A customer at the counter of a lawn ornament shop; "Give me four of those pinwheels, two of those pink flamingos, two of the sunflowers, and one of those bent-over grandmas in bloomers."
Cashier replies; "That'll be eight dollars for the pinwheels, ten dollars for the flamingos, six dollars for the sunflowers, and an apology to my wife!"
*.*
If my body were a car, this is the time I would be thinking about trading it in for a newer model.
I've got bumps and dents and scratches in my finish and my paint job is getting a little dull, but that's not the worst of it.
My headlights are out of focus and it's especially hard to see things up close.
My traction is not as graceful as it once was.
I slip and slide and skid and bump into things even in the best of weather.
It takes me hours to reach my maximum speed.
My fuel rate burns inefficiently.
But here's the worst of it --
Almost every time I sneeze, cough or sputter.....either my radiator leaks or my exhaust backfires!
*.*
Random Thoughts
I planted some bird seed. A bird came up. Now I don't know what to feed it.
All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
They told me I was gullible ... and I believed them.
One nice thing about egotists: They don't talk about other people.
The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.
How can there be self-help "groups"?
Is there another word for synonym?
The speed of time is one-second per second.
Is it possible to be totally partial?
If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales?
Show me a man with both feet firmly on the ground, and I'll show you a man who can't get his pants off.
*.*
Ocasio-Cortez announces bill to make electoral college tuition-free
The new face of the Democrat party and the youngest person ever elected to the House of Representatives, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is making waves. In a press conference, the New York native has declared her intention to make the electoral college tuition free.
“People shouldn’t be riddled with student debt when they’re trying to bring about a socialist revolution after school—and that shouldn’t be any different for the electoral college graduates,” Ocasio-Cortez explained.
“It’s just not fair. I mean, what are there—five billion college students in the United States? They shouldn’t have to be in debt for the rest of their lives to pay for something as integral to society as a woman’s studies degree or a masters in underwater basket-weaving. The world could not survive without women or baskets.”
It was unclear whether the first-term congresswoman understood that the electoral college was not in fact an actual university.
“It shouldn’t matter if these students and graduates also vote for the president or whatever—they shouldn’t have billions of dollars in debt either.”
Ocasio-Cortez has made a name for herself by making bold claims like “The world is going to end in 12 years,” and “You can get 100% renewable energy by plugging an electrical extension into itself.”
*.*
Fred was unfortunate enough to be hit by a 10-ton truck and landed up in hospital in intensive care. His best friend Morris came to visit him.
Fred struggles to tell Morris, "My wife Sally visits me three times a day. She's so good to me. Every day, she reads to me at the bedside."
"What does she read?"
"My life insurance policy."
Quote of the Times;
An insult is like a drink, it affects one only is accepted. – Heinlein
Link of the Times;
https://heartiste.org/
Issue of the Times;
What Were Robespierre’s Pronouns? by Peggy Noonan
The French Revolution was led by sociopaths who politicized language, much like today’s Jacobins.
King Louis XVI of France is led to the guillotine. We often make historical parallels here. History doesn’t repeat itself but it does rhyme, as clever people say. And sometimes it hiccups. Here is a hiccup.
We start with the moral and political catastrophe that was the French Revolution. It was more a nationwide psychotic break than a revolt—a great nation at its own throat, swept by a spirit not only of regicide but suicide. For 10 years they simply enjoyed killing each other. They could have done what England was doing—a long nonviolent revolution, a gradual diminution of the power of king and court, an establishment of the rights of the people and their legislators so that the regent ended up a lovely person on a stamp. Instead they chose blood. Scholars like to make a distinction between the Revolution and the Terror that followed, but “the Terror was merely 1789 with a higher body count.” From the Storming of the Bastille onward, “it was apparent that violence was not just an unfortunate side effect. . . . It was the Revolution’s source of collective energy. It was what made the Revolution revolutionary.”
That is from Simon Schama’s masterpiece “Citizens,” his history of the revolution published in 1989, its 200th anniversary. It is erudite, elegant and heroically nonideological.
John Adams, across the sea in America, quickly understood what was happening in France and voiced alarm. In contrast his old friend Thomas Jefferson egged on the revolution and lent it his moral prestige. Faced with news of the guillotines, he reverted to abstractions. He was a genius with a true if hidden seam of malice, and rarely overconcerned with the suffering of others.
The revolution had everything—a ruling class that was clumsy, decadent, inert; a pathetic king, a queen beyond her depth, costly wars, monstrous debt, an impervious and unreformable administrative state, a hungry populace. The task of the monarchy was to protect the poor, but the king had “abdicated this protective role.” Instead of ensuring grain supplies at a reasonable price, Mr. Schama notes, the government committed itself to the new modern principle of free trade: “British textiles had been let into France, robbing Norman and Flemish spinners and weavers of work.” They experienced it as “some sort of conspiracy against the People.”
One does see parallels. But they’re not what I mean.
It was a revolution largely run by sociopaths. One, Robespierre, the “messianic schoolmaster,” saw it as an opportunity for the moral instruction of the nation. Everything would be politicized, no part of the citizen’s life left untouched. As man was governed by an “empire of images,” in the words of a Jacobin intellectual, the new régime would provide new images to shape new thoughts. There would be pageants, and new names for things. They would change time itself! The first year of the new Republic was no longer 1792, it was Year One. To detach farmers from their superstitions, their Gregorian calendar and its saints’ days, they would rename the months. The first month would be in the fall, named for the harvest. There would be no more weeks, just three 10-day periods each month.
So here is our parallel, our hiccup. I thought of all this this week because I’ve been thinking about the language and behavioral directives that have been coming at us from the social and sexual justice warriors who are renaming things and attempting to control the language in America.
There is the latest speech guide from the academy, the Inclusive Communications Task Force at Colorado State University. Don’t call people “American,” it directs: “This erases other cultures.” Don’t say a person is mad or a lunatic, call him “surprising/wild” or “sad.” “Eskimo,” “freshman” and “illegal alien” are out. “You guys” should be replaced by “all/folks.” Don’t say “male” or “female”; say “man,” “woman” or “gender non-binary.”
In one way it’s the nonsense we’ve all grown used to, but it should be said that there’s an aspect of self-infatuation, of arrogance, in telling people they must reorder the common language to suit your ideological preferences. There is something mad in thinking you should control the names of things. Or perhaps I mean surprising/wild.
I see in it a spirit similar to that of the Terror. There is a tone of, “I am your moral teacher. Because you are incapable of sensitivity, I will help you, dumb farmer. I will start with the language you speak.”
An odd thing is they always insist they’re doing this in the name of kindness and large-spiritedness. And yet, have you ever met them? They’re not individually kind or large-spirited. They’re more like messianic schoolmasters.
Offices and schools are forced to grapple with all the new gender-neutral pronouns. Here a handy guide from a website purporting to help human-resources departments in midsize businesses. It is headlined. “Gender Neutral Pronouns—What They Are & How to Use Them.”
He/She—Zie, Sie, Ey, Ve, Tey, E
Him/Her—Zim, Sie, Em, Ver, Ter, Em
His/Her—Zir, Hir, Eir, Vis, Tem, Eir
Himself/Herself—Zieself, Hirself, Eirself, Verself, Terself, Emself
It’s wrong, when you meet a new co-worker, to ask his pronouns. (We don’t say “preferred” pronouns—that “implies someone’s gender is a preference”!) You don’t want him wondering if you think he’s transgender or nonbinary. Instead, introduce yourself in a way that summons his pronouns: “Hi, I’m Jim and my pronoun is he/him.” Use “they” a lot. It’s gender neutral. Suggested sentence: “I spoke to the marketing director and they said they’d get back to me.”
This is grammatically incorrect but so what? Correct grammar, and the intelligibility it allows, is a small price to pay for inclusion and equality.
We are being asked to memorize all this, to change hundreds of years of grammar and usage, to accommodate the needs or demands of a group that perceives itself as beleaguered.
There’s a funny but painful spoof of all this on YouTube. A seemingly friendly but dogmatic teacher of adult immigrants in English as a Second Language class introduces them to the 63 new pronouns. They are understandably flummoxed. An Asian woman announces she identifies as a girl and then shrinks in fear this might not be allowed. A confused Eastern European man asks the pronoun of his desk. The Central American asks if the new pronouns mean gay. “You’re not learning English so you can be a bigot, are you?” the teacher demands.
And there are the office arguments about bathroom policy, which I gather are reaching some new peak. There can no longer be a men’s room and a women’s room, so we can have one expanded bathroom everyone can use. No, we’ll have three. But there may be a stigma to using the third, so keep two bathrooms but remove all designations. But the women don’t want to put on their makeup with men coming in and out. But the men don’t want women walking in on them—that’s a harassment suit waiting to happen!
It’s all insane. All of it.
But we’re moving forward, renaming the months and the sexes, reordering the language.
You wonder how the people who push all this got so much power. But then, how did Robespierre?
Pronouns?
Blessing?
Today, I was in the bathroom at a popular coffee chain. Someone wrote "What Would Jesus Do?" on the wall.
Another person wrote directly underneath that, "Wash His hands."
Then a third person wrote, "And your feet."
*.*
As the passengers settled in on a West Coast commuter flight, a flight attendant announced, "We'd like you folks to help us welcome our new co-pilot. He'll be performing his first commercial landing for us today, so be sure to give him a big round of applause when we come to a stop."
The plane made an extremely bumpy landing, bouncing hard two or three times before taxiing to a stop. Still, the passengers applauded.
Then the attendant's voice came over the intercom, "Thanks for flying with us. And don't forget to let our co-pilot know which landing you liked best."
*.*
What do you get when you roll a hand grenade across a kitchen floor?
Linoleum Blownapart.
*.*
An old prospector shuffled into the town of El Indio, Texas leading a tired old mule.
The old man headed straight for the only saloon in town, to clear his parched throat.
He walked up to the saloon and tied his old mule to the hitch rail.
As he stood there, brushing some of the dust from his face and clothes, a young gunslinger stepped out of the saloon with a gun in one hand and a bottle of whisky in the other.
The young gunslinger looked at the old man and laughed, saying, "Hey old man, can you dance?"
The old man looked up at the gunslinger and said, "No son, I don't dance . . . never really wanted to."
A crowd had gathered as the gunslinger grinned and said, "Well, you old fool, you're gonna dance now!" and started shooting at the old man's feet.
The old prospector, not wanting to get a toe blown off, started hopping around like a flea on a hot skillet.
Everybody standing around was laughing.
When his last bullet had been fired, the young gunslinger, still laughing, holstered his gun and turned around to go back into the saloon.
The old man turned to his pack mule, pulled out a double-barreled 12 gauge shotgun and cocked both hammers.
The loud clicks carried clearly through the desert air. The crowd stopped laughing immediately.
The young gunslinger heard the sounds too, and he turned around very slowly.
The silence was deafening. The crowd watched as the young gunman stared at the old timer and the large gaping holes of those twin 12 gauge barrels.
The barrels of the shotgun never wavered in the old man's hands, as he quietly said;
"Son, have you ever kissed a mule's bottom?"
The gunslinger swallowed hard and said, "No sir .. . . but . . . but I've always wanted to."
There are a few lessons for all of us here:
* Don't be arrogant.
* Don't waste ammunition.
* Whisky makes you think you're smarter than you are.
* Always make sure you know who is in control.
* And finally, don't mess around with old folks; they didn't get old by being stupid.
*.*
The minister gave his Sunday morning service, as usual, but this particular Sunday, it was considerably longer than normal.
Later, at the door, shaking hands with parishioners as they moved out, one man said, "Your sermon, Pastor, was simply wonderful - so invigorating and inspiring and refreshing."
The minister, of course, broke out in a big smile, only to hear the man say, "Why I felt like a new man when I woke up!"
Quote of the Times;
“If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.” – Sowell
Link of the Times;
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/335442/
Issue of the Times;
‘Oikophobia’ and #NeverTrump: How Can We ‘Secure the Blessings of Liberty’?
What has prompted our immigration crisis? Isn’t it the same sentiment that leads Democrats (and David French, but I repeat myself) to claim Ilhan Omar is a better American than anyone born here?
“Oikophobia,” a hatred of one’s native country (and of one’s fellow citizens) is the most remarkable proof that our elite class have become hopelessly degenerate. Consider David French’s argument that, unlike those of us who were born here, “immigrant citizens have actually done something to earn their status.” Well, what had Ilhan Omar done for America when she was naturalized at age 18? Less than my father did. Dad was an Alabama farmboy when he joined the Army at age 18 and he earned the Purple Heart in France in 1944. Is David French implying that being my father’s son makes me less worthy of American citizenship than Ilhan Omar? Isn’t this insulting insinuation at the heart of the open-borders argument, the idea that all immigrants are better than any America, because Americans are the worst people in the world?
If you are a native-born American — and especially if you are white — Democrats consider you infinitely inferior to Ilhan Omar. The tone of David French’s argument suggests he agrees with this assessment, and one does not persuade people by insulting them. Why can’t French, an intelligent man and an able lawyer who once did great work in the cause of academic freedom, see why his anti-Trump arguments fail?
The problem, I think, is that French has been swept along by the same floodtide of degeneracy that produces mobs of enraged anarchists on the streets of Portland and makes college campuses unsafe even for well-meaning liberals like Bret Weinstein. The election of Trump, and the rising populist sentiment that elected him, caught our elite by surprise. They were shocked to discover that a powerful plurality of Americans — nearly 63 million voted for Trump — had never accepted the notions of “progress” that prevail among the university-educated elite and in the urban communities where the elite reside. Among the core tenets of this elite weltanschauung is a belief in the superiority of immigrants. You might notice the way they quote Emma Lazarus’s poetry as if it had more authority than the Constitution, a reverence for the “huddled masses” being essential to what amounts to a religious faith among our otherwise godless elite. When I visited the campus of Harvard with Pete Da Tech Guy in the fall of 2017, we were immediately confronted on our arrival with a protest on behalf of so-called “dreamers.” Harvard students are not nowadays notable for their dedication to moral virtue — they get drunk and screw around quite shamelessly — but they are adamantly certain that it is morally wrong to deport illegal aliens.
Many years ago, Peter Brimelow pointed out that a major problem with U.S. immigration policy is that voters have seldom gotten a chance to express their preference at the ballot box. The elite of both parties seem generally agreed in preferring immigrants to native-born Americans, the Republicans beholden to corporate interests that want cheap labor and the Democrats seeing immigrants as future Democrat voters. Public opinion surveys indicate that most Americans see the issue of immigration as a matter of numbers. A majority would approve of accepting 250,000 new immigrants annually, and even if you bumped that number up to half a million, most people would be OK with it, but what we have had for the past 20 years is an unofficial policy of almost unlimited immigration. Our immigration laws are riddled with loopholes, and enforcement has been uneven and irregular, so that the combination of legal and illegal immigrants has amounted to more than 1 million every year since the mid-1990s. A majority of Americans oppose this, but prior to 2016, they never had a real chance to express their dissatisfaction at the ballot box. They had previously been offered no clear choice; choosing between open-borders Democrats and open-borders Republicans was no choice at all, as far as immigration policy was concerned, and some Republicans (including my late Cousin John) were worse than any Democrat on the issue. Trump’s blunt talk — “Build a wall!” — appealed to voters who had long been frustrated by the refusal of the political elite to address their concerns over our immigration policy (or non-policy, to be more accurate). The potency of that populist resentment startled not only the political class, but also the journalists and pundits who had acted as publicity agents for the elite’s open-borders consensus.
Much has been made of the harsh “tone” of President Trump’s rhetoric and of his mercurial temperament. His critics among the conservative commentariat make much of the “character” issue, saying that even though Trump has enacted many policies that conservatives have long advocated, he does not function as a role model, failing to represent the responsible and thoughtful character of a true conservative.
Trump’s coarse language and erratic behavior, however, are an integral part of his success. During the 2016 primary campaign, I compared him to the NFL legend Fran Tarkenton, a scrambling quarterback whose unpredictability made him an unsolvable riddle for opposing defenses. Trump seems to operate according to some internal gyroscope, an instinct that leads him to say and do things which no political consultant would suggest, but which nevertheless produce victory. Consider his tweetstorm last Sunday against “the Squad” of freshmen Democrat congresswomen who had been at war with Nancy Pelosi. Jumping into that fight seemed to contradict every sensible precept of effective politics, and even many Trump supporters were dismayed. Yet once again, Trump’s instinct was vindicated, as even many of his opponents agreed he had succeeded in making these four young left-wing radicals the “face” of the Democratic Party. In the process, not incidentally, Trump hijacked the news cycle for an entire week, so that nothing else (e.g., Joe Biden’s debut of his health-care proposals) had any real impact. And as we approach the next round of Democrat presidential debates, Trump is riding high in the polls (his latest result in an NBC poll matching his all-time best), and Democrats are becoming demoralized.
“Trump’s going to get re-elected, isn’t he?” people keep asking Thomas Friedman, and if his liberal friends are saying this to him, what does that suggest about the success of Trump’s methods?
That success only inspires the Trump-haters to louder shrieks of indignation, because to them it is wrong for him to keep winning this way. And yet it is not really the president they hate so much as the people who elected him. What David French and the other #NeverTrump Republicans don’t want to confront — what they cannot admit, not even to themselves — is that Trump’s success is a repudiation of their own weakness, a condemnation of their abject failure. The crowd of intellectuals at National Review and the now-defunct Weekly Standardconsidered themselves possessors of an authority that entitled them to prescribe policy and to anoint candidates for the Republican Party. Exercising this leadership prerogative, as an elite class as secure in its authority as any feudal aristocracy, our conservative intellectuals were always eager to claim credit when Republicans won elections, but when Republicans lost, they insisted that this was never their fault. Probably their zenith of prestige was in 2005, after Bush had been re-elected, which gave credence to Karl Rove’s talk of a “permanent Republican majority” based on a so-called “center-right” coalition. That hope quickly evaporated, with military disaster in Iraq followed by Democrats recapturing Congress in 2006 and then on to the economic catastrophe of 2008 followed by the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
Insofar as a Republican majority has been revived since that low ebb of 2008, it was first because of the Tea Party — a grassroots populist movement that powered the GOP House landslide of 2010 — and eventually the populist success of Trump’s campaign. If you were directly familiar with the Tea Party movement, as I was, you know that there is considerable overlap between those who attended rallies in 2009-2010 and those who are now the staunchest supporters of Trump. While immigration was not an issue the Tea Party concerned itself with, the movement’s prominent early supporters included Michelle Malkin, author of the 2002 book Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces, and a leader in opposition to the John McCain-backed amnesty proposals. In general, the Tea Party’s populist sentiment was expressed as a distrust of the Beltway establishment in both parties, including those Republicans who had supported corporate bailouts in 2008.
Because the #NeverTrump Republicans refuse to accept any responsibility for the failures of Bush-era GOP policy — although all of them, including French, marched in lockstep in support of those policies — they are at a loss to explain how or why they have lost their influence as intellectual leaders of the conservative movement. Instead, they denounce the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump as ignorant racists, which prompts the question: Why would anyone support “conservative intellectuals” who so emphatically agree with Democrats?
(Pierre Omidyar could not be reached for comment.)
Four years ago, Vox Day observed that French and the #NeverTrump conservatives “haven’t grasped the fact that the demographic changes to the United States have not only changed the way the political game is played, but have changed the game itself.” The country that elected and re-elected Ronald Reagan by landslide margins has ceased to exist, replaced by one in which Republicans can win the White House only by razor-thin margins, and the most important reason for this change is immigration. The demographic changes that have so transformed our politics did not “just happen.” It wasn’t some impersonal trend which caused this, but rather it was a matter of policy, and National Review was on the side of open borders, having purged Alien Nation author Peter Brimelow and sidelined John O’Sullivan. Not only did National Review purge those who dissented from their open-borders agenda, but also treated as persona non grata anyone who lamented this purge. They will call you a racist if you don’t support open-borders Republicans whose policies make it impossible for Republicans to win elections. Why do the editors of National Review think we should be grateful for their services in denouncing Republican voters as racist, as if there is a shortage of Democrats willing to perform this service?
Americans have grown tired of being lectured about how racist they are. The white people delivering these lectures — e.g., Joe Scarborough, Chris Cuomo, David Brooks — seem to believe that their moral superiority to the rest of us is so self-evident that we will enjoy and be grateful for the opportunity to be “enlightened” by them. Yet they are telling us nothing we haven’t already been told a million times, long before anyone imagined Donald Trump running for president.
David French’s insistence that Ilhan Omar is better than any native-born American simply because she is an immigrant — that our inheritance as Americans is a stigma of inferiority — is insulting, and the fact that he thinks we are too stupid to notice this is even more insulting.
The authors of our Constitution explained that their purpose was to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” If we are the posterity of our nation’s Founders — if we would deserve to be known as their heirs — then we have inherited an obligation to ensure that “the blessings of liberty” are preserved intact, that they may be enjoyed by future generations of Americans. So-called “Justice Democrats” like Ilhan Omar are a threat to that heritage of liberty, and yet David French, who wishes us to believe he is a conservative, seems to think that it is “racist” to oppose them. I do not exercise any control over what President Trump puts on his Twitter feed nor do Trump supporters seek my advice on what they should chant at rallies, but I know that Donald Trump prevented Hillary Clinton from becoming president, and that his willingness to call out Omar and her “Squad” (and to be smeared as a racist for doing so) indicates a keen understanding of what it will take to prevent Democrats from taking back the White House in 2020.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there is something to be gained by playing “Nice Guy” with the Democrats, but if being nice were the criterion of political success, Jeb Bush might be president. And he’s not.
Another person wrote directly underneath that, "Wash His hands."
Then a third person wrote, "And your feet."
*.*
As the passengers settled in on a West Coast commuter flight, a flight attendant announced, "We'd like you folks to help us welcome our new co-pilot. He'll be performing his first commercial landing for us today, so be sure to give him a big round of applause when we come to a stop."
The plane made an extremely bumpy landing, bouncing hard two or three times before taxiing to a stop. Still, the passengers applauded.
Then the attendant's voice came over the intercom, "Thanks for flying with us. And don't forget to let our co-pilot know which landing you liked best."
*.*
What do you get when you roll a hand grenade across a kitchen floor?
Linoleum Blownapart.
*.*
An old prospector shuffled into the town of El Indio, Texas leading a tired old mule.
The old man headed straight for the only saloon in town, to clear his parched throat.
He walked up to the saloon and tied his old mule to the hitch rail.
As he stood there, brushing some of the dust from his face and clothes, a young gunslinger stepped out of the saloon with a gun in one hand and a bottle of whisky in the other.
The young gunslinger looked at the old man and laughed, saying, "Hey old man, can you dance?"
The old man looked up at the gunslinger and said, "No son, I don't dance . . . never really wanted to."
A crowd had gathered as the gunslinger grinned and said, "Well, you old fool, you're gonna dance now!" and started shooting at the old man's feet.
The old prospector, not wanting to get a toe blown off, started hopping around like a flea on a hot skillet.
Everybody standing around was laughing.
When his last bullet had been fired, the young gunslinger, still laughing, holstered his gun and turned around to go back into the saloon.
The old man turned to his pack mule, pulled out a double-barreled 12 gauge shotgun and cocked both hammers.
The loud clicks carried clearly through the desert air. The crowd stopped laughing immediately.
The young gunslinger heard the sounds too, and he turned around very slowly.
The silence was deafening. The crowd watched as the young gunman stared at the old timer and the large gaping holes of those twin 12 gauge barrels.
The barrels of the shotgun never wavered in the old man's hands, as he quietly said;
"Son, have you ever kissed a mule's bottom?"
The gunslinger swallowed hard and said, "No sir .. . . but . . . but I've always wanted to."
There are a few lessons for all of us here:
* Don't be arrogant.
* Don't waste ammunition.
* Whisky makes you think you're smarter than you are.
* Always make sure you know who is in control.
* And finally, don't mess around with old folks; they didn't get old by being stupid.
*.*
The minister gave his Sunday morning service, as usual, but this particular Sunday, it was considerably longer than normal.
Later, at the door, shaking hands with parishioners as they moved out, one man said, "Your sermon, Pastor, was simply wonderful - so invigorating and inspiring and refreshing."
The minister, of course, broke out in a big smile, only to hear the man say, "Why I felt like a new man when I woke up!"
Quote of the Times;
“If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.” – Sowell
Link of the Times;
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/335442/
Issue of the Times;
‘Oikophobia’ and #NeverTrump: How Can We ‘Secure the Blessings of Liberty’?
What has prompted our immigration crisis? Isn’t it the same sentiment that leads Democrats (and David French, but I repeat myself) to claim Ilhan Omar is a better American than anyone born here?
“Oikophobia,” a hatred of one’s native country (and of one’s fellow citizens) is the most remarkable proof that our elite class have become hopelessly degenerate. Consider David French’s argument that, unlike those of us who were born here, “immigrant citizens have actually done something to earn their status.” Well, what had Ilhan Omar done for America when she was naturalized at age 18? Less than my father did. Dad was an Alabama farmboy when he joined the Army at age 18 and he earned the Purple Heart in France in 1944. Is David French implying that being my father’s son makes me less worthy of American citizenship than Ilhan Omar? Isn’t this insulting insinuation at the heart of the open-borders argument, the idea that all immigrants are better than any America, because Americans are the worst people in the world?
If you are a native-born American — and especially if you are white — Democrats consider you infinitely inferior to Ilhan Omar. The tone of David French’s argument suggests he agrees with this assessment, and one does not persuade people by insulting them. Why can’t French, an intelligent man and an able lawyer who once did great work in the cause of academic freedom, see why his anti-Trump arguments fail?
The problem, I think, is that French has been swept along by the same floodtide of degeneracy that produces mobs of enraged anarchists on the streets of Portland and makes college campuses unsafe even for well-meaning liberals like Bret Weinstein. The election of Trump, and the rising populist sentiment that elected him, caught our elite by surprise. They were shocked to discover that a powerful plurality of Americans — nearly 63 million voted for Trump — had never accepted the notions of “progress” that prevail among the university-educated elite and in the urban communities where the elite reside. Among the core tenets of this elite weltanschauung is a belief in the superiority of immigrants. You might notice the way they quote Emma Lazarus’s poetry as if it had more authority than the Constitution, a reverence for the “huddled masses” being essential to what amounts to a religious faith among our otherwise godless elite. When I visited the campus of Harvard with Pete Da Tech Guy in the fall of 2017, we were immediately confronted on our arrival with a protest on behalf of so-called “dreamers.” Harvard students are not nowadays notable for their dedication to moral virtue — they get drunk and screw around quite shamelessly — but they are adamantly certain that it is morally wrong to deport illegal aliens.
Many years ago, Peter Brimelow pointed out that a major problem with U.S. immigration policy is that voters have seldom gotten a chance to express their preference at the ballot box. The elite of both parties seem generally agreed in preferring immigrants to native-born Americans, the Republicans beholden to corporate interests that want cheap labor and the Democrats seeing immigrants as future Democrat voters. Public opinion surveys indicate that most Americans see the issue of immigration as a matter of numbers. A majority would approve of accepting 250,000 new immigrants annually, and even if you bumped that number up to half a million, most people would be OK with it, but what we have had for the past 20 years is an unofficial policy of almost unlimited immigration. Our immigration laws are riddled with loopholes, and enforcement has been uneven and irregular, so that the combination of legal and illegal immigrants has amounted to more than 1 million every year since the mid-1990s. A majority of Americans oppose this, but prior to 2016, they never had a real chance to express their dissatisfaction at the ballot box. They had previously been offered no clear choice; choosing between open-borders Democrats and open-borders Republicans was no choice at all, as far as immigration policy was concerned, and some Republicans (including my late Cousin John) were worse than any Democrat on the issue. Trump’s blunt talk — “Build a wall!” — appealed to voters who had long been frustrated by the refusal of the political elite to address their concerns over our immigration policy (or non-policy, to be more accurate). The potency of that populist resentment startled not only the political class, but also the journalists and pundits who had acted as publicity agents for the elite’s open-borders consensus.
Much has been made of the harsh “tone” of President Trump’s rhetoric and of his mercurial temperament. His critics among the conservative commentariat make much of the “character” issue, saying that even though Trump has enacted many policies that conservatives have long advocated, he does not function as a role model, failing to represent the responsible and thoughtful character of a true conservative.
Trump’s coarse language and erratic behavior, however, are an integral part of his success. During the 2016 primary campaign, I compared him to the NFL legend Fran Tarkenton, a scrambling quarterback whose unpredictability made him an unsolvable riddle for opposing defenses. Trump seems to operate according to some internal gyroscope, an instinct that leads him to say and do things which no political consultant would suggest, but which nevertheless produce victory. Consider his tweetstorm last Sunday against “the Squad” of freshmen Democrat congresswomen who had been at war with Nancy Pelosi. Jumping into that fight seemed to contradict every sensible precept of effective politics, and even many Trump supporters were dismayed. Yet once again, Trump’s instinct was vindicated, as even many of his opponents agreed he had succeeded in making these four young left-wing radicals the “face” of the Democratic Party. In the process, not incidentally, Trump hijacked the news cycle for an entire week, so that nothing else (e.g., Joe Biden’s debut of his health-care proposals) had any real impact. And as we approach the next round of Democrat presidential debates, Trump is riding high in the polls (his latest result in an NBC poll matching his all-time best), and Democrats are becoming demoralized.
“Trump’s going to get re-elected, isn’t he?” people keep asking Thomas Friedman, and if his liberal friends are saying this to him, what does that suggest about the success of Trump’s methods?
That success only inspires the Trump-haters to louder shrieks of indignation, because to them it is wrong for him to keep winning this way. And yet it is not really the president they hate so much as the people who elected him. What David French and the other #NeverTrump Republicans don’t want to confront — what they cannot admit, not even to themselves — is that Trump’s success is a repudiation of their own weakness, a condemnation of their abject failure. The crowd of intellectuals at National Review and the now-defunct Weekly Standardconsidered themselves possessors of an authority that entitled them to prescribe policy and to anoint candidates for the Republican Party. Exercising this leadership prerogative, as an elite class as secure in its authority as any feudal aristocracy, our conservative intellectuals were always eager to claim credit when Republicans won elections, but when Republicans lost, they insisted that this was never their fault. Probably their zenith of prestige was in 2005, after Bush had been re-elected, which gave credence to Karl Rove’s talk of a “permanent Republican majority” based on a so-called “center-right” coalition. That hope quickly evaporated, with military disaster in Iraq followed by Democrats recapturing Congress in 2006 and then on to the economic catastrophe of 2008 followed by the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
Insofar as a Republican majority has been revived since that low ebb of 2008, it was first because of the Tea Party — a grassroots populist movement that powered the GOP House landslide of 2010 — and eventually the populist success of Trump’s campaign. If you were directly familiar with the Tea Party movement, as I was, you know that there is considerable overlap between those who attended rallies in 2009-2010 and those who are now the staunchest supporters of Trump. While immigration was not an issue the Tea Party concerned itself with, the movement’s prominent early supporters included Michelle Malkin, author of the 2002 book Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces, and a leader in opposition to the John McCain-backed amnesty proposals. In general, the Tea Party’s populist sentiment was expressed as a distrust of the Beltway establishment in both parties, including those Republicans who had supported corporate bailouts in 2008.
Because the #NeverTrump Republicans refuse to accept any responsibility for the failures of Bush-era GOP policy — although all of them, including French, marched in lockstep in support of those policies — they are at a loss to explain how or why they have lost their influence as intellectual leaders of the conservative movement. Instead, they denounce the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump as ignorant racists, which prompts the question: Why would anyone support “conservative intellectuals” who so emphatically agree with Democrats?
(Pierre Omidyar could not be reached for comment.)
Four years ago, Vox Day observed that French and the #NeverTrump conservatives “haven’t grasped the fact that the demographic changes to the United States have not only changed the way the political game is played, but have changed the game itself.” The country that elected and re-elected Ronald Reagan by landslide margins has ceased to exist, replaced by one in which Republicans can win the White House only by razor-thin margins, and the most important reason for this change is immigration. The demographic changes that have so transformed our politics did not “just happen.” It wasn’t some impersonal trend which caused this, but rather it was a matter of policy, and National Review was on the side of open borders, having purged Alien Nation author Peter Brimelow and sidelined John O’Sullivan. Not only did National Review purge those who dissented from their open-borders agenda, but also treated as persona non grata anyone who lamented this purge. They will call you a racist if you don’t support open-borders Republicans whose policies make it impossible for Republicans to win elections. Why do the editors of National Review think we should be grateful for their services in denouncing Republican voters as racist, as if there is a shortage of Democrats willing to perform this service?
Americans have grown tired of being lectured about how racist they are. The white people delivering these lectures — e.g., Joe Scarborough, Chris Cuomo, David Brooks — seem to believe that their moral superiority to the rest of us is so self-evident that we will enjoy and be grateful for the opportunity to be “enlightened” by them. Yet they are telling us nothing we haven’t already been told a million times, long before anyone imagined Donald Trump running for president.
David French’s insistence that Ilhan Omar is better than any native-born American simply because she is an immigrant — that our inheritance as Americans is a stigma of inferiority — is insulting, and the fact that he thinks we are too stupid to notice this is even more insulting.
The authors of our Constitution explained that their purpose was to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” If we are the posterity of our nation’s Founders — if we would deserve to be known as their heirs — then we have inherited an obligation to ensure that “the blessings of liberty” are preserved intact, that they may be enjoyed by future generations of Americans. So-called “Justice Democrats” like Ilhan Omar are a threat to that heritage of liberty, and yet David French, who wishes us to believe he is a conservative, seems to think that it is “racist” to oppose them. I do not exercise any control over what President Trump puts on his Twitter feed nor do Trump supporters seek my advice on what they should chant at rallies, but I know that Donald Trump prevented Hillary Clinton from becoming president, and that his willingness to call out Omar and her “Squad” (and to be smeared as a racist for doing so) indicates a keen understanding of what it will take to prevent Democrats from taking back the White House in 2020.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there is something to be gained by playing “Nice Guy” with the Democrats, but if being nice were the criterion of political success, Jeb Bush might be president. And he’s not.
Unsustainable?
How come there's no Knock Knock joke about America?
Because freedom rings.
*.*
A college professor asked his class a question.
"If Philadelphia is 100 miles from New York and Chicago is 1000 miles from Philadelphia and Los Angles is 2000 miles from Chicago, how old am I?"
One student in the back of the class raised his hand and when called upon said, "Professor you're 44."
The Professor said, "You're absolutely correct, but tell me, how did you arrive at the answer so quickly?"
The student said, "You see Professor, I have a brother; he's 22, and he's half nuts."
*.*
BEAVERTON, OR — Nike is making waves once again this month in effort to appease their sponsored celebrity/unemployed backup quarterback, Colin Kaepernick.
Kaepernick first got the company to pull their much-anticipated Betsy Ross shoes because, as he pointed out, the flag was made when slavery was around. Sources confirm that the Ross flag was made in a time when people owned slaves and is thus a symbol of all things terrible in the world.
Now, Nike has decided to cease making any cotton clothing because Kaepernick says cotton “reminds me of slavery”.
