Enough messing about

Pretty much what the US southern border looks like right about now...

It would appear that there is a rather large invading army of South Americans headed straight for the US southern border at this time:

Over 1,500 Central Americans are on a crusade across Mexico in the hopes of being granted asylum at the U.S. border - a move which is set to pose an enormous challenge to the Trump administration's much campaigned about immigration policies, while reminding Trump's base that they still don't have the wall they elected him to build 14 months into his presidency.

"We want to become one, supporting us shoulder to shoulder and show that together we can break down borders," say the caravan's organizers.

Setting out six days ago and marching under the slogan "Migrantes en la lucha" ("Migrants in the Fight") during holy week, the caravan comprised mostly of Hondurans was organized roughly a month ago by the mysterious group Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders) - which solicited donations via Facebook and encouraged volunteers to contact them.

Hot on the heels of this news, the God-Emperor announced that he will not contemplate any further compromises on that whole silly "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" set of executive orders and policies which (illegally and unconstitutionally) allowed an estimated 1.7 million young lawbreakers to stay in the USA and obtain work permits - and, eventually, citizenship:

Well, Your Chadness, that is not a bad start. But it is not nearly good enough.

I left a comment to that video which I think bears some expanding upon here. Consider the following set of policy recommendations:

First: Close down every single US military base in Western Europe and the United Kingdom. Those bases were put in place to deter Soviet aggression during the Cold War under the terms of the NATO alliance. They are quite simply not needed any more.

Vladimir Putin's Russia is not the USSR and Western Europe does not face an imminent threat of invasion, unless the Western powers do something as spectacularly stupid* as provoking the Russians by overthrowing Russian-friendly governments in states that comprise Russia's western border. (Which by the way is precisely what the US did when the democratically-elected Yanukovych government was overthrown in 2014.)

And it is not like the NATO allies bother to pay their fair share of the burden that the United States disproportionately carries to defend them, after all. If they refuse to defend their own borders, the USA has no business trying to do it for them - America has plenty of its own problems to worry about.

Second: Bring all of the relevant troops back to the United States. Based on my (quite limited) understanding of how long it takes to move that many troops - something on the order of 63,000 or so from all four branches of the US military - back to the USA, I'm guessing that would take anywhere from 6 to 12 months.

Of course, I have never served in the US military and do not know the logistics involved in any great detail, so I am more than happy to be corrected here.

Third: Bring back all of the (enormous) reserves of US military equipment stationed across Western Europe as well. Again, my knowledge of the logistics is severely limited, so I guess that this would take 1-2 years. And, again, I am happy to be corrected about this, as I am quite likely wrong.

Fourth: Station all of those troops, and all of that equipment, right along the US southern border, with unquestionably clear orders to shoot to kill anyone who attempts to cross that border illegally and to purge any and all presence of the Mexican drug cartels from the border states.

Fifth: BUILD THE DAMN BORDER WALL!!! It is not exactly rocket science here. If even the top-end estimates of the Wall's costs are accurate, it will cost something like $70 billion to build a "big beautiful wall" along the US border with Mexico.

That sounds like a lot (but isn't, given the US government's insistence on spending $4 TRILLION every year).

But let's compare that with the total cost, every year, of illegal immigration to each of the 50 states:

Right, so let's do a little MAFF.

What makes more sense - spending $70 billion once to build a big-ass beautiful border wall that, if the God-Emperor's hype is to be believed, can be seen FROM SPAAAAAAACE!!! and will almost completely eliminate illegal border crossings into the USA?

Or spending $84 billion every single year to subsidise a large and growing population of illegal invaders?

Now obviously, it does not logically follow that building a wall for $70 billion will automatically result in $84 billion in annual cost savings. It does follow, however, that the existing annual cost will not grow significantly, and will very likely shrink as the existing horde of law-breakers and invaders is thrown out and deterred from staying.

