This meme is going around in an attempt to attack the right over its immigration stance, framing the narratives about mass migration as absurd
In fact, the claims are true, and the existence of one enables the other, quite disastrously for Americans
I'll explain in the 🧵👇
The recent reports from groups like @America_2100 about what is going on in Springfield, Ohio showed this to be true
20,000 Haitians didn't just randomly show up in Springfield (nor do migrants generally just show up anywhere)
Rather, they were attracted there by job postings NGOs showed only to Haitians, brought into the town by NGOs, supported in their lifestyles by NGOs, and then told to work for the low wages (relative to American wages) provided by those jobs, supported in doing so by gobs of NGO money
Examples of that same general story happening across the country abound: what generally is the case is that the government is using tax dollars to heap cash on NGOs, which then use it to enrich themselves and subsidize the invaders
The Springfield Haitians NGO got hundreds of millions; now apply that across thousands of 501c3s using donor and taxpayer dollars to subsidize the migrants, legal and illegal, as the same story is true of pretty much every town in America and the NGOs operating in it to flood it with migrants
It's really hard to overstate how expansive these groups are, or the massive amounts of funding they have
Another involved in the Haitian invasion, the Haitian Bridge Alliance, as @Oilfield_Rando pointed out, has gotten millions of dollars of funding in recent years, a great deal of it from George Soros, and used it to help resettle Haitians in America
It's website provides, "The Haitian Bridge Alliance is a 501c(3) non-profit organization that advocates for fair and humane immigration policies and connects migrants with humanitarian, legal, and social services — with a particular focus on Black migrants, the Haitian community, women, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and survivors of torture."
The NGO aspect of the mass migration invasion is important because it's how those migrants, legal and illegal, can afford to work all day for minimum wage, as @DougMackeyCase recently pointed out
When they're paid a few dollars an hour for their work (whatever the real number is, Mackey is just giving an approximation), they're being supported by the equivalent of dozens of dollars and hour in NGO and government (Ah, but I repeat myself) subsidies that make the true cost of having them here extremely expensive, even ignoring the social cost of having them in America
So instead of paying $20 an hour to an American, or even the full $30 it really costs to employ the Haitian, businesses just pay $9 an hour...hence why they "love Haitians" as that one scumbag business owner from Springfield said about the invaders
They "love" the invaders because the invaders are supported in their incomes from the feds, unlike American taxpayers who get no comparable assistance of note from the government, and so can work for "cheap" compared to Americans
So yes, the problem, much as those on the left deride us for pointing it out, is both that the migrants are welfare mooches and are taking the jobs
They can take the jobs because the welfare subsidies, both directly from the government and through NGOs, let them work for far less than American workers, who get no assistance from their government of the sort it provides to the invaders it is replacing them with, and the weak-chinned Republican "community leaders" clap like seals because the Haitians go to church and are "here to work"
If the funding was yanked, both from Soros/fed NGOs like the Haitian Bridge Alliance and from government welfare programs for migrants, the invader job problem would melt away in most industries, as the cost of migrant labor would return to being close to the cost of American labor
But right now, the migrants are subsidized to a great degree by the NGOs and government, so they work for a comparatively low amount
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Time for a very short 🧵with some of my favorite memes about the Rhodesian Bush War
First up, of course, is this about Operation Eland, the amazing raid on ZANLA in Mozambique in which 4 Selous Scouts were injured, and 2000 "terrs" left "slotted"
The rest 🧵👇
Up next: always remember what's possible
The Rhodesian security forces never had more than a few thousand first-line fighters, yet they fought a nearly successful, 15-year war against terrorists backed by not just the communist bloc, but the "free world" as well
Few things are impossible to those willing to go all out fighting for them, as the valiant efforts of the Rhodesians in the Bush War show, and thus even their loss is inspiring. If they, a small and landlocked country of ~250k whites and a few million blacks, could almost win a fight against the whole world, we can surely rescue our country
Then there's: your average Joe has no idea about any of this
People frequently ask what I do and I end up telling them I generally focus on the history of "decolonized" Africa, with a focus on the tragedy of Rhodesia. They're shocked to discover America aided communists destroy a free and prosperous state in the name of race communism.
Further, it seriously changes their view of not just the Cold War, but also the American Civil Rights Movement, which was backing Mugabe and Nkomo even as they launched terror attacks on Rhodesian civilians
Never forget that despite the mythology of the Cold War being that it was a global fight against communism, America aided communist terrorists who attacked free and prosperous Rhodesia
Thatcher shows what the Cold War was really about
A short 🧵👇
Why did they do that? Because Rhodesia stood for what they hated: hierarchy amongst men
Namely, though it had no apartheid, it had propertied voting; to vote, one either needed to be highly educated or have a certain amount (about $60k USD in modern money) of Rhodesian property
That common sense law screened the incompetent out of the voting pool
Only stewards could vote, and thus those controlling the direction of the country were better able to steward its prosperity and future
I'm often asked why I find the Rhodesian story so compelling
Much of the answer lies with this short clip, as I'll explain in the 🧵👇
The thing is, when faced with fighting the whole world in a desperate attempt to defeat "democratic" race communism, the Rhodesians took that plunge
They did what was honorable rather than easy, and spent a decade and a half battling nearly the entire West plus the entire communist bloc
Their enemies had Soviet advisors, Chinese training, brand new Communist-bloc weaponry, and total moral support from the democratic "free world" which meant the UN was on their side and the Rhodesians were cut off from world trade
But still the Ian Smith-led government didn't give in. Despite being surrounded on three sides by 1975, being grossly outnumbered, and having the South Africans stab them in the back in the name of detente, they didn't give in until all was lost in 1980
America isn't, and has never been, a Catholic country
We don't have to listen to the Pinko Pontiff as he attempts to push Gay Race Communism: Catholic Edition on the world, and have our ancestors' refusal to embrace Rome to thank for that
I remain shocked by how many people are like "this is good, actually, and America should listen to him"
Many of our Catholic brothers are great guys, I don't have anything against them and wish them well
But I find it absurd to 1) pretend America is a Catholic country, 2) say we should listen to what some communist in Rome says, and 3) describe Protestantism as heresy at the same time as the Catholic Church pushes race communism
Yes, some Protestant churches are full of heretics. But the Anglican Church of America, for example, is certainly far closer to accurate than whatever Francis is prattling on about
While a great many failings are to blame, one of the earliest and most insidious issues lying at the root of Albion's immense decline is free trade, which destroyed England and her Empire
🧵👇
When the story of His Majesty's empire began, the reasons were clear:
England needed resources that potential colonies could provide. Cheap raw materials for its early manufactories, markets for those finished materials, an outlet for the surplus population, and existing wealth and geographic positioning to be exploited to the detriment of rivals
This mercantilist framing made sense for the home country, particularly the adventurers, industrialists, and capitalists within it who could make immense fortunes
Further, the framing was self-reinforcing
Protecting markets from external competitors while providing raw materials and ever-growing export markets for your finished goods made sense, and was generally positive
Manufactured goods could be cheaper, as markets were larger and raw materials less limited. Opportunites abounded for those who wanted to leave settled life, letting off steam from a long-settled society. National security-related sectors, from shipping to basing abroad, was advanced by having more reasons to and opportunities for shipping men and material abroad, watching and raiding rivals, and establishing forward bases
There were flaws, of course, but the system worked reasonably well for the Anglo world when paired with a focus on settlement