Any guesses on the motivation behind letting in millions of illegal immigrants? Will there be amnesty (if so, when?)? More bodies to “save social security?” Cheap labor for business?
These Friday posts are the highlight of my reading week. Please keep them coming!
I think it's at least partially driven by the belief that these are all future Democratic voters. Ruy Teixeria calls this a "mix effect." Basically, it's assumed that rising racial diversity will be beneficial to the Democrats’ electoral fortunes. But that's a dangerous assumption because voter preferences change. We're already seeing this happen as more and more minority voters defect to the Republicans.
Maybe I'm not cynical enough but I don't actually think this is driven by perceived electoral advantage - at lease not primarily. The primary driver of all 'social justice' warrior postures was nailed decades ago in this TS Eliot quote: "They don't mean to do harm; but the harm does not interest them......because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/invasion-of-the-virtue-signallers
I can't shake the feeling that the intentions are nefarious in allowing the flooding of the US with record levels of human beings who haven't gone through any sort of immigration processing. There is simply no precedence for what's happening, so much so that even Demos are taking notice.
And if it were just about elections, both "sides" of the duopoly already have had the means to rig results all the way to the moon and back and clearly do so on the regular, even without live bodies to match the digital count.
I think mass illegal immigration provides the best example of how the coalition of globalist oligarchs and the New Left (aka Social Justice Inc.) work together to pursue their goals and accrue and consolidate power.
On the business/money side, mass illegal immigration drives down wages, but it also works to dilute social capital and reinforce the idea that borders are a malleable and artificial construct. The globalists want to erase borders bc they want global labor arbitrage and because their ultimate goal is to replace the sovereignty of the nation state with the sovereignty of globalist international institutions. They do not believe that a citizen of any country, even one with roots stretching back centuries, should have any more claim to that country than a foreigner who just arrived yesterday.
And for the Social Justice side, their sacred dogma says that everything the rich European countries have is due to genocidal colonialism, and the only reason that the White North is rich and the Brown South is poor is centuries of oppression. Their entire program is about "rectifying historical injustices" or "battling power relations and their discriminatory effects" thus for them it is an urgent moral demand to always be helping a poor brown person (and/or harming a rich white one), and this moral demand supersedes any other factors, including potential political or social unrest or damage to America and its future. Their eyes aren't on this world, but on the next.
21st-century Left/liberals have no language or ability to say NO to ANY demand by anyone they consider oppressed. Soc Just morality demands that the border stays open (or is ideally erased) because "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" aka "we must center the marginalized" (no matter what country they come from).
The destabilization and destruction of Canada and the USA is nearly complete. Once the war in Israel replaces the war between the Nazis in Ukraine and Russia, North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran will take the ball and run with it. We have never before had a traitor in the Oval Office and there is no Justice Department to protect us from him.
You are exactly right about the views of many SJW’s, according to extensive philosophical discussions I’ve had with some of them.
My sense, though, is that these people are simply the useful idiots for some larger and altogether different agenda- an agenda that is focused only on gaining and keeping power. People like Hillary are not worried about social justice. It was just a convenient pose on the path to power.
every movement consists of everything from leaders and True Believers to opportunists, sadists, scammers, con artists, people looking to score money and/or sex, and in our secular deracinated age, people looking for meaning and purpose, something to believe in.
humans follow their tribe (whether chosen or aspirational) and follow the incentives. if everyone you know and everyone you aspire to know or be is mouthing the same slogans (and using them to get ahead), most people will do the same.
for loathsome creatures of the Beltway like Hillary, SJ is a godsend (literally?) as it allows them to couch all their demands in the language of sensitivity and justice, while never costing a cent. she can even amass millions and start various wars while still wearing the halo of victimhood, bc she is a woman. SJ and globalist neoliberalism are a match made in heaven ;)
as a contractor from Texas, I welcome any and all efforts to unburden the load on my state. however, I can't tell if those pamphlets are being distributed by pro or anti immigration groups. maybe the cartels? things are getting weird...
I'm quite baffled about the WaPo article, I remember reading a study about child pornography being a huge problem on Instagram which isn't addressed by Meta at all - meanwhile they were censoring a lot of other stuff on behalf of the federal government and its agencies. How is it they are not acting at all or only very late on serious shit like this?
1. Grift. Never underestimate the need for spending to grease palms. Currently, the Fed rate for travel for a hotel room is $315 for a hotel room in NYC, but if NYC agrees to pay $425/night, where are those extra $ gonna go? Now add in food and necessities and clothing and transportation and language services...
2. Emergency. Always have an emergency, "we need more time to fix this problem", so we get to do #1.
3. Racism. Claim the Repubs are racists because they don't want the immigrants.
4. Voting. Need new poor people, regardless of their color, to vote for the people who let them in. Or at least access to the ballots...
5. Schools. We need more teachers and special teachers for these undereducated kids.
"Jamaal Bowman is still claiming that he didn’t mean to set off the fire alarm, but it’s obvious he pulled it because Democrats wanted more time to read the temporary spending bill. No consequences."
Firealarm shenanigans aside, I think elected representatives should have enough time to read the bills they vote on on behalf of their constituents. If that slows down the passage of laws that's a bonus in my book.
Don't be fooled by the wording of the FBI. When they say they won't go after you for 1st Amendment speech, what they mean is: If you use speech we dislike, we will follow you around until you make a mistake and then arrest you. It won't be your speech exactly, but we will be watching for a slip up.
And just because you aren't prosecuted doesn't mean that they are not going after you. Being indicted and able to clear your name in a court might even be preferable than being on some sort of watch list that you can't get off and might not even know about. If you can't get a loan, bank account or job because your name is flagged in some database they can punish you without due process. Government agencies have a lot of power to make your life miserable even if you are completely innocent.
Any guesses on the motivation behind letting in millions of illegal immigrants? Will there be amnesty (if so, when?)? More bodies to “save social security?” Cheap labor for business?
These Friday posts are the highlight of my reading week. Please keep them coming!
I think it's at least partially driven by the belief that these are all future Democratic voters. Ruy Teixeria calls this a "mix effect." Basically, it's assumed that rising racial diversity will be beneficial to the Democrats’ electoral fortunes. But that's a dangerous assumption because voter preferences change. We're already seeing this happen as more and more minority voters defect to the Republicans.
Maybe I'm not cynical enough but I don't actually think this is driven by perceived electoral advantage - at lease not primarily. The primary driver of all 'social justice' warrior postures was nailed decades ago in this TS Eliot quote: "They don't mean to do harm; but the harm does not interest them......because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/invasion-of-the-virtue-signallers
I can't shake the feeling that the intentions are nefarious in allowing the flooding of the US with record levels of human beings who haven't gone through any sort of immigration processing. There is simply no precedence for what's happening, so much so that even Demos are taking notice.
And if it were just about elections, both "sides" of the duopoly already have had the means to rig results all the way to the moon and back and clearly do so on the regular, even without live bodies to match the digital count.
I don't want to be right about this.
I think mass illegal immigration provides the best example of how the coalition of globalist oligarchs and the New Left (aka Social Justice Inc.) work together to pursue their goals and accrue and consolidate power.
On the business/money side, mass illegal immigration drives down wages, but it also works to dilute social capital and reinforce the idea that borders are a malleable and artificial construct. The globalists want to erase borders bc they want global labor arbitrage and because their ultimate goal is to replace the sovereignty of the nation state with the sovereignty of globalist international institutions. They do not believe that a citizen of any country, even one with roots stretching back centuries, should have any more claim to that country than a foreigner who just arrived yesterday.
And for the Social Justice side, their sacred dogma says that everything the rich European countries have is due to genocidal colonialism, and the only reason that the White North is rich and the Brown South is poor is centuries of oppression. Their entire program is about "rectifying historical injustices" or "battling power relations and their discriminatory effects" thus for them it is an urgent moral demand to always be helping a poor brown person (and/or harming a rich white one), and this moral demand supersedes any other factors, including potential political or social unrest or damage to America and its future. Their eyes aren't on this world, but on the next.
21st-century Left/liberals have no language or ability to say NO to ANY demand by anyone they consider oppressed. Soc Just morality demands that the border stays open (or is ideally erased) because "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" aka "we must center the marginalized" (no matter what country they come from).
The destabilization and destruction of Canada and the USA is nearly complete. Once the war in Israel replaces the war between the Nazis in Ukraine and Russia, North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran will take the ball and run with it. We have never before had a traitor in the Oval Office and there is no Justice Department to protect us from him.
You are exactly right about the views of many SJW’s, according to extensive philosophical discussions I’ve had with some of them.
My sense, though, is that these people are simply the useful idiots for some larger and altogether different agenda- an agenda that is focused only on gaining and keeping power. People like Hillary are not worried about social justice. It was just a convenient pose on the path to power.
every movement consists of everything from leaders and True Believers to opportunists, sadists, scammers, con artists, people looking to score money and/or sex, and in our secular deracinated age, people looking for meaning and purpose, something to believe in.
humans follow their tribe (whether chosen or aspirational) and follow the incentives. if everyone you know and everyone you aspire to know or be is mouthing the same slogans (and using them to get ahead), most people will do the same.
for loathsome creatures of the Beltway like Hillary, SJ is a godsend (literally?) as it allows them to couch all their demands in the language of sensitivity and justice, while never costing a cent. she can even amass millions and start various wars while still wearing the halo of victimhood, bc she is a woman. SJ and globalist neoliberalism are a match made in heaven ;)
Very nice. Nothing to add.
thanks!
More obvious: Former Spanish (and Portuguese) colonies are poor corrupt shitholes. Former (and current) English colonies are rich and less corrupt.
as a contractor from Texas, I welcome any and all efforts to unburden the load on my state. however, I can't tell if those pamphlets are being distributed by pro or anti immigration groups. maybe the cartels? things are getting weird...
I'm quite baffled about the WaPo article, I remember reading a study about child pornography being a huge problem on Instagram which isn't addressed by Meta at all - meanwhile they were censoring a lot of other stuff on behalf of the federal government and its agencies. How is it they are not acting at all or only very late on serious shit like this?
I think it is multifaceted.
1. Grift. Never underestimate the need for spending to grease palms. Currently, the Fed rate for travel for a hotel room is $315 for a hotel room in NYC, but if NYC agrees to pay $425/night, where are those extra $ gonna go? Now add in food and necessities and clothing and transportation and language services...
2. Emergency. Always have an emergency, "we need more time to fix this problem", so we get to do #1.
3. Racism. Claim the Repubs are racists because they don't want the immigrants.
4. Voting. Need new poor people, regardless of their color, to vote for the people who let them in. Or at least access to the ballots...
5. Schools. We need more teachers and special teachers for these undereducated kids.
The list goes on and on.
Absolutely LOVE the Grace Hopper Career Fair story...
"In her TikTok video, she read comments from women who claimed they were bothered, harassed and even hit on by some of the male participants"
*even* getting hit on, which is worse than harassment or "bothering". How dare these disgusting nerds hit on me?
Obligatory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY
"Jamaal Bowman is still claiming that he didn’t mean to set off the fire alarm, but it’s obvious he pulled it because Democrats wanted more time to read the temporary spending bill. No consequences."
The Bee was all over this.
https://babylonbee.com/news/rep-bowman-pulls-fire-alarm-again-while-trying-to-flush-urinal
https://babylonbee.com/cleanArticle/panicked-mccarthy-looks-for-a-fire-alarm
https://babylonbee.com/news/buffalo-guy-kicking-himself-for-not-just-pulling-fire-alarm-to-evacuate-congress
Firealarm shenanigans aside, I think elected representatives should have enough time to read the bills they vote on on behalf of their constituents. If that slows down the passage of laws that's a bonus in my book.
I agree completely. They pull this bullshit all the time. "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"
Our national level politics our too depressing. At least we get some entertainment value.
Don't be fooled by the wording of the FBI. When they say they won't go after you for 1st Amendment speech, what they mean is: If you use speech we dislike, we will follow you around until you make a mistake and then arrest you. It won't be your speech exactly, but we will be watching for a slip up.
And just because you aren't prosecuted doesn't mean that they are not going after you. Being indicted and able to clear your name in a court might even be preferable than being on some sort of watch list that you can't get off and might not even know about. If you can't get a loan, bank account or job because your name is flagged in some database they can punish you without due process. Government agencies have a lot of power to make your life miserable even if you are completely innocent.
That wretchedly titled Rolling Stone article caught my interest, only because the title, itself, was...well, wretched.
I know that traditional journalism is dead, but that story's elevation to published status takes the cake.
Here's all you need to know (from the article):
"IN 1998, ON THE 25th anniversary of their disappearance, I was an investigative reporter in New York looking to find out what happened to the teens."
AND
"‘I don’t remember, but it’s just as well. It’s too sad.’”
Sad is clearly one way to describe the entire publishing endeavor still calling itself Rolling Stone.