Destroy The Cartels

As the faceless bureaucracy in Washington stymies President Donald Trump’s modest attempts at demonstrating national sovereignty, it is wise to look beyond one term. Regardless of who is in Washington today, there looms a growing problem that will only expand at our border as it spills into America’s southwest. The American empire must address the problem of vicious Mexican drug cartels, if it has any chance of maintaining sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The wars of choice in the Middle East at the behest of our imperial clients must be replaced with an important war at our border. Mexico is often considered a nation of the future in between articles about it being a failed state. Cartel violence kills 20,000 per year and has done so for years, placing it ahead of Iraq and Afghanistan for conflict deaths. Violence has spread to even the safest and most luxurious of vacation hotspots, with Acapulco experiencing a sky high murder rate and Cancun and Cabo San Lucas seeing cartel mass graves.

There can be no successful immigration repatriation without a safe and secure Mexico. While we recognize that violence is Mexico’s problem, due to our shared border and the infiltration of America by the cartels already, this is now America’s problem. It is a far greater and more immediate problem than anything in the Middle East.

Fixing this problem would also help solve illegal immigration, an issue that has strained our cities and state governments. Countless infographics show the cost to each state for illegal immigration, which is overwhelmingly a byproduct of Mexican dysfunction. The reality of the immigration tidal wave of the last generation is not simply a consequence of Reagan’s amnesty. It is not even a matter of economics, as Mexico’s labor wages have risen and the unemployment rate has been even lower than America’s for a generation. Many of the fleeing Mexicans are the underclass and the working class who could not afford a safe town.

Woven throughout this story from The New York Times in its immigration propaganda series is the secret. Cartels have essentially bought the government and are at constant war with each other, facing few, if any, consequences for their brutality. Read this passage:

As you know, a lot of people come to the United States from other countries,” she continued, referring to the early English colonists. “Do you know why?”“Los van a matar”(they will be killed), a girl with a ponytail said. “People come from Mexico because there’s no jobs,” another student said. Suddenly, everyone was engaged and shouting — “To be safe!” “In Mexico, they steal your organs and sell them!” — until a petite girl near the front quietly added: “They want a better life.”

The economic case is incredibly weak when these Mexicans are coming to America and often taking the place of our most impoverished ethnic bloc. Laredo is spotlighted in the article as a border town with 30% of its population foreign-born. It is not a city as much as it is a refugee camp. Having done business in Laredo, I was astounded to be told to eat dinner at my hotel, as the streets have plenty of cartel members riding around at night.

America has played sides with the cartel conflict and favored the Sinaloas, with some reporters going so far as to say USG works hand in hand with them. Destroying the cartels will stabilize Mexico. Addressing our drug problem will help stabilize Mexico. Stabilizing Mexico will help send people back. They need a home worth returning to that is better than the helot existence they squeak out here in America.

America must think not simply in bombing cartels but addressing every single possible battlefield. We must attack every possible surface area and must also consider our culpability. This does not mean progressive self-loathing, but positive addressing of the demand for drugs in our society.

This is a war, a criminal matter, and a social matter.

First and foremost, USG must designate each drug cartel as a foreign terrorist organization. The cartels easily fulfill the requirements for this by functioning as foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity and threaten the security of U.S. citizens or the U.S. itself. Look around the southwest or at unsolved murders in Ohio. Not a single cartel is on the terror list at this time. Designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations also allows the president to properly request funds to attack this problem, which would also allow the president to request funds for a border wall on the basis of national security and use the Army Corps of Engineers and private contractors for the job.

At the same time, the Treasury Department must expand greatly the list of specially designated nationals, so we can apply pressure to the important bloodline of the cartels: money. With the Office of Foreign Assets Control, we can properly sanction individuals, not just to target them, but also to punish American businesses that enable them. HSBC avoided anything more than a wrist slap for laundering drug money. If we enforce the laws and expand OFAC, we can individually jail white collar criminals who allow for the cartels to keep the money pipeline flowing. USG also needs to make real estate subject to the money laundering regulations that monitor cash transactions over $10,000.

Moving the proceeds of drug sales back home is critical for cartels, as the cash created by drug sales occupies more space than the drugs themselves. These cartels need financial expertise and safe, quick transactions to keep the trade alive. Even smaller players that do not have HSBC in their corner can launder money back to Mexico. An indirect way they launder money is illustrated through the following example.

Miguel earns $50,000 a month in drug sales. Miguel buys a series of social security numbers and names for cheap and obtains identification. Miguel buys homes for under $50,000 in depressed markets for cash. Miguel occupies the home and gets an insurance contract on the homes for $50,000. Miguel’s homes burn down after a year but in a series of fires that creates a stream of money going back to Mexico with calculated slippage, due to bribes and/or transaction costs. Readers may scoff at this series of events, but our porous border, automated financial processes, and small time corruption have created such sequences of events.

Every single American who interacts with and enables the cartels must be sent to prison or witness protection as they name all of the names. The networks in America must be attacked. This is also where deportations and imprisonment will help. It is harder for Mexican cartel members to swim among the fish of small towns or suburbs in the Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast if there is no Little Mexico or Mexican population of any size in the area. They will stick out and lose their safe houses. Tracking chips for deported illegals with criminal records could be used, and if we can chip our pets, we can chip deported, criminal foreigners.

This is not simply a law enforcement issue. It is a war. The cartels are often at war for drug production and shipping in Mexico and also entry points into America. No one quite ever gains true superiority. We do, however, know where these individuals are based. Trump, or a future president, can work together with the Mexican president for political cover in Mexico but immediately apply direct force to every single cartel. The amazing munitions that have been deployed in the Middle East can be used in Mexico. Level their enclaves to nothing.

This will not be a hearts and minds campaign. This will be an annihilation campaign, as these groups poison our communities across all states. The cartels use the most barbaric methods of murder, conjuring up imagery more fit for Aztec human sacrifices, albeit with modern equipment. YouTube constantly has to remove video footage of brutal executions performed by cartels. The cartels must be shown that the only thing waiting for their shipment convoys and personal vehicles outside of their garages will be hellfire missiles.

Consider the style of warfare that would be involved. There would be desert and mountain terrain, as well as urban fighting. Our military has now spent over fifteen years honing strategies for fighting in those environments.

A wall will be necessary in this campaign, because once the military unleashes on the cartels, we will want to contain the survivors and straggling members within Mexico’s borders, which serves to limit possible retaliation terror attacks. Our police forces on the domestic side would be willing to handle this, but a wall would minimize the size and armed force cartel remnants could deploy. After all, the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the army from being used on them even in hot pursuit, but maybe local police forces in America could finally use that surplus military equipment they have on hand.

Every single dollar USG allocates towards public broadcasting should go to covering the misdeeds of each cartel. Documentaries should be made for Netflix consumption that will make the frequency of anti-big business, World War II, and Holocaust titles seem rare. Playing to progressive weaknesses, first-person accounts by Mexican refugees in America can place a human face on the need to destroy the cartels. When gang members are arrested selling cartel product, that story needs to be cited in every single arrest report and read on every single newscast when there is any crime involving a criminal remotely connected to the cartels. Hollywood needs to churn out anti-cartel movies every single summer. If USG could break the mid-century mafias and destroy the Medellin cartel, it can take out the Mexican cartels.

The American military’s brain trust needs to step back from antiquated thinking, namely the need for a giant opponent to justify a budget. Pentagon officials also need to admit that the terrorism problem with regards to Islam can be solved by a Fortress America policy suite. The military elite must recognize that the drones can pinpoint cartel members just as well as they have jihadis. All of the weapons we employ against terrorist organizations can be redirected towards drug cartels of similar size.

The U.S. military cannot execute this mission by simply advising the Mexican military. Americans will be betrayed quickly and end up revealing more than they learn. Moreover, the corruption of Mexican forces is too deep. It is rumored that Enrique Peña Nieto, the current president of Mexico, owes his position to a cartel’s interference, and with their power in general, how could he not be subject to their pressure? It would take a separate law enforcement and military organization outside of the current power dynamic to effectively destroy the current system.

This has happened before, with USG’s South Florida Task Force breaking the Miami drug world. Cynics might say former President George H.W. Bush just told his CIA contacts to stop importing cocaine, but an outside police force destroyed the criminal hub because it was alien to the corruption of the current system. Miami’s police academies had to drop standards repeatedly to the point where entire classes were either in jail or removed from the force within five years of graduating. The problem was not just a few rotten apples, but an entirely rotten barrel.

The solution had to come from outside the barrel.

Solutions must also address American spiritual emptiness and the demand for drugs. Before we get to the core societal problem, even attempting different approaches to specific drugs may help. USG should look at the results coming from states that legalize marijuana. In the event that marijuana legalization is benign or a positive for drug infractions, USG should alter policies, reschedule marijuana, and treat it like tobacco. This may sound like admitting defeat, but consider smuggling.

Law enforcement currently do busts of marijuana truckloads or carloads and often find bricks or bags of heroin, meth, and cocaine in packages nestled between giant bales of marijuana. Sometimes, the product is smuggled into the marijuana without the mule’s knowledge, as some mules will not transport ‘hard’ drugs, preferring instead to just drive a van of weed from Tijuana to San Diego. Cartels are creative and even smuggle drugs in brand new Fords made in Mexico. Legalizing marijuana and turning it into a domestically-sourced drug would make smuggling it in from Mexico more difficult and revenue-negative. Without marijuana, cartels lose a revenue stream and a smuggling blanket for meth, cocaine, and heroin.

Trump, and even figures on the Left, have started to cite the opioid epidemic. Some states have begun to sue Big Pharma for legal opioids, as the flood of pills into areas is in no way proportionate to population. This is a common theme in all stories on heroin, namely that oxys hooked people, then the price for black market oxys and the crushability of pills made heroin an easy jump. This lawsuit action and legal opioid reform, along with boosted rehabilitation programs, would address the symptoms of our drug problem, but not core issues.

Americans will have to face the fact that the emptiness of 21st century America is at the heart of this drug demand. Beyond outreach programs like the old ‘Just Say No’ campaign of the ’80s, Americans need to admit that becoming great again is admission of a fallen stature and will depend on non-users to realize that users need them socially. The millions of unemployed or underemployed Americans with non-dischargeable college debt could be deployed in social service to erase part or all of their college debt, over $1.3 trillion of which is held by USG. Bailey Witzel was a 19-year-old overdose victim who left behind a small child. She also had a social network full of addicts. Beyond empty platitudes, we must realize that overdoses are not just part of white death, but also of our greater existential crisis.

It is going to take every weapon in our arsenal to crush this infestation and will require a full reorientation of our focus and goals. It is going to take a American firepower, American greenbacks, incorruptible individuals, and neighbors willing to engage. The elite in D.C. should make this choice now. Bring the boys home, save the nation, and protect the homeland. The choice should be made now to assume this responsibility before de facto cartel control of large swathes of America and a failed state to our south force the responsibility upon us.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. Amazing…send this to Bannon ASAP…

  2. The problems you cite are correct.

    The problem are the Iron Laws.

    1: The Iron Law of Democracy.

    2: The Iron Law of Prohibition.

    Firstly, democracies cannot fight insurgencies, terrorists or cartels. So unless that situation is first rectified it will become yet another ulcer, yet another Vietnam, another Afghanistan.

    It will only make the situation worse, more Americans will be killed; indeed, such a thing will attract Muslim terrorists……

    Secondly, the Iron of Law of Prohibition is that if you try to prohibit something that is in high demand, you will fail and the supplier will supply tougher, harder products. Furthermore, the suppliers will become smarter, tougher etc., because of a natural selection process.

    In short, the problem becomes worse. The patient becomes sicker because of the treatment.

    If USG cannot win — after decades — in Baltimore, Detroit and Chicago — then it is not going to win in Mexico.

    That’s just the way it is.

    USG’s typical strategy is to always make things worse. Mexico is a potential threat this century to USG; so USG will continue these “failed” wars whose purpose is to disrupt, degrade and diminish — but never defeat — threats.

    That’s just the way it is.

    The logic of strategy is paradoxical, even if we have a NUSG then the second Law will hold; the conclusion is not to defeat, but to take over the drug business. From Afghanistan to the Andes — vertically integrate production, distribution, supply and sale (with suitable regulations, of course).

    This strategy fulfills all our goals:

    A: Peace.

    B: Security.

    C: Law.

    D: Liberty.

    Needless to say, once you go for monopoly, you deal with competitors using all the tactics you suggest, but since you have taken away their strongest weapon — wealth from the profits — you will be better placed to achieve your objectives.

    That’s just the way it is.

    1. his article is more pragmatic than theory

      1. Successful practice is based on correct theory.

    2. We should not forget that cartels will intensify their diversification as a result of falling profits from drugs:

      The fact that Russia destroyed the oil smuggling operation of ISIS was completely in keeping in helping to weaken ISIS permanently and to help ensure its final destruction.

      They must not be able to get any money from any of their endeavors. In addition to all the standard military action of communication disruption and logistics destruction

      1. If they diversify themselves to such an extent that they dissolve themselves into legal business operations then all good right?

        As for Russia, what they had to do in Chechnya is a more accurate analogy. Someone like a “Kadyrov” would end up being “our man in Mexico”.

        1. If they continue to violate the monopoly of violence and commit crimes of brutality and murder. Then no its not all good.

        2. Perhaps Latin America would benefit from Russian training and experience with the Chechens.

          Along with their no nonsense attitude towards brutal peoples.

          1. But remember that Russia allowed them to live as they liked, it would be a different matter if Russia tried to stamp out Sharia.

          2. ”But remember that Russia allowed them to live as they liked, it would be a different matter if Russia tried to stamp out Sharia.”

            Their interpretation of Sharia is much more tame and doesn’t involve the brutality and murder of the cartels.

            If they continue to murder or brutalize. Then they must be destroyed from the face of the earth.

          3. Given that their behavior is no different from the behavior of ISIS.

            Which Russia is currently ruthlessly destroying for why should savages like them be recognized as a legitimate state.

      2. If the cartels hold on to their power after drug legalization, it might be the most expedient choice to recognize them as the legitimate government of Mexico.

        I’m sure that if we could defeat all of our enemies, we wouldn’t need to bother with the fiction of ‘sovereign states.’ If the Cartels are more sovereign than the state, just treat it like the hundred years war and realize that your claim, though unassailable, is unenforceable.

    3. I am quite sure if the penalty for drug dealing was death, there would be no drug dealing.

      1. It depends.

        If they bribe the cops, lawyers, judges, journalists, politicians and civil servants, then they might get away with dealing. (This applies to the Cartels, however.)

        Also, you would have situations where if the death penalty was enforced against a cartel member, they would retaliate by murdering the family of the cops, judges, jurors – whatever.

        The best way to defeat the cartel is a hammer and anvil strategy.

        The anvil is to vertically integrate the drug business. (This means that you take away their whole reason for existence and thus weaken them, while growing stronger financially).

        The hammer is to apply many of the tactics this article endorses but to those who are “muscling” on a government-run (with private partners) business venture.

        Hammer and Anvil works.

        The Hammer alone does not.

    4. I had the same idea recently. Legalizing drugs runs into the problem of attacking the DEA, who are by no means politically insignificant. Granting the DEA the monopoly on drugs solves most of this problem, since now the bureaucracy serves a purpose, and it has the benefits of your monopoly solution stated above.

  3. This is something I wrote after watching Sicario:

    How To End the Drug War (And Win)
    I watched Sicario. This was a movie about the mexican drug wars along the border. It seems like they got fascinated with realism, and then forgot about adhering to feminist doctrine. I’ll say it was interesting, but I don’t think it is really recommendable.

    But, of course, whatever it was they meant to convey- I kept thinking, you can out compete these losers. You can provide a higher quality product, you can provide it cheaper, and you can just go directly to Columbia. Completely skip Mexico, and these armies lose their funding.

    And you can do this even if you want to keep it illegal.

    It is pretty simple to out compete the Mexicans. It would probably take five to ten years to suck all the energy out of them. Maybe even play the little military games hinted at in that movie- but the real killing punch is taking trade away from them.

    Meanwhile, it also takes about ten years for addicts to die. Of course, some don’t really do the addict thing, but imagine you’ve got whatever population you’ve got now buying the drugs. So, you have your little clandestine agency step in. Go to Columbia and buy as close to farm as possible- if you can get leaf and then process it in a better place, great. You want a better drug. You meet the market demand. With a better, safer version.

    And if you are fundamentally against cocaine, well suddenly you are in a position to actually influence its use. After a few years of meeting the market demand, the Mexican supply lines have collapsed. They probably do some desperate fighting here and there, but in five or so years, you are the only place to shop for the stuff. You can reduce the supply. Turn away new customers.

    On the other side, with you as the biggest buyer of the raw materials, you set the price of those raw materials. No one else is there, so you start pushing the price down until less is grown. Farmers start planting other things because they need a profit.

    I am still convinced that legalizing this stuff would be the most rapid way to a good outcome. I am pretty sure that a government agency, once it found itself with this lucrative source of funds, would not shut it down, and perhaps even encourage its use. Great excuse- or perhaps valid point, I don’t know- to sell it more cheaply and more widely: to help shut down meth labs. Though, you’d have to have slightly different product lines, so that the elitist snobs feel they aren’t acting like rednecks.

    But, even if it were a government agency- provided that this government agency were run by people smarter than the average Mexican gangster- then there would be less violence. Even in clandestine circles, mass graves will look bad on the resume. It isn’t just a matter of morals, but enlightened self-interest.

    1. Exactly.

      If you vertically integrate, then you can control where, when, how and to who it is sold. You can control prices as well.

      Take Lee Kuan Yew as an example, he was probably correct in what he did in the first few decades; however, what he could have done is to allow a few select places to sell high quality MDMA, coke and speed for the elite, paying elite prices in Chinese style Karaoke bars. Keep all the variables the same, but except for this. Let the experiment run for a year, assess; then, if successful, open up an another joint and take it from there.

  4. A sane and healthy society would not tolerate large criminal enterprises. Before USG goes after the cartels in Mexico it might with to consider the influence of organized crime in the USA. There are large underclass ghettos all over the USA, and these are tolerated for a number of reasons. One reason that is not often discussed is the influence of organized crime behind the scenes. An example from the early eighties: Massage parlors (brothels) were operating in an near St. Louis, MO. A black preacher organized protests against them and managed to get the brothels shut down. He was later shown to have connections to organized crime in East St. Louis. I suspect that black lives matter, and other organizations may have ties to organized crime. Crime pays very well.

    1. Very true, and this get’s to the heart of the problem (patron-client relationships).

      The reason why the Iron law of Democracy is an Iron Law is because the military are prevented from winning by the blue government.

      This article is a real masterpiece:

      Blacks are the one’s upholding the system, without blacks progressives will collapse.

      The best way to deal with blacks for a restoration party is to buy them off.

      Part of this will involve legalising drugs but letting black owned and black run corporations run the business (think of it as similar to the way that Native Americans get to run casinos); the sovcorp, however, will have stock in the company.

      Again, strategy is paradoxical.

    2. “A sane and healthy society would not tolerate large criminal enterprises.”

      They all do. They have their IRA, their UDF, their crew of weaponized badasses that get tolerated cause they are the spearpoint of their threat potential. They tolerate the Mafia, they tolerate their businesses to stay afloat. Especialy if there is low trust in government.

  5. The main problem is that, for all liberal democracies, any problem that requires decisiveness and violence of action has become impossible. Things that the British Empire would have done naturally and easily in the 18th and 19th centuries at this point simply cannot be done by the USG. Moldbug laid out why in “Patchwork.” A sample:

    “So why doesn’t Washington simply tell [Pakistan]: obey, or no more dollars? Well, the answer is not simple. The answer has to do with the internals of Washington, the structural conflict between Pentagon and State, the history of Pakistan and of the British Empire, etc, etc, etc. We could be at this for some time. But note, again, the analogy to the thirteen-year-old. Why won’t your daughter obey? Why don’t you make her? Well, it’s complicated. It is always complicated.”

  6. As long as americans consume drugs, so long there will be cartels who will use that income stream to cut out their own territories and control distribution every step of the way.

    Best case szenario is Containment untill the conflicts bleed out.

  7. Truman Hagerstrom June 22, 2017 at 1:19 pm

    Wow. This is the most disappointing thing I’ve ever read from Ryan.

    Who are you, Oliver North?

    I thought you were supposed to be in some way part of the new right. I’m not trying to define you or it, but I had a vague sense that you were at least vaguely pro-family, pro-white, pro-tradition, pro-small government, etc.

    And here you are recommending that the blundering Federal government should start expensively WARRING against GANGS in foreign countries right next door?? Are you freaking kidding me? The LAST thing regular Americans want or need is yet another war, this one even closer to home and even less winnable.

    This is the wet dream of the swamp-dwelling bureaucrats. They want enemies, they want wars, they want defense spending, they want to stir up hornets’ nests in red states, they want more domestic surveillance power, etc. etc.

    It sounds like you’re just another Bush Republican here.

    Your suggestion that we wage war against uber-violent guerilla gangs right next door seems insane.

    Who would benefit from such a thing? The swamp dwellers who I thought were your enemies. Who would suffer? The American people. More wasted tax dollars, more violence, more war, more racial tension, etc. etc.

    Have you seen what the cartels have done to law and order in Mexico? These guys regularly fill sacks with the severed heads of police officers. These guys are as powerful as the government. These guys use revenge as a business model. This is a completely unnecessary fight to pick. And the consequences would be dire. This would go even further than another immigration wave in making the American southwest much more like Mexico. Get ready for more executions of judges! Wheee!

    This would be just opening up another front in the endless war on terror, another thing that’s been great for swamp dwellers and terrible for regular Americans.

    What should we do? We should build the wall, deport illegal immigrants, freeze immigration, and end drug prohibition.

    We should shame the Democrats who respond to voter revulsion of Dem policies by waving in foreign criminals to outvote Americans.

    We should also cut the D.C.-spawned regulations which have strangled entrepreneurship and small business and protected big donor incumbent corporations and banks and funneled wealth upward and to the coasts.

    You make some great points: You are right that cracking down on the HSBCs of the world is important, you are right that an endeavor like this would require the use lots of tools. You are also right that the atomized meaningless of modern American life drives demand for drugs and must be addressed.

    And you are obviously right that the drug cartels are a real threat to the U.S in a way the Middle East is not. (Middle Eastern wars are fought because Israelis want us to fight them. You may be on to something here….we could shake the grip of Israeli influence by appeasing the military industrial complex by giving them a new war. It’s too hard to take on the Israel lobby AND the defense contractors at the same time.)

    But, as Imperial Energy points out, you have to get the strategy right. You can’t just launch another multi-faceted “War on….” and expect results. You have to acknowledge a few existential truths:

    1) Drug prohibition never works. It consistently leads to windfall profits and violent criminals and not to reduced demand for the contraband.

    2) The Federal Government is currently totally unprepared and unwilling to do things like crack down on HSBC. Even with the God Emperor Trump in place, it would take decades to weed out all the elements in FedGov that are owned by banks, that run guns to the cartels, that are directly involved in the drug trade, that actively seek more illegal immigration, etc. etc. And even the good guys in law enforcement, etc. have perverse incentives to keep the war on drugs going instead of fighting to win it and end it.

  8. This is good.

    Demand and supply form a vicious cycle here. Squeeze just the cartels, and American dollars will endlessly finance new ones. Hit demand crudely and directly with prohibition and, well, we’ve tried that.

    I think there are three places where we have better information than most here:

    1. Drug use, to the extent that it makes humans into worse humans, is bad. Traditionalists (I’m one, but not just) have long made this exact argument, but often it’s somewhat disingenuous, because what they’re really aiming for is a “virtuous society” — which is what we’re aiming for, except that what they mean by that by the time they get to the political arena is “checks off certain boxes” as opposed to having a society of virtus. This actually would have been fine if they’d been able to commit to it, but it’s hard to endow bullshit with sincerity. Does Reaction believe, down to its bones, that addiction is degenerate? And do we care? Merely knowing and caring don’t do anything, but they are prerequisites for anything else.

    2. The rule of law, once lost, is hard to re-establish. It is a normative commons and can very much be depleted. In other words: it should sear the mental retinas of every US citizen that MEXICO HAS FALLEN TO BARBARISM. It is all very well to have a formalist understanding that despots can be bargained with; this is no help if the despot’s realm is riddled with corruption and he is not actually able to enforce order.

    3. The biggest one: the ability to take seriously the idea that the emptiness of American life is a major culprit. Fixing this—or at least beginning to approach the idea of fixing it—should be a major target of Reaction.

Comments are closed.