The argument is that the refugees and migrants are used as a back channel method to funnel money (via remittances) back to intelligence and/or military assets in foreign countries.
VIDEO: "Why The West Will NEVER Be Allowed To Stop Mass Immigration | Mike Benz"
Winston Marshall Clips (12 min.)
The New York Post reports: "Socialist congressional candidate Melat Kiros defeats longtime Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado primary in another blow to establishment Dems." The article mentions that Kiros was born in Ethiopia and was backed by socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders. She is, of course, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
John Wilder's latest is "Birthright Citizenship, The Economics Of Infinity, And The Inevitability Of War." He is, of course, talking about the consequences of the June 30 decision of the four women on the Supreme Court (he counts Roberts as a woman) of ruling that any kid popped out by an illegal or vacationer on U.S. soil becomes a citizen. Or as Wilder phrased it:
If an illegal steps one foot into Arizona and squats a tot, the squatted tot is just as American as Neil Armstrong. If a woman on a legal visa drops a moppet, even if she overstays? It’s an American citizen, just as American as Mark Twain.
The American people, therefore, have no say in who becomes an American.
So why can't the U.S. have an effective border. It all comes down to the interests of those that actually call the shots:
Why they’ve been allowed is simple.
For the GloboLeftElite, they represent a new voter bloc that’s skewed to vote against nationalism and for communism.
For the Institutional Elite, they represent more demand for their services and more job for their gay friends.
For the “Idaho Rancher” they represent a way to get cheap labor and avoid paying the prices it would take for Americans to do the work, and the “Idaho Rancher” doesn’t have to pay for the services like medical and child care and prisons.
For the “Wall Street Firm” it’s a way to get cheap labor that will never say no, and will never report you for doing something shady.
These groups are all traitors.
He goes on to discuss the consequences, including why it will lead to civil war, so read the whole thing.
Over at the Anonymous Conservative, some thoughts as to whether Barrett's vote was bought through a book deal arranged by anti-Trumpers.
Meanwhile, the issue is being resolved in South Africa, where anti-immigration groups had given illegals until yesterday, June 30, to leave the country. The government has deployed police to protect the illegals while President Cyril Ramaphosa calls any calls to violence vigilantism. But this doesn't appear to be a fringe issue:
Reporting from a protest in Johannesburg, Al Jazeera correspondent Haru Mutasa said the demonstrators were both working-class and middle-class South Africans and from different tribes around the country.
“They all have one goal, which is basically that they want the government to do something about undocumented foreigners in the country,” she said. “They’re saying that they’re frustrated, that they’ve heard promises from the government but they’re not seeing any difference on the ground.
VIDEO: "Forced to flee South Africa as anti-immigrant deadline approaches"
Channel 4 News (10 min.)
The Daily Mail reports that "Supergirl braces for a $100million loss: Milly Alcock's movie misfire marks a major setback for the rebooted DC Universe as it bombs at the box office." The article states that the film cost $170 million to produce with $120 million in marketing costs, but then states that "[t]he film would need to earn $300million - $375million to break even[.]" I do not believe this is correct because it doesn't consider the split between studios and theaters, which is typically around 50/50. If the production and marketing costs totaled $290 million, the film would need to earn around twice that--$580 million--for the studio to break even.
Interestingly, despite the studio spin that it was misogynist haters that killed interest in the film, it was women who avoided the film. Metro News pointed out:
You need only look at the demographic for this weekend’s audience, as reported by Deadline – 59% of the audience was male, and 65% was over the age of 25 – which shows that young women, surely the target audience of this particular entry, simply didn’t show up.
The Critical Drinker offers his own thoughts on why the film didn't succeed in the video, below. I haven't watched it, but my sons--who are big superhero film fans--all went to see it this past weekend. And the best they had to offer was that it was "okay". Even my son who is consistently the biggest defender of the actors and directors of these films wasn't that impressed.
VIDEO: "Supergirl - The Most Predictable Of Disasters"
The Critical Drinker (12 min.)
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment, but dissented in part, saying Trump’s executive order does not violate the 14th Amendment, but does violate the federal statute that codified the amendment. Kavanaugh’s perspective is that Congress could limit birthright citizenship via federal statute, but has not.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, held that it was enough that the child was born on U.S. soil to become a citizen.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today,” Roberts added.
Of course, that wasn't true because the members of Indian tribes were not considered citizens until a much later act of Congress.
This was a poor decision by the court. Not only does it misconstrue the law, but it contributes to a potential legitimacy crisis. Or, as Vox Day observes: "As one diehard liberal recently pointed out, the use of liberal democratic institutions to defend the indefensible and defeat the will of the people is only going to guarantee the eventual destruction of those institutions." It is something that Rod Dreher touches upon as well in his review of the film Citizen Vigilante:
... Not gonna lie, I felt dirty watching it.
