How Invaders Are Looting Your 401k

“The French have just invaded.” – Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure

I guess the Mongol Empire had its pros and Khans.

On Monday’s post I gave an example of propaganda, and how it is used to manipulate public opinion.  The example I chose was the phrase “Diversity is our Strength™” which, when viewed from the standpoint of what diversity really gives us, is Orwellian doublespeak.  Diversity causes problems, so much so that journalist Michael Yon has started calling them what might be more apt:  invaders.

One of the problems it causes is related to resources.  While not every invader (legal or illegal) is a net cost to the country, most are.  A recent study by the House Homeland Security Commission (LINK) showed that immigrants (just the illegal variety) cost taxpayers at least $720 billion since Biden took office, and have contributed no more than $120 billion in taxes at all levels, for a net loss of $600 billion dollars.

That’s a huge tax burden, because it assumes that they individual taxpayer is picking up the cost.  So, what kind of costs are in this number?

  • Housing
  • Welfare
  • Schools
  • Police
  • Transport
  • Impacts on Private Property on the Border

If you assume only 10,000,000 invaders, well, that’s a stunning $60,000 per invader, or for a familia of four, nearly a quarter million dollars.  This gives the term “Anchor Baby” a new meaning, since they are literally anchors on our economy, each one holding us back to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, with a net negative lifetime cost that could be in the millions.

If you pronounced her name as “Pamela with a K” would that mean we’d have to call her Pamalak?

But we know the answer of how many invaders are devastating our country is higher, and the cost is much higher than the $720,000,000,000 over four years.  On one side, this money is going to support the invaders.  But this is money that should have been spent on our elderly, our veterans, our infrastructure, and our children.  Nearly every single invader, man, woman, or child, is making the Unites States a poorer nation and is taking from those heritage Americans who have the greatest needs.

Of course, you’re saying, John Wilder, what happened to your compassion for your fellow man?  It’s not compassion at all when all of this is being done against the consent of the vast majority of Americans.  How mad are Americans at this?  Kamala Harris is now saying she wants to build a wall.

I’m afraid to visit Turkey or China.  Too many red flags.

As I have maintained again and again, it is not charity if it is forced, rather, it is GloboLeftists using the resources of the country to pay for this invasion.  As James O’Keefe found out, most of the “private” funds used to assist invaders are actually recycled government grants from places like the Department of State, so even the “private” funds are actually resources looted from you and I.  With no input, with no choice.

What’s Ukraine’s biggest import?  Russian artillery shells. 

That’s not charity, or if it is charity, it’s surprise charity like a mugging is a surprise donation or rape is surprise sex.

Here are more costs that the invaders force upon Americans:

  • Increased Housing Cost: Pop quiz – if 20,000,000 invaders cross a border, how many houses will they consume?  If they live 18 to a house, does that lower or raise housing cost?  If we build 3,000,000 more houses for them, does that raise or lower the cost of building supplies?
  • Lowered Wages: Supply and demand figures in again here.  The derivation of this proof is left to the reader.
  • Increased Crime: It costs $1.6 billion just for federal costs to house invaders in prison annually.  States house even more, so who knows what the overall total is.  This total isn’t included in the report’s number, and doesn’t include the value of stolen property and destroyed lives caused by invaders.
  • School Resource Increase: The 5.1 million children of the invaders cost more than heritage Americans.  Why?  They often speak little English, and that costs, at least, 15% more.  But what about the social friction from invaders with American students?  What about the lost learning opportunities?

In the above list, again, there are missing externalities that are caused by a significant invader class – like needs for new laws, the impact of a large law evading class (48% of New York City transit riders don’t pay any fare), and the loss of societal cohesion.  As Sadiq Khan, invader anchor baby mayor of London said:  terror attacks are “part and parcel of living in a big city.”

I guess terrorism is part of the strength that diversity brings us?

Does it bother anyone besides me that hundreds of thousands of “other” people are invading?

In 2019 the Wilder family was taking a long trip through the Great American West.  It was probably around 1AM.  We were in the space where there might have been two FM channels on the entire dial.  One was an NPR®/college station, so I tuned to that one.