“Anything that hints at slavery has to go,” Kaepernick said. “And that includes standing for the National Anthem, shoes with Betsy Ross Flags, and, of course, cotton, since slaves picked cotton.
“I have no fear of satin,” Kaepernick said. “There’s nothing that speaks of oppression with a pink sateen luster, for instance.”
“Sure, these fabrics might hinder performance a little bit,” a Nike spokesman said, “but we’ve transcended sports to become the world’s largest purveyor of wokeness.”
*.*
One hundred years ago everyone owned a horse and only the rich had cars.
Today, everyone has a car and only the rich have horses.
Oh, how the stables have turned.
*.*
Apparently, you can't use "beef-stew" as a password.
It's not stroganoff.
Quote of the Times;
“Did the Russians pay the 2020 Democratic candidates to throw the 2020 election to President Donald Trump?” – Elder
Link of the Times;
https://pjmedia.com/trending/mark-zuckerberg-brags-we-didnt-allow-pro-life-groups-to-advertise-before-irelands-abortion-vote/
Issue of the Times;
The Top Four Reasons California Is Unsustainable by Thomas Del Beccaro
California is a place unlike any other on the Globe. It boasts perhaps the greatest natural resources of any state along with shining high-tech industries. However, like many good economic stories, government policies threaten its future.
Indeed, its government has made California unsustainable.
Of course, it wasn’t always this way. As the 1960s came to a close in California, it had a population of nearly twenty million. In the decade before, its economic strength afforded the construction of a vast State Water Project and higher education system that was the envy of the world. Matched with a majestic and trade friendly coastline, along with visionary business leaders, California’s future seemed secured.
No more – and here are the four major reasons California is at such great risk.
1) California’s Infrastructure Deficit
That vast State Water Project was designed for a population not much greater than 25 million. Today, on any one day, California verges on nearly 40 million people within its borders and is projected to reach 50 million if not higher.
In the last 50 years, however, California’s infrastructure needs have been ignored.
The state’s water system remains essentially is as it was in the 1960s. As for its roads, a recent headline declared that “California’s roads are some of the poorest in the nation and rapidly getting worse.”
According to a 2017 infrastructure report card:
“Driving on roads in need of repair in California costs each driver $844 per year, and 5.5% of bridges are rated structurally deficient. Drinking water needs in California are an estimated $44.5 billion, and wastewater needs total $26.2 billion. 678 dams are considered to be high-hazard potential. The state’s schools have an estimated capital expenditure gap of $3.2 billion.”
In 2017, California’s Governor Jerry Brown estimated California was “facing $187 billion in unmet infrastructure needs.” However, the Bay Area Council Economic Institute “pegs the cost of California’s unfunded infrastructure needs at up to $737 billion and possibly as much as $765 billion.” Who is right? It’s hard to know but all of those figures are more than daunting.
2) Government Debt
How much in debt are the California governments? That’s hard to know too. According to a January 2017 study, “California state and local governments owe $1.3 trillion as of June 30, 2015.” The study was based on “a review of federal, state and local financial disclosures.”
In other words, that $1.3 trillion in debt is the amount to which California governments admit. Other studies believe it to be more. Indeed, one study says it is actually $2.3 trillion and a recent Hoover Institute stated that there is over $1 trillion in pension liability alone, or $76,884 per household. Incredibly, there are 4 million current pension beneficiaries, a number that continues to grow and which exceeds the total population of 22 states.
What’s the right number? Apparently, it is so large it is hard to accurately estimate. In every case, the number is staggering.
3) California’s Taxes and Regulations
When you consider the California legal system and its regulatory system, inclusive of the world’s most comprehensive global warming law, California is likely the most regulated state in the Country, if not the World.
California also is among the highest taxed states in the nation. California has the highest income tax rates. The top rate is 13.3%. The next closest top tax rate is in Oregon at 9.9%. However, Oregon does not have a sales tax. California has the 10th highest sales tax.
What is remarkable about the California income tax isn’t just that it has the highest rate, it is how little income it takes, just above $52,000, to qualify for California rate of 9.3%. Given the high cost of living in California, that means many Californians are subject to that rate.
On the other hand, for more than a decade, fewer than 150,000 of California’s 35+ million people pay half of all of its income tax – a highly imbalanced system.
Now, many might think California needs all of those taxes given its infrastructure deficit and debt. The problem with that notion is that those prolonged high taxes, debt burden and regulations limit California’s economic future. After all, why would businesses locate in California in the future with the impending tax-aggeddon that must be in the offing?
Also, California’s middle class has been hollowed. A recent CNBC headline read: “Californians fed up with housing costs and taxes are fleeing state in big numbers.” Where are they going? Many have left for low tax states offering more jobs than California.
They have been replaced by those taking advantage of California’s magnet government policies, which increase California’s long-term spending needs. For those that remain, according to Smartasset.com ”California has the highest debt-to-income ratio in the country.”
Little wonder, the demographer Joel Kotkin concluded that “the state is run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees.” It is also how California found itself with the worst poverty problem and why “California ranks dead last among U.S. states in quality of life, according to a study by U.S. News.”
All of which brings us to the number one reason California is not sustainable.
4) The California Governments
You would think all of the above would have government officials deeply worried. So much so that they would cut back everywhere they could. If you thought that, you would be wrong – very wrong.
California spends nearly $200 billion a year on budget and even more off-budget in the form of programs paid with bonds, i.e. debt financing. As for the pension debt, of that nearly $200 billion, in the most recent budget less than $2 billion was allocated to paying down that pension debt. More than that was spent this year on a high-speed rail project currently estimated to cost $70 billion and which no one seems to want.
Beyond that, as I wrote earlier, California is moving ever farther left and wants the nation to pay for it. The next generation of leaders, Gavin Newsom, Kevin de Leon, Xavier Becerra and Kamala Harris are significantly to the Left of the old (and “conservative” by comparison) Jerry Brown and Diane Feinstein. That new generation of leaders are supported by an influx of friendly voters who are replacing those that are leaving.
All of those leaders support the dozens of lawsuits brought by the Democrat Attorney General Xavier Becerra against the Trump Administration. Many describe those lawsuits as part of California Democrats resistance movement – a resistance designed to result in political gains more than policy benefits.
Gavin Newsom, Kevin de Leon, Xavier Becerra and Kamala Harris also support some form of significantly expanded healthcare benefits if not universal healthcare – which is estimated to cost as much as $400 billion a year (that is not a typo). All of them support the California magnet policies that attracted so many of those in California illegally. In fact, there is no indication that the next generation has any concern for the future debt. Instead, they support higher taxes.
What taxes will those be? Within a decade you can expect higher income taxes and sales taxes. There is always a movement afoot to do away with California’s landmark property tax protection known as Prop 13. You also can expect a service tax – a tax on lawyers and accountants as well as hairdressers and gardeners. That service tax would be on top of the existing income tax. Beyond all of that, sooner or later an asset tax will be proposed. California counties already collect an asset tax on businesses. Look for that to be proposed statewide as California lurches ever farther to the Left and if forced to confront future debt.
Is there a silver lining in this story?
If you are living in one of the 49 other states, you should learn from the lesson that is California. If you are living in California, there is always the lesson of how Michigan came to be governed by a more centrist government. Of course, that came after the failure of the prior government. For now, however, for all its concern for sustainable foods and products, California is on a high-speed rail to unsustainability.
Because freedom rings.
*.*
A college professor asked his class a question.
"If Philadelphia is 100 miles from New York and Chicago is 1000 miles from Philadelphia and Los Angles is 2000 miles from Chicago, how old am I?"
One student in the back of the class raised his hand and when called upon said, "Professor you're 44."
The Professor said, "You're absolutely correct, but tell me, how did you arrive at the answer so quickly?"
The student said, "You see Professor, I have a brother; he's 22, and he's half nuts."
*.*
BEAVERTON, OR — Nike is making waves once again this month in effort to appease their sponsored celebrity/unemployed backup quarterback, Colin Kaepernick.
Kaepernick first got the company to pull their much-anticipated Betsy Ross shoes because, as he pointed out, the flag was made when slavery was around. Sources confirm that the Ross flag was made in a time when people owned slaves and is thus a symbol of all things terrible in the world.
Now, Nike has decided to cease making any cotton clothing because Kaepernick says cotton “reminds me of slavery”.
“Anything that hints at slavery has to go,” Kaepernick said. “And that includes standing for the National Anthem, shoes with Betsy Ross Flags, and, of course, cotton, since slaves picked cotton.
“I have no fear of satin,” Kaepernick said. “There’s nothing that speaks of oppression with a pink sateen luster, for instance.”
“Sure, these fabrics might hinder performance a little bit,” a Nike spokesman said, “but we’ve transcended sports to become the world’s largest purveyor of wokeness.”
*.*
One hundred years ago everyone owned a horse and only the rich had cars.
Today, everyone has a car and only the rich have horses.
Oh, how the stables have turned.
*.*
Apparently, you can't use "beef-stew" as a password.
It's not stroganoff.
Quote of the Times;
“Did the Russians pay the 2020 Democratic candidates to throw the 2020 election to President Donald Trump?” – Elder
Link of the Times;
https://pjmedia.com/trending/mark-zuckerberg-brags-we-didnt-allow-pro-life-groups-to-advertise-before-irelands-abortion-vote/
Issue of the Times;
The Top Four Reasons California Is Unsustainable by Thomas Del Beccaro
California is a place unlike any other on the Globe. It boasts perhaps the greatest natural resources of any state along with shining high-tech industries. However, like many good economic stories, government policies threaten its future.
Indeed, its government has made California unsustainable.
Of course, it wasn’t always this way. As the 1960s came to a close in California, it had a population of nearly twenty million. In the decade before, its economic strength afforded the construction of a vast State Water Project and higher education system that was the envy of the world. Matched with a majestic and trade friendly coastline, along with visionary business leaders, California’s future seemed secured.
No more – and here are the four major reasons California is at such great risk.
1) California’s Infrastructure Deficit
That vast State Water Project was designed for a population not much greater than 25 million. Today, on any one day, California verges on nearly 40 million people within its borders and is projected to reach 50 million if not higher.
In the last 50 years, however, California’s infrastructure needs have been ignored.
The state’s water system remains essentially is as it was in the 1960s. As for its roads, a recent headline declared that “California’s roads are some of the poorest in the nation and rapidly getting worse.”
According to a 2017 infrastructure report card:
“Driving on roads in need of repair in California costs each driver $844 per year, and 5.5% of bridges are rated structurally deficient. Drinking water needs in California are an estimated $44.5 billion, and wastewater needs total $26.2 billion. 678 dams are considered to be high-hazard potential. The state’s schools have an estimated capital expenditure gap of $3.2 billion.”
In 2017, California’s Governor Jerry Brown estimated California was “facing $187 billion in unmet infrastructure needs.” However, the Bay Area Council Economic Institute “pegs the cost of California’s unfunded infrastructure needs at up to $737 billion and possibly as much as $765 billion.” Who is right? It’s hard to know but all of those figures are more than daunting.
2) Government Debt
How much in debt are the California governments? That’s hard to know too. According to a January 2017 study, “California state and local governments owe $1.3 trillion as of June 30, 2015.” The study was based on “a review of federal, state and local financial disclosures.”
In other words, that $1.3 trillion in debt is the amount to which California governments admit. Other studies believe it to be more. Indeed, one study says it is actually $2.3 trillion and a recent Hoover Institute stated that there is over $1 trillion in pension liability alone, or $76,884 per household. Incredibly, there are 4 million current pension beneficiaries, a number that continues to grow and which exceeds the total population of 22 states.
What’s the right number? Apparently, it is so large it is hard to accurately estimate. In every case, the number is staggering.
3) California’s Taxes and Regulations
When you consider the California legal system and its regulatory system, inclusive of the world’s most comprehensive global warming law, California is likely the most regulated state in the Country, if not the World.
California also is among the highest taxed states in the nation. California has the highest income tax rates. The top rate is 13.3%. The next closest top tax rate is in Oregon at 9.9%. However, Oregon does not have a sales tax. California has the 10th highest sales tax.
What is remarkable about the California income tax isn’t just that it has the highest rate, it is how little income it takes, just above $52,000, to qualify for California rate of 9.3%. Given the high cost of living in California, that means many Californians are subject to that rate.
On the other hand, for more than a decade, fewer than 150,000 of California’s 35+ million people pay half of all of its income tax – a highly imbalanced system.
Now, many might think California needs all of those taxes given its infrastructure deficit and debt. The problem with that notion is that those prolonged high taxes, debt burden and regulations limit California’s economic future. After all, why would businesses locate in California in the future with the impending tax-aggeddon that must be in the offing?
Also, California’s middle class has been hollowed. A recent CNBC headline read: “Californians fed up with housing costs and taxes are fleeing state in big numbers.” Where are they going? Many have left for low tax states offering more jobs than California.
They have been replaced by those taking advantage of California’s magnet government policies, which increase California’s long-term spending needs. For those that remain, according to Smartasset.com ”California has the highest debt-to-income ratio in the country.”
Little wonder, the demographer Joel Kotkin concluded that “the state is run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees.” It is also how California found itself with the worst poverty problem and why “California ranks dead last among U.S. states in quality of life, according to a study by U.S. News.”
All of which brings us to the number one reason California is not sustainable.
4) The California Governments
You would think all of the above would have government officials deeply worried. So much so that they would cut back everywhere they could. If you thought that, you would be wrong – very wrong.
California spends nearly $200 billion a year on budget and even more off-budget in the form of programs paid with bonds, i.e. debt financing. As for the pension debt, of that nearly $200 billion, in the most recent budget less than $2 billion was allocated to paying down that pension debt. More than that was spent this year on a high-speed rail project currently estimated to cost $70 billion and which no one seems to want.
Beyond that, as I wrote earlier, California is moving ever farther left and wants the nation to pay for it. The next generation of leaders, Gavin Newsom, Kevin de Leon, Xavier Becerra and Kamala Harris are significantly to the Left of the old (and “conservative” by comparison) Jerry Brown and Diane Feinstein. That new generation of leaders are supported by an influx of friendly voters who are replacing those that are leaving.
All of those leaders support the dozens of lawsuits brought by the Democrat Attorney General Xavier Becerra against the Trump Administration. Many describe those lawsuits as part of California Democrats resistance movement – a resistance designed to result in political gains more than policy benefits.
Gavin Newsom, Kevin de Leon, Xavier Becerra and Kamala Harris also support some form of significantly expanded healthcare benefits if not universal healthcare – which is estimated to cost as much as $400 billion a year (that is not a typo). All of them support the California magnet policies that attracted so many of those in California illegally. In fact, there is no indication that the next generation has any concern for the future debt. Instead, they support higher taxes.
What taxes will those be? Within a decade you can expect higher income taxes and sales taxes. There is always a movement afoot to do away with California’s landmark property tax protection known as Prop 13. You also can expect a service tax – a tax on lawyers and accountants as well as hairdressers and gardeners. That service tax would be on top of the existing income tax. Beyond all of that, sooner or later an asset tax will be proposed. California counties already collect an asset tax on businesses. Look for that to be proposed statewide as California lurches ever farther to the Left and if forced to confront future debt.
Is there a silver lining in this story?
If you are living in one of the 49 other states, you should learn from the lesson that is California. If you are living in California, there is always the lesson of how Michigan came to be governed by a more centrist government. Of course, that came after the failure of the prior government. For now, however, for all its concern for sustainable foods and products, California is on a high-speed rail to unsustainability.
Not?
My wife thinks I put football before marriage.
Even after celebrating our third season together.
*.*
Little Danny O'Brien, a fine Catholic lad, was out looking for trouble. He tripped people on the street, threw bricks through windows, smacked folks on the head and generally caused mischief until a passing cop stopped him.
"What's going on here!" bellowed the officer.
"It's like this officer," winked Danny. "I am on my way to confession and I'm a little short of material."
*.*
Hillary Clinton expresses shock and sadness for Jeffrey Epstein’s upcoming suicide
In a heartfelt tweet, Hillary Clinton expressed her surprise and shock at the unexpected forthcoming suicide of long term friend and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.
Epstein was arrested in New York Saturday on federal charges related to sex trafficking, CBS News has confirmed. The financier has long been accused of sexually abusing underage girls, and in 2007, he pleaded guilty to two prostitution counts in a Florida court as part of a controversial deal to avoid federal charges.
It has been revealed that former president Bill Clinton was a guest at Epstein’s “orgy island” 26 times, where naturally nothing unethical happened.
“We were such good friends, so that’s why his suicide next week is such a tragic shock to us,” Clinton added.
*.*
An American and his wife were driving in Canada and got lost on the prairie. After what seemed like forever, they finally came to a city.
When they saw a gentleman on the sidewalk they pulled up to the curb and the lady wound down her window and asked: "Excuse me, sir. Where are we?"
The gentleman replied, "Saskatoon, Saskatchewan."
The woman rolled up the window, turned to her husband and said, "We really are lost. They don't even speak English here!"
*.*
FRANCE - Spurred on by the black vest protesters in Paris this weekend, Muslims have stormed the streets of Marseilles and are attacking any non-Muslims they can find.
Police fear the death toll could be as high as 12.
Quote of the Times;
“You notice Democrats are not saying we should take in Venezuelan refugees? Same reason they ended the policy that allowed Cubans to come. They do not want Hispanics who have seen what happens when their policies take effect. These Venezuelans would be Republicans like Cubans.” - Adams
Link of the Times;
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-media-savaged-trump-when-he-claimed-puerto-rico-officials-were-mismanaging-disaster-aid-but-he-was-right
Issue of the Times;
Why I am Not a Socialist by Art Carden
I share a lot of the concerns and goals of those who describe themselves as “socialists.” More health care and housing for poor people? Great. More educational opportunities for the least well-off? Absolutely. A cleaner environment? Sure thing.
Why, then, am I not a socialist? As political and economic ideas go it’s So Hot Right Now. It’s also cross-generational as political superstars Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez refer to themselves as “democratic socialists.”
I think, though, that they are making serious mistakes. To put it simply, people too often mistake the ends for the means and define economic and political systems in terms of their advocates’ stated goals rather than the actual characteristics of those systems. With respect to a lot of the goals of the self-described socialists, there is a lot more standing between them and their vision than a failure of political will.
We saw in the early 20th century that socialism doesn’t work in theory, and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union provided decisive evidence in the late 20th century that it doesn’t work in practice. If there are any questions remaining to be resolved the further the USSR fades into the historical distance, resource-rich Venezuela’s freefall into chaos, poverty, and widespread government repression should answer them.
To borrow from Thomas Sowell, I think we should define economic systems in terms of the social processes they set in motion. It isn’t enough to speak and write in terms of intentions. This is especially true when we find ourselves emptily and airily advocating things no decent person would oppose. Robert Heilbroner defines socialism as “a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production.” According to Ludwig von Mises, “The essential mark of socialism is that one will alone acts.”
That “one will” might be a dictator or the chair of an elected committee of central planners (for short, let’s just call it “the state”). Rather than a multitude of wills enacting a multitude of disparate plans, socialism features a single will enacting a single, all-encompassing plan.
At first glance, it seems reasonable. Why not replace the chaos of the unfettered market in which people regularly make poor decisions, entrepreneurs often screw up, and more money means more votes with something far more just, orderly, and scientific? Mises answers by asking the fundamental question: “Can a socialist system operate as a system of the division of labor?”
His answer: no, it cannot.
He originally made the argument in 1920 in an article called “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” expanded the argument to book length in Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, and restated it in a section on non-market cooperation in Human Action, his magnum opus. Socialists tried and failed to rescue their system from his critique, and, for a long time, people (many economists included) mistakenly believed that Mises and Friedrich Hayek, who had discarded his youthful socialism on encountering Mises’s arguments, had lost the debate. Ultimately, however, they were vindicated both in theory and in practice.
What, exactly, was their argument? Here’s how I read it.
To begin, Mises stacked the deck against himself by assuming that all the easy objections to socialism had somehow been answered. He assumed that the central planner was utterly uncorrupted by any consideration other than the well-being of society. He assumed further that the central planner had a menu of technological possibilities, available resources, and the people’s preferences. The central planner knew exactly the pattern of consumers’ goods that would maximize welfare. His only job, then, was to arrange society’s factors of production so as to produce everything with maximal efficiency. He only has to do so without using market prices determined by the voluntary exchange of privately owned means of production.
It is literally an impossible task. Note that Mises (and Hayek after him) doesn’t say, “It’s a difficult task.” He claims that it is impossible for the central planner to compare the costs and benefits of different ways of producing society’s array of consumers’ goods without private ownership and prices generated by market exchange. There are a few steps from private ownership to rational economic calculation:
1. Private ownership. Individual owners have the right to use, alienate, or derive income from the means of production like land and capital. As residual claimants to the income the means of production generates, they therefore have stronger incentives to use them wisely than does a member of a central-planning board or larger polity who bears no personal cost from choosing poorly.
2. Exchange. If the means of production are privately owned, then they can be exchanged. Exchange gives a practical outlet to disagreement, which is an unavoidable fact of the human condition. Imagine your neighbor owns a farm on the outskirts of town. You disagree with her use of the land and think the farm could be put to better use if it were converted into a shopping center. When the means of production are privately owned, you can act on your conviction by finding someone who is willing to finance your venture, buying the farm from her, and converting it into a shopping center.
3. Prices. Prices emerge from market exchange and provide, at any point in time, people’s best estimate of the value of a tool, tractor, ounce of copper, or plot of land in its best available use. The information is crucial, and once again, if you’re convinced that the pattern of prices is wrong then you can go into the market and buy what you think is undervalued or sell short what you think is overvalued. Your action contributes valuable knowledge that helps future buyers and sellers compare their estimate of the value of the means of production to everyone else’s.
4. Profits and Losses. It’s said that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of the plan is in the profits and losses. If you have chosen wisely, you are rewarded with a profit, which is an increment above everyone else’s assessment of the best possible uses of the means of production. It’s a pat on the back from the invisible hand, and it’s the market’s way of rewarding your judgment by increasing the means at your disposal. If you have chosen poorly, you are punished with a loss. It’s a slap in the face from the invisible hand, and it’s the market’s way of punishing you for wasting resources by decreasing the means at your disposal.
As Mises argues, prices, profits, and losses are crucial, and in turn, the institutional structure of the market is crucial as well. The planning board’s instruction to mimic what the market does but do it more efficiently is curious. As Mises puts it, “They want people to play market as children play war, railroad, or school. They do not comprehend how such childish play differs from the real thing it tries to imitate.” Later, he describes the importance of the market process in revolutionizing the means and methods of production: “The capitalist system is not a managerial system; it is an entrepreneurial system.”
Mises’s critics responded that he was owed a debt of gratitude for showing that prices are essential to economic calculation, but they argued that market exchange of private property was not necessary, because prices of the means of production could be derived from a mathematical model of the economy. In 1945, however, Friedrich Hayek argued in his classic essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society” that this is true if we define the economic problem as one of solving known equations subject to known inventories of inputs and known constraints. Unfortunately, some interpreted this as a concession on Hayek’s part: central planning could calculate, after all — it was just inefficient relative to the price mechanism.
This wasn’t Hayek’s argument, though. Hayek argued that the economic problem is of a very different kind — of a kind that cannot be solved by a planner with a big-enough computer. It is a problem, he argues, of assembling, combining, and deploying knowledge distributed across many minds and available to no single mind. Just as Mises argued earlier, it is a problem that cannot be solved by a central planner, no matter what the computational resources at his disposal. The information needed to solve it (prices, profits, and losses) emerges from individual, purposive action — in this case, buying and selling ownership of the means of production in markets. The knowledge that emerges is unavailable to any planner or anyone else through any other mechanism (and indeed, as he and others pointed out, to the extent that the Soviet Union was able to “calculate” it was able to do so by observing prices in places with markets for the means of production).
Empirically, the socialist record is one of dismal and at times murderous failure. Why, then, do intellectuals, scholars, and commentators continue in their romantic attachment to it? In a summary of Hayek’s contributions, Peter Saunders puts it thusly: “Hayek understood that capitalism offends intellectual pride, while socialism flatters it.” Mises understood this, too, and he worked tirelessly to answer those who thought themselves fit to plan for others, or at least to select those who would plan for others. Even though I agree with a lot of socialists on social goals, I think the record of theory and history shows that socialist planning is an impossible task.
Even after celebrating our third season together.
*.*
Little Danny O'Brien, a fine Catholic lad, was out looking for trouble. He tripped people on the street, threw bricks through windows, smacked folks on the head and generally caused mischief until a passing cop stopped him.
"What's going on here!" bellowed the officer.
"It's like this officer," winked Danny. "I am on my way to confession and I'm a little short of material."
*.*
Hillary Clinton expresses shock and sadness for Jeffrey Epstein’s upcoming suicide
In a heartfelt tweet, Hillary Clinton expressed her surprise and shock at the unexpected forthcoming suicide of long term friend and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.
Epstein was arrested in New York Saturday on federal charges related to sex trafficking, CBS News has confirmed. The financier has long been accused of sexually abusing underage girls, and in 2007, he pleaded guilty to two prostitution counts in a Florida court as part of a controversial deal to avoid federal charges.
It has been revealed that former president Bill Clinton was a guest at Epstein’s “orgy island” 26 times, where naturally nothing unethical happened.
“We were such good friends, so that’s why his suicide next week is such a tragic shock to us,” Clinton added.
*.*
An American and his wife were driving in Canada and got lost on the prairie. After what seemed like forever, they finally came to a city.
When they saw a gentleman on the sidewalk they pulled up to the curb and the lady wound down her window and asked: "Excuse me, sir. Where are we?"
The gentleman replied, "Saskatoon, Saskatchewan."
The woman rolled up the window, turned to her husband and said, "We really are lost. They don't even speak English here!"
*.*
FRANCE - Spurred on by the black vest protesters in Paris this weekend, Muslims have stormed the streets of Marseilles and are attacking any non-Muslims they can find.
Police fear the death toll could be as high as 12.
Quote of the Times;
“You notice Democrats are not saying we should take in Venezuelan refugees? Same reason they ended the policy that allowed Cubans to come. They do not want Hispanics who have seen what happens when their policies take effect. These Venezuelans would be Republicans like Cubans.” - Adams
Link of the Times;
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-media-savaged-trump-when-he-claimed-puerto-rico-officials-were-mismanaging-disaster-aid-but-he-was-right
Issue of the Times;
Why I am Not a Socialist by Art Carden
I share a lot of the concerns and goals of those who describe themselves as “socialists.” More health care and housing for poor people? Great. More educational opportunities for the least well-off? Absolutely. A cleaner environment? Sure thing.
Why, then, am I not a socialist? As political and economic ideas go it’s So Hot Right Now. It’s also cross-generational as political superstars Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez refer to themselves as “democratic socialists.”
I think, though, that they are making serious mistakes. To put it simply, people too often mistake the ends for the means and define economic and political systems in terms of their advocates’ stated goals rather than the actual characteristics of those systems. With respect to a lot of the goals of the self-described socialists, there is a lot more standing between them and their vision than a failure of political will.
We saw in the early 20th century that socialism doesn’t work in theory, and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union provided decisive evidence in the late 20th century that it doesn’t work in practice. If there are any questions remaining to be resolved the further the USSR fades into the historical distance, resource-rich Venezuela’s freefall into chaos, poverty, and widespread government repression should answer them.
To borrow from Thomas Sowell, I think we should define economic systems in terms of the social processes they set in motion. It isn’t enough to speak and write in terms of intentions. This is especially true when we find ourselves emptily and airily advocating things no decent person would oppose. Robert Heilbroner defines socialism as “a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production.” According to Ludwig von Mises, “The essential mark of socialism is that one will alone acts.”
That “one will” might be a dictator or the chair of an elected committee of central planners (for short, let’s just call it “the state”). Rather than a multitude of wills enacting a multitude of disparate plans, socialism features a single will enacting a single, all-encompassing plan.
At first glance, it seems reasonable. Why not replace the chaos of the unfettered market in which people regularly make poor decisions, entrepreneurs often screw up, and more money means more votes with something far more just, orderly, and scientific? Mises answers by asking the fundamental question: “Can a socialist system operate as a system of the division of labor?”
His answer: no, it cannot.
He originally made the argument in 1920 in an article called “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” expanded the argument to book length in Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, and restated it in a section on non-market cooperation in Human Action, his magnum opus. Socialists tried and failed to rescue their system from his critique, and, for a long time, people (many economists included) mistakenly believed that Mises and Friedrich Hayek, who had discarded his youthful socialism on encountering Mises’s arguments, had lost the debate. Ultimately, however, they were vindicated both in theory and in practice.
What, exactly, was their argument? Here’s how I read it.
To begin, Mises stacked the deck against himself by assuming that all the easy objections to socialism had somehow been answered. He assumed that the central planner was utterly uncorrupted by any consideration other than the well-being of society. He assumed further that the central planner had a menu of technological possibilities, available resources, and the people’s preferences. The central planner knew exactly the pattern of consumers’ goods that would maximize welfare. His only job, then, was to arrange society’s factors of production so as to produce everything with maximal efficiency. He only has to do so without using market prices determined by the voluntary exchange of privately owned means of production.
It is literally an impossible task. Note that Mises (and Hayek after him) doesn’t say, “It’s a difficult task.” He claims that it is impossible for the central planner to compare the costs and benefits of different ways of producing society’s array of consumers’ goods without private ownership and prices generated by market exchange. There are a few steps from private ownership to rational economic calculation:
1. Private ownership. Individual owners have the right to use, alienate, or derive income from the means of production like land and capital. As residual claimants to the income the means of production generates, they therefore have stronger incentives to use them wisely than does a member of a central-planning board or larger polity who bears no personal cost from choosing poorly.
2. Exchange. If the means of production are privately owned, then they can be exchanged. Exchange gives a practical outlet to disagreement, which is an unavoidable fact of the human condition. Imagine your neighbor owns a farm on the outskirts of town. You disagree with her use of the land and think the farm could be put to better use if it were converted into a shopping center. When the means of production are privately owned, you can act on your conviction by finding someone who is willing to finance your venture, buying the farm from her, and converting it into a shopping center.
3. Prices. Prices emerge from market exchange and provide, at any point in time, people’s best estimate of the value of a tool, tractor, ounce of copper, or plot of land in its best available use. The information is crucial, and once again, if you’re convinced that the pattern of prices is wrong then you can go into the market and buy what you think is undervalued or sell short what you think is overvalued. Your action contributes valuable knowledge that helps future buyers and sellers compare their estimate of the value of the means of production to everyone else’s.
4. Profits and Losses. It’s said that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of the plan is in the profits and losses. If you have chosen wisely, you are rewarded with a profit, which is an increment above everyone else’s assessment of the best possible uses of the means of production. It’s a pat on the back from the invisible hand, and it’s the market’s way of rewarding your judgment by increasing the means at your disposal. If you have chosen poorly, you are punished with a loss. It’s a slap in the face from the invisible hand, and it’s the market’s way of punishing you for wasting resources by decreasing the means at your disposal.
As Mises argues, prices, profits, and losses are crucial, and in turn, the institutional structure of the market is crucial as well. The planning board’s instruction to mimic what the market does but do it more efficiently is curious. As Mises puts it, “They want people to play market as children play war, railroad, or school. They do not comprehend how such childish play differs from the real thing it tries to imitate.” Later, he describes the importance of the market process in revolutionizing the means and methods of production: “The capitalist system is not a managerial system; it is an entrepreneurial system.”
Mises’s critics responded that he was owed a debt of gratitude for showing that prices are essential to economic calculation, but they argued that market exchange of private property was not necessary, because prices of the means of production could be derived from a mathematical model of the economy. In 1945, however, Friedrich Hayek argued in his classic essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society” that this is true if we define the economic problem as one of solving known equations subject to known inventories of inputs and known constraints. Unfortunately, some interpreted this as a concession on Hayek’s part: central planning could calculate, after all — it was just inefficient relative to the price mechanism.
This wasn’t Hayek’s argument, though. Hayek argued that the economic problem is of a very different kind — of a kind that cannot be solved by a planner with a big-enough computer. It is a problem, he argues, of assembling, combining, and deploying knowledge distributed across many minds and available to no single mind. Just as Mises argued earlier, it is a problem that cannot be solved by a central planner, no matter what the computational resources at his disposal. The information needed to solve it (prices, profits, and losses) emerges from individual, purposive action — in this case, buying and selling ownership of the means of production in markets. The knowledge that emerges is unavailable to any planner or anyone else through any other mechanism (and indeed, as he and others pointed out, to the extent that the Soviet Union was able to “calculate” it was able to do so by observing prices in places with markets for the means of production).
Empirically, the socialist record is one of dismal and at times murderous failure. Why, then, do intellectuals, scholars, and commentators continue in their romantic attachment to it? In a summary of Hayek’s contributions, Peter Saunders puts it thusly: “Hayek understood that capitalism offends intellectual pride, while socialism flatters it.” Mises understood this, too, and he worked tirelessly to answer those who thought themselves fit to plan for others, or at least to select those who would plan for others. Even though I agree with a lot of socialists on social goals, I think the record of theory and history shows that socialist planning is an impossible task.
Migration?
Bernie and Esther were not the most religious couple and in fact, they really only went to church once a year.
As they were leaving the church, the minister said, "Bernie, it sure would be nice to see you and Esther here more than once a year!"
"I know," replied Bernie, "but at least we keep the Ten Commandments."
"That's great," the minister said. "I'm glad to hear that you keep the Commandments."
"Yep," Bernie said proudly, "Esther keeps six of them and I keep the other four."
*.*
You can't run through a campground.
You can only ran, because it's past tents.
*.*
A customer walks into an establishment and asks, "In what aisle could I find the Polish sausage?" The clerk looks at him and says, "Are you Polish?"
The guy (clearly offended) says, "Well, yes I am. But let me ask you something. If I had asked for Italian sausage, would you ask me if I was Italian? Or if I had asked for German Bratwurst, would you ask me if I was German? Or if I asked for a kosher hot dog would you ask me if I was Jewish? Or if I had asked for a Taco, would you ask if I was Mexican? If I asked for some Irish whiskey, would you ask if I was Irish?"
The clerk says, "Well, no, I probably wouldn't!"
With deep self-righteous indignation, the guy says, "Well then, why did you ask me if I'm Polish because I asked for Polish sausage?"
The clerk replied, "Because you're in Home Depot."
*.*
Women's Soccer Team Sues To Overturn Unjust Law Of Supply And Demand
U.S.— Star player Megan Rapinoe has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the United States women's national soccer team to overturn the "unjust, unfair, unconstitutional law of supply and demand," sources confirmed Wednesday.
Rapinoe challenged the law for oppressing women when it was revealed that men's soccer brings in exponentially more money than women's soccer, and as such women are paid less. The lawsuit, filed earlier this week, petitions the US government to recognize that the basic economic laws that determine wages violate federal discrimination regulations on gender.
"The oppressive, misogynistic law of supply and demand has conspired against women for years," she said. "More people want to watch men's soccer, so the men make a lot more money than we do. This is a clear example of systemic inequality that has been enshrined in economic laws for centuries."
"Also, I'm a woman, I'm gay, I have pink hair, and I have tattoos, and [expletive] President Trump!" she added. "Wooooooo!!!" She said she will continue to tout these facts as important elements of the lawsuit that challenges the law of supply and demand. "There's no way a judge will rule against me because I'm so brave.'
*.*
My husband, Cal, grew increasingly displeased as our teenage daughter and her boyfriend studied in her room late one evening. Finally losing patience shortly after midnight, he knocked sharply on her door. Her boyfriend immediately opened it and asked if something was wrong.
"I have to ask you to move your car," Cal told him.
"Oh, sure. Is it in someone's way?"
"No," Cal replied, "it's at the wrong address."
Quote of the Times;
“There are three things all wise men fear; the sea in storm, a night with no moon and the anger of a gentle man.”
Link of the Times;
https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/foul-women-actually-make-more-men-soccer
Issue of the Times;
Inside the Migration Deep State by Chris Deliso
I reckon 99 percent of the American public has probably never heard of any of these conventions, summits and agencies.
The information that follows provides a specific context for events happening now in your local community (and country)… because the evidence of the Cabal’s global rule is always local. As Walter Sobchak put it: ‘This affects all of us, man!’
The migration deep state – vast, powerful, well-hidden in plain sight – can seem futile to take on. Still, at very least this monstrosity has to be analyzed, not just because of short-term events like President Trump’s 2020 re-election, but because it will affect the world your children inherit.
In 17 years of reporting from Europe, I’ve encountered many persons and organizations involved in what I’ve dubbed the humanitarian-development complex; the migration deep state is a sub-sector of this. From corruption and cover-ups in UN-run Kosovo and EU stealth legislation, to international NGO slush funds and anarchists fighting to break borders for ‘refugee rights,’ I’ve seen some things. When I was asked to speak for the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon in September 2014, to share some insights on security risks in Southeast Europe, the migration crisis had not fully materialized. But it was among my predicted threats (all of which, unfortunately, materialized within the following nine months).
I have plenty of vignettes to share, but another time. Today is about the 30,000-foot view, about tracing the contours of a super-structure, so that anons can understand seemingly unconnected events and research details within a context.
First, there is one rule to remember. The global elites running this industry do not want to solve problems: they want to manage problems.
Because… that’s where the money is.
Other people’s money. Massive sums of money that can be safely allocated on long-term projects, self-perpetuating grant cycles, philanthropic experiments and more- all leading towards the steady and relentless expansion of processes, bureaucracies and programs, all of which require… more money. It is globalist vampirism at its worst, and often, undetectable.
When I started followed #QAnon in late 2017 and thereafter, it was very interesting (and encouraging) to see the emphasis that Q, and thus the Trump Administration, was putting on illegal immigration and the related risk factors. Various Q drops have pointed to important issues like the use of MS-13 by the Cabal, the importance of the Wall not only as a physical but mental deterrent, and the Democratic Party’s reliance on open-borders policies to remain in power (the last is how leftist parties in Europe have abused open-borders policies for decades).
However, given the laconic nature of Q’s comms and the distraction presented by other burning issues, we’ve largely forgotten about the need to expand our thinking on the phenomenon of the migration deep state: what it is, who it involves, how it operates, how it justifies and defends itself, and so on. And I’m not just saying this needs to be discussed because I wrote a book about it. Or because roughly one million migrants passed by train (about two miles from my house here in tiny Macedonia- a country with a population of two million). These mostly economic migrants were passing through on the ‘Balkan Route’ from Turkey and Greece onwards to Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Germany, following Angela Merkel’s unilateral suspension of EU rules in fall 2015, during the great ‘European Migration Crisis.’
To put my experience in ratio perspective: this would be like if Justin Trudeau demanded the US government send an unlimited supply of migrants and 170 million migrants crossed the US from Mexico to Canada.
Which is exactly the sort of outcome that the ‘open borders’ crowd and the deep state that controls them wants- the sort of thing a Hillary Clinton administration would have done in a second, if given the chance.
The Sixteen-Year-Plan: A Fake Crisis, Obama’s UN Cash-In and What Should Have Happened
The migration deep state’s super-structure organizes EU programs, UN initiatives and the well-funded ‘civil society’ movement in migration affairs. The media and pundits do their part by launching a rapid-fire drama of humanitarian tragedies, protests, violence, political rhetoric and grandiose plans for saving the world.
In reality, the Cabal’s globalist migration policies are made in air-conditioned offices, far from the front lines and front pages, protected from public scrutiny by bureaucrats specialized in delivering death by a thousand footnotes to the citizens of sovereign states, in the forms of treaties and agreements and loaded annexes.
Indeed, despite the tangible improvements that the US (and some other governments) are trying to make to safeguard their borders and citizens, the migration deep state has not been affected – rather, its funding and programs have expanded, and at a faster rate than planned, as Trump’s abrupt interference with the Sixteen-Year Plan forced them to lay down their cards earlier than planned. This cannot be overemphasized. The kind of insanity demonstrated by the Democratic Party over the past couple years was not expected to be seen for some years. Had things gone according to the program, there would have been no need to rush immediately to the end game. They would have had eight comfortable years of HRC to implement the plan and enjoy watching the country’s disintegration. As Q has written, if America falls, the world falls. This is why patriots need to keep informed and keep sharing their research.
So let’s rewind to September 2015, keeping in mind this tacit contextual element: the inevitability factor. For in just over one year, Hillary Rodham Clinton would be elected president of the United States, taking the baton from Barack Obama, the man who had delayed her rightful ascension. By 2024, when the destruction of America as we knew it would have been complete, a Bush or a Clinton would have occupied (at least) one of the nation’s highest positions for 44 of the previous 48 years. Because that’s… totally normal.
That fall, Merkel’s open invite to migrants from the Middle East, Asia and Africa had caused serious problems for European society- and for the migrants themselves. After all, she hadn’t exactly provided charter flights. Instead they were left to their own devices, making dangerous journeys across land and sea, as we have seen with migrants traveling from Central America to the US border. Both here and there, the great humanitarians of the political and public elite force travel models that increase the likelihood of injury and death because such results are absolutely fantastic for fundraising and bureaucratic expansion. It is that simple, and that evil.
In Europe, billions of euros were made by everyone from human traffickers and mafia groups to international organizations and corporations contracted to provide logistical services for governments dealing with the ‘refugee burden.’ A moralistic MSM had a field day, contrasting the newfound piety of European leaders supporting the grand experiment with the obviously racist critics of the policy. In a particularly nauseating and hypocritical piece, Cabal mouthpiece Time lauded Angela Merkel as the ‘Chancellor of the Free World’ for 2015.
The 24/7 media coverage of what was largely a created crisis granted the opportunity for EU policy continuation (to be discussed further below) and international globalist migration policy, driven by the Obama Administration, Big Tech, the Vatican and migration deep state NGOs funded by Cabal foundations and financiers like George Soros.
The big cash-in was scheduled for September 2016 at the UN. To get there, the EU had to put the crisis on pause, which they did in a spring agreement with the Turkish government (this was done through the stealth diplomacy of a Soros-linked NGO, as I cover in the book). With populist grumblings rising, anarchist violence on the Italian, French and Greek borders, the shock of Brexit, and politically problematic criminality from new migrants throughout Europe causing local tensions, the bloc needed to keep the appearance of order for long enough to get to the next step in the Sixteen-Year Plan.
And this they did. Remember that as of September 20, 2016 and the UN’s specially-organized ‘Leaders Summit on Refugees,’ there was no reason for concern. HRC would become president, the US would continue Obama’s migrant policy, and the party would continue. The New York gathering of some 52 countries showed the migration deep state on full display:
The event kicked off with the typically nauseating rhetoric of President Obama, who shamelessly lamented the fate of migrants from countries he’d either personally invaded (Libya), terrorized with jihadist militias (Syria, Iraq) or droned to death (Afghanistan). Hussein’s hyperbole was geared towards supporting the Soros-Merkel argument that all countries must import more migrants, while sharing news about several multi-billion-dollar projects recently arranged between the US, UN, migrant NGOs, corporations and so on. Obama added that “starting next week, the United States will welcome and resettle 110,000 refugees from around the world — which is a nearly 60 percent increase over 2015.”
Remember, this was halfway through the Sixteen-Year Plan.
The 2016 UN event included these additional highlights that show the manufactured crisis of 2015 led to the deep-state payout of 2016:
‘George Soros is investing $500 million to help refugees,’ reports CNN, adding:
“The investments will be owned by Soros’ nonprofit organizations. ‘These investments are intended to be successful … but our primary focus is to create products and services that truly benefit migrants and host communities,’ he said.
In an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal, Soros wrote that his main concern is to help migrants and refugees arriving in Europe, but that he will be looking for good investment ideas to benefit migrants everywhere.”
Of course he would.
But not alone.
Because…
Big Tech/Start-up World/Finance announced plans to ‘invest’ $650 million, answering Obama’s “plea” for migrant support (Microsoft, Facebook, IBM, TripAdvisor, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, Mastercard, HP, Google, Accenture, Western Union, LinkedIn, Airbnb, Autodesk, Coursera, SAP, Twilio, Uber, Udemy and Zynga), in line with a pre-cooked White House plan (full list of the 51 companies here).
No wonder that the UN High Commission on Human Rights gushed that the summit was a ‘game changer’ for migration matters.
Oh, and the autists among you will love these details from the above CNET article:
“Google said it will also contribute a $1 million grant to the Clooney Foundation for Justice, established by actor George Clooney and his wife, Amal, to help educate Syrian refugee children in Lebanon. Google has already donated $16.5 million to other humanitarian efforts.
Microsoft plans to team with local providers to deliver wireless broadband to refugees and international aid organizations in Malawi, and it’s teaming with HP to provide tech training in refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan. That training will lead to certifications that qualify them for worker visa programs instead of requiring that they go through the more laborious government refugee process.”
So yeah, nothing to see here.
Now that you’ve seen how the feeding frenzy looked like, let’s get down to the structure and personalities at the heart of the migration deep state.
But First… Does an Unexpected Change in Terminology indicate the ‘Trump Effect’ at Work on the IOM?
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) is the UN’s prime agency on the issue, and thus is located at the very heart of the migration deep state since its establishment in 1951. According to the IOM website, it is “the leading inter-governmental organization in the field of migration and works closely with governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental partners.”
And it looks like something very interesting has recently happened there.
I was just pulling up the site to show you its insanely broad definition of “who is a migrant” – only to find that they have changed it within the past six months…
Thank God for screenshots.
I’ve asked their spokesmen in the past to account for the definition, simply because it was such an affront to common sense and because of its implications for the ‘global governance’ ambitions of the Cabal. Read it below, and you will quickly see why. I got some milquetoast answer at one point, but nothing that explained who came up with the definition, why, or what the intentions behind it were on a legalistic basis.
Not only has the definition been rewritten to make it somewhat less Orwellian, but it also comes with caveats that restate that the definition does not reflect international law, but only IOM’s internal use – something conspicuously absent from previous versions.
I’m calling this the Trump Effect. I’m guessing that someone from the Administration reminded the IOM of where much of their funding come from, and that pretensions to global population dominance were not cool. Would this definition have been changed had Hillary won and the Sixteen-Year-Plan marched merrily onward? Highly doubtful. Sometimes, this kind of tiny detail reveals much bigger things.
Whatever the case, it’s highly revealing – and frankly, a little encouraging – to see a Cabal main front agency forced to dial it down, even if just in terms of rhetoric. Because these definitions still matter - they are often the unstated ‘norms’ which underpin international treaties about which the average citizen is never informed.
The Migration Deep State Alliance System and Structure, Part 1: the UN Agencies and Programs
In order to destroy sovereign states, international and transnational organizations with zero public accountability, unelected officials, and budgets that always tend to increase will always remain the most lethal weapon. The major example here is the UN, with the EU having base similarities which will be discussed further on. But the United Nations, based in New York, and several of its migration and development agencies (based there and around the world) provides the key, indestructible, and thoroughly non-accountable core of the migration deep state.
One of the key such agencies is the above-mentioned IOM. Its growth exemplifies the inherent tendency of such international agencies towards bureaucratic expansion and acquisition of territory, funds and duties. When there are no checks and balances to restrict administrative sprawl (as sovereign states provide), such organizations naturally tend to expand. The IOM started out in 1951 in the post-WWII environment, with a strict remit of helping Europeans displaced by the war; indeed, it was literally called the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe (PICMME).
As it turned out, the organization wasn’t that ‘provisional’ after all, even though post-war Europe was back on its feet. As the UN consolidated its powers and conditions for global governance projects improved, the agency expanded globally, acquiring its present name only in 1989. As the official website’s history recounts, it has taken on quite a presence:
“From its roots as an operational logistics agency, it has broadened its scope to become the leading international agency working with governments and civil society to advance the understanding of migration issues, encourage social and economic development through migration, and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants. The broader scope of activities has been matched by rapid expansion from a relatively small agency into one with an annual operating budget of an estimated $1.5 billion and more than 10,000 staff working in over 150 countries worldwide. IOM currently has 173 Member States and a further 8 states holding Observer status.”
The second major UN organization of note is the UNHCR (UN High Commission for Refugees or, as we used to call it for fun, ‘Usually No Help Concerning Refugees’). Its mandate involves providing “vital assistance to refugees, asylum-seeker’s, internally displaced and stateless people, many of whom have nobody left to turn to.”
This UN body was established a year before the IOM in 1950; like the latter, it was meant to help specifically European WWII refugees rebuild their lives. The UNHCR’s official history even admits, “we had three years to complete our work and then disband.”
Disband? Well that would hardly be in the spirit of global governance…
And so the UNHCR expanded, first getting Merkel-style positive PR at the crucial moment (the entire organization won the 1954 Nobel Peace Prize) and then getting its own ‘migrant crisis’ via the Hungarian Revolution two years later. That secured its mandate and from then on it was smooth sailing to Africa and other points abroad.Today, it has become a global behemoth with over 16,800 personnel in 134 countries, and a budget of $6.54 billion, as of 2016. (They have the audacity to ask for your personal donations on their website as well).
So, Anons… how about a real-life example of how the UNHCR operates clandestinely in plain sight?
In fall 2015, a steady flow of Middle Eastern migrants that had entered Greece by sea from Turkey were massing on Macedonia’s southern border. The UNHCR had dispatched an ‘expert’ to liaise with the UN’s local staff and partners, as well as the government, to help decide what to do about it. Macedonia and Greece were not keen to cooperate (long story), presenting an ideal justification for globalist intervention. As usual, the UNHCR thought that sending some guy who knew nothing about the local culture, society, politics etc. on a four-month contract to save the situation. This operational style is built into the structure to guarantee anonymity, non-accountability and distancing/deniability when the UN eventually makes things worse instead of better.
A lot of people couldn’t believe it when I reported what he told me a few months later: that the UN recommended putting 30,000 Muslim migrants in camps inside this tiny, ethnically-mixed country then in Clown-controlled political turmoil. How could they think this would be a good idea?
Fortunately, the authorities of that time did not fall for it, and the situation was handled by (as I said) sending Merkel’s invited guests through as quickly as possible via train, making no stops. Three years later, I obtained leaked documents from the 2015 meetings of the UNHCR and the local government and NGOs – I highly recommend you take a look… because these docs show how the UN operates, and how this is very appealing to globalist corporations and anyone, really, aligned with corrupt practices.
Indeed, everything from ordering 33,000 mattresses and randomly handing out cash (cash!) to all migrants crossing the border, to putting others up with ‘host families’ shows how the UN instinctively responds to such crises – and how the migration deep state works in practical terms on the ground. No wonder that the biggest companies in the world rushed like pigs to the trough to answer Obama’s “plea for help” at the September 2016 UN conference on migrants.
A third body under the UN umbrella with relation to migration deep state issues is the UN Development Programme (UNDP), which is a core pillar of the larger humanitarian-development complex. Working in almost 200 countries, the UNDP is not only well-funded, but is the key driver in the UN’s 2030 development platform that has been so decried by sovereignty-minded persons the world over. As the official website states:
This is a critical time for the world. At UNDP, we see this period as a huge opportunity to advance the global sustainable development agenda. In September 2015, world leaders adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity. UNDP is working to strengthen new frameworks for development, disaster risk reduction and climate change. We support countries’ efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, or Global Goals, which will guide global development priorities through 2030.
The UNDP’s laudable and completely unattainable goals (‘zero poverty’ in the next 11 years? Seriously?) provide an ideal opportunity for mass redistribution of wealth from nations and institutions throughout the system, amounting to enormous and untraceable slush funds with inevitable political outcomes. It is worth noting that these Sustainable Development Goals were approved by the UN at the end of 2015 (during the European migration crisis) and codified in 2016 – another globalist goal reached at the midway point of the Sixteen-Year Plan.
As the UNDP is active in all sorts of humanitarian disasters, I’m surprised that the autists haven’t looked into the relationships between institutions and political personalities with such UN agencies at key points of modern history. For example, consider the heavy emphasis Q has repeatedly given to HRC, Haiti and New Zealand. One might find it interesting to note that in 2010, when the Bush-Clinton Haiti fundraiser was going on, the lead UNDP official interacting with Hillary Clinton’s State Department was one Helen Clark, a former New Zealand prime minister. They cooperated closely on the Haiti mission and others, as noted in this meeting recap from June 2010). Further, as Wikipedia noted, Clark “was also the Chair of the United Nations Development Group, a committee consisting of the heads of all UN funds, programmes and departments working on development issues.”
Nevertheless on May 24, 2016, WaPo-owned Cabal magazine Foreign Policy ran quite the hit piece on the doughty bureaucrat, claiming that UNDP insiders “accuse Clark of ruthlessly ending the careers of underlings in her quest to advance her candidacy and of undercutting the U.N.’s promotion of human rights.” By ‘candidacy,’ FP meant the contest for who would replace Ban Ki-Moon as UN Secretary General that fall – right after the US election that Hillary Clinton would certainly win. It’s rare that deep state actors turn on each other like this, and one cannot be sure whether the Clinton camp perceived Clark as a potential liability or threat (due to Haiti, etc). or whether internal rival competitors were behind the hit piece.
In any case, the UN top spot was won by UNHCR chief (2005-2015) and former Portuguese prime minister António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres, who also once headed the Socialist Internationale. In June 2018, Guterres approved António Vitorino (a former European commissioner and defense minister under his Portuguese cabinet) as the next IOM Director General. At the same time, Clark was relegated to opining that HRC had lost the presidency due to sexism back in NZ (infamous among anons at the time due to the country’s role in 5Eyes/SpyGate and Hillary’s visit to meet former Tony Blair protégé, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardem. But why would Hillary have wanted to see Clark? What are the chances that she knows where the Haiti relief money went? We recall Trump’s EO of 12/2017 that Q has highlighted often.
Probably nothing to see here!
The Migration Deep State Alliance System and Structure, Part 2: Think-tanks, Open-Borders Policies and the Foundations that Support them- Case Study MPI
The first category of entities shaping open-borders policy today comprises think-tanks with a direct migration mandate and universities (the big one being Columbia). There are just too many to discuss, so for one case study, let’s cover the most influential of these at present: the US-based Migration Policy Institute (MPI). Although associated with (and indeed funded by (along with many others) George Soros, MPI is actually an extension of the Carnegie Endowment (i.e., a central pillar of the Cabal): it came into being in 2001, when the Carnegie Endowment’s International Migration Policy Program (IMPP) was renamed and became an ‘independent’ body. Kathleen Newland, who had been a Carnegie senior associate and longtime migration expert, founded MPI together with Demetrios Papademetriou, a former director for immigration policy and research in the Clinton Administration Department of Labor.
As with the UN agencies, MPI is directly at the heart of the migration deep state, with direct ties to the Democratic Party and its open-borders insanity. Since (even before) its founding, the MPI has had a dedicated focus on Mexico (official page here). The general policy seems to be the gradual erosion of the US-Mexico border, as the Sixteen-Year Plan was meant to accomplish. And this has been a very, very long time in the planning; take for example Papademetriou’s 2002 MPI policy paper, entitled ‘A Grand Bargain: Balancing the National Security, Economic, and Immigration Interests of the U.S. and Mexico.’ It calls for more rights for illegal (specifically Mexican) immigrants, and (as its epilogue reveals) is based on extremely calculated political strategy regarding what the president, Congress and local political actors could be expected to win or lose from implementing the suggested migration ‘reforms’ after approaching mid-term elections.
Aside from lobbying, the MPI’s analytical output benefits from lavish funding and cooperation with NGOs, institutions, ground researchers and so on, which has made them an invaluable source of information for both media and government. This knowledge can be very useful. It might interest anons to know that, way back in 2006, the MPI released a detailed report on MS-13, its development from Los Angeles, spread to Central America and related issues. This indicated a deep knowledge of the gang since the 1990s. Interestingly enough, it is stated that the FBI had recently established a special unit for MS-13…
MPI’s open-borders lobbying carries over to its Brussels-based spinoff, MPI Europe, which was founded in 2011 and then played a key role in influencing EU policy during the European migrant crisis. It has systematically assessed the political orientations of hundreds of European politicians to see which ones it can count on for its open-borders positions. MPI keeps on trying to do the same in the Trump Administration- which, while definitely not in favor of the migration deep state agenda, has been unable to stop UN-directed initiatives that have been long in progress.
The most important such event was the UN’s December 2018 Marrakesh Summit, at which countries ratified the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration. This was a direct continuation of the ‘New York Declaration’ masterminded by Obama, Merkel, Soros and the UN in September 2016. According to the IOM, “the global compact for migration is the first, intergovernmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, to cover all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner.” Curiously enough, as of 2019 the aid agency has the world’s number of migrants as “over 258 million,” whereas just under three years before, Obama had given the somewhat more modest number of 68 million in his fulsome speech at the UN. Clearly, this is a growth industry…
Again, I draw your attention to the importance of definitions, because definitions are what creates statistics… and thereafter policy, followed by massive taxpayer wealth redistribution. According to the IOM, if you take a student year abroad, you are a migrant. And so on.
Although the US under the Trump Administration (along with Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Israel) voted against the Global Compact, even the most optimistic Anons have to admit just how difficult undoing the damage done by globalists in the migration deep state will be. I reckon 99 percent of the American public has probably never heard of any of these conventions, summits and agencies.
This ignorance makes it incredibly easy for the globalist elite to systematically carry out their plans.
The MPI and (notably) Angela Merkel’s German Development Cooperation Agency are hard at work on pushing the controversial UN policy, to reverse US policy and bring those pesky Central European countries into line. MPI and the German agency are now promoting the Global Compact in lobbying and a policy paper that “has tracked the compact’s negotiation and begun to look ahead to its implementation.”
That said, it probably wouldn’t come as a surprise that MPI policy papers have recently trashed Trump’s plan to deal with migration, while also showing quite a lot of interest in the 2020 census and the citizenship question.
Could it be that the MPI is actually a front group for the Cabal’s slush funds and Democratic Party’s election hopes?
Let’s see where their funding comes from. According to the MPI website:
“MPI is funded primarily through research grants from foundations. We also receive funding from organizations, U.S. and international government agencies, corporations, and individuals. Their investment allows MPI to provide thoughtful, unbiased research and analysis of migration and refugee policies in the United States and internationally. MPI is able to disseminate policy-relevant material and engage a broader audience through their generous support.”
So, who are these funders of MPI’s ‘unbiased’ open-borders lobbying and research?
According to the official website some of the ‘major’ donors ‘include’ the following:
• Annie E. Casey Foundation
• Inter-American Development Bank
• Atlantic Philanthropies
• International Organization for Migration
• Barrow Cadbury Trust
• International Rescue Committee
• Bertelsmann Stiftung
• JM Kaplan Fund
• Berry Appleman & Leiden LLP
• Kendeda Fund
• Booz Allen Hamilton
• King Baudouin Foundation
• Boston Foundation
• John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
• Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State
• Luso-American Foundation (FLAD)
• Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
• John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
• California Community Foundation
• Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
• Carnegie Corporation of New York
• Manhattan Institute
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• Marin Community Foundation
• Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
• m-Via Center for Applied Linguistics
• Suzette Brooks Masters and Seth Masters Center for Global Development
• Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
• Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS), Oxford University
• Napa Valley Community Foundation
• The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
• National Conference of State Legislatures
• Community Foundation of Greater Atlanta
• New Global Initiatives, Inc.
• Danish Institute for Human Rights
• Northwest Area Foundation
• Danish Refugee Council
• Stavros S. Niarchos Foundation
• Delegation of the European Union to the United States
• National Center for Border Security and Immigration (NCBSI), University of Arizona
• European Commission — Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, and Directorate General for Home Affairs
• Office of Refugee Resettlement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• Ford Foundation
• Open Society Foundations
• Foundation for Child Development
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
• Foundation for Population, Migration and Environment (BMU), Switzerland
• Public Interest Projects, Inc.
• The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
• Public Welfare Foundation
• German Marshall Fund of the United States
• The Rockefeller Foundation
• Global Commission on International Migration
• Russell Sage Foundation
• Government of Canada, Citizenship and Immigration, Canada
• SEIU – Service Employees International Union
• Government of Finland, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Smith Richardson Foundation
• Government of Germany, Bundesministerium des Innern (BM)
• Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
• Government of Greece, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Tinker Foundation, Inc.
• Government of Italy, Ministry of Labor and Social Policy
• Unbound Philanthropy
• Government of Mexico, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Secretariat of the Interior
• UNITE HERE
• Government of Moldova
• UN High Commissioner for Refugees
• Government of the Netherlands
• UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
• Government of Norway, Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion
• Urban Institute
• Government of Spain, Ministry of Labor and Immigration
• U.S. Census Bureau
• Government of Sweden, Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Employment
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• Government of Taiwan, National Immigration Agency
• U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration and Refugee Services
• Government of the United Kingdom, Home Office and Department of International Development
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security
• Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees
• Walmart
• Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund
• Western Union Foundation
• Hamburg Institute for International Economics (Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation)
• Heising-Simons Foundation
• W.K. Kellogg Foundation
• Charles Evan Hughes Memorial Foundation
• World Bank
• Illinois Coalition for Immigrants and Refugee Rights
• World Health Organization
• Zellerbach Family Foundation.
And remember: MPI is just one of the migration deep state’s funded NGOs for lobbying on open-borders, anti-sovereignty migration policy. There are many, many more. All of these are important - the emphasis on some of the above is just me pointing out some that are particularly interesting or that have come up in separate contexts in Q research.
The Migration Deep State Alliance System and Structure, Part 3: the European Union and its Southern Expansionism
Like the UN, the EU arose from the ashes of WWII but (at the beginning at least) had much more humble ambitions. Its first incarnation was as a simple ‘Coal and Steel Community,’ between a handful of advanced Western states. The argument went that if France and Germany were obliged to cooperate on their industrial output, neither would have a monopoly on military materiel that could result in a third world war.
Of course, the ambitions of the nascent Euro-elite and their continuity of pre-war Marxist and Federalist ideologies were much greater than that (I have put together an intriguing collection of characters and events running from Count Coudenhove-Kallergi to today’s migration crisis in a short e-book, Behind the European Project: Shadow Aristocracy, Secret Networks, Religious Orders and an Unholy Union, for anyone interested in some of the back-history).
For many years, the European project was simply an economic community (albeit with increasingly centralized legislation for those who would be members eventually). But it was not until the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 that the European Union officially came into being. While it had plenty to do in cementing its own internal relations (not to mention dealing with the end of the Soviet Union and war in Yugoslavia), the bloc showed its expansionist hand by almost immediately moving forward with the ‘Barcelona Process,’ led by Spanish Foreign Minister (and future NATO chief) Javier Solana (another arch-globalist).
Known also as the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Euromed), it began with the Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean Conference of 1995. At that event, European and some African states agreed “to establish a comprehensive partnership among the participants – the Euro-Mediterranean partnership – through strengthened political dialogue on a regular basis, the development of economic and financial cooperation and greater emphasis on the social, cultural and human dimension, these being the three aspects of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.” By 2008, it had become known as the Union for the Mediterranean – a 43-country grouping that became a mechanism for carrying out integration treaties with Europe’s trans-Mediterranean African neighbors.
This empire fantasy was not just a Continental European thing. British deep-staters like Foreign Secretary David Milliband have been key Anglo-influencers. He in fact kicked off his new job in 2007 by proclaiming a vision for a “version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Maghreb, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in line with the single market, not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it.”
These policies are richly rewarded by the migration deep state. Since 2013, David Miliband has been President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, one of the biggest migration NGOs. (This Labour Party member has been lauded by Bill Clinton and, surprisingly enough, recently attacked POTUS’ migration policy in leftist rag The Guardian).
A major beneficiary (on an operational and financial basis) of these initiatives has been the southern Mediterranean EU bloc: Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and (since 2004) Malta and Cyprus. The role of the Greek and Italian leftist elite, particularly during the migrant crisis was huge; the leaders and shadow actors between such countries, and the EU and UN agencies have had a major impact on shaping EU and UN strategies towards using migration, to expand supranational power and influence across what was once dubbed a ‘Roman lake.’
Indeed, the degree of the Europe Union’s aspirations to spread its influence, operations, and funds southward should not be overlooked in the context of globalist, open-borders tendencies in the migration war. Take, for a more recent example, the EU’s ‘Khartoum Process,’ which began with an event held in Rome in mid-November 2014, under the Italian EU presidency (the EU’s workings include a rotating, symbolic ‘presidency’ for different member countries, while the real power lies in Brussels, Strasbourg and Frankfurt).
The official website described it thus:
The Khartoum Process is a platform for political cooperation amongst the countries along the migration route between the Horn of Africa and Europe.
Also known as the EU-Horn of Africa Migration Route Initiative, the inter-continental consultation framework aims at:
Establishing a continuous dialogue for enhanced cooperation on migration and mobility.
Identifying and implementing concrete projects to address trafficking in human beings and the smuggling of migrants.
Giving a new impetus to the regional collaboration between countries of origin, transit and destination regarding the migration route between the Horn of Africa and Europe.
This was no isolated event, and has been expanded as European elites continue to expand their southward reach. The Khartoum Process was considered a ‘sister process’ of the similar Rabat Process of 2005. These initiatives are included under the EU’s overarching Global Approach on Migration and Mobility (GAMM), in place since 2005. By 2013, it had disbursed 1bn euros in funding, two years after the Obama Administration had destroyed Libya through NATO (we all know who benefited from that adventure) and eliminated Gaddafi, who had long kept a gentleman’s agreement with Italian conservative governments to keep migrants from crossing by sea into Italy. But the stars aligned for the globalists with the arrival of a leftist Pope Francis (who made his first trip after becoming pontiff to the migrant-swamped Italian island of Lampedusa), and the leftist government of Matteo Renzi (which was only unseated relatively recently by a populist revolt).
So, what a surprise that when a sudden and completely unexpected migration crisis came along in 2015, a new ‘emergency’ summit was held in Malta in November (not long after the main spike in migrants caused by Merkel’s invite, and at the same time as the Bataclan terrorist attack in Paris). It resulted in the Joint Valletta Action Plan (JVAP)and explicitly linked with Rabat and Khartoum (read the proceedings here); as an extension of an orderly progress, though that’s not how the media depicted it. They preferred the cartoon version whereby heroic and generous Europeans were responding to an unexpected humanitarian disaster that somehow no one had foreseen.
Brussels was then able to pull together by the very next year the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (i.e., slush fund to launder among local and Euro-elite). According to the EU, the Trust Fund is meant to support “the most fragile and affected African countries.”
These have been efficiently divided into three categories, and indicate an expansionist ambition. The first group (Sahel region and Lake Chad) specifies Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal. The second group (the Horn of Africa) includes the countries of Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. Finally, the ‘North of Africa’ includes Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia.
Further, the EU notes, other African neighbors of these countries “may benefit, on a case by case basis, from Trust Fund projects with a regional dimension in order to address regional migration flows and related cross-border challenges.”
So, all that being said, would it surprise you to learn that the European super-state is presently running a big-data analysis center in the capital of Sudan? So it appears, from the official website and from the May 2018 Khartoum Process meeting in Kenya.
At the ‘Thematic Meeting on Data Collection and Management’ held that day in Nairobi, the participating states discussed “data management, analysis, and dissemination.” Discussion followed “regarding the data collection and management practices in the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) region as well as in the individual countries, such as Kenya, Italy, and Malta.”
The event went on to plan for data collection management policy “for the purposes of optimization of migration management… and setting priority actions that could help reduce data gaps, on the one hand, and promote a better use of existing data sources, on the other hand.” This is all apparently being run through something called the Regional Operational Centre Khartoum (ROCK), which has a ‘Knowledge Centre on Migration and Demography (KCMD),’ both providing the bean-counters in Brussels with “accurate and relevant knowledge and analysis” regarding migration data.
But, as usual with these kinds of European operations, there’s a twist: some digging revealed that the actual management over at the ROCK is executed by CiviPol, an unusual public-private group of French spooks. As one employment website notes:
“Civipol is the consulting and service company of the French Ministry of the Interior. As a specialist in project engineering, in France and abroad, it provides customized advice, technical assistance and owner support services, as well as auditing and training expertise in the areas of homeland security and governance. Civipol works on behalf of French government departments, foreign states, corporations and multilateral donors, notably the European Union”
Well that is one wide remit, isn’t it?
When you research deeply into how migration deep state structures actually operate, you find that at the ground level, the actual face of the institutions – whether EU, UN, US or other – is actually that of private or (as in the ROCK case) semi-private contractors. This corporate aspect adds another level of depth to the entire deep state, and helps explain investments, donations, Clown operations, political symmetries and more.
But these details never make the news. Both the existence of trans-national agreements and their implementation are technical, deliberately obscure, and well-hidden on the backpages of bureaucracy. It is up to us to research and dig if we want to expose the criminality, corruption and overall malevolence of those who desire a centrally-planned, no-borders socialist paradise (for themselves, at least).
Chris Deliso is an American journalist and security analyst researching from Europe for the past 17 years, and holds an MPhil in Byzantine History from Oxford University. He is the author of Migration, Terrorism, and the Future of a Divided Europe: A Continent Transformed (Praeger Security International, 2017). His official website is Chrisdeliso.com.
As they were leaving the church, the minister said, "Bernie, it sure would be nice to see you and Esther here more than once a year!"
"I know," replied Bernie, "but at least we keep the Ten Commandments."
"That's great," the minister said. "I'm glad to hear that you keep the Commandments."
"Yep," Bernie said proudly, "Esther keeps six of them and I keep the other four."
*.*
You can't run through a campground.
You can only ran, because it's past tents.
*.*
A customer walks into an establishment and asks, "In what aisle could I find the Polish sausage?" The clerk looks at him and says, "Are you Polish?"
The guy (clearly offended) says, "Well, yes I am. But let me ask you something. If I had asked for Italian sausage, would you ask me if I was Italian? Or if I had asked for German Bratwurst, would you ask me if I was German? Or if I asked for a kosher hot dog would you ask me if I was Jewish? Or if I had asked for a Taco, would you ask if I was Mexican? If I asked for some Irish whiskey, would you ask if I was Irish?"
The clerk says, "Well, no, I probably wouldn't!"
With deep self-righteous indignation, the guy says, "Well then, why did you ask me if I'm Polish because I asked for Polish sausage?"
The clerk replied, "Because you're in Home Depot."
*.*
Women's Soccer Team Sues To Overturn Unjust Law Of Supply And Demand
U.S.— Star player Megan Rapinoe has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the United States women's national soccer team to overturn the "unjust, unfair, unconstitutional law of supply and demand," sources confirmed Wednesday.
Rapinoe challenged the law for oppressing women when it was revealed that men's soccer brings in exponentially more money than women's soccer, and as such women are paid less. The lawsuit, filed earlier this week, petitions the US government to recognize that the basic economic laws that determine wages violate federal discrimination regulations on gender.
"The oppressive, misogynistic law of supply and demand has conspired against women for years," she said. "More people want to watch men's soccer, so the men make a lot more money than we do. This is a clear example of systemic inequality that has been enshrined in economic laws for centuries."
"Also, I'm a woman, I'm gay, I have pink hair, and I have tattoos, and [expletive] President Trump!" she added. "Wooooooo!!!" She said she will continue to tout these facts as important elements of the lawsuit that challenges the law of supply and demand. "There's no way a judge will rule against me because I'm so brave.'
*.*
My husband, Cal, grew increasingly displeased as our teenage daughter and her boyfriend studied in her room late one evening. Finally losing patience shortly after midnight, he knocked sharply on her door. Her boyfriend immediately opened it and asked if something was wrong.
"I have to ask you to move your car," Cal told him.
"Oh, sure. Is it in someone's way?"
"No," Cal replied, "it's at the wrong address."
Quote of the Times;
“There are three things all wise men fear; the sea in storm, a night with no moon and the anger of a gentle man.”
Link of the Times;
https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/foul-women-actually-make-more-men-soccer
Issue of the Times;
Inside the Migration Deep State by Chris Deliso
I reckon 99 percent of the American public has probably never heard of any of these conventions, summits and agencies.
The information that follows provides a specific context for events happening now in your local community (and country)… because the evidence of the Cabal’s global rule is always local. As Walter Sobchak put it: ‘This affects all of us, man!’
The migration deep state – vast, powerful, well-hidden in plain sight – can seem futile to take on. Still, at very least this monstrosity has to be analyzed, not just because of short-term events like President Trump’s 2020 re-election, but because it will affect the world your children inherit.
In 17 years of reporting from Europe, I’ve encountered many persons and organizations involved in what I’ve dubbed the humanitarian-development complex; the migration deep state is a sub-sector of this. From corruption and cover-ups in UN-run Kosovo and EU stealth legislation, to international NGO slush funds and anarchists fighting to break borders for ‘refugee rights,’ I’ve seen some things. When I was asked to speak for the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon in September 2014, to share some insights on security risks in Southeast Europe, the migration crisis had not fully materialized. But it was among my predicted threats (all of which, unfortunately, materialized within the following nine months).
I have plenty of vignettes to share, but another time. Today is about the 30,000-foot view, about tracing the contours of a super-structure, so that anons can understand seemingly unconnected events and research details within a context.
First, there is one rule to remember. The global elites running this industry do not want to solve problems: they want to manage problems.
Because… that’s where the money is.
Other people’s money. Massive sums of money that can be safely allocated on long-term projects, self-perpetuating grant cycles, philanthropic experiments and more- all leading towards the steady and relentless expansion of processes, bureaucracies and programs, all of which require… more money. It is globalist vampirism at its worst, and often, undetectable.
When I started followed #QAnon in late 2017 and thereafter, it was very interesting (and encouraging) to see the emphasis that Q, and thus the Trump Administration, was putting on illegal immigration and the related risk factors. Various Q drops have pointed to important issues like the use of MS-13 by the Cabal, the importance of the Wall not only as a physical but mental deterrent, and the Democratic Party’s reliance on open-borders policies to remain in power (the last is how leftist parties in Europe have abused open-borders policies for decades).
However, given the laconic nature of Q’s comms and the distraction presented by other burning issues, we’ve largely forgotten about the need to expand our thinking on the phenomenon of the migration deep state: what it is, who it involves, how it operates, how it justifies and defends itself, and so on. And I’m not just saying this needs to be discussed because I wrote a book about it. Or because roughly one million migrants passed by train (about two miles from my house here in tiny Macedonia- a country with a population of two million). These mostly economic migrants were passing through on the ‘Balkan Route’ from Turkey and Greece onwards to Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Germany, following Angela Merkel’s unilateral suspension of EU rules in fall 2015, during the great ‘European Migration Crisis.’
To put my experience in ratio perspective: this would be like if Justin Trudeau demanded the US government send an unlimited supply of migrants and 170 million migrants crossed the US from Mexico to Canada.
Which is exactly the sort of outcome that the ‘open borders’ crowd and the deep state that controls them wants- the sort of thing a Hillary Clinton administration would have done in a second, if given the chance.
The Sixteen-Year-Plan: A Fake Crisis, Obama’s UN Cash-In and What Should Have Happened
The migration deep state’s super-structure organizes EU programs, UN initiatives and the well-funded ‘civil society’ movement in migration affairs. The media and pundits do their part by launching a rapid-fire drama of humanitarian tragedies, protests, violence, political rhetoric and grandiose plans for saving the world.
In reality, the Cabal’s globalist migration policies are made in air-conditioned offices, far from the front lines and front pages, protected from public scrutiny by bureaucrats specialized in delivering death by a thousand footnotes to the citizens of sovereign states, in the forms of treaties and agreements and loaded annexes.
Indeed, despite the tangible improvements that the US (and some other governments) are trying to make to safeguard their borders and citizens, the migration deep state has not been affected – rather, its funding and programs have expanded, and at a faster rate than planned, as Trump’s abrupt interference with the Sixteen-Year Plan forced them to lay down their cards earlier than planned. This cannot be overemphasized. The kind of insanity demonstrated by the Democratic Party over the past couple years was not expected to be seen for some years. Had things gone according to the program, there would have been no need to rush immediately to the end game. They would have had eight comfortable years of HRC to implement the plan and enjoy watching the country’s disintegration. As Q has written, if America falls, the world falls. This is why patriots need to keep informed and keep sharing their research.
So let’s rewind to September 2015, keeping in mind this tacit contextual element: the inevitability factor. For in just over one year, Hillary Rodham Clinton would be elected president of the United States, taking the baton from Barack Obama, the man who had delayed her rightful ascension. By 2024, when the destruction of America as we knew it would have been complete, a Bush or a Clinton would have occupied (at least) one of the nation’s highest positions for 44 of the previous 48 years. Because that’s… totally normal.
That fall, Merkel’s open invite to migrants from the Middle East, Asia and Africa had caused serious problems for European society- and for the migrants themselves. After all, she hadn’t exactly provided charter flights. Instead they were left to their own devices, making dangerous journeys across land and sea, as we have seen with migrants traveling from Central America to the US border. Both here and there, the great humanitarians of the political and public elite force travel models that increase the likelihood of injury and death because such results are absolutely fantastic for fundraising and bureaucratic expansion. It is that simple, and that evil.
In Europe, billions of euros were made by everyone from human traffickers and mafia groups to international organizations and corporations contracted to provide logistical services for governments dealing with the ‘refugee burden.’ A moralistic MSM had a field day, contrasting the newfound piety of European leaders supporting the grand experiment with the obviously racist critics of the policy. In a particularly nauseating and hypocritical piece, Cabal mouthpiece Time lauded Angela Merkel as the ‘Chancellor of the Free World’ for 2015.
The 24/7 media coverage of what was largely a created crisis granted the opportunity for EU policy continuation (to be discussed further below) and international globalist migration policy, driven by the Obama Administration, Big Tech, the Vatican and migration deep state NGOs funded by Cabal foundations and financiers like George Soros.
The big cash-in was scheduled for September 2016 at the UN. To get there, the EU had to put the crisis on pause, which they did in a spring agreement with the Turkish government (this was done through the stealth diplomacy of a Soros-linked NGO, as I cover in the book). With populist grumblings rising, anarchist violence on the Italian, French and Greek borders, the shock of Brexit, and politically problematic criminality from new migrants throughout Europe causing local tensions, the bloc needed to keep the appearance of order for long enough to get to the next step in the Sixteen-Year Plan.
And this they did. Remember that as of September 20, 2016 and the UN’s specially-organized ‘Leaders Summit on Refugees,’ there was no reason for concern. HRC would become president, the US would continue Obama’s migrant policy, and the party would continue. The New York gathering of some 52 countries showed the migration deep state on full display:
The event kicked off with the typically nauseating rhetoric of President Obama, who shamelessly lamented the fate of migrants from countries he’d either personally invaded (Libya), terrorized with jihadist militias (Syria, Iraq) or droned to death (Afghanistan). Hussein’s hyperbole was geared towards supporting the Soros-Merkel argument that all countries must import more migrants, while sharing news about several multi-billion-dollar projects recently arranged between the US, UN, migrant NGOs, corporations and so on. Obama added that “starting next week, the United States will welcome and resettle 110,000 refugees from around the world — which is a nearly 60 percent increase over 2015.”
Remember, this was halfway through the Sixteen-Year Plan.
The 2016 UN event included these additional highlights that show the manufactured crisis of 2015 led to the deep-state payout of 2016:
‘George Soros is investing $500 million to help refugees,’ reports CNN, adding:
“The investments will be owned by Soros’ nonprofit organizations. ‘These investments are intended to be successful … but our primary focus is to create products and services that truly benefit migrants and host communities,’ he said.
In an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal, Soros wrote that his main concern is to help migrants and refugees arriving in Europe, but that he will be looking for good investment ideas to benefit migrants everywhere.”
Of course he would.
But not alone.
Because…
Big Tech/Start-up World/Finance announced plans to ‘invest’ $650 million, answering Obama’s “plea” for migrant support (Microsoft, Facebook, IBM, TripAdvisor, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, Mastercard, HP, Google, Accenture, Western Union, LinkedIn, Airbnb, Autodesk, Coursera, SAP, Twilio, Uber, Udemy and Zynga), in line with a pre-cooked White House plan (full list of the 51 companies here).
No wonder that the UN High Commission on Human Rights gushed that the summit was a ‘game changer’ for migration matters.
Oh, and the autists among you will love these details from the above CNET article:
“Google said it will also contribute a $1 million grant to the Clooney Foundation for Justice, established by actor George Clooney and his wife, Amal, to help educate Syrian refugee children in Lebanon. Google has already donated $16.5 million to other humanitarian efforts.
Microsoft plans to team with local providers to deliver wireless broadband to refugees and international aid organizations in Malawi, and it’s teaming with HP to provide tech training in refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan. That training will lead to certifications that qualify them for worker visa programs instead of requiring that they go through the more laborious government refugee process.”
So yeah, nothing to see here.
Now that you’ve seen how the feeding frenzy looked like, let’s get down to the structure and personalities at the heart of the migration deep state.
But First… Does an Unexpected Change in Terminology indicate the ‘Trump Effect’ at Work on the IOM?
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) is the UN’s prime agency on the issue, and thus is located at the very heart of the migration deep state since its establishment in 1951. According to the IOM website, it is “the leading inter-governmental organization in the field of migration and works closely with governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental partners.”
And it looks like something very interesting has recently happened there.
I was just pulling up the site to show you its insanely broad definition of “who is a migrant” – only to find that they have changed it within the past six months…
Thank God for screenshots.
I’ve asked their spokesmen in the past to account for the definition, simply because it was such an affront to common sense and because of its implications for the ‘global governance’ ambitions of the Cabal. Read it below, and you will quickly see why. I got some milquetoast answer at one point, but nothing that explained who came up with the definition, why, or what the intentions behind it were on a legalistic basis.
Not only has the definition been rewritten to make it somewhat less Orwellian, but it also comes with caveats that restate that the definition does not reflect international law, but only IOM’s internal use – something conspicuously absent from previous versions.
I’m calling this the Trump Effect. I’m guessing that someone from the Administration reminded the IOM of where much of their funding come from, and that pretensions to global population dominance were not cool. Would this definition have been changed had Hillary won and the Sixteen-Year-Plan marched merrily onward? Highly doubtful. Sometimes, this kind of tiny detail reveals much bigger things.
Whatever the case, it’s highly revealing – and frankly, a little encouraging – to see a Cabal main front agency forced to dial it down, even if just in terms of rhetoric. Because these definitions still matter - they are often the unstated ‘norms’ which underpin international treaties about which the average citizen is never informed.
The Migration Deep State Alliance System and Structure, Part 1: the UN Agencies and Programs
In order to destroy sovereign states, international and transnational organizations with zero public accountability, unelected officials, and budgets that always tend to increase will always remain the most lethal weapon. The major example here is the UN, with the EU having base similarities which will be discussed further on. But the United Nations, based in New York, and several of its migration and development agencies (based there and around the world) provides the key, indestructible, and thoroughly non-accountable core of the migration deep state.
One of the key such agencies is the above-mentioned IOM. Its growth exemplifies the inherent tendency of such international agencies towards bureaucratic expansion and acquisition of territory, funds and duties. When there are no checks and balances to restrict administrative sprawl (as sovereign states provide), such organizations naturally tend to expand. The IOM started out in 1951 in the post-WWII environment, with a strict remit of helping Europeans displaced by the war; indeed, it was literally called the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe (PICMME).
As it turned out, the organization wasn’t that ‘provisional’ after all, even though post-war Europe was back on its feet. As the UN consolidated its powers and conditions for global governance projects improved, the agency expanded globally, acquiring its present name only in 1989. As the official website’s history recounts, it has taken on quite a presence:
“From its roots as an operational logistics agency, it has broadened its scope to become the leading international agency working with governments and civil society to advance the understanding of migration issues, encourage social and economic development through migration, and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants. The broader scope of activities has been matched by rapid expansion from a relatively small agency into one with an annual operating budget of an estimated $1.5 billion and more than 10,000 staff working in over 150 countries worldwide. IOM currently has 173 Member States and a further 8 states holding Observer status.”
The second major UN organization of note is the UNHCR (UN High Commission for Refugees or, as we used to call it for fun, ‘Usually No Help Concerning Refugees’). Its mandate involves providing “vital assistance to refugees, asylum-seeker’s, internally displaced and stateless people, many of whom have nobody left to turn to.”
This UN body was established a year before the IOM in 1950; like the latter, it was meant to help specifically European WWII refugees rebuild their lives. The UNHCR’s official history even admits, “we had three years to complete our work and then disband.”
Disband? Well that would hardly be in the spirit of global governance…
And so the UNHCR expanded, first getting Merkel-style positive PR at the crucial moment (the entire organization won the 1954 Nobel Peace Prize) and then getting its own ‘migrant crisis’ via the Hungarian Revolution two years later. That secured its mandate and from then on it was smooth sailing to Africa and other points abroad.Today, it has become a global behemoth with over 16,800 personnel in 134 countries, and a budget of $6.54 billion, as of 2016. (They have the audacity to ask for your personal donations on their website as well).
So, Anons… how about a real-life example of how the UNHCR operates clandestinely in plain sight?
In fall 2015, a steady flow of Middle Eastern migrants that had entered Greece by sea from Turkey were massing on Macedonia’s southern border. The UNHCR had dispatched an ‘expert’ to liaise with the UN’s local staff and partners, as well as the government, to help decide what to do about it. Macedonia and Greece were not keen to cooperate (long story), presenting an ideal justification for globalist intervention. As usual, the UNHCR thought that sending some guy who knew nothing about the local culture, society, politics etc. on a four-month contract to save the situation. This operational style is built into the structure to guarantee anonymity, non-accountability and distancing/deniability when the UN eventually makes things worse instead of better.
A lot of people couldn’t believe it when I reported what he told me a few months later: that the UN recommended putting 30,000 Muslim migrants in camps inside this tiny, ethnically-mixed country then in Clown-controlled political turmoil. How could they think this would be a good idea?
Fortunately, the authorities of that time did not fall for it, and the situation was handled by (as I said) sending Merkel’s invited guests through as quickly as possible via train, making no stops. Three years later, I obtained leaked documents from the 2015 meetings of the UNHCR and the local government and NGOs – I highly recommend you take a look… because these docs show how the UN operates, and how this is very appealing to globalist corporations and anyone, really, aligned with corrupt practices.
Indeed, everything from ordering 33,000 mattresses and randomly handing out cash (cash!) to all migrants crossing the border, to putting others up with ‘host families’ shows how the UN instinctively responds to such crises – and how the migration deep state works in practical terms on the ground. No wonder that the biggest companies in the world rushed like pigs to the trough to answer Obama’s “plea for help” at the September 2016 UN conference on migrants.
A third body under the UN umbrella with relation to migration deep state issues is the UN Development Programme (UNDP), which is a core pillar of the larger humanitarian-development complex. Working in almost 200 countries, the UNDP is not only well-funded, but is the key driver in the UN’s 2030 development platform that has been so decried by sovereignty-minded persons the world over. As the official website states:
This is a critical time for the world. At UNDP, we see this period as a huge opportunity to advance the global sustainable development agenda. In September 2015, world leaders adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity. UNDP is working to strengthen new frameworks for development, disaster risk reduction and climate change. We support countries’ efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, or Global Goals, which will guide global development priorities through 2030.
The UNDP’s laudable and completely unattainable goals (‘zero poverty’ in the next 11 years? Seriously?) provide an ideal opportunity for mass redistribution of wealth from nations and institutions throughout the system, amounting to enormous and untraceable slush funds with inevitable political outcomes. It is worth noting that these Sustainable Development Goals were approved by the UN at the end of 2015 (during the European migration crisis) and codified in 2016 – another globalist goal reached at the midway point of the Sixteen-Year Plan.