But I’m glad I did, because it is an extremely powerful movie, for one reason: it tells forbidden but widely known truths about life in lawless Europe overrun by migrants, and it speaks deeply — deeply — to the sense of suppressed outrage that many ordinary Europeans feel towards the film’s twin villains: migrant criminals and the European establishment (law enforcement, courts, politicians) that allow them to tyrannize innocent Europeans. The academic David Betz warns of civil war coming to Europe if those in power don’t do something serious about migration and the problems it causes. This movie shows you exactly what he means.
[snip]
I have been accused by well-meaning people — people who understand the problem — of somehow encouraging civil unrest by talking about it. They’re wrong. In fact, the outright refusal of those in power to talk about it, and to suppress and punish people who are trying, however crudely, to face the truth, makes propaganda works like this inevitable. And it also makes the fascist fantasy of the film likely to come true.
In fact, let me make this clear: “Citizen Vigilante” is a fascist film, in the sense that it valorizes lawless violence in service of restoring social order and an ideal of justice. It shows exactly why an exasperated people turn to fascism as a solution to a problem liberal democratic governments have proven unwilling or unable to solve.
If you don’t understand that, you will not understand the malign power of this film. Nor will you get why it will become an underground smash, no matter what the authorities do. “Citizen Vigilante” is also a fulfillment of Ross Douthat’s famous prophecy from about twenty years ago, that went something like this: “If you don’t like the Religious Right, just wait till you see the Post-Religious Right.”
But as Peter Turchin has pointed out, based on his research of the causes of revolution and civil war, government policy reflects what the elites want, not what the people want. And it has been clear for decades that the elites want open borders and mass migration.
Turchin is not the first to hold the position that there is an elite that controls government policy. Carroll Quigley also wrote about a network of financial and banking elites who, for all intents and purposes, controlled the West. If you don't know who he is, Grokipedia has this summary (footnotes omitted):
Carroll Quigley (November 9, 1910 – January 3, 1977) was an American historian and longtime professor of history at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. Born in Boston, Massachusetts, he earned his doctorate from Harvard University and specialized in the comparative study of civilizations and twentieth-century geopolitical developments.
Quigley gained prominence for his expansive Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966), a 1,300-page analysis tracing the shift from nineteenth-century European hegemony to a bipolar world order dominated by the United States and Soviet Union, with particular emphasis on the instrumental role of Anglo-American financial and establishment networks in orchestrating global stability through institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bank for International Settlements. In this work, he candidly described how "the powers of financial capitalism" pursued "a world system of financial control in private hands" to dominate national politics and economies via central banks and secretive agreements, a perspective drawn from his access to elite archives that has since fueled debates on power structures despite academic tendencies to sideline such causal admissions in favor of less confrontational narratives.
It's been a long time since I read Tragedy and Hope. The book was a history of the modern world from about 1880 up through the mid-1960s. Not a newspaper headline history as we get in school, but the underlying forces at work--particularly economic and financial issues and decisions that the public rarely hears about.
But amongst this, we see that the extremely wealthy formed a loose network to make decisions which would then be put into action by the various entities and politicians they controlled or had influence over. A site called PhiloCrux summarizes this aspect:
According to Quigley's historical analysis, this network did not rely on brute force. Instead, it operated through the sophisticated capture and alignment of crucial societal pillars: international finance, mainstream media, prestigious academia, and government policy-making. By subtly influencing public opinion and financing strategic think tanks, this group worked tirelessly from the late 19th century onward to establish a framework for global governance.
Their overarching vision was one of international stability and peace, aiming to prevent the devastating global conflicts that had defined the early modern era. Yet, the methods they employed to achieve these utopian goals required a profound concentration of power entirely removed from the democratic process.
What makes Quigley’s historical lens so compelling is his own nuanced stance on the network. He did not fundamentally oppose their goal of a unified, peaceful world order. In fact, he largely agreed with their ultimate geopolitical aims. Where Quigley drew the line, and what he fiercely criticized in Tragedy and Hope, was their profound commitment to secrecy and democratic manipulation.
He argued that a free society cannot function if its most consequential policies are decided behind closed doors by unelected, unaccountable individuals. Understanding Quigley’s findings offers a profound paradigm shift. It provides a sobering, academically rigorous framework for analyzing modern power structures, the influence of modern think tanks, and the quiet forces that continue to shape the geopolitics of our time.
