Why are the Democrats going "all in" over ICE raids in Los Angeles? Well, let's get the inciting event out of the way: "When the feds served a criminal warrant on a business in L.A.'s garment district, however, they weren't there to arrest illegal aliens; they were after a business owner who allegedly hadn't paid millions of dollars in taxes and tariffs and was part of an investigation into possible drug cartel activity."
Border Czar Tom Homan told L.A. radio host John Kobylt that the bust was over a "criminal conspiracy investigation involving money laundering, tax evasion, and customs fraud where one of the companies didn't declare over $80 million in criminal imports and failed to pay $17 million in taxes and tariffs." He told the KFI host that, "It was a criminal investigation and while we served a criminal warrant, we arrested about 40 illegal aliens."
And that "investigation is part of a wider investigation into cartel activities in Los Angeles." In other words, the riots were initially to protect cartel activities, which explains why the local Democrat leaders and groups were initially so supportive.
But why the nationwide Democrat support (and the foot dragging by RINOs)? Especially taking a position that is so unpopular with voters? Don Surber explains:
The Democrats’ insistence on being on the 20 side of an 80/20 issue tells me there’s a lot of power and money at stake. Indeed, 11 million to 20 million more illegal aliens included in the next Census means Democrats will gain 15 to 25 seats in Congress in 2032.
On top of that, the ladling of federal largesse to states is based on population. California would go broke if only citizens and legal aliens were included.
That explains why Democrats are going to the mats on this one.
Moreover, he adds, "The border is a multi-billion-dollar industry that combines drug money with human trafficking money with sex trafficking money with cheap labor money."
While I applaud the arrests and deportations of the illegals, the reality is that it is too little, too late. Mark Steyn notes that the population of Paramount, California, where the riots are occurring, is 82.3% Hispanic; and over 36% of the population is foreign born. "Which is not normal, outside of conquest or colonisation," he adds.
Waving a Mexican flag in California doesn't mean you want to go back and live in Mexico: it's what conquering armies do. They don't need to move back to Mexico because they've brought Mexico to your parked car: Boyz in your hood. They've annexed one of the most famous jurisdictions on the planet - as, in the third century (this was in the remote pre-meme era), the barbarian hordes did. The Goths and Vandals didn't need to go back to their tribal lands in the east because they'd taken the Roman west with its more agreeable infrastructure and whatnot. Get the picture?
* * *
All the rest is wanker sophistry. They wave the Mexican flag because your flag means nothing to them, your anthem means nothing to them, your constitution means nothing to them. They don't need any of it, because they're already here.
He goes on to discuss how Europe is facing the same issue that is now the reality on the ground in California: the native white population becoming a minority--something expected to occur within the next 40 to 50 years in most European countries, adding: "To emphasise again, the self-extinction of your native peoples is unprecedented outside war, famine or plague. But it is happening at such a rate that analysts are now putting the date on their planners."
So what to do? Well, if you are not allowed to discuss the problem in any meaningful way without being blackballed as a "racist" or, in Europe, facing jail time, Steyn suggests that the time for politics is over.
Treating your citizenry as terrorists would appear to be incentivising terrorism, wouldn't it? After all, if they're going to treat you like the IRA, you might as well be the IRA.
But, if politics cannot include the subject of the demographic eclipse of a nation's people, then it's time to do [sic] move on from politics, as "Prevent" [a British anti-radicalism program] seems to be planning for - and to proceed, in America as in Europe, to the next stage.
If Western civilization and societies are going to be restored, there is going to be war, the mass movement of peoples, and the shattering of various organizations and political frameworks, none of which is going to be pleasant for anyone. And yet, that will be much better than the two alternatives of a) a continued descent into chaos or b) the despotic rule of satanic globalists.
The Spanish restored their civilization and society with the Reconquista. That will be the model for the American restoration, if there is to be one.
In other words, the civil war warned about by David Betz and which I discussed recently. Betz predicted that the initial course of such civil war would be:
... First, the major cities become ungovernable, i.e., feral, exhausting the ability of the police even with military assistance to maintain civil order, while the broader perception of systemic political legitimacy plummets beyond recovery. The economy is crippled by metastasising intercommunal violence and consequent internal displacement. Second, these feral cities come to be seen by many of those indigenes of the titular nationality now living outside them as effectively having been lost to foreign occupation. They then directly attack the exposed city support systems with a view to causing their collapse through systemic failure.
I don't have much confidence that the Union will survive such a conflict as the United States is not a single people, but 9 (here and here) or 11 (here and here) or even 12 nations (here), depending on who is looking over the disparate regions and cultures. After the American Revolution, the different regions were unified by fear of Great Britain. The Civil War unified the country by force and the industrial might of the Atlantic and New England states. But what would unify and bind the disparate states following a civil war?
You and I are paying for the riots.
ReplyDelete