As the UNDP is active in all sorts of humanitarian disasters, I’m surprised that the autists haven’t looked into the relationships between institutions and political personalities with such UN agencies at key points of modern history. For example, consider the heavy emphasis Q has repeatedly given to HRC, Haiti and New Zealand. One might find it interesting to note that in 2010, when the Bush-Clinton Haiti fundraiser was going on, the lead UNDP official interacting with Hillary Clinton’s State Department was one Helen Clark, a former New Zealand prime minister. They cooperated closely on the Haiti mission and others, as noted in this meeting recap from June 2010). Further, as Wikipedia noted, Clark “was also the Chair of the United Nations Development Group, a committee consisting of the heads of all UN funds, programmes and departments working on development issues.”
Nevertheless on May 24, 2016, WaPo-owned Cabal magazine Foreign Policy ran quite the hit piece on the doughty bureaucrat, claiming that UNDP insiders “accuse Clark of ruthlessly ending the careers of underlings in her quest to advance her candidacy and of undercutting the U.N.’s promotion of human rights.” By ‘candidacy,’ FP meant the contest for who would replace Ban Ki-Moon as UN Secretary General that fall – right after the US election that Hillary Clinton would certainly win. It’s rare that deep state actors turn on each other like this, and one cannot be sure whether the Clinton camp perceived Clark as a potential liability or threat (due to Haiti, etc). or whether internal rival competitors were behind the hit piece.
In any case, the UN top spot was won by UNHCR chief (2005-2015) and former Portuguese prime minister António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres, who also once headed the Socialist Internationale. In June 2018, Guterres approved António Vitorino (a former European commissioner and defense minister under his Portuguese cabinet) as the next IOM Director General. At the same time, Clark was relegated to opining that HRC had lost the presidency due to sexism back in NZ (infamous among anons at the time due to the country’s role in 5Eyes/SpyGate and Hillary’s visit to meet former Tony Blair protégé, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardem. But why would Hillary have wanted to see Clark? What are the chances that she knows where the Haiti relief money went? We recall Trump’s EO of 12/2017 that Q has highlighted often.
Probably nothing to see here!
The Migration Deep State Alliance System and Structure, Part 2: Think-tanks, Open-Borders Policies and the Foundations that Support them- Case Study MPI
The first category of entities shaping open-borders policy today comprises think-tanks with a direct migration mandate and universities (the big one being Columbia). There are just too many to discuss, so for one case study, let’s cover the most influential of these at present: the US-based Migration Policy Institute (MPI). Although associated with (and indeed funded by (along with many others) George Soros, MPI is actually an extension of the Carnegie Endowment (i.e., a central pillar of the Cabal): it came into being in 2001, when the Carnegie Endowment’s International Migration Policy Program (IMPP) was renamed and became an ‘independent’ body. Kathleen Newland, who had been a Carnegie senior associate and longtime migration expert, founded MPI together with Demetrios Papademetriou, a former director for immigration policy and research in the Clinton Administration Department of Labor.
As with the UN agencies, MPI is directly at the heart of the migration deep state, with direct ties to the Democratic Party and its open-borders insanity. Since (even before) its founding, the MPI has had a dedicated focus on Mexico (official page here). The general policy seems to be the gradual erosion of the US-Mexico border, as the Sixteen-Year Plan was meant to accomplish. And this has been a very, very long time in the planning; take for example Papademetriou’s 2002 MPI policy paper, entitled ‘A Grand Bargain: Balancing the National Security, Economic, and Immigration Interests of the U.S. and Mexico.’ It calls for more rights for illegal (specifically Mexican) immigrants, and (as its epilogue reveals) is based on extremely calculated political strategy regarding what the president, Congress and local political actors could be expected to win or lose from implementing the suggested migration ‘reforms’ after approaching mid-term elections.
Aside from lobbying, the MPI’s analytical output benefits from lavish funding and cooperation with NGOs, institutions, ground researchers and so on, which has made them an invaluable source of information for both media and government. This knowledge can be very useful. It might interest anons to know that, way back in 2006, the MPI released a detailed report on MS-13, its development from Los Angeles, spread to Central America and related issues. This indicated a deep knowledge of the gang since the 1990s. Interestingly enough, it is stated that the FBI had recently established a special unit for MS-13…
MPI’s open-borders lobbying carries over to its Brussels-based spinoff, MPI Europe, which was founded in 2011 and then played a key role in influencing EU policy during the European migrant crisis. It has systematically assessed the political orientations of hundreds of European politicians to see which ones it can count on for its open-borders positions. MPI keeps on trying to do the same in the Trump Administration- which, while definitely not in favor of the migration deep state agenda, has been unable to stop UN-directed initiatives that have been long in progress.
The most important such event was the UN’s December 2018 Marrakesh Summit, at which countries ratified the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration. This was a direct continuation of the ‘New York Declaration’ masterminded by Obama, Merkel, Soros and the UN in September 2016. According to the IOM, “the global compact for migration is the first, intergovernmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, to cover all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner.” Curiously enough, as of 2019 the aid agency has the world’s number of migrants as “over 258 million,” whereas just under three years before, Obama had given the somewhat more modest number of 68 million in his fulsome speech at the UN. Clearly, this is a growth industry…
Again, I draw your attention to the importance of definitions, because definitions are what creates statistics… and thereafter policy, followed by massive taxpayer wealth redistribution. According to the IOM, if you take a student year abroad, you are a migrant. And so on.
Although the US under the Trump Administration (along with Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Israel) voted against the Global Compact, even the most optimistic Anons have to admit just how difficult undoing the damage done by globalists in the migration deep state will be. I reckon 99 percent of the American public has probably never heard of any of these conventions, summits and agencies.
This ignorance makes it incredibly easy for the globalist elite to systematically carry out their plans.
The MPI and (notably) Angela Merkel’s German Development Cooperation Agency are hard at work on pushing the controversial UN policy, to reverse US policy and bring those pesky Central European countries into line. MPI and the German agency are now promoting the Global Compact in lobbying and a policy paper that “has tracked the compact’s negotiation and begun to look ahead to its implementation.”
That said, it probably wouldn’t come as a surprise that MPI policy papers have recently trashed Trump’s plan to deal with migration, while also showing quite a lot of interest in the 2020 census and the citizenship question.
Could it be that the MPI is actually a front group for the Cabal’s slush funds and Democratic Party’s election hopes?
Let’s see where their funding comes from. According to the MPI website:
“MPI is funded primarily through research grants from foundations. We also receive funding from organizations, U.S. and international government agencies, corporations, and individuals. Their investment allows MPI to provide thoughtful, unbiased research and analysis of migration and refugee policies in the United States and internationally. MPI is able to disseminate policy-relevant material and engage a broader audience through their generous support.”
So, who are these funders of MPI’s ‘unbiased’ open-borders lobbying and research?
According to the official website some of the ‘major’ donors ‘include’ the following:
• Annie E. Casey Foundation
• Inter-American Development Bank
• Atlantic Philanthropies
• International Organization for Migration
• Barrow Cadbury Trust
• International Rescue Committee
• Bertelsmann Stiftung
• JM Kaplan Fund
• Berry Appleman & Leiden LLP
• Kendeda Fund
• Booz Allen Hamilton
• King Baudouin Foundation
• Boston Foundation
• John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
• Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State
• Luso-American Foundation (FLAD)
• Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
• John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
• California Community Foundation
• Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
• Carnegie Corporation of New York
• Manhattan Institute
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• Marin Community Foundation
• Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
• m-Via Center for Applied Linguistics
• Suzette Brooks Masters and Seth Masters Center for Global Development
• Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
• Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS), Oxford University
• Napa Valley Community Foundation
• The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
• National Conference of State Legislatures
• Community Foundation of Greater Atlanta
• New Global Initiatives, Inc.
• Danish Institute for Human Rights
• Northwest Area Foundation
• Danish Refugee Council
• Stavros S. Niarchos Foundation
• Delegation of the European Union to the United States
• National Center for Border Security and Immigration (NCBSI), University of Arizona
• European Commission — Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, and Directorate General for Home Affairs
• Office of Refugee Resettlement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• Ford Foundation
• Open Society Foundations
• Foundation for Child Development
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
• Foundation for Population, Migration and Environment (BMU), Switzerland
• Public Interest Projects, Inc.
• The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
• Public Welfare Foundation
• German Marshall Fund of the United States
• The Rockefeller Foundation
• Global Commission on International Migration
• Russell Sage Foundation
• Government of Canada, Citizenship and Immigration, Canada
• SEIU – Service Employees International Union
• Government of Finland, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Smith Richardson Foundation
• Government of Germany, Bundesministerium des Innern (BM)
• Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
• Government of Greece, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Tinker Foundation, Inc.
• Government of Italy, Ministry of Labor and Social Policy
• Unbound Philanthropy
• Government of Mexico, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Secretariat of the Interior
• UNITE HERE
• Government of Moldova
• UN High Commissioner for Refugees
• Government of the Netherlands
• UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
• Government of Norway, Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion
• Urban Institute
• Government of Spain, Ministry of Labor and Immigration
• U.S. Census Bureau
• Government of Sweden, Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Employment
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• Government of Taiwan, National Immigration Agency
• U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration and Refugee Services
• Government of the United Kingdom, Home Office and Department of International Development
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security
• Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees
• Walmart
• Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund
• Western Union Foundation
• Hamburg Institute for International Economics (Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation)
• Heising-Simons Foundation
• W.K. Kellogg Foundation
• Charles Evan Hughes Memorial Foundation
• World Bank
• Illinois Coalition for Immigrants and Refugee Rights
• World Health Organization
• Zellerbach Family Foundation.
And remember: MPI is just one of the migration deep state’s funded NGOs for lobbying on open-borders, anti-sovereignty migration policy. There are many, many more. All of these are important - the emphasis on some of the above is just me pointing out some that are particularly interesting or that have come up in separate contexts in Q research.
The Migration Deep State Alliance System and Structure, Part 3: the European Union and its Southern Expansionism
Like the UN, the EU arose from the ashes of WWII but (at the beginning at least) had much more humble ambitions. Its first incarnation was as a simple ‘Coal and Steel Community,’ between a handful of advanced Western states. The argument went that if France and Germany were obliged to cooperate on their industrial output, neither would have a monopoly on military materiel that could result in a third world war.
Of course, the ambitions of the nascent Euro-elite and their continuity of pre-war Marxist and Federalist ideologies were much greater than that (I have put together an intriguing collection of characters and events running from Count Coudenhove-Kallergi to today’s migration crisis in a short e-book, Behind the European Project: Shadow Aristocracy, Secret Networks, Religious Orders and an Unholy Union, for anyone interested in some of the back-history).
For many years, the European project was simply an economic community (albeit with increasingly centralized legislation for those who would be members eventually). But it was not until the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 that the European Union officially came into being. While it had plenty to do in cementing its own internal relations (not to mention dealing with the end of the Soviet Union and war in Yugoslavia), the bloc showed its expansionist hand by almost immediately moving forward with the ‘Barcelona Process,’ led by Spanish Foreign Minister (and future NATO chief) Javier Solana (another arch-globalist).
Known also as the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Euromed), it began with the Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean Conference of 1995. At that event, European and some African states agreed “to establish a comprehensive partnership among the participants – the Euro-Mediterranean partnership – through strengthened political dialogue on a regular basis, the development of economic and financial cooperation and greater emphasis on the social, cultural and human dimension, these being the three aspects of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.” By 2008, it had become known as the Union for the Mediterranean – a 43-country grouping that became a mechanism for carrying out integration treaties with Europe’s trans-Mediterranean African neighbors.
This empire fantasy was not just a Continental European thing. British deep-staters like Foreign Secretary David Milliband have been key Anglo-influencers. He in fact kicked off his new job in 2007 by proclaiming a vision for a “version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Maghreb, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in line with the single market, not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it.”
These policies are richly rewarded by the migration deep state. Since 2013, David Miliband has been President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, one of the biggest migration NGOs. (This Labour Party member has been lauded by Bill Clinton and, surprisingly enough, recently attacked POTUS’ migration policy in leftist rag The Guardian).
A major beneficiary (on an operational and financial basis) of these initiatives has been the southern Mediterranean EU bloc: Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and (since 2004) Malta and Cyprus. The role of the Greek and Italian leftist elite, particularly during the migrant crisis was huge; the leaders and shadow actors between such countries, and the EU and UN agencies have had a major impact on shaping EU and UN strategies towards using migration, to expand supranational power and influence across what was once dubbed a ‘Roman lake.’
Indeed, the degree of the Europe Union’s aspirations to spread its influence, operations, and funds southward should not be overlooked in the context of globalist, open-borders tendencies in the migration war. Take, for a more recent example, the EU’s ‘Khartoum Process,’ which began with an event held in Rome in mid-November 2014, under the Italian EU presidency (the EU’s workings include a rotating, symbolic ‘presidency’ for different member countries, while the real power lies in Brussels, Strasbourg and Frankfurt).
The official website described it thus:
The Khartoum Process is a platform for political cooperation amongst the countries along the migration route between the Horn of Africa and Europe.
Also known as the EU-Horn of Africa Migration Route Initiative, the inter-continental consultation framework aims at:
Establishing a continuous dialogue for enhanced cooperation on migration and mobility.
Identifying and implementing concrete projects to address trafficking in human beings and the smuggling of migrants.
Giving a new impetus to the regional collaboration between countries of origin, transit and destination regarding the migration route between the Horn of Africa and Europe.
This was no isolated event, and has been expanded as European elites continue to expand their southward reach. The Khartoum Process was considered a ‘sister process’ of the similar Rabat Process of 2005. These initiatives are included under the EU’s overarching Global Approach on Migration and Mobility (GAMM), in place since 2005. By 2013, it had disbursed 1bn euros in funding, two years after the Obama Administration had destroyed Libya through NATO (we all know who benefited from that adventure) and eliminated Gaddafi, who had long kept a gentleman’s agreement with Italian conservative governments to keep migrants from crossing by sea into Italy. But the stars aligned for the globalists with the arrival of a leftist Pope Francis (who made his first trip after becoming pontiff to the migrant-swamped Italian island of Lampedusa), and the leftist government of Matteo Renzi (which was only unseated relatively recently by a populist revolt).
So, what a surprise that when a sudden and completely unexpected migration crisis came along in 2015, a new ‘emergency’ summit was held in Malta in November (not long after the main spike in migrants caused by Merkel’s invite, and at the same time as the Bataclan terrorist attack in Paris). It resulted in the Joint Valletta Action Plan (JVAP)and explicitly linked with Rabat and Khartoum (read the proceedings here); as an extension of an orderly progress, though that’s not how the media depicted it. They preferred the cartoon version whereby heroic and generous Europeans were responding to an unexpected humanitarian disaster that somehow no one had foreseen.
Brussels was then able to pull together by the very next year the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (i.e., slush fund to launder among local and Euro-elite). According to the EU, the Trust Fund is meant to support “the most fragile and affected African countries.”
These have been efficiently divided into three categories, and indicate an expansionist ambition. The first group (Sahel region and Lake Chad) specifies Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal. The second group (the Horn of Africa) includes the countries of Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. Finally, the ‘North of Africa’ includes Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia.
Further, the EU notes, other African neighbors of these countries “may benefit, on a case by case basis, from Trust Fund projects with a regional dimension in order to address regional migration flows and related cross-border challenges.”
So, all that being said, would it surprise you to learn that the European super-state is presently running a big-data analysis center in the capital of Sudan? So it appears, from the official website and from the May 2018 Khartoum Process meeting in Kenya.
At the ‘Thematic Meeting on Data Collection and Management’ held that day in Nairobi, the participating states discussed “data management, analysis, and dissemination.” Discussion followed “regarding the data collection and management practices in the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) region as well as in the individual countries, such as Kenya, Italy, and Malta.”
The event went on to plan for data collection management policy “for the purposes of optimization of migration management… and setting priority actions that could help reduce data gaps, on the one hand, and promote a better use of existing data sources, on the other hand.” This is all apparently being run through something called the Regional Operational Centre Khartoum (ROCK), which has a ‘Knowledge Centre on Migration and Demography (KCMD),’ both providing the bean-counters in Brussels with “accurate and relevant knowledge and analysis” regarding migration data.
But, as usual with these kinds of European operations, there’s a twist: some digging revealed that the actual management over at the ROCK is executed by CiviPol, an unusual public-private group of French spooks. As one employment website notes:
“Civipol is the consulting and service company of the French Ministry of the Interior. As a specialist in project engineering, in France and abroad, it provides customized advice, technical assistance and owner support services, as well as auditing and training expertise in the areas of homeland security and governance. Civipol works on behalf of French government departments, foreign states, corporations and multilateral donors, notably the European Union”
Well that is one wide remit, isn’t it?
When you research deeply into how migration deep state structures actually operate, you find that at the ground level, the actual face of the institutions – whether EU, UN, US or other – is actually that of private or (as in the ROCK case) semi-private contractors. This corporate aspect adds another level of depth to the entire deep state, and helps explain investments, donations, Clown operations, political symmetries and more.
But these details never make the news. Both the existence of trans-national agreements and their implementation are technical, deliberately obscure, and well-hidden on the backpages of bureaucracy. It is up to us to research and dig if we want to expose the criminality, corruption and overall malevolence of those who desire a centrally-planned, no-borders socialist paradise (for themselves, at least).
Chris Deliso is an American journalist and security analyst researching from Europe for the past 17 years, and holds an MPhil in Byzantine History from Oxford University. He is the author of Migration, Terrorism, and the Future of a Divided Europe: A Continent Transformed (Praeger Security International, 2017). His official website is Chrisdeliso.com.
Several animals were savagely beaten in the making of this page, including but not limited to; kittens, rabbits, zebu, skunks, puppies, and platypus. Also several monkeys where force fed crack to improve their typing skills.
And someone shot a duck.
An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.
No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.
And someone shot a duck.
An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.
No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.