What is more, the USA spends tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars every year to station tens of thousands of American troops overseas every year. There are over 150,000 American soldiers stationed in the various American bases around the world, by last count. The additional cost to the US taxpayer of stationing each and every one of those personnel, every year, ranges from $10,000 to $40,000, according to a 2013 RAND Corporation report.

So bringing back 60,000 or so American troops saves anywhere from $600M to $2.4B a year, in marginal costs alone. That is more than enough to maintain the Wall every year.

Sixth: Leave the bodies of those who try to cross the border illegally in the desert for the coyotes and the scavengers. It's actually better than they deserve for attempting to invade the country.

Now, to me, these ideas make a very simple, if brutal, kind of sense. No nation can willingly tolerate mass invasions of lawbreakers who wish to take advantage of its welfare systems and quality of life, and remain a nation, for very long.

But liberaltards - and big-business Republicans - do not like the maths. This is partly because maths is really hard for liberals, and mostly because liberals love to signal their virtue about how "compassionate" and "open-minded" they are (while living in gated communities with 24-hour security, natch). And of course, mass immigration provides big business in the USA with a huge pool of cheap labour that is not inclined to complain or strike, for fear of being outed and deported.

Even so, it simply does not matter how the wormtongues try to reshape the debate about illegal immigrants invading the United States of America. That is precisely what those people are doing. They are invading every bit as effectively as any foreign army marching companies and battalions into Texas, California, and Arizona to capture and hold American territory.

Honestly, if it were up to me, there would be a 30-foot wall being built along the southern border right now - festooned with posters like this one, right below a machine gun port every 500 feet or so:

* As I like to say - there are actually four kinds of stupid in the military. Regular stupid - e.g. the Joint Strike Flopter. Really really REALLY stupid - e.g. invading Iraq over non-existent WMDs and thereby destabilising the entire Middle East, a part of the world already packed full of jihadist dipshits and nutbags.

And then there is invading Russia in winter.

... Well, true, but the Mongols in general, and Batu Khan in particular, were something of an exception to begin with.

But in terms of the worst kind of stupidity, it is hard to think of a better example than the kind of stupidity that involves annoying a technologically-advanced, battle-hardened, politically-incorrect, and somewhat paranoid nuclear-equipped army capable of going toe-to-toe in a slugfest with any other army on Earth by destabilising the governments of its border states.


  1. Caesar once wrote words to the effect that tactical events can have strategic consequences. Hardly anyone remembers now, but there was good reason to believe that we and Russia were going to be what we always should have and often have been, best buddies, because we have so many of the same enemies. Why didn't his happen?

    Bill Clinton, caught with his dick in the fat chick's mouth, tried to bomb her and the Oval Office Orals off the front page of the New York Times. And did so by attacking the Russians' little brothers, the Serbs (who were not, by the way, one whit worse than Bosnian Muslims or Croats), thus humiliating Russia which has always seen itself as the protector of all the Slavs.

    Putin and US/RU antipathy are a direct result of that. And, frankly, Russia's problems are not of his making. Moreover, Russia is probably lucky to have him.

    Fucking shithead democrats.

    1. Indeed, sir. That particular cock-up by Slick Willy was made worse by the US intervention in Kosovo, in which NATO forces took the side of the Muslim Kosovar Albanians - and against the Christian Serbs, as part of said President's attempt to divert attention from said fat chick.

      Having been to Russia myself, I am baffled by the Western insistence on treating the Russians as natural enemies. Russia's culture, ethnography, history, and religion all make the nation a badly needed ally in the true wars against cultural Marxism and Islam - and the Russkies have extensive experience in fighting both of those diseases.

    2. A cynic - which, of course, I am not - might wonder if the courting of war with Russia, in certain traditionally left wing western institutions (State, I am looking at you), isn't driven by bitterness that the Russians got rid of communism.

    3. I don't disagree at all, sir. On the other hand, I am reminded of Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

    4. Ah, but there is Kratman's corollary to that: "except in the case of liberals and lefties, who are both stupid AND malicious."

    5. Good point, sir - impossible to argue with that one.


Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts