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
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