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
Thus misses the point: civilization there didn’t end when the worst of the gang stuff started, but when the political changes that enabled that horrific government decision to tolerate the gangs occurred
And when was that? 1911, with the Parliament Bill
🧵👇
Below is the history of that bill, and what the main change was for England, namely that the democratic elements were enabled by it, and bureaucrats then began to rule instead of country gentlemen, creating a disastrous feedback loop
First, the element that largely didn’t have to bend to democratic forces lost its ability to challenge them. So, whereas in the past it would have been old Anglo-Norman peers and their gentry counterparts providing judicial administration in local issues, and directed Parliament with an ability to veto poor decisions from the Commons, it became the vast bureaucratic apparatus and its elected enablers that decided everything, whether in the local councils or national government
That change was gradual over the ensuing decades, but us now complete
If you’re on the right, and want to read books that present an invigorating view of a better world, what ought you read?
The best you could read are the novels of Jane Austen, as they show in unfrightening fashion a world of beauty and truth, which are our strengths
🧵👇
First, what is the right?
Since the French Revolution, it has, put simply, been the side of hierarchy and tradition
That has been lost in the US since it was eradicated to a great extent in and by the Late Unpleasantness
But, still, it is what the right is: natural hierarchy and the tradition that supports it as a political force, with the hierarchy component generally leading to the best governance over the long term as the best we’re in charge, and the tradition component keeping heritage intact and preventing radical shifts in direction
So, there are a few things that such a focus naturally lends itself to
One is the benefits of natural hierarchy: given the state of Europe at the present, overrun as it is by invaders, it is near impossible to argue that it is better run now than when the peerage was in charge. Is Starmer really better than Lord Wellington or Lord Salisbury?
Obviously not, and the answer why is that both had been bred to rule, showed their meritous ability to do so, and did so to good effect, whereas he and his predecessors were disastrous and chosen by other powers behind the scenes because of pliability
What should a republic's elite do? How ought they behave and for what reasons?
Tiberius Gracchus shows us: aristocratic populism, or the blending of aristocratic care for the state's long-term stability+health with a tribune's concern for the common man
I'll explain in my 🧵👇
Such is what Romulus originally intended of his kingdom. As recorded by Plutarch in his life of Romulus, the first patricians were meant to not be rapacious plutocrats, but true aristocrats who cared for their people:
“Romulus thought it the duty of the foremost and most influential citizens to watch over the more lowly with fatherly care and concern, while he taught the multitude not to fear their superiors nor be vexed at their honours, but to exercise goodwill towards them, considering them and addressing them as fathers[.]”
Why Romulus intended as much is clear: if a state is full of hateful elements competing out of a predatory mix of envy and fear for the other, it probably won't long survive, and certainly won't achieve much
The elements will instead be always aiming to destroy each other rather than building for the long term and the future of their children's children
Such is to where envy-driven mob-rule on the one hand and plutocratic wealth extraction on the other leads...nowhere good, and instead in often self-destructive hate and bloodshed
🧵
Remember, it was foreign labor displacing Romans that infuriated Tiberius Gracchus and sparked his political career. As Plutarch records:
“[W]hen Tiberius went through Tuscany to Numantia, and found the country almost depopulated, there being hardly any free husbandmen or shepherds, but for the most part only barbarian, imported slaves, he then first conceived the course of policy which in the sequel proved so fatal to his family. Though it is also most certain that the people themselves chiefly excited his zeal and determination in the prosecution of it, by setting up writings upon the porches, walls, and monuments, calling upon him to reinstate the poor citizens in their former possessions.”
And it is not to be forgotten that it is that foreign labor that hollowed out the Republic from within, replacing sturdy yeomen with foreign slaves, and driving the former footsoldiers of the Republic into the inner city slums:
"the rich men of the neighbourhood contrived to get these lands again into their possession, under other people's names, and at last would not stick to claim most of them publicly in their own. The poor, who were thus deprived of their farms, were no longer either ready, as they had formerly been, to serve in war or careful in the education of their children; insomuch that in a short time there were comparatively few freemen remaining in all Italy, which swarmed with workhouses full of foreign-born slaves. These the rich men employed in cultivating their ground of which they dispossessed the citizens.”
Tiberius Gracchus, describing the extent to which the rapacious Roman plutocrats had disenfranchised the beating heart of the Republic, said:
“The wild beasts that roam over Italy... have every one of them a cave or lair to lurk in; but the men who fight and die for Italy enjoy the common air and light, indeed, but nothing else; houseless and homeless they wander about with their wives and children. And it is with lying lips that their [commanders] exhort the soldiers in their battles to defend sepulchres and shrines from the enemy; for not a man of them has an hereditary altar, not one of all these many Romans an ancestral tomb, but they fight and die to support others in wealth and luxury, and though they are styled masters of the world, they have not a single clod of earth that is their own.”
He just died so we're supposed to pretend he's a saint, but Carter was instrumental in killing the free, prosperous state of Rhodesia and aiding Mugabe in his takeover of it, then transforming it into hellish Zimbabwe
In fact, after Harold Wilson, Carter's the key villain🧵👇
I've written much about this before, but a quick summary to set the scene:
Carter was elected in '76 and acceded to power in '77. This coincided with the Bush War taking its final, much more intense form, with Soviet and CCP-backed rebels infiltrating from Zambia and Mozambique, which the Portuguese had lost in '75 after the '74 Carnation Revolution
The Rhodesian Front government, still generally supported by most blacks and whites within the country, was fighting for its life against those communist rebels and in desperate need of Western aid to survive. Its survival would have mean a bulwark against the communists in one of the world's key regions.
It needed that aid because the South Africans had generally stopped helping, as they sensed which way the wind was blowing and sought detente in their region with the black communist governments, and thought throwing Rhodesia to the wolves would buy them some time. Meanwhile, the whole world other than South Africa and Israel had gone along with UN sanctions of Rhodesia, cutting it off from needed trade and access to supplies
So, with the South Africans betraying them, the British unhelpful, and the communists surrounding them, the Rhodesians desperately needed American aid
In a sane world, it would have been given. Rhodesia was free, with personal and property rights generally protected and respected for white and black alike. It was willing to fight communism and, at the point of Carter's election, had already done so for a decade. It could feed Africa and had vast mineral reserves. So, it was just the sort of state you would think America would want to aid in the Cold War, and help defend from communism
That aid was given by some Americans personally, such as Soldier of Fortune's Robert Brown, and some Americans arrived to fight as volunteers...but it was left to see if Carter would let Rhodesia fall to the communists, or provide the little bit of aid and sanctions relief it needed to keep fighting
It's incredible how little reflection went into this "America needs a billion Tiger Moms" post, as it totally misunderstands what sort of spirit made the West great, and is just an attempt to replace what remains of that unique spirit with a slavish one
What made the West great, and indeed what made the Occident different from everywhere else, was a very different attitude: individual excellence paired with social charm and grace, and caring deeply about that social aspect of life
So, adventurers, officers, country squires, and all the rest who took over the world on behalf of the Occident over the 18th and 19th century were expected to be well-read, be brave, and be charming; except in rare cases of eccentricity, it wouldn't do to just have one of those virtues
George Washington is a great example of this. His plantation thrived as he switched it to grain and developed mutually beneficial businesses that thrived along the plantation, such as a fishing fleet and grain mill
He was brave in combat, a fearless adventurer, well-read and knowledgeable of the ancient world (as shown by his modeling of himself on the greatest of Plutarch's biographies), and devoted to social grace, with one of his earliest writing being a book of manners and his clothing always being in perfect order