The program was about people from other countries and cultures coming to America and the difficulties that they had in assimilation.  Okay, I’ll listen.  It turned out that on this particular episode, the focus was on invaders with really heavy accents.  What I learned that if you, a heritage American, had difficulty understanding someone speaking broken English in a very heavy accent, the problem, citizen, is that you’re a bad person.  You’re the problem.

Yes.  I’m not making this up.  They actually put this on the air.  Now, I don’t know about you, but if not being able to comprehend someone whose grasp of the English language is as crisp as Kamala Harris’ grasp on sobriety is racist, well, I’m a racist.  And so, then, are you.

I hear summer in Finland is the best day of the year.

That’s the other facet of the loss of social cohesion:  in every instance, the culture of the Americans who built the country is supposed to give way to every other culture.  If it’s culturally allowed for people to be rude, pushy, and insulting in their country, well, take your Midwestern manners and deal with it.  But if you’re rude, pushy, and insulting, well, that makes you a bigot.

It’s a no-win situation.

Like the invaders.  What’s the real cost?  I’d guess no less than double the official number, and possibly triple when you look at the inflationary pressures put on our systems by the invaders.  But what’s $2 trillion when you’re trying to “fundamentally transform America” like Obama promised?

I personally wish the invaders no ill will.  Given the nearly trillion-dollar basket of free stuff, almost anyone would come from the places they live, yet as they cross the border, they carried the flags of their homes, because the only reason they’re here is for the stuff.  For the most part, they hold no allegiance to the United States.  This is the opposite of previous waves of immigrants, who either contributed or died, since fed.gov didn’t pour out trillions to help Uncle Hans from the Netherlands.

The cumulative economic impact of the collapse of our immigration system may be devastating at a time when the economic situation of the United States in particular and the West in general can least absorb it.

But at least we know that peace is war, and diversity is our strength.

Socialists: How To Make A Monster

“Well, ‘free’ is just another word for ‘socialist’.” – Watchmen

There are social drinkers and socialist drinkers.  Socialist drinkers only drink when someone else pays.

TIK History is a YouTube® channel that focuses on, well, history.  Mainly his channel has focused on World War II battles, and mainly battles involving lots of tanks.  He did one series on Stalingrad that (I believe) totaled over 3,000,000 words of script by the time he was finished.  Obviously, that took him years to put together.  That’s more than enough work to earn him a doctorate, which I guess would make him a Stalingraduate Student.

When not doing battle documentaries, he also does some on political philosophy.  Where I do listen to all of his battle recreations, his political philosophy videos are hit or miss.  One that I did listen to (LINK) is one on the similarities of the lives of socialist leaders who had no particular problem with the idea of killing millions to achieve their paradise.

Which socialist leaders?  Well, all of them:

Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Engels, Stalin, Mao, and (and, to a lesser extent) Pol Pot.  TIK included Mussolini and Hitler, and, on reviewing, in my opinion they don’t quite fit the mold, so I’ve omitted them here.

Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao walk into a bar.  There are no survivors.

TIK noted that each of these had the same sort of pattern:

  • Horrible relationship with their father or an absent father.

This doesn’t really surprise me.  Mothers and fathers have utterly different roles in raising a child – mothers teach love and empathy and altruism, while fathers teach discipline and honor and courage.  These are very different tasks, but this might be incomprehensible to someone who cannot define what a woman is.

This is directly from Mao’s Wikipedia® entry:  ”During the 1930s, Mao would claim that he resented his father, viewing him as stingy and unaffectionate. He contrasted this with the affection he received from his mother, thus adopting a Marxist dialectical perspective by dividing the family into two camps: his mother and himself on one side, his father on another.”

This leads us directly to:

  • Very strong relationships with “sainted” mothers.

Again, mothers are different than fathers.  Looking at what mothers teach, these socialist leaders were taught that they needed to fix the world, but never told to fix themselves.

What did Freud use as an insult?  “Your mother is so unpleasant that even your own subconscious isn’t attracted to her.  What, no, this is just a cigar.”

  • Very religious youth, followed by atheism later in life.

Religion, when done right, provides both a goal and a means to achieve that goal.  In Christianity, you’re supposed to help people, but those people should also be striving to be worthy, and there are limits based on the religion of exactly how one should help people:  altruism, but with limits.  Remove the religion, remove the limits but keep the misplaced altruism.

This is crucial, because it means that all power is in the hands of man, and there isn’t any space for a higher power.  Man has no limits, and thus there is no meaning to any of this, so everything is justified as long as it brings about the desired end result.

Socialism doesn’t even work on paper, if history books count.

  • Prosperous or stable middle class upbringing with no particular hardship.

Mao, for instance had a hardworking father that bought up several acres and employed several farm workers – this was substantial wealth for where he grew up – Mao as a child had his own room, which was amazingly rare.

  • Relationship with real jobs was spotty, at best.

I think Marx did some occasional writing for papers, but mostly he lived based on begging money from friends and family.  Yet, he had a maid, drank like a fish, and smoked enough cigars to bankroll Cuba.  So, no job, his wife constantly giving birth, his maid once giving birth (likely to Marx’s kid) and he lived in an eight-room house.  No wonder communism was a failure: listening to the advice of a pauper on the way to get to economic prosperity is like taking the advice of Boeing in 2024 on how to make spaceships.

These people either hated or feared the idea of economic independence.  Lenin worked for two years before becoming a bum.  Ditto with Trotsky.  Stalin’s only job, ever, was as a cobbler as a child working for his father for a very short time when he was a kid.

A GloboLeftist said that if we had to kill our own food, we wouldn’t eat meat.  But I say if he had to make his own computer, he wouldn’t whine on Reddit®.

I think the poor economic conditions that each of these people had filled them with envy.  It’s not that they wanted everyone to prosper, it is that they wanted (especially with Marx and Lenin) other people to work harder so they didn’t have to.

Each of them is slightly different, yet those same patterns appear to remain.  Additionally, I think the family structures (I wrote about this at the links below) of their countries allowed them to come to power in a way that wouldn’t have worked in England or the United States.

Another Key To Understanding It All: Family Structure

Family Structure, Part II: Orphans Still Not Required

When I look to the modern politician that most models this family structure and early life, it is clearly Barrack Hussein Obama – each of the points that would lead to a socialist or communist dictator were and are there.  I think this explains, at least partly, his current engagement to try to steer and control the Democratic party and to “fundamentally transform” a nation that he hates.

Which brings us to the other candidate that fits the pattern:  Kamala Harris.  Although she never won a primary, she fits the pattern as well:  her father was absent from her life after their parents divorced, her mother was her sainted figure, raised as a Hindu, she is more than likely not at all Christian, since her father is a rabid communist and commies hate Christianity.

Makes me wonder if her quest for power has left a bad taste in Kamala’s mouth.

That leaves Kamala as filled with altruism as someone guided by religion, but without the constraints that the belief in God.  Or whatever gods Hindus believe in, since I don’t believe anyone actually understands the religion.

Regardless, these two people are dangerous.  And they are potentially working together.  If you look at the intense desire to bring in hordes of illegal and legal immigrants used to either socialist or chaotic government, look no further for the reason:  they hate America.  They hate you.  And they want to replace you because, in the end, they hate themselves as well.

Here’s hoping that Kamala can’t keep away from the vodka during the campaign.  Perhaps we can convince her to start a vodka diet if we tell her she can lose three days in just one week.

It’s Joever. What next?

“And after your glorious coup, what then?” – Gladiator

I hadn’t planned on tackling the Fall of the House of Biden today, but, hey, an opportunity is an opportunity.  As it is, I think that the world has provided a rich set of memetic information that will more than cover the situation.  All of these are “as found”.

First, do you think Joe knew he’d be stepping down today?  Here’s the foreshadowing:

That brings us up to the end of the campaign.  How did that go?

The results seemed to catch even those close to Biden by surprise:

Lots of folks seem to think the nomination is a done deal for Kamala.  Obama, pointedly, did not endorse her.

Why did Obama not endorse Kamala?  Well, reasons, probably including that she is likely the stupidest person to ever run for Washington, with more baggage than the Lusitania, all combined with all of the charisma of ¡Jeb!:

I think she thinks the quote above is profound, because she keeps repeating it.

The pain . . . !

But what are the other complications?

Not gonna lie, it would be funny to start this program:

What if Joe doesn’t remember?

And what if Darth Clinton returns?  I’d say never get involved in a land war in Asia or play a game against a Clinton when power is on the line.  That does leave me with one question: