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
The reason this happened is that the Indochina was the original Rhodesia: a colonial conflict in which the Americans and communists worked hand in hand to destroy colonial, Christian society and spread communism
That lens is the only one that makes the war make sense
🧵👇
First, we dragged the French along and let them waste their strength, political capital, and blood while providing just enough aid to keep them from losing but not enough to win
Then, when Dien Bien Phu came, we yanked it all away so that they lost in a humiliating defeat and their colonial project, and related war effort in Algeria, took an irrecoverable black eye
The French Empire was finished, and the communist bayonet, aided by our lack of commitment and domestic French leftist agitation, killed it
With that French defeat came the partition, and with it the crowding of the capitalists and Catholics into South Vietnam, with Diem as their leader
We backed Diem in a way that only made him unpopular, and once Diem leaned into pro-Catholic policies, something that would have separated the South from the North and given it a continued reason for resistance, the CIA murdered him and replaced him with a succession of awful and ever more incompetent puppets
Lee Kuan Yew notes in From Third World to First that this was a terrible idea
The central reason the American Revolution proved successful in creating a free and prosperous nation is that the Founders, many of them Virginia and New York gentry, embraced rather than rejected hierarchy
This separated, in practice, our Revolution from the horrors of the egalitarian French Revolution, and is what led to America’s subsequent success as France floundered, though both used similar language about rights and liberty
Continued below 👇
This often gets forgotten because 1) they rejected creating a British-style peerage after the war (though they did create the Society of the Cincinnati), and 2) the war is now framed not as a dispute over local sovereignty but rather as a rejection of British culture
That’s an incorrect interpretation of what happened
The central fact is that American culture remained resolutely English in the decades after the war, however much some radicals hated England
This is obvious even in superficial respects.
The White House is a Palladian country house. 4/5 of our first presidents were country gentlemen who ran plantations as their cousins across the ocean ran estates. They are with silver, constructed country manors, hunted the fox on horseback, drank port by the gallon, and otherwise followed the culture traditions of their English ancestors
Similarly, the Scots-Irish, though significantly more hostile to Britain, retained the traditions of their Borderer ancestors, particularly surrounding local leadership by the major men of quality
Every study of the economic contributions of immigrants has shown that only some East Asians - namely the Japanese - and those of European descent in any way contribute to the public coffers on a net basis. The other groups drain them in a huge way
This same general thing bears out in America: the net fiscal impact of those "undocumented folk" is severely negative...
A rat done bit my sister Nell // with whitey on the moon
If anything symbolizes the noxious race communism strangling our civilization, it's this song, Whitey on the Moon, a paean to the stultifying Stone Age spirit of the global favela
A short 🧵👇
(video by @kunley_drukpa)
The long and short of it is that we face a time for choosing.
Will we embrace what is represented now by SpaceX and Apollo — greatness, aesthetic beauty, and feats of technological brilliance and daring beyond anything seen before?
Or will we embrace the global favela — the spirit, smell, and aesthetic of the steaming, putrid air of a decaying village in Dahomey?
There are a great many people that identify with Whitey on the Moon
They claim to want no leaps forward until everyone is pampered by the nanny state, living in luxury because someone else paid their doctor's bill, as the song's sullen artist indicates
But what they really want is a dragging of all of us into a global favela. They hate any form of achievement, because it reminds them there is nothing they could ever achieve
They, like the glowering savage in the picture below, want to crush anything excellent, beautiful, or marvelous merely because it is so; it reminds them that their ancestors never invented the wheel, and barely escaped the Stone Age
What separated Rhodesia from the rest of the West?
One key matter: it focused on excellence in an age when all others transitioned to ruthless egalitarianism
As Ian Smith put it in the clip below, “We simply have a standard”
That standard is what made the West great
🧵👇
This is, I think, really the key differentiating factor and is what makes it so interesting to me
In an era when America was in the throes of Civil Rights egalitarianism, tearing down everything to make communist-connected rebels happy, and England was at war with its heritage, taxing those who embodied that heritage out of existence while confiscating their houses, Rhodesia chose the other path
That other path was the one that really matters: it was simply having standards
Their elections are the best example of this. Those weren't racial, but rather required those who were to vote in national elections first prove to the country that they could be stewards, shown through their being stewards in their own lives
Hence the property qualification: requiring the equivalent of $60k in 2024 USD in Rhodesian property, they largely succeeded in screening out those who were irresponsible.
Below, Elon argues DOGE is fighting the bureaucracy, and thus might restore Democracy in America
He's right to call bureaucracy the enemy of the people, but wrong to say it's the enemy of democracy
The two go hand in hand, as the West's 20th century decline shows
🧵👇
First, what Elon told Rogan was partially correct, but mostly incorrect
He said, “The reality is that our elected officials have very little power relative to the bureaucracy until DOGE. DOGE is a threat to the bureaucracy—it's the first threat to the bureaucracy. Normally, the bureaucracy eats revolutions for breakfast. This is the first time that they're not, that the revolution might actually succeed, that we could restore power to the people instead of power to the bureaucracy.”
In some ways, that is obviously correct. DOGE is indeed at war with the bureaucracy, as shown by the firings, the court cases, the budget freezes, and so on
Elon, and thus DOGE, recognize that the federal bureaucracy is not only overly expensive, but has been spending and regulating in a way that makes it hard to do anything in America, particularly anything worth doing. Business is burdened by taxes and constrained by onerous regulations. Hiring is difficult, and firing an incompetent employee of a "protected" race is nearly impossible. Innovation is stifled by aging bureaucrats. The Deep State has been weaponized against conservatives, and most bureaucrats go along with it because they just want their pensions.
So, DOGE is indeed at war with the bureaucracy, is winning some battles, and the bureaucracy is clearly the enemy of the American people
But he is wrong in saying that the bureaucracy is the enemy of democracy, by which he means modern mass democracy, or a near-universal adult franchise, which hereafter I'll just call democracy
That is wildly off, and proof of that comes from America and Britain throughout the 20th century