtless other readers can supply that info.
America is the source of so many inventions and innovations, and your comment so absurd that's it's hardly worth refuting. Please refer to the patent office before you reveal yourself as certifably insane.
Or maybe you're just 10.

read it said...

"Perhaps these opposing views can be reconciled by noting Mexico's traditional penchant for spectacular sadism, which goes back (at least) to Aztec priests ripping out captives' beating hearts on top of pyramids. You can't get much more spectacular or sadistic than that"


Uh, have you read Herodotus? I mean, like cover to cover?

http://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Herodotus-Histories/dp/0375421092

Not to get in pissing contest, but humanity is depraved, dude.

Anonymous said...

"The first Anonymous makes some excellent points. There are tragic hero "losers" in many cultures, including successful ones"


The Alamo


Nathan Hale


Dietrich Bonhoeffer


However, martyrs must serve a purpose beyond just temporal defeat. They must inspire the cause or victors, etc.

Ironically, Cinco de Mayo is a bizarre reversal of the Alamo. The Mexicans won the Battle of Puebla (5 May) but went on to lose the war with the French.

Anonymous said...

"What about their inability to develop the wheel, or to advance beyond a religion based on human sacrifice, etc.?"


Aren't all religions based on human sacrifice?

You have to give up something to follow a religion. The gain is common effort.

corvinus said...

I think Sailer's analysis is more or less accurate. But, I think comparing Mexico to Russia is in some ways better than comparing it to Turkey, although the Turkish parallels are instructive.

Both Mexico and Russia were governed by brutal one-party rule between WWI and WWII, both had bloody revolutions in the 1910s, and so on and so forth. And, both didn't get out from under their one-party rule until the end of the century.

This sometimes bloody and brutal, sometimes sclerotic one-party rule might explain a few things that Mexico and Russia have in common, such as high levels of corruption, gangster activity, fatalism, and so forth. So I would consider Mexico to be not only a Turkey, but also a Russia with a mestizo population, warmer climate, spicier food, higher birth rate, and our alphabet.

Garrett said...

White people had the organizational skills and the willpower and the ideological intensity to kill and die in ridiculous numbers.

Who provided the ideologies and the political rationales? Was it white people?

The Little Corporal said...

"Hell, even France, which you Americans love to trash so much, have contributed a lot more in terms of civilization than the U.S."

Perhaps this was true up to about a century, ago prior to WWI. Back then America was still a relatively underpopulated remote backwoods struggling to catch up to Europe.

Over the past century America has eclipsed France by every measure of civilization - mime and parkour not counting as measures of cilivization outside France.

Not only has France become a cultural dustbin for American castaways like Jerry Lewis, but France's civilizing output has fallen faster and more than than any great European power (England, Germany and Russia).

Present trends show France devolving much faster than the rest of Europe and certainly the US so her future is even dimmer.

Quelle domage!

Chicago said...

For Mexico to address it's problems sounds good to us as it seems to imply they'll stop coming here illegally in droves. So perhaps someday in the future that'll happen. However, heretofore they've had an easy solution by exporting their surplus population to the US with the seeming connivance of both governments. Tens of millions of illegals have been dumped on us, along with their legals. Bush certainly sinks even lower as one reads about his perfidious actions regarding this issue.
The US government supported the candidacy of Turkey for entry into the EU, which could have had a destructive effect upon European societies. Possibly that may have been the reason for supporting Turkey, a desire to impair Europe. Seems the US government has been a force for some very bad things, this, our very own supposed government.

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

"On a final note, stop boasting about beating the Germans in World War II, retards. It was the U.S.S.R that defeated Germany and not you."

Sure thing Anonymous - or whoever you are - you go right on believing that. Stalin had had many of his best commanders murdered in the 1930s and the USSR was an economic basket case. The Soviets may have taken more casualties, but who do you think provided the materiel? Ever hear of Lend-Lease? Oh and BTW, we never got back most of the hardware that we "lent" the the USSR.

Anonymous said...

"Mexicans tend to be fatalistic in their attitudes toward life."

What Mexicans are is obsessed with conformity. They often have great self-esteem despite having low paying, low status jobs that would leave most whites feeling inferior. As long as they're fitting in with the group, they're fine. They're also ethnocentric to the extreme so have a real problem recognizing when they've crossed the line into forcing their religious and political values on non Mexicans.

I suspect that at the heart of any conflict with Mexicans in America will have to do with the Caucasian population failing to share socialist values regarding wealth redistribution. Certainly anyone a Mexican considered a "loser" would be in for some teasing but their greatest ire will be for anyone they consider selfish. From the Anglo's perspective, however, what the Mexicans think is their due may well look like highway robbery - we (Mexican's) need it so you must provide it or else.

Anonymous said...

Jews = people of the book.
Mexicans = people of the letterhead.

Anonymous said...

So basically JGS is a half-jew internationalist who wants Mexico to be more like the USA.

I say let Mexico be Mexico, and let Mexico stay in Mexico. The Mexican prohibition against foreigners owning land is a good one, from a Mexican standpoint.

And BTW we didn't 'steal' California from Mexico. They declared war on us and we won. We then paid them for it. On top of that, Mexico stole California from the Spanish, who stole it from the Indians.

Kylie said...

"This article tops everything Sailer has written before in terms of American chest-thumping, self-boasting idiocy. No wonder the whole World hates you....blah blah blah for interminable paragraphs of risible projection."

Feel better now?

Justin said...

LOL, the more I learn about Mexicans, the more I like them. Not a bad people at all. Manana-Land Forever!

Marlowe said...

"this plan of turning Mexico into a giant Greece at American expense seems like another bullet dodged."

America dodged straight into the path of two other bullets - Afghanistan & Iraq. At least spending $100 billion a year on improving Mexico's roads (and building the odd $32 million bridge) might have benefited the American tourists heading down south.

Anonymous said...

"this plan of turning Mexico into a giant Greece at American expense seems like another bullet dodged."

But isn't SW already a kind of mexico?

Anonymous said...

"On a final note, stop boasting about beating the Germans in World War II, retards. It was the U.S.S.R that defeated Germany and not you."

USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany before Hitler invaded Russia.

Whiskey said...

Anon -- No Russia did not defeat Hitler alone. American tanks, jeeps, trucks, guns, ammo, and the like kept them in the war. As did first the British and then the Americans in North Africa. Americas were fighting Germans in Italy in 1943. Without all this, critical bleeding off of troops, men, equipment, aircraft, and attention (not to mention their best general Rommel) Hitler would have overwhelmed the Soviets.

As for American contributions: The Hard Boiled Detective Novel, Mark Twain, Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, Jazz, Blues, Rock, Thomas Eakins, Remington, Watson and Crick, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Salk, and Gorgas come to mind. Beating Polio and Yellow Fever and Malaria were AMERICAN achievements. As was defeating Japan, inventing the world's music, its soft drinks, and the like.

Mexicans are not enslaved, Americans have bent over backwards to them. Romans slaughtered Gauls and took their land, enslaving the remnants. Americans ... employ them as gardeners and cooks at ten times the wages they get at home. We even let them vote, sadly. Mexicans are poor because they cannot take advantage of their natural resources that in many cases exceed that of the US, and are in demand (copper, coal, oil, cocoa, coffee, to name just a few).

Anonymous said...

So Steve writes an interesting post about Mexico and most commentators talk about who won WWII and is America still Number 1.

I guess people really don't care about Mexico. Or maybe its the kind of people who comment.

Anonymous said...

OT

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/aug/18/finish-that-homework-tiger-mother/

Anonymous said...

"No Russia did not defeat Hitler alone. American tanks, jeeps, trucks, guns, ammo, and the like kept them in the war."

Russian weather helped some, and its size. If Russia were the size of France, it would have lost.

Also, Hitler was his own worst enemy. His nutjob racial policies treated Ukrainians and anti-communist Russians as subhuman.

Anonymous said...

I DON'T NEED NO STINKING BADGE!!

Anonymous said...

Mexicans need a Confucius or Confuciez who can instill its people with a status-obsessive devotion to learning and knowledge.

Anonymous said...

Mexico's problems are demographics pure and simple. They encouraged their people to have too many children, and on anti-American propaganda to boot. A century ago Mexico's population was around 18 Millon. Now they, and if we are foolish enough we, will pay the consequences of that.

Anonymous said...

Only Americans could make taking out one's wallet and footing part of the bill the manliest act ever. The Russians were beastly, but real men nonetheless, using dead bodies to help tanks gain traction, etc. Italy was a sideshow to a sideshow. Those evil Germans were the hardest MFs since the Mongols, not cowards and homosexuals. And, BTW, 65% seems mighty low for German casualties inflicted by the Reds. Alright, back to your BS weather-beaten guff, Yanks.

Antioco Dascalon said...

Asians are pretty good at getting killed in spectacular numbers and I'd place Ghengis Khan alone as topping 20th Century Americans. Of the top 10 deadliest wars, three are in the 20th century and 2 are mainly European. The other 7 are all Asian. And 36 million people is a far larger percent of the population in the 8th century than 60 million in the 20th.
7 of the top ten disasters as measured by percent of global population killed were Chinese wars or conquests that originated in Asia. And even WWII had a significant percent of deaths in the Pacific, and Japan and China had been at war for a few years by the time Pearl Harbor happened.
For organized death, I think China takes the cake (and that doesn't even include the Great Leap Forward).

See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

Anonymous said...

One thing that may be a problem amongst Mexicans... aesthetics.
Possibly Mexicans are Mexican-ish cuz they're short and stubby? But Japanese are short and scrawny, so that can't be it.
But just look at those ridiculous sombreros(especially with hanging beads), potato-sack-like peasant clothings, and the Mexican way of speaking Spanish which is almost self-deprecating. They speak Ingles the same way.

Listen to the fat Mexican say My Little Buttercup

And then you got Mexican murals which I cannot stand. They are so round, passive, dull, etc without sharp lines, edges, or expression. Everything is part of pattern without sense of individuality. Instead of man and environment(like Wanderer by Friedrich), you get manvironment where man is just part of the whole which is passive like inside of a mother's womb. Even Rivera's revolutionary paintings do little to stir the spirit.

And then you got fiesta and siesta.

Btw, I'm not sure Mexicans can't stand one another. I see more Mexicans having larger picnics and gatherings at the park than gringos do. Maybe Mexicans want a home of their own cuz they've had to live in crowded surroundings for too long.
For poor people, urban living means crime, grime, and not having a dime.
For rich people, urban living means fine dining, museum, cocktail parties, taxis, limos, etc.
Since most Mexicans aren't rich, they associate city life with crowded hardship.

White people actually prefer to be left alone. We don't see too many large family gatherings among white liberals. The difference is white people have perfected a way of being alone even in a crowd. This is possible because white people respect each other's space and don't get in each other's way. I think Japanese are good at this too. But maybe Mexican manners are not as fine or sharp, and so Mexican crowdedness means people getting in your way--like poor people follow you around and drive you crazy in India.
And if you see WILD BUNCH and TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE, Mexicans sure love to laugh a lot and get drunk publicly.

Mexicans also have less sense of responsibility and public shame. Germans crowded together will be mindful of one another and try to get along in peace. Germans are conscientious about waste disposal, for instance. A mexican, otoh, will dump his garbage on your lawn and use your parking space. If you complain, he will say he didn't do it or, 'hey amigo, what is the biiiig deeeeal?' Not because he's necessarily evil or aggressive but because he's sloppy and messy.

Anonymous said...

Are Jews as paranoid about Mexicans as they are about white Americans?

Anonymous said...

Dearie, while France's help brought the American Revolution to a close quicker, the result would have been the same in any case. France learned that particular lesson in Indochina and Algeria. Unfortunately, the Americans still haven't...

Anonymous said...

"The Russians were beastly, but real men nonetheless, using dead bodies to help tanks gain traction, etc."

