Joined October 2024
163 Photos and videos
The Archivist retweeted
Cute theory, let's play it out. A monkey hoards a trillion bananas. The troop, enraged, beats him to death. They gather around the pile to feast at last. But... oh wait, there is no pile. It turns out the "bananas" were shares in a banana-launching company the dead monkey founded. The shares were worth a trillion because he was alive to run it. Now he is dead and the stock is worth $0. The retarded monkeys have clubbed their way into a recession. But it gets worse. Half the "bananas" were tied up in a rocket that supplies bananas to monkeys on the far mountain who had no bananas at all. Another chunk was tied up in a little satellite dish that beamed banana coordinates to the troop after a flood took out their trees. So now they realized they beat to death the only monkey who knew how the dish worked. So the monkeys sit there. No bananas. No rockets. No coordinates to get more banananas. Just a dead body and a powerful sense of fairness as they all now became infinitely poorer. OH And somewhere a smaller monkey watches the whole thing and quietly decides he will never build anything in front of these animals again.
in nature if a monkey hoarded 1 trillion bananas the other monkeys would beat that monkey to death and take his bananas
617
4,070
28,451
954,017
The Archivist retweeted
I really don’t understand true greed. If I was worth $1 trillion, you’d have to physically stop me from solving as many of the world’s problems as possible. Everyone would have access to cheap spaceflight, satellite coms, solar energy, electric cars, AI. I just don’t get it.
I really don’t understand true greed. If I was worth $1 trillion, you’d have to physically stop me from solving as many of the world’s problems as possible. Everyone would have a home, food on the table, proper healthcare, happiness. I just don’t get it.
275
231
4,045
136,798
The Archivist retweeted
Since I’m still trending, just wanted to take the opportunity to remind our Senate that part of the reason we have 53 Republican colleagues today & not 52 is because of Pennsylvania. Senator Bob Casey Jr. was defeated by a mere 15,000 votes. I would also like to remind our Senate that you would have an even greater majority today had you secured our elections years ago. In 2024, we should have won AZ, MI, NV, & WI. If you take into account the debacle of the 2020 election followed by Georgia Senate runoff elections, Republicans should have closer to 60 seats. So, if you pass the SAVE America Act, you will be rewarded with votes & likely bigger majorities. If you do not pass the SAVE America Act, then I can guarantee that Louisiana & Texas won’t be the last time that incumbent Senators were defeated — peacefully & respectfully.
1,096
12,621
50,308
350,754
The Archivist retweeted
More and more people on the moderate and conservative side are recognizing that feminism has been harmful. They talk about how it lied to women, made women unhappy, damaged families, hurt boys, and left men struggling. But frustratingly, the conversation often ends in the same place: women as the primary victims. Women are the victims of dating apps. Women are the victims of birth control. Women are the victims of delayed motherhood. Women are the victims of feminism itself. Even if all those things disappeared tomorrow, the deeper problem would remain. Feminism’s greatest victory was not dating apps, birth control, or women entering the workforce. It was teaching us that every social question must be judged primarily by how it affects women. Can we say that children need their mothers without immediately shifting the conversation to whether mothers will be bored? Can we say that a struggling marriage should sometimes be endured for the sake of the children without immediately asking whether the wife feels fulfilled? Can we ask what men need from women without first reassuring ourselves that women will benefit too? The family was built on obligations flowing in all directions. Feminism taught us to see obligations to women as moral, and obligations from women as oppression. Until that attitude changes, feminism remains undefeated.
130
285
1,784
65,426
The Archivist retweeted
Firebombing is part and parcel of life in the big city and it's important that the Muslim community doesn't look back in anger. Backlash against peaceful Englishmen will not be tolerated.
🚨NEW: An Imam's home was "fire-bombed" in the early hours of this morning in Bolton, England, as widespread unrest continues over attempted beheading by Sudanese migrant Hadi Alodid [@itvnews]
368
4,334
51,679
871,976
The Archivist retweeted
So like if it was 20 votes, I’d understand. There’s going to be a reasonable margin of error. But it’s 18,000 votes, all for Spencer Pratt that have been rejected. That’s not an accident. It’s treason. Committed by the people who want to “defend democracy” whatever that means.
