My 3 Year Prediction for Mexico

[MurderInc]

1. In the next three years, Mexican Federal authority will be challenged by many people in Mexico, mostly aligning themselves with Marxist idealism.

2. The federal government will capitulate so often that it will no longer be viewed as a serious institution and most of the nation will be ripe for revolution, mainly leftist. (There will be some areas of reactionary fascism.)

3. About 20 million Mexicans will attempt to immigrate, perhaps on foot, through the Mexican/U.S. border. (This number may be higher over time.)

4. The U.S. will respond by sending forces along the border to regulate the flow of that immigration.

5. The United States will, eventually through peaceful means or through war with Mexico, expand its territory through eventual recognition of new statehood into the U.S., to repopulate the recent immigrants. There would be afterward a Stars and Stripes of perhaps 60 stars.

6. South of the U.S. will be a Marxist Mexico.

7. Eventually, relations between the two will be normalized.

[Enragé]

:blink:

riiiight

firstly
depends on what you call marxist idealism, if you mean zapatista-ish, then yes (maybe)

secondly i doubt the US would openly invade mexico, sponsor paramilitaries certainly, but openly invading? doubt it

[MurderInc]

NewKind,

You'll notice that I qualified the TYPE of leftist organization that would be in place. It would be leftist, to me that is a fact. Whether the DoP would adhear to specific principles of per se Marxism is something open to debate and I do not pretend to categorize it in any other way other than leftist and revolutionary.

RE: the U.S. invasion, I don't mean it to be an invasion per se. Note I didn't use that word, but used the word "war".

Let me explain: If 1/2 of the population of North Korea bolted and walked to the South and entered w/out permision, the forces could not/would not stop them. No one has enough bullets or willpower to bring about such a harm. But there would be an inevitable response to this, the presumtion of new land gained for South Korea. Old rules wouldn't apply any longer. This is all theoretical ga-ga talk, but two bordering nations, where one begins to empty out its people could eventually lead to the one filling up to claim lands from the one emptying out.

It may sound fantasy, but there it is and I believe such would be possible.

[Red Axis]

I don't think that the United States economy could handle this, I am sorry to say. We can only take so many immigrants in the current situation. We could take many more in a realm where wealth is decentralized and wages are upped so that cheap labor would be a thing of the past.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:24 PM
NewKind,

You'll notice that I qualified the TYPE of leftist organization that would be in place. It would be leftist, to me that is a fact. Whether the DoP would adhear to specific principles of per se Marxism is something open to debate and I do not pretend to categorize it in any other way other than leftist and revolutionary.

RE: the U.S. invasion, I don't mean it to be an invasion per se. Note I didn't use that word, but used the word "war".

Let me explain: If 1/2 of the population of North Korea bolted and walked to the South and entered w/out permision, the forces could not/would not stop them. No one has enough bullets or willpower to bring about such a harm. But there would be an inevitable response to this, the presumtion of new land gained for South Korea. Old rules wouldn't apply any longer. This is all theoretical ga-ga talk, but two bordering nations, where one begins to empty out its people could eventually lead to the one filling up to claim lands from the one emptying out.

It may sound fantasy, but there it is and I believe such would be possible.
ah well we'll see

and i agree on the type of orgs.

[Reuben]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[MurderInc]

Reuben,

There is nothing of my 7 points which you can agree with. I think there is merrit in many of them.

hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahhahaahahahahahahahahah ahahahhahahahaha

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:59 PM
1. In the next three years, Mexican Federal authority will be challenged by many people in Mexico, mostly aligning themselves with Marxist idealism.

2. The federal government will capitulate so often that it will no longer be viewed as a serious institution and most of the nation will be ripe for revolution, mainly leftist. (There will be some areas of reactionary fascism.)

3. About 20 million Mexicans will attempt to immigrate, perhaps on foot, through the Mexican/U.S. border. (This number may be higher over time.)

4. The U.S. will respond by sending forces along the border to regulate the flow of that immigration.

5. The United States will, eventually through peaceful means or through war with Mexico, expand its territory through eventual recognition of new statehood into the U.S., to repopulate the recent immigrants. There would be afterward a Stars and Stripes of perhaps 60 stars.

6. South of the U.S. will be a Marxist Mexico.

7. Eventually, relations between the two will be normalized.
1. you expect the government to align with marxism just beceause they will be challenged by 'many people'. Next tot that you contradict yourself by calling marxism idealism.

2. uhm... ellaborate...

3. ok...

4. they will already have send forces, not for the immigrants but for the marxist government.

5. they wont do that to accomodate the immigrants if they will, but to acommedate themselves.

6. well... i doubt a mexico will be north of the U.S....

7. that means the government would not be truely marxist.

[MurderInc]

1. you expect the government to align with marxism just beceause they will be challenged by 'many people'. Next tot that you contradict yourself by calling marxism idealism.

2. uhm... ellaborate...

3. ok...

4. they will already have send forces, not for the immigrants but for the marxist government.

5. they wont do that to accomodate the immigrants if they will, but to acommedate themselves.

6. well... i doubt a mexico will be north of the U.S....

7. that means the government would not be truely marxist.


1. It is obvious to all that this movement is anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, and anti-federal government. As I have written, no one really knows whether or not its philosophy will be Marxist/Leninist, but it will be MORE that, than, let's say, socially liberal Sweden. I use the expression, marxism idealism in the same way that any dogma has an "ideal", versus that which is created for pragmatic reasons. Usually ALL societies, from the American to the (former) Soviet, to the PRC, to Venezuela, to Cuba to ??? all have their children recite various phrases aligned to this ideal.

2. Mexico has a history of comprimise and capitulation. They have made agreement after agreement. Their actual origin, at the Aztec level, was based on treaties and agreements instead of war, which they used as a last resort. It is amazing Mexico still exists, but I believe it will not exist for long. At least not as a functioning federal government. The signs are in the wind, and provinces will fall like dominos, in the same way of the Romans, by sheer disinterest.

3. ok

4. Only if challenged, and only if the border becomes an issue. But in many regions, for the U.S. to do so would be suicide, and to what end. Let's say that Mexico wants U.S. help to prop up it's government. Such an undertaking would require hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, and a public that won't believe Mexico's a threat. Over 60% of the American public believe Iraq was never a threat and most want our involvement there to end. I don't see us repeating Vietnam. (Iraq is not a Vietnam, but your Mexico scenario would be.)

5. Obviously. No one ever said the U.S. would do it for the immigrants. Statehood and membership in the U.S. would mean economic opportunity for large numbers of Mexicans who wouldn't want to be a part of the Marxist areas anyway. It will be more like a Civil Split than a Civil War.

6. Ha ha. The operative word I was using was "Marxist".

7. I mean normalized in the same sense the U.S. is with Venezuela. The fighting would cease, and there might even be travel between the two. As I said, Venezuela.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 6 2006, 08:27 PM
We can only take so many immigrants in the current situation.
...This seems more than just a little reactionary to me. This is in fact the same logic the Minutemen employ. Which of course have been traditionally supported by white supremists and neo-nazis and the like.

[MurderInc]

FistfulofSteel,

There are 6 billion people on the planet's surface. Can we agree that it would be idiotic to place all of them in the landspace of the United States of America?

Now, let's look at what I wrote:


We can only take so many immigrants in the current situation.

Duh!

There can only be a CERTAIN number of students in a high school without straining the living space. There can only be a CERTAIN number of people living in a city. (Try cramming the entire population of California into the San Gabriel Valley and its outlining regions and you've got Mexico City. It ain't a pretty life.

I think that objecting to my comment above puts one in the category of not too bright. Not trying to be mean about it, but the statement is as self evident as the Moon revolves around the Earth.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:27 PM
FistfulofSteel,

There are 6 billion people on the planet's surface. Can we agree that it would be idiotic to place all of them in the landspace of the United States of America?

Now, let's look at what I wrote:


We can only take so many immigrants in the current situation.

Duh!

There can only be a CERTAIN number of students in a high school without straining the living space. There can only be a CERTAIN number of people living in a city. (Try cramming the entire population of California into the San Gabriel Valley and its outlining regions and you've got Mexico City. It ain't a pretty life.

I think that objecting to my comment above puts one in the category of not too bright. Not trying to be mean about it, but the statement is as self evident as the Moon revolves around the Earth.
First of all, you may not have noticed but that wasn't your comment I was referring to. Second of all, the amount of immigrants in question wouldn't be 6 billion as you put it, even if 20 million Mexicans came, America would have enough room. After all Mexico is about 1/5 the size of America yet its population is 1/3 of America's.

[MurderInc]

I am confused by your earlier comment but will pursue it no longer. I stand by what I wrote, that all things are finite. The U.S. continues to absorb more immigrants than any other nation on Earth. We have plenty of room. But were what I predict to occur, I merely point out that we would eventually turn to lands in Mexico for American states.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:54 PM
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Seconded, "predictions" aren't much use even when based on the study of historical trends and facts, which this isn't

Please MurderInc, get off the computer and go for a little walk

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I don't thatill happen murderinc, My dad lives in Mexico and it's a farcry from marxism. There's Marcos who is a Zapataist and tries to take after Che but he wears that ski mask so alot of people think he's an idiot. Than there's the mayor of Mexico city who wants to nationalize all industry. He's very popular. But than there's the whole other side which want to take back the former territories and ban tourism.

[MurderInc]

But than there's the whole other side which want to take back the former territories and ban tourism.

Henry,

What group and what territories? And why ban tourism?

[violencia.Proletariat]

2. The federal government will capitulate so often that it will no longer be viewed as a serious institution

What does this mean? Of course it will be viewed as a serious institution, one that wants to violently supress counter movements. People are not just gonna start laughing at the state and forget about it


5. The United States will, eventually through peaceful means or through war with Mexico, expand its territory through eventual recognition of new statehood into the U.S., to repopulate the recent immigrants. There would be afterward a Stars and Stripes of perhaps 60 stars.

Never happen. The US uses puppet governments or economic imperialism to have control over third world countries, they don't physicially take them over. Besides resistance would be too great for them to handle, not to mention the opposition to this in the states.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

But than there's the whole other side which want to take back the former territories and ban tourism.

Henry,

What group and what territories? And why ban tourism?

The US territories that used to be Mexican, California, texas, etc...

They are nationalists.

[Red Axis]

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+May 6 2006, 10:33 PM--> (Fistful of Steel @ May 6 2006, 10:33 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 10:27 PM
FistfulofSteel,

There are 6 billion people on the planet's surface. Can we agree that it would be idiotic to place all of them in the landspace of the United States of America?

Now, let's look at what I wrote:


We can only take so many immigrants in the current situation.

Duh!

There can only be a CERTAIN number of students in a high school without straining the living space. There can only be a CERTAIN number of people living in a city. (Try cramming the entire population of California into the San Gabriel Valley and its outlining regions and you've got Mexico City. It ain't a pretty life.

I think that objecting to my comment above puts one in the category of not too bright. Not trying to be mean about it, but the statement is as self evident as the Moon revolves around the Earth.
First of all, you may not have noticed but that wasn't your comment I was referring to. Second of all, the amount of immigrants in question wouldn't be 6 billion as you put it, even if 20 million Mexicans came, America would have enough room. After all Mexico is about 1/5 the size of America yet its population is 1/3 of America's. [/b]
Responding to this, I do not know why MurderInc took my quote to be his own, but I totally agree with him. We cannot have the world bursting at the seams, and another thing, the only reason powerful people want immigrants here is to exploit them! When I said that, I meant in the current situation. Do you want millions of people just cramming into America and sucking down our entire economic system. Yes, it would be GREAT if every poor person in Mexico could live here, but it wouldn't WORK! Now, don't accuse me of not being an internationalist, because I am, I just believe that things don't happen overnight, and that means that opening our borders in preparation for the International Workers State should not occur until much later.

[Red Axis]

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+May 6 2006, 10:33 PM--> (Fistful of Steel @ May 6 2006, 10:33 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 10:27 PM
FistfulofSteel,

There are 6 billion people on the planet's surface. Can we agree that it would be idiotic to place all of them in the landspace of the United States of America?

Now, let's look at what I wrote:


We can only take so many immigrants in the current situation.

Duh!

There can only be a CERTAIN number of students in a high school without straining the living space. There can only be a CERTAIN number of people living in a city. (Try cramming the entire population of California into the San Gabriel Valley and its outlining regions and you've got Mexico City. It ain't a pretty life.

I think that objecting to my comment above puts one in the category of not too bright. Not trying to be mean about it, but the statement is as self evident as the Moon revolves around the Earth.
First of all, you may not have noticed but that wasn't your comment I was referring to. Second of all, the amount of immigrants in question wouldn't be 6 billion as you put it, even if 20 million Mexicans came, America would have enough room. After all Mexico is about 1/5 the size of America yet its population is 1/3 of America's. [/b]
Responding to this, I do not know why MurderInc took my quote to be his own, but I totally agree with him. We cannot have the world bursting at the seams, and another thing, the only reason powerful people want immigrants here is to exploit them! When I said that, I meant in the current situation. Do you want millions of people just cramming into America and sucking down our entire economic system. Yes, it would be GREAT if every poor person in Mexico could live here, but it wouldn't WORK! Now, don't accuse me of not being an internationalist, because I am, I just believe that things don't happen overnight, and that means that opening our borders in preparation for the International Workers State should not occur until much later.

[MurderInc]

violencia.Proletariat:

Regarding issue #2, that's exactly what I believe will happen. Mexico will have a revolutionary, leftist movement that will be a near civil war. The closer one gets to the north, the more capitalistic it will become; the further south one is, including Mexico City, the more socialist it will become.

Issue #5, will only happen if tens of millions of Mexicans "crash" the U.S. border to escape the socialism that will sweep through all parts of Mexico.

As far as the U.S. never expanding its borders through statehood, you have apparently not read a history book. Happens all the time in our history. ALL THE TIME. There are 50 - 100 year periods of non-expansion, but eventually it occurs again. But, as I wrote, if there is no mass immigration from Mexico it will not happen.

Will U.S. citizens be against it, as you wrote? Well, their always were those against it. Throughout U.S. history, large numbers of Americans rejected the creation of new states in the Ohio Valley, and yet they were created. They were shocked at Jefferson's aquisition of the Louisiana Territory, which many argued he hadn't the authority to procure. They LAUGHED at Sec of State Seward's purchase of Alaska from Russia, that one not even contiguous with the rest of the U.S. states. It still isn't! There was an all out war with Mexico and we ended up with the Southwest. There was a very shaddy deal to acquire Hawaii. Wake up man! Despite all of the opposition we continued to expand. My guess is that we still will.


LeftyHenry: You speak of Reconquista de Aztlan, OR the reacquisition of the terrirories to Mexico, rather than a leftist Aztlan. Niether can happen without a collapse of the United States as we know it. Mexico can't even govern and enjoy the land it now has, let alone U.S. territories.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The closer one gets to the north, the more capitalistic it will become; the further south one is, including Mexico City, the more socialist it will become.

Third world countries can't be "socialist." If you would happen to take a look at the so called "socialist" revolutions of third world countries you would realize they ALL become capitalist. The "socialist state" usually has instigates rapid industrialization, a requirement for real socialism or communism because it creates a proletariat.


Throughout U.S. history, large numbers of Americans rejected the creation of new states in the Ohio Valley, and yet they were created. They were shocked at Jefferson's aquisition of the Louisiana Territory, which many argued he hadn't the authority to procure.

No, they liked it, the farmers that is. The future Americans were very angry with Britains proclomation line of 1793, they wanted to settle that land!

The point is, WE ARE NOT A NATION OF FARMERS ANYMORE! Large land gains have no value to modern Americans except those in the real estate business!


There was an all out war with Mexico and we ended up with the Southwest. There was a very shaddy deal to acquire Hawaii. Wake up man!

You need to do the waking up. This is the 21st century. Bick stick imperialism while still used in isolated cases is no longer the role the US chooses to play (look at how its turning out in Iraq). It is no longer effective! Most imperialism is carried out through trade agreements these days, it's very easy to keep the situation under control!

[MurderInc]

Third world countries can't be "socialist." If you would happen to take a look at the so called "socialist" revolutions of third world countries you would realize they ALL become capitalist.

In my lifetime, ALL "socialist" countries have become capitalist.


The comments I make regarding U.S. expansionism are, once again, only related to when and if LARGE numbers (read tens of millions) of Mexicans move to the U.S. to flee the revolution. Iraq and imperialism has nothing to do with this prediction, as it's based on the need for expansion, due to one nation emptying itself out into another. Also, were the U.S. to battle the leftists, they would send the army into Mexico, and satehood would follow. It's just a belief, but it's not based in imperialism through economics. It's based on logistics and support.

[violencia.Proletariat]

only related to when and if LARGE numbers (read tens of millions) of Mexicans move to the U.S. to flee the revolution

Why would such a large number flee? I don't think such a large number of people have ever fled anything, they don't have the means to. Much of your tens of millions would stay to take part in the revoution.


Also, were the U.S. to battle the leftists, they would send the army into Mexico, and satehood would follow.

No it wouldn't! We are not in the game of land expansion anymore, especially not third world shitholes.


It's just a belief, but it's not based in imperialism through economics. It's based on logistics and support.

This makes no sense. How can you not take into account imperialism and economics, because they directly apply to your prediction.

[MurderInc]

[QUOTE]Why would such a large number flee? I don't think such a large number of people have ever fled anything, they don't have the means to. Much of your tens of millions would stay to take part in the revoution.[CODE]


EVERY Marxist revolution causes people to flee the nation. Yes, many, probably the majority would stay and take part in the revolution. But Mexicans have been running away from Mexico for a better life for decades. Why wouldn't millions leave if there were a revolution. Of course they would. Expect it.

[violencia.Proletariat]

EVERY Marxist revolution causes people to flee the nation. Yes, many, probably the majority would stay and take part in the revolution. But Mexicans have been running away from Mexico for a better life for decades. Why wouldn't millions leave if there were a revolution. Of course they would. Expect it.

I am not awhere of any event in history where tens of millions of people fleed anything, especially not a revolution.

Those still in Mexico don't have the means to leave the country if they wanted, or else they'd be here now.