Totalitarian communism whipped them to be tough and beastly. In WWI, Russians were not particularly tough. And White Russians lost to Red Russians. Stalinism whipped russians into shape with an iron rod. Those who didn't obey were summarily shot by the military or security forces.

Hindsight said...

Castañeda's right to pick on the mañana attitude. For me the defining characteristic of Mexico is the way everything is either brand new or falling apart. The Mexicans really are good craftsmen, but they won't maintain anything-- whatever the concern may be, they'll get to it tomorrow.

(If you fuss, they'll kludge something up-- they'll park a 5-gallon jug of ditchwater on the floor next to the commode so you can flush it by hand. When the jug is empty, they'll send a laborer to fill it. He'll slop oily mud on the bathroom floor. Hey, we'll fix the plumbing mañana).

Once in a while some German Mexican (typically descended from an engineer sent to Mexico by foreign investors who dallied with a lovely señorita and was too Teutonic to leave her and the baby) will organize a crew to rebuild a highway or something, but demonstrations like that can only be regarded as personal achievements, not institutional ones.

Anonymous said...

White libs and white cons both have their romantic fixations about Mexico.

For white cons, Mexico is still linked to it past, women are still women, religion is strong, hiearchies remain strong, there is lively small town/rural/villege life and culture,etc.
For white libs, Mexico is land of salt of earth, the oppressed and resilient, the future army of multi-culti revolution, the wonderful product of race mixing, etc.

So, we need to be clear about whether we're talking about mexico or mexico-through-our-prism.
But then, I suppose there is no such thing as a nation as pure nation. Even people of a nation see and regard themselves through certain prisms--historical, religious, moral, cultural. There is no single mexico or single mexican lens either.

Anonymous said...

'Mexico' is not a very awesome sounding name for a nation.
Maybe it should be changed to Mexas or something. Or maybe it should be reversed to Ocixem.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Turkey, a useful book

Anonymous said...

One thing that may be a problem amongst Mexicans... aesthetics. etc., etc., etc.,


American movies may not be the best source for trenchant Mexican cultural criticism.

-osvaldo m.

Paul Mendez said...

Mexicans non-violent??

Body count during the 1900-20 revolutionary years is estimated at 1.4 million on up. That's 10% of WWI casualties in a much smaller arena.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP11.HTM

Anonymous said...

The trouble is the people who are in a position to create change in Mexico are the very people who would not benefit and would lose out from change.

Anonymous said...

"I suppose there is no such thing as a nation as pure nation."

Uh, what?

How about Japan?


"Even people of a nation see and regard themselves through certain prisms--historical, religious, moral, cultural. There is no single mexico or single mexican lens either."

Like I said, what about Japan?

Mexico is a bunch of conquered peoples of a different race, plus imported African slaves and Europeans. Mexicans may be diverse, blended, internally conflicted with identity crises, but the Japanese sure aren't.

Anonymous said...

anon 12:47 - Back to the Guardian with ye, ye whey faced troll.

Anonymous said...

"The typewriter? The telegraph?...The sewing machine? The airplane? The modern compupter? The internet? TV started in Germany but was developed and manifested on a mass scale in America. The automobile?"

The exaggerated notion of American ingenuity is typified by the fact that many of the things Americans think they invented were actually invented by Germans. The computer, typewriter, automobile, and the aforementioned television were all German inventions.

Anonymous said...

"I suppose there is no such thing as a nation as pure nation."

"Uh, what?
How about Japan?"

Japanese right, Japanese left, Japanese cosmopolians, Japanese chauvanists, Japanese whatever argue all the time over what Japan is. Some say Japan is unique and crucially different from rest of Asia. Some say Japan owes many of its influeces to China and even Korea. Some say Japan is an Asian nation. Some say Japan is an honorary Western nation. There is no single Japan that Japanese all agree on. And Japanese are a mix of indigenous aboriginals and mongoloid invaders.

Anonymous said...

A paradox. People trapped in yesterday think of tomorrow.
Scarlett: "Tomorrow will be another day."
There is no today.

Anonymous said...

My personal experience with Mexican. I used to work as a clerk at a store in a building owned by and rented out by some Jewish lawyer. To remodel the upper floor, the Jewish guy hired some Mexican guy... who applied rubber cement for floor work and then turned on a portable heater directly onto the floor.
I still remember that day. I'm at the store, and the usually mild-mannered mexican comes down sweating but still maintaining his composure.
"You call the fireman. Upstairs on fire, I think." Then I notice droplets of flames--burning rubber cement--fall through the cracks on the ceiling. And then pandemonium. And then every parasite and opportunist--lawyers, board-up men--appear right out of blue. I call my boss who arrives to a store totally doused in water. Landlord reimbursed him from buidling insurance. If you're a lawyer, you can get away with anything.

Marlowe said...

No one mentioned the Zimmermann Telegram and it disappoints me.

Anonymous said...

"For white libs, Mexico is land of salt of earth, the oppressed and resilient, the future army of multi-culti revolution, the wonderful product of race mixing, etc."

Uh, wonderful?

I mean an HBDer could make the above statement in complete sarcastic confidence.

Svigor said...

Its as if they viewed "Yojimbo," "High Plains Drifer," and "Last Man Standing" (all the same movie) and decided that was their model for a society.

A Fistful of Dollars, not High Plains Drifter.

Svigor said...

Ever read about the battle of San Jacinto? One of the most important battles in American and Mexican history, and perhaps an HBD tale; the Mexicans lost because they took a nap and didn't dot the "i's" or cross the "t's."

Svigor said...

This article tops everything Sailer has written before in terms of American chest-thumping, self-boasting idiocy. No wonder the whole World hates you. Mexicans hate Americans for the same reasons a Gaulish or Cithian slave two millenia ago hated Marcus Licinius Crassus. Simple as that. Yes, Americans love "winning" and this is one of the reasons your society is so detestable. Winning means invariably stepping over other people and crushing them. What are considered loathsome and repprochable character traits in most societies and cultures are regarded as great personality traits in America.

American-Americans would be well-advised to read that comment several times. The new barbarians hate the new Rome for the same reason the old barbarians hated the old Rome; jealousy. The old barbarians no more gave a damn about the morality of the issues than this new one does.

The salient difference seems to be the new Romans aren't having any of the fun the old Romans did. But none of the bending over backwards for the new barbarians seems to be impressing anyone but the lower ranks of the eunuch class.

Svigor said...

On a final note, stop boasting about beating the Germans in World War II, retards. It was the U.S.S.R that defeated Germany and not you. 65% of German war casualties in WWII were caused by the Soviets, and 9 out of 10 of the biggest battles of WWII were between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army. In fact, when the U.S entered Europe in July of 1944 Germany was already on it's knees and would have lost anyway.

But we've already established that winning is invariably about stepping on and crushing people. Nothing to get too uppity about, right? So it should be a source of pride that we only did a fraction of the horrid stuff the Russians did. Right?

Neo-barbarian morality: say anything you can to produce the desired effect; never mind that it usually reflects the void where your dignity, honor, and self-respect should be.

slumber_j said...

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but it's a point that bears repeating over and over: the Mexicans are way, way better than anyone else at exploding sledgehammers:

http://tinyurl.com/3ltmrkj

Svigor said...

Only a snitty pampered petit bourgeois brat who soaked up pop marxism and consumerist hipster leftist from college professors and rolling stone magazines could go on yammering like this.

Or the kind of mind that cooked up Cultural Marxism (firefox knows "firefox" and "wikipedia" and "marxism" should be capitalized, but are ignorant that "Christianity" should be, too) in the first place.

As for Los Zetas, aren't they on their way out, or at least, on hard times? Still, I agree that the Spartacus/Mamluk aspect to them is appealing, from a (very long) distance.

Remember the Constitution?

I always thought the success and viability of the Constitution was more telling than its actual creation. Most of the banana republics have something similar, after all.

A Civil War where well over half a million white men died fighting over, among other things, black slavery?

I have a hard time figuring out any category in which the American Civil War goes into the "plus" column. America clearly lost.

I suspect that at the heart of any conflict with Mexicans in America will have to do with the Caucasian population failing to share socialist values regarding wealth redistribution. Certainly anyone a Mexican considered a "loser" would be in for some teasing but their greatest ire will be for anyone they consider selfish.

Doesn't wash. The (largely Spanish & white) ruling class of Mexico is far less generous to the Mexican peons than American society is. Now, you can argue that over time they'll absorb the American left's insanity (as per blacks), but that would be less about Mexicans and more about Mestizo-Americans or whatever you want to call them.

Also, Hitler was his own worst enemy. His nutjob racial policies treated Ukrainians and anti-communist Russians as subhuman.

But not so nuts as to prevent a couple million Slavs from fighting for the Whermacht.

Body count during the 1900-20 revolutionary years is estimated at 1.4 million on up. That's 10% of WWI casualties in a much smaller arena.

Santa Anna. The fact that this man was treated well after San Jacinto, and even sent home unharmed is mind-boggling to me. If it had been up to me, I would've put Mr. Silk Underwear up on a pole. Like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler#Methods_of_execution

There is no single Japan that Japanese all agree on.

What kind of circular bullshit is this? There is no single x that any large number of people can agree on. Who gives a damn?

Charlotte said...

"What about their inability to develop the wheel, or to advance beyond a religion based on human sacrifice, etc.?"


"Aren't all religions based on human sacrifice? "

In a manner of speaking. But I don't recall anything half so exciting at a sleepy 8:00 Mass as the captive congregation getting their hearts torn out as in Apocalypto.
I don't even remember any of the nuns threatening us with that eventuality, and no priest, to my knowledge, has been sued by former altar boys over that particular activity.

God spends a lot of time in the Old Testament scolding the Hebrews for "passing their children through the fire", i.e. offering them to Moloch as living sacrifices. The religions of the "Book" (Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Zoroastriansm) all had to win people away from precedent practices involving human sacrifice, though human sacrifice was not done much among Greeks and Romans, if at all. Hinduism also did away with it, but it is a very old religion and even more removed from its origins than other religions. There were villagers in southern India that used to fatten up a sacrifical victim and kill him piece by piece. The Pawnee did something similar till a young warrior in 1819, rescued and released the intended victim, a young girl to be sacrificed to the Morning Star in a prolonged and wretched fashion,thus putting a stop to it forever. It is not known if he was influenced by Christianity, but certainly by then they knew about it.

amazed said...

"The exaggerated notion of American ingenuity is typified by the fact that many of the things Americans think they invented were actually invented by Germans. The computer, typewriter, automobile, and the aforementioned television were all German inventions."

It would be difficult, not to say unnecessary, to exaggerate American ingenuity.
I already mentioned tv was first in Germany.
But it wouldn't have worked without electricity. Tesla went to work in America because that's where he had opportunity and where the eager bucks were. There was energy and confidence as well as ingenuity.

There is a huge volume to be written on the amazing by garage geniuses in the 20th century. The first automobile chugged around a Civil War encampment, and the first automobile accident occurred in 1869, in America, so I'm not sure where you're getting Germany as the inventor of the automobile, though there may have been Germans puttering around with the notion at the same time as some Americans.
Many inventions might have an inception in one place but be developed elsewhere. There is an argument that the camera was invented in Brazil, not France. The ingenuity also lay in developing and improving them, taking them as far as they could go. Computers have origins in various European inventions but overwhelmingly they were developed in America. The Internet, probably the most society-changing invention of recent decades, developed in America so scientists could talk to each other. About 1969--100 yrs after the 1st American auto accident.
As I said, the patent office is the place to look. By 1844 so many patents had been placed that it was suggested they close down the office.
Inventions get invented upon. America has stimulated envy and resentment in the rest of the world. More earth-changers have lived in America (and Europe, ok) in the past 200 years than have lived in the entire rest of the world in the past several thousand years. No wonder "they" want control of it and basically want to destroy it. Don't want too many independent people inventing, improving and developing.