🚨 BREAKING NEWS: Tens of thousands of Spencer Pratt voters are now receiving rejection letters from the county clerk saying that their ballots were not counted due to signature irregularities. Yet, Governor Gavin Newsom just passed legislation that would make it illegal for anyone conducting oversight, to contest signatures that they deemed fraudulent. Democrats allow ballots to be signed with an X, a -, or a 🙂 to pass and count, but all of a sudden, only Republican signatures are being flagged for irregularities, rejected, and not counted. 🤔 One of these California Republican voters said that his signature has been on file for over 20 years and there has never been an issue until he voted for Spencer Pratt. Nithya Ramen has beaten Spencer Pratt by less than 3000 votes. There are at least 18,000 Pratt voters who received this letter saying their votes were rejected.
846
7,221
22,098
465,033
The Archivist retweeted
Gen Z realizing one of the biggest shocks after college is that life no longer happens around you. In school, friends, events, relationships, and opportunities are built into your environment. As an adult, if you don't actively create a social life, weeks can turn into months surprisingly fast.
448
3,080
34,366
4,243,281
The Archivist retweeted
Let me explain this slowly, because you have the whole thing backwards. Social Security was broken the day it was born. It is not an investment. There is no account with your name on it. The money taken from you is handed to today's retirees, and your benefits will be paid by taxing tomorrow's workers. That is the exact structure of a Ponzi scheme. It works only while each generation is large enough to fund the one before it, and it collapses the moment the math turns, which was guaranteed from the start. So when you blame the 2032 shortfall on Trump's tax cuts, you are pointing at a leak on the deck of a ship that was built to sink. Every rational critic warned of this from day one, decades before Trump existed. You are now using our argument to demand more of the poison that caused it. And your fix? "Scrap the cap." Take more. That is what is said every time the scheme nears collapse: raise the tax, lift the cap, push the reckoning onto the next worker. It does not save the system. It just enlarges the eventual fall and seizes more of a man's earnings along the way. You cannot rescue a Ponzi scheme by feeding it. You can only stop forcing people into it. The problem was never the rate. It was the premise: that one man's retirement is a claim on another man's paycheck. It never was, and no cap, cut, or increase will change that.
Thanks to Trump's tax cuts for the rich, Social Security's trustees warn the program will be unable to pay out full benefits by 2032. There's only one way to reverse this trend. Scrap the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes.
167
444
1,986
62,348
The Archivist retweeted
Il faut avoir l'honnêteté de reconnaître le coup de génie de la gauche, parce que c'en est un. Le plus grand hold-up rhétorique du siècle tient en un seul mot : raciste. Voici le mécanisme. Après 1945, après les droits civiques, l'Occident a fait du racisme le mal absolu. À juste titre : c'est une de ses plus grandes conquêtes morales. « Raciste » est devenu le mot le plus radioactif de la langue, l'excommunication moderne, la mort sociale instantanée. Le coup de génie a été de détourner ce capital moral. Pas pour protéger des personnes : pour protéger une idéologie. L'égalitarisme des résultats ne gagne jamais un débat sur les faits. Il produit l'inverse de ce qu'il promet, partout, à chaque fois. Alors plutôt que de gagner le débat, on a rendu le débat impayable. Tu questionnes les résultats de l'immigration sans assimilation ? Raciste. Tu défends le mérite ? Raciste. Les maths avancées ? Racistes. Les frontières ? Racistes. Le mot a cessé de décrire un comportement pour décrire une position sur l'échiquier. Et regardez la beauté technique du dispositif. Pas besoin d'arguments : l'accusation suffit. Pas besoin de procès : la dénégation aggrave le cas (votre défensivité prouve votre culpabilité). Pas besoin de police : la peur fait le travail, chacun se surveille lui-même et surveille son voisin gratuitement. Il suffit d'exécuter publiquement quelques exemples par an pour tenir des millions de gens. Une idéologie irréfutable, protégée par un mot imprononçable. Les deux pare-feux du même système : la French Theory avait aboli la vérité, l'accusation a aboli le débat. Est-ce qu'un comité s'est réuni pour concevoir ça ? Pas besoin. Les idées subissent une sélection darwinienne : celles qui survivent sont celles qui se défendent le mieux. Marcuse avait quand même déposé le brevet dès 1965, noir sur blanc : tolérance pour les mouvements de gauche, intolérance pour ceux de droite. Le reste a évolué tout seul. Il faut l'avouer : c'était génial. Mais ce dispositif génial avait un coût, et le coût a un bilan. À Rotherham, le rapport officiel Jay a établi que des fonctionnaires britanniques ont laissé plus de 1 400 gamines se faire exploiter pendant seize ans, en partie par peur d'être traités de racistes s'ils nommaient les faits. Relisez cette phrase. Des enfants ont été sacrifiées à un mot. Voilà ce que veut dire idéologie mortifère : pas une métaphore, un bilan. Et maintenant, regardez ce qui s'effondre sous nos yeux. Une insulte ne fonctionne que si elle fait peur, et une monnaie ne fonctionne que si elle est rare. Ils ont imprimé le mot comme Weimar imprimait le mark. Quand tout est raciste, plus rien ne l'est. Résultat : des tweets qui commencent par « traitez-moi de raciste si vous voulez » récoltent des dizaines de milliers de likes et l'approbation de l'homme le plus riche du monde. Il y a dix ans, cette phrase était un suicide professionnel. Aujourd'hui, c'est un haussement d'épaules. L'hyperinflation a tué la monnaie. Et voilà la vraie tragédie, que les faussaires devront porter : en imprimant le mot sans limite, ils l'ont brûlé pour tout le monde. Y compris pour nommer le vrai racisme quand il existe, car il existe. Les faux-monnayeurs ne détruisent pas que leur arme. Ils détruisent le mot dont une société honnête a besoin. Privée de son mot magique, l'idéologie va maintenant devoir faire ce qu'elle n'a jamais su faire : gagner un débat sur les faits. Elle ne le gagnera pas. Au travail.
Tout le monde pense que le monde libre a gagné en 1989, à la chute du mur de Berlin. C'est faux. Et c'est exactement pour ça que le monde est aujourd'hui en feu. Ce qui est tombé le 9 novembre 1989, c'est un appareil. Une économie planifiée, un empire militaire, un mur de béton. Ce qui n'est pas tombé, c'est l'idée. L'idée que le monde se divise en oppresseurs et en opprimés. L'idée qu'il existe une égalité finale à atteindre, par tous les moyens. L'idée que tout ce qui existe (la famille, la nation, le mérite, l'héritage) est une structure de domination à abattre. Cette idée-là n'était plus dans le bâtiment quand le bâtiment s'est effondré. Il faut reprendre la chronologie, parce que tout est dans la chronologie : Le communisme économique avait un défaut fatal : il était réfutable. Il promettait l'abondance, il produisait des famines. Il promettait l'émancipation, il produisait des barbelés. Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, L'Archipel du Goulag publié à Paris en 1973, les boat people de 1979 : à chaque décennie, le réel envoyait sa réfutation. Les boat people étaient une réfutation flottante, visible depuis les plages. Alors l'idéologie a fait ce que fait tout organisme menacé : elle a muté. La mutation a un nom, et j'en ai raconté la généalogie ici : la French Theory. Foucault a déplacé la guerre du terrain des faits, où le communisme perdait à chaque fois, vers le terrain du savoir lui-même. S'il n'y a pas de vérité, s'il n'y a que des rapports de pouvoir déguisés en savoir, alors plus aucune famine, plus aucun mur, plus aucun goulag ne peut réfuter quoi que ce soit. La French Theory n'a pas enterré le marxisme. Elle l'a rendu irréfutable. Et la mutation a des dates. Toutes antérieures à 1989. 1934 : l'École de Francfort, chassée d'Allemagne, s'installe à Columbia. La critique de l'économie devient critique de la culture. 1964-1965 : Marcuse, exilé allemand devenu professeur américain, remplace le prolétariat défaillant par un nouveau sujet révolutionnaire (les minorités, les étudiants, les marginaux) et écrit noir sur blanc que la tolérance doit être accordée aux mouvements de gauche et refusée à ceux de droite. Octobre 1966 : le débarquement a une date précise. Université Johns Hopkins, Baltimore. Derrida, Barthes, Lacan présentent la pensée française aux campus américains. 1967 : Rudi Dutschke lance le mot d'ordre, la longue marche à travers les institutions. 1968 : les révolutions de rue échouent partout. Qu'importe. La révolution ne passera plus par la rue, elle passera par la salle de classe. 1975-1985 : Yale, Berkeley, Columbia absorbent la théorie, qui devient le système d'exploitation des humanités. 1987 : Allan Bloom publie The Closing of the American Mind pour donner l'alerte. Un million d'exemplaires vendus. L'université le traite de réactionnaire et passe à autre chose. L'Amérique avait son Aron, elle en a fait la même chose que nous du nôtre. Puis arrive le 9 novembre 1989. Le Mur tombe. L'Occident célèbre. Fukuyama avait déclaré la fin de l'Histoire dès l'été, avant même la chute. On démantèle les missiles, on encaisse les dividendes de la paix, on déclare le match terminé. Nous avons célébré notre victoire sur une adresse vide. L'idéologie avait déménagé vingt ans plus tôt. Nous avons gagné contre les chars et perdu contre les chaires. Pendant ce temps, l'autre empire communiste faisait la lecture inverse. Pékin avait écrasé Tian'anmen dans le sang cinq mois avant Berlin. Sinistre, mais lucide sur un point : la Chine savait que la guerre était idéologique. Elle a choisi : abandonner l'économie marxiste, garder le contrôle du récit. L'Occident a fait l'exact opposé : il a gardé le marché et absorbé l'idéologie. Trente-cinq ans plus tard, regardez qui construit des centrales et qui déboulonne ses statues. Vous voulez la preuve que c'est le même logiciel ? Faites la table de correspondance. La lutte des classes est devenue la lutte des identités. Les koulaks sont devenus les privilégiés. L'autocritique maoïste est devenue le privilege checking. Les commissaires politiques sont devenus les DEI officers. Le samizdat est devenu le compte shadowbanné. La nomenklatura a quitté Moscou pour Davos et Bruxelles. Et le paradis ne s'appelle plus la société sans classes : il s'appelle l'équité, l'égalité des résultats. Exactement ce que je décrivais ici il y a quelques semaines. On me dira : il n'y a pas de Goulag. C'est vrai. C'est même tout le génie de la version 2.0. Le communisme dur devait briser les corps parce qu'il ne tenait pas les esprits. Le communisme mou tient les esprits : il lui suffit de briser les carrières. Pas de camps, des services RH. Pas de procès de Moscou, des excuses publiques. Pas de Sibérie, la mort sociale. Demandez aux émigrés du bloc de l'Est installés en Occident ce qu'ils ressentent en traversant une université américaine en 2026. Ils reconnaissent l'odeur. Et voilà pourquoi le monde est en feu. Une civilisation a passé trente-cinq ans à enseigner à ses propres enfants qu'elle était le problème. Résultat : elle ne sait plus défendre ses frontières, transmettre son héritage, ni même nommer ses ennemis. Quand la présidente de Harvard, devant le Congrès, répond que condamner un appel au génocide « dépend du contexte », vous voyez le logiciel tourner en production. Et les prédateurs du dehors lisent cette faiblesse comme un livre ouvert : Moscou teste, Pékin patiente, l'islamisme avance dans les rues de nos capitales. Le feu extérieur n'est que la conséquence du désarmement intérieur. On ne brûle bien que les maisons qui se sont vidées de leurs défenseurs. Le Mur n'est pas tombé. Il s'est déplacé. Il ne sépare plus l'Est de l'Ouest : il passe désormais à l'intérieur de chaque institution occidentale, entre ceux qui construisent et ceux qui déconstruisent. La première guerre froide s'est gagnée avec des missiles et du PIB. La seconde se gagnera avec des écoles, des médias libres et des modèles d'IA. Celui qui écrit les valeurs dans les machines écrira le prochain 1989. Cette fois, ne nous trompons pas de victoire. Au travail.
977
5,407
21,062
20,031,977
The Archivist retweeted
What terrifies me about this attempted beheading is the potential backlash against peaceful beheaders.
479
5,165
66,703
938,426
The Archivist retweeted
People demanding "proof" of election fraud are not understanding how crime works. I worked at Manhattan DA for over 2 years, one in Homicide. We never had video proof of the crime. We almost never had DNA. These are things that occur on CSI on TV, not in real life. And we still convicted people all the time. What we had was testimony and circumstantial evidence. Travel times, bank records, cell phone data, gate access codes. Motive, capability, benefit, time and place. Never direct proof. Of course the defendant always denied the crime, but there was enough evidence to show that one had to have occurred nonetheless. If what we have in the LA Mayoral election is a statistical anomaly that is beyond reasonable explanation with anything besides fraud, that is enough to prove a crime. This has been true since the beginning of Western Civlization.
1,981
7,538
33,784
1,851,802
The Archivist retweeted
Today was the day! The guardrail that replaced the one that killed my daughter was hit and there was a different outcome this time.
There was a big crash with the SAFE terminal which replaced the one that was there when my daughter died.
169
1,683
48,549
1,792,739
The Archivist retweeted
American feminism is so funny because they try so so desperately to make a female centered movie and female heroes and it ALWAYS ends up cringey and bad. Meanwhile Japan makes Kiki's Delivery service and Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away and you don't even notice they succeed at what America was trying to do. Because they're not trying to be feminist, rather, they're showing females who fully embody VIRTUE. Feminism is the rejection of virtue so the ideology can never create female stories with heroic girl characters.
172
953
7,887
280,885
The Archivist retweeted
A member of Reformation Church submitted this video to his employer’s “What PRIDE means to me” campaign. Corporate wanted public clips to signal support for LGBTQ. After his submission, the whole program vanished. Videos pulled. Prizes canceled. No reply. That is Christian witness. Christ is King!
75
711
4,335
139,580
The Archivist retweeted
Some further thoughts on IQ. When I was young, some time in the 20th century, someone informed me that my score on a certain academic admissions test qualified me for membership in something called the "Pi Society". I believe it no longer exists, but it was something like MENSA. Being skeptical, but curious, I went down a very deep early-internet rabbit of "high-IQ societies". There were quite a few of them. There was even a society whose admission criteria was a test standard of one in a billion people, which contained, by astonishing coincidence, exactly six members. One wonders what would have happened if a seventh qualifier had come along... kicked out their lowest-performing member? After some sniffing around, I had a general impression of what these groups mostly did, which was... make IQ tests, and take the IQ tests that other members made. At which point, I had a key realization. These people weren't the best and brightest on the planet. They were logic puzzle hobbyists. Which explained why I had never heard of any of them outside of the high-IQ society context. Because making logic puzzles isn't exactly a trillion dollar global industry. Now, none of this implies that IQ isn't real (it is), or that it isn't important (it is), or that IQ tests don't measure it effectively (they usually do). The point is, they don't measure it directly. They can't. They measure the performance of skills which highly correlate to it. Like solving logic puzzles. IQ is an invisible beast that casts a shadow in sunlight. You can't see it, but the shadow proves it is there. You can measure the one by measuring the other, but your results can always be distorted by lighting conditions. Solving logic puzzles correlates very well to IQ, but it's also a skill on its own, which can be practiced. Or influenced by other skills and knowledge. For example, take the puzzle pictured below. Whether you can solve it or not correlates to intelligence, yes. But since I have a degree in computer science, it's very easy for me to say "XOR", and just be done with it. Someone just as intelligent as me, but with no such background, would have to go through more steps. He would have to invent the concept of "XOR" on the spot before solving the puzzle. The question would be harder for him, and easier for me. So, these super-IQs of 200 or more, attained on tests specially designed to make such results possible, might have a limited amount to do with inherent IQ as we understand it, and more to do with a practiced skill at taking IQ tests. A test of this sort might accurately rate (or underrate) someone who comes in cold, and vastly overrate someone who enjoys