But the Morgans, Rhodes, Rockefellers, and so on, are no longer around. What replaced them? Well, this is what Google's AI had to say:
In his 1966 book Tragedy and Hope, historian Carroll Quigley described a network of elite British and American financiers, industrialists, and academics—most notably the "Round Table" movement and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Quigley posited that this Anglo-American establishment held disproportionate influence over global capitalism and 20th-century foreign policy.
Because this network was deeply tied to the power of the British Empire and post-WWII American economic dominance, it evolved rather than being overtly "replaced." Today, the functions, ideologies, and goals of Quigley's historical network are carried forward and expanded into broader globalist networks:
Expounding further:
| Organization | Primary Network Function | Membership Base |
|---|---|---|
| Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) | Policy Incubation: Drafts specific, actionable foreign and economic policy templates for the U.S. government. | Exclusively U.S. citizens; heavy concentration of diplomats, academics, and intelligence officials. |
| Trilateral Commission | Geopolitical Alignment: Harmonizes policy goals between the dominant capitalist regions (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific). | Geographically restricted quotas; mostly business executives, central bankers, and politicians. |
| World Economic Forum (WEF) | Global Implementation: Acts as a marketing and consensus-building platform to merge public policy with private corporate interests. | Global; heavily focused on Fortune 500 CEOs, tech founders, and international heads of state. |
More:
Google accepted my removal of the link to Organic Prepper and reinstated my post. Accordingly, I have taken down the multiple posts where I had split it apart to find the objectionable link.
It works surprisingly well, especially when the pillow is folded completely around the revolver.
VIDEO: "Does A Pillow Work As A Silencer?"
Mrgunsngear Channel (13 min.)
The other day, Anonymous Conservative posted this photograph of Charlie Kirk right before he was shot and at the instant the bullet impacted him in the neck. You can see the neck bulge out both in the front and at the back from the temporary stretch cavity.
You can get an idea of what happened by watching the video below, testing 110 grain VMax bullets from .300 BLK. I've read that the .300 BLK at a short distance like this is approximately what you would see from the same bullet shot from .308 at 100 to 150 yards. A .30-06 could have a bit more velocity depending on the load.
VIDEO: "Varmint Bullets For Defense? .300AAC 110gr V-Max gel test"
ARFCOM News (4 min.)
This second test is of a 125 grain SST shot from a .308 at a short distance. Note that relatively little penetration.
VIDEO: ".308 Win - Hornady SST 125 gr: AR-10 gel test 5/27/24"
Shasta Bean (2 min.)
This third test is of a bonded 180 grain bullet shot from a .30-06 into a gel block at 100 yards.
VIDEO: "DANGEROUS!! 30-06 Norma Bondstrike 180gr Ammo Test"
Mason Leather Outdoors (6 min.)
The ATF report on the bullet recovered from Kirk's body hasn't been released, so it may turn out that I'm completely wrong. But from what little we know, I suspect that the Kirk was shot with a light weight varmint type bullet that expanded quickly and fragmented when it struck bone, which would explain the lack of penetration everyone obsesses over.
War is breaking out everywhere now that the U.S. is retreating. "Dozens of civilians killed in Pakistani air strikes on Afghanistan, officials say"--France24.
While European leaders are messing their pants over a movie of a lone vigilante killing the worst migrant criminals, this is what actual anti-immigration movements look like: "Thousands of foreign nationals leave South Africa ahead of June 30 'deadline'"--France 24. The article relates:
Anti-immigrant groups in South Africa have set a June 30 "deadline" for undocumented immigrants to leave the country, planning widespread demonstrations on that date and threatening a “national shutdown” if the government does not take significant action on immigration.
Anti-foreigner sentiment has been on the rise in recent months, with protests in several major cities across the country.
Three people, including a Malawian man and two Mozambican nationals, were killed during recent anti-immigration protests in KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape provinces.
South African Police Services launched a special $36 million operation ahead of the new round of protests, with acting Minister of Police Firoz Cachalia saying police would not tolerate violence or lawlessness.
The protests, vandalism, and assaults have convinced many immigrants that there is no "future here anymore." The article continues:
Organisations like Lawyers for Human Rights and Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia have expressed their concern following the recent spate of violent protests.
“What is of concern is the rise of vigilante and anti-rights groups. And this is resulting in attacks on foreign nationals through racial profiling,” said Sharon Ekambaram, who heads the Refugee and Migrant Rights Programme at Lawyers for Human Rights.
Ekambaram said members of her group “are very concerned” about the violence taking place against documented and undocumented foreign nationals, noting that many of the victims are not illegal migrants but actually have legal refugee status in South Africa.
The "racial profiling" going on isn't white versus black, or Indian versus black, but blacks targeting other blacks.
The argument is that the refugees and migrants are used as a back channel method to funnel money (via remittances) back to intelligence and/...
