De Maistre’s Voice

Can  we get real?

De Maistre  was right: a nation gets the government  it deserves.

What this means is that  people who enter,  or remain in, our country illegally, presumably because they don’t like their own government or realize it can’t protect them from their fellow citizens,  came from  a nation whose citizens richly merited that governance. They are products of that failed state.

Now, Americans deserve a republic.  We deserve a strong, secure, wealthy country.  How do we know? Because de Maistre was right.  We had one! And now we are reclaiming our heritage again.

The Demoncrats don’t want that.  “America was never great!” they  chant in the streets, and even declaim from the pulpits of their elected offices.

They can’t change what the American people deserve, though.

So: the only solution is to change the population.

Bring in hordes of lawless aliens from failed states.  Open the gates to them. Encourage them to muster and breed here.

This, nothing else, is what is behind the Demoncrats’ “compassion”,  their sudden concern for “families” Oh, and please check out what billionaire Dems like Wallace, running for Congress in Pa, really  think of “breeders”. Two kids max,  or penalize the parents!  Why, if he  wins, Trump will be impeached solely for the  heinous crime of propagating four children !

The Demoncrat plan is to overwhelm the “deserving”  American populace with a polyglot infusion  of the weak, greedy, unintelligent and helpless.

Because that will assure the necessity for increasing governmental control.  And will ensure government spending on a level that guarantees that eventually, America’s new, recently-imported populace does get the governmnet it deserves: one resembling the dunghole states which engendered those people.

11+
avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

13 thoughts on “De Maistre’s Voice”

  1. I am serious.  Trust me: Wallace delenda est.  He’s richer and more of a communist than Sanders.  He’s in Soros’ ‘ league.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  2. The really inexplicable part of the Dem’s open borders gambit is that the Republicans fail to exploit it politically. It is not very difficult to make painfully clear the horrendous results of open borders – including numerous recent murders by illegals. Why they do not market the message clearly and forcefully is beyond me. Some leftists who are not extremists, I think, could be persuaded that generous, controlled legal immigration is fine, but that open borders is neither good for them, their families or their country. Do the Republicans want to win? They wouldn’t need to say anything else as to their policies.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  3. The really inexplicable part of the Dem’s open borders gambit is that the Republicans fail to exploit it politically.

    I can explain it. The Republican party is utterly unwilling to advance any reform or suggest any change that might potentially harm stock prices.

    In this example if the borders were secured the cost of labor would go up, causing the stock prices of various companies to go down. Thus, the party fights tooth and nail against it, despite the many obvious reasons in favor of it and the overwhelming support of it by the party’s political base. Further examples are legion.

    I note an interesting corollary to this idea- notice just how astonishingly restricted the arguments the GOP does allow itself to make have become. For example, I’ve read that in the recent Ohio House race the party barely won the GOP establishment kept hectoring the candidate to talk about tax cuts, only tax cuts. And then there was the entire failed presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.

    Weary of this sort of incompetence, the electorate chose Trump, despite the establishment’s relentless hysterical flailing against him.

    But the rest of the stupid party still remains, alas.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  4. civil westman:
    The really inexplicable part of the Dem’s open borders gambit is that the Republicans fail to exploit it politically. It is not very difficult to make painfully clear the horrendous results of open borders – including numerous recent murders by illegals. Why they do not market the message clearly and forcefully is beyond me. Some leftists who are not extremists, I think, could be persuaded that generous, controlled legal immigration is fine, but that open borders is neither good for them, their families or their country. Do the Republicans want to win? They wouldn’t need to say anything else as to their policies.

    Many Republicans want open borders as much as the Dems. Different reasoning applies though  – they need warm bodies to cheaply operate their restaurants, janitorial services,  and nursing homes. Or to serve on their construction teams. (White people need not apply to be on those teams.)

    2+
    avataravatar
  5. Xennady:
    In this example if the borders were secured the cost of labor would go up, causing the stock prices of various companies to go down.

    Not sure I agree with this. A few companies would be hurt but the effect on the broad market would be small.

    Xennady:
    Thus, the party fights tooth and nail against it, despite the many obvious reasons in favor of it and the overwhelming support of it by the party’s political base.

    There’s a simpler explanation for why the party fights against it: donor dollars. Politicians respond to incentives. The principal donors to Republican candidates are Chamber-of-Commerce types who benefit from the cheap labor of legal (e.g., H-1B, H-2A, H-2B) and illegal immigrants. They can underpay these employees and treat them essentially as chattel since the employees are dependent on their employers for continued residence in these United States. And the voters be damned, at least until they figure out what’s going on.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  6. Xennady:
    In this example if the borders were secured the cost of labor would go up, causing the stock prices of various companies to go down.

    I’m not sure I agree. The big fallacy is that cheap labor is “cheap.” It isn’t. It brings with it a multitude of new dependents that don’t make enough money to pay federal income taxes, send half of their paychecks home, and take advantage of the services offered by our overly generous govt.

    I believe Trump is right to give corporate tax breaks to right to work American companies. We cannot forget the extra costs incurred by the labor unions as well.

    All of the above affect stock prices because they affect the cost of living in the U.S.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  7. Not sure I agree with this. A few companies would be hurt but the effect on the broad market would be small.

    True. But those companies affected are going to shriek LOUDLY AND ENDLESSLY. And they’ll hire beaucoup lobbyists to ensure every gop congesscritter feels their pain.

    There’s a simpler explanation for why the party fights against it: donor dollars.

    Exactly. I don’t think you are actually disagreeing with my conclusions, only adding detail on how they come about.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  8. I’m not sure I agree. The big fallacy is that cheap labor is “cheap.”

    I think the problem here is that you haven’t noticed that you’re much smarter and more patriotic than the average rich person. That’s why you support Trump. You grasp the bigger picture, others don’t, or just don’t care.

    I still recall the Thomas Jefferson quote I used to note at the bad place, about how merchants have no country, because they have no attraction as strong as that from which they draw their gain.

    In today’s terms, they’re globalists, who don’t care about the United States at all.

    Hence, their relentless nevertrumping and their idiotic shilling for open borders.

     

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  9. Xennady:
    I think the problem here is that you haven’t noticed that you’re much smarter and more patriotic than the average rich person.

    Flattery is getting you nowhere! 🙂

    I would only add that many of the immigrant workers with no discernible verbal skills and no education cost companies money because they don’t provide quality work and are never as efficient as those born in the USA. I’ve both seen and experienced this firsthand.

    I’m ready to face the firing squad for the rash political incorrectness of my statement. Have at it!

    2+
    avataravatar
  10. I’m ready to face the firing squad for the rash political incorrectness of my statement. Have at it!

    You won’t get it from me. Somebody once famously said that reality is that which doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.

    The reality is that the entire Western World is ruled by fools. Our so-called elite think they’re merely keeping wages down and making stock prices go up by importing foreigners, but they’re also destroying their societies, bit by bit.

    It seems to me that importing millions of foreigners who have no education, no skills, no interest in working, and who hate your culture is obviously stupid- but the leadership of the EU apparently thinks these people are the future European workforce. I’ve read claims for as much, written down by silly people who don’t notice how stupid they are. The United States is far better off than Europe, because at least we’re not quite doing that.

    But we are getting people quite happy to vote for socialism. This will eventually harm the stock market, I think.

    Too many rich folks in this country don’t seem to understand the significance of that, alas.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar

Leave a Reply