logic puzzles instead of, say, designing and building rockets. Now, there is a field of psychometrics, which is devoted to minimizing these sorts of effects, but having gone down that rabbit hole, too, I can tell you that success that area is much more limited than those working on it would have you believe. In other words, any metric can become a target, and when it is a target, it begins to lose effectiveness as a metric. In other other words, all abstractions leak, because that which does not leak is not an abstraction. Why all this? Because there is a point, somewhere up in the IQ stratosphere, where those aspects of IQ which are easily measured (logic puzzles) diverge from those aspects of IQ which we care about (rockets). A logic puzzle is ultimately a question of intent. What is the intended answer by the human puzzle designer? But we don't care about intelligence in order to solve logic puzzles. We care about intelligence in order to solve natural problems. And natural problems have no intent. They weren't designed by a human. So when we give Alan and Bob an IQ test, and Alan scores 115 while Bob scores 130, we know that Bob should get the rocket-design job, and Alan should go be a doctor or a lawyer or something. But the same is not necessarily true between 145 and 160, and even less necessarily true between 160 and 175 (which is beyond the range of standard tests anyway). Conclusion is that there's no point in giving Elon Musk an IQ test. And don't try to replace him with Mary Vos Savant, 'cause you won't like the results.
This is why IQ tests don't work too well on really smart people. Because sorta smart people tend to give the expected answer. And really smart people tend to point out that the question is wrong, and start arguing with the test, or trying to correct it, thereby making the test impossible to grade and annoying everyone. The expected answer to this is 72. Because 2*2*2 = 8 and 5*5*2 = 50, so 6*6*2 = 72. But the (really) correct answer is "I don't know." Because what you have is two points on a 3 dimensional graph (x,y) -> z. z = 2*x*y is one surface that can be drawn through these two points. And I suspect it's the simplest formula for a surface that can be so drawn, although I haven't bothered to check. But an infinite number of contiguous surfaces can be drawn in three dimensions that encompass these points (2,2,8) and (5,5,50). Each of these surfaces can be described by its own formula. Some of them will also touch (6,6,72). But others of them will touch (6,6, {something else entirely}) instead. This might sound really, really pedantic. But it's not. Everyone knows that the expected answer is the simple one, but that's only on a test... a fake artificial made up problem. When we start trying to do this in the real world, which, after all is what this "IQ" thing is actually for, then using the same kind of "IQ test thinking" can get you in trouble. "My 3-month-old son is now TWICE as big as when he was born. He's on track to weigh 7.5 trillion pounds by age 10." -@pronounced_kyle Fitting the simplest-formula curve, as opposed to the correct curve, makes our predictions of real-world stuff dead wrong. So this kind of test question promotes a dangerous habit of thought. But, Devon, I hear some of you ask, doesn't the principle of Occam's Razor demand that we fit the simplest curve? No. No, it does not. It does not require that we select the simplest possible answer, given what we have currently seen. It requires that we prefer hypotheses that make fewer assumption to those that make more. These are two different things entirely. If I see one black sheep, the simplest hypothesis is that all sheep are black. The hypothesis requiring the fewest assumptions is that at least one sheep is black on at least one side. You will note which of these is correct. All of this is, of course, irrelevant to questions on IQ test. But questions on an IQ test only matter as much as they are relevant to the actual universe... Where ideas like this are very relevant indeed.
146
39
774
89,154
The Archivist retweeted
You're going to be called racist whether you save your civilisation or not – so you might as well save your civilisation.
448
6,672
47,098
437,178
The Archivist retweeted
I don't think women really understand this... Men can stop this. They can stop it almost immediately. Vigilante and extrajudicial means will be sufficient to deal with this, but they won't. In my observations, a lot of men would LOVE to handle this. They fantasize about it. Yet they refuse to do it. Why? Surely, some of it is cowardice and whatnot but the real reason is that they believe that the second they did, women would throw them under the bus instead of being grateful. The tragedy is that I suspect they're right. I don't think that modern women would show gratitude. I think they would be repulsed by the violence used on their behalf, and would feel guilty (like Helen of Troy did). They would twist it (the ideology is already