The crown is lying in the gutter and anyone who presented a reasonable plan for dealing with these invaders could pluck it up with ease
So why won’t existing governments deal with it?
The humiliation and destruction is the entire point🧵👇
Often, mass migration is explained away as an an economic thing
They need more warm bodies and mirror foggers to keep GDP up and to the right and pension plans fully funded so the retired crowd doesn’t riot, or so they say
But that doesn’t pass the smell test. The Danes studied migration and found migrants from the Middle East and North Africa are huge drains on the public treasury. Far from funding pensions, they detract from them in a huge way, to the tune of thousands of euros a year
So why import them? Obviously not for economic reasons…
It’s because they want their native populations humiliated and depressed so they don’t revolt (ours want this too)…and hordes of migrants that commit crimes and can’t be spoken against on pain of imprisonment are a great way to do that
Take England, tooth any Western country has much the same story to tell
What was once the envy of the world, the prosperous lion living on top of Olympus, now has an anemic economy, a peerage and citizenry ruined by punitive taxation, and cities overrun with Muslim migrants that abuse young British girls while living on welfare checks
In any past world, the population would go French Revolution mode on the regime that did such evils to them
But they don’t do that. There’s no French Revolution in England, no Peasants Rebellion. Just occasional small scale rioting
Why?
Decades of humiliation and propaganda have deracinated and demoralized the native population that would be bringing out the pitchforks, and the Orwellian governmental apparatus crushes any small sign of discontent
So they stay at home and watch TV instead
And migrants are a particularly good avenue for creating the humiliation that led to this demoralization
Why?
Because they’re so obviously not meant to be there, much less in positions of power, yet are
these are the colonials that still hasn’t figured out the wheel, much less steam engine, when Britannia showed up, after all, and yet they’re ruling over Britannia now
Further, they commit all manner of horrific crimes, from butchery of soldiers and priests to rampant theft and petty crime, that makes them a menace and means a sane government should deport them.
Yet it doesn’t deport them. Despite their backwardness, drain on the treasury, and constant criminal activity, the regime rolls out the red carpet for them and puts them in positions of power
That’s humiliating, and has demoralized populations. Hence deaths of despair and like activity from once proud populations
And hanging over it all is the fact that these are Scythian archers.
They could be hanged a gun and badge at any moment and told to crush dissent amongst the native population, which they’d do without mercy
Barbarism is the inability to think of and plan for tomorrow, much less past it
Civilization, then, is when men plant trees in the shade of which they will never sit, and greatness and success are measured by their doing so🧵👇
Think of what it takes to build the sort of structures we associate with the great civilizations
The Pyramids of Egypt
The Acropolis of Athens
The Flavian Amphitheater of Rome
Hagia Sophia
Notre Dame
What is similar about them? Legacy is the point. They take years to build, with the work often going on for decades and outlasting the life of he who started construction
But when finished their stone stands as a testament for all time to the builder. Like the Pantheon declaring M. Agrippa, he built this, or as we still know the road Censor Appius Claudius Caecus built as the Roman way, they are a legacy that lasts for millennia
And why did they build those structures?
In part it was legacy
But more than that it was what society demanded. In Rome they had the cursus honorum, and, Coriolanus aside, the way to advance along it was contributing to the public, particularly in the form of magnificent public works
Greece had taken the idea a step farther, even, and instead of having taxes had competition amongst great men to build the public works. If a bridge needed building, the great men would compete to donate a magnificent bridge to the public. If the gods needed honoring, it would be a great man who constructed the marble-bedecked temple. Even much of the Acropolis was built in this manner
And so on: monuments to eternity were built because the public demanded it
First, having foreigners invade you is actually a punishment levied for not obeying God...not a commandment of His
Deuteronomy 28:43-45 provides, "Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers. All these disasters will come on you, and they will be with you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the Lord your God and keep all the laws that he gave you."
If God was pro-Great Replacement, why would he make it happening a curse for forgetting his commands?
No, it's quite clear that mass migration is a punishment from God, a curse for forgetting his commandments...which would make sense given that generally atheistic in practice America and Europe are suffering the worse from this Biblical plague
South African President Ramaphosa signed off on a new South African Land-Expropriation Law
It allows for the expropriation of property by the state for the purposes of ethnic economic equity, meaning white property will be stolen
This is how Mugabe destroyed Rhodesia🧵👇
The new law replaces South Africa's Expropriation Act of 1975. Under it, the government is allowed to seize land in the name of "public interest."
And what does that mean? In addition to the normal preeminent domain reasons, per Section 25 of the Constitution, it means "the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources."
In other words, the "public interest" is defined as racial economic equity, or the races getting "what they need"
It's just race communism
Further, under the law, if property is being held for the sole purpose of wanting it to increase in value, which is the case with most property due to inflation, the state can take it without paying any compensation
That's because what it means, letting the cream of society rise to the top, leads to huge outcome differentials to which egalitarian liberalism reacts with fury
In fact, it's why the West destroyed Rhodesia and won't tolerate this either🧵👇
The simple fact is there are differences in culture and capability that are generally attendant with ethnic differences. Those, in turn, result in differences in outcome
British doctor Theodor Dalrymple, describing how that played out in Rhodesia, where he worked, said:
“Unlike in South Africa, where salaries were paid according to a racial hierarchy, salaries in Rhodesia were equal for blacks and whites doing the same job, so that a black junior doctor received the same salary as mine. But there remained a vast gulf in our standards of living, the significance of which at first escaped me; but it was crucial in explaining the disasters that befell the newly independent countries that enjoyed what Byron called, and eagerly anticipated as, the first dance of freedom. “The young black doctors who earned the same salary as we whites could not achieve the same standard of living for a very simple reason: they had an immense number of social obligations to fulfill. They were expected to provide for an ever expanding circle of family members (some of whom may have invested in their education) and people from their village, tribe, and province. An income that allowed a white to live like a lord because of a lack of such obligations scarcely raised a black above the level of his family. Mere equality of salary, therefore, was quite insufficient to procure for them the standard of living that they saw the whites had and that it was only human nature for them to desire—and believe themselves entitled to, on account of the superior talent that had allowed them to raise themselves above their fellows. In fact, a salary a thousand times as great would hardly have been sufficient to procure it: for their social obligations increased pari passu with their incomes.
“These obligations also explain the fact, often disdainfully remarked upon by former colonials, that when Africans moved into the beautiful and well-appointed villas of their former colonial masters, the houses swiftly degenerated into a species of superior, more spacious slum. Just as African doctors were perfectly equal to their medical tasks, technically speaking, so the degeneration of colonial villas had nothing to do with the intellectual inability of Africans to maintain them. Rather, the fortunate inheritor of such a villa was soon overwhelmed by relatives and others who had a social claim upon him. They brought even their goats with them; and one goat can undo in an afternoon what it has taken decades to establish.”
This same thing played out in the Rhodesian voting system
To vote on the important "A" voter roll in national elections, you had to either A) have the modern equivalent of $60k USD in Rhodesian property, or B) be highly educated
Those requirements were the same for blacks and whites. It was "colorblind" and as much of a meritocracy as is possible without communist confiscation of everything
What happened with it was much the same as happened with wealth generally: whites did better at qualifying, and though many blacks were able to qualify, whites tended to do so at a much higher rate
A huge problem with illegal immigration is that it brought truly nasty people here, from random criminals to MS-13-style gangs, and created a significant potential for South African-style farm attacks
This is a serious problem in some American farming towns, and in cities 🧵👇
First, as to the scope of the problem:
This is a major problem that's not often thought about, but should be in mind given the Tren de Aragua (a gang of Venezuelan illegal immigrant criminals) takeover of apartment buildings across the country
But while cities are most thought of, it's a rural problem too. Farms have imported totally unvetted, often criminal, workers by the truckload, and the opioid crisis has meant the widespread establishment of drug networks spreading out across the heartland.
The county of Galax, VA, for example, has a significant MS-13 problem. Drugs and farm laborers meant the establishment of illegal immigrant networks, and that has meant gang networks as well
The same should be expected not just of sanctuary cities that more or less encourage illegal immigration while doing little if anything to stop the crime brought by illegal immigrants, but farming communities across the country
If Galax, rural Virginia, has an MS-13 problem, you can be sure that California, Southwest, and similar communities known for large-scale agriculture relying on illegal immigrant labor have similar gang problems
The same is probably true of those places that, like rural Arkansas, employ illegal immigrants on a grand scale for awful jobs like meat-packing; the presence of such networks likely means the presence of gang networks as well, and the widespread nature of the drug problem make that all the more likely
It's MLK Day. So, to pair that with my favorite subject, what was MLK's stance on Ian Smith's Rhodesia?
As could be predicted given his communist connections, he stood totally opposed to Rhodesia's existence and independence
Instead, he sided with the communist rebels🧵👇
First, yes, in addition to being a serial philanderer and plagiarist, MLK Jr. had communist sympathies
Namely, some of his closest advisors and speechwriters were outright members communists
One was Stanley David Levison. He, who worked for the defense of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, traitors who handed nuclear secrets to the Soviets, was known to the FBI as a major financial coordinator for the Communist Party USA through 1957. He was an advisor and close friend of King; Andrew Young, a main villain of the Rhodesia story, stated, "Stan Levison was one of the closest friends Martin King and I ever had. Of all the unknown supporters of the civil rights movement, he was perhaps the most important."
Another was Harry Wachtel. Another lawyer, he was a member of the Communist Party of the United States of America, and his wife was a communist too, being identified in 1944 as a member of King County Communist Party. Wachtel founded the Research Committee, which not only provided King with philosophical, financial, and legal help, but helped write many of his speeches. Wachtel handled King's estate after his death
So, with two communists as his close friends, advisors, and speechwriters, King was suspected by the FBI of being a communist as well
It found that he, though not a card-carrying member, unlike Levison and Watchel, did believe in it, agree with it, and want to advance "friendship toward the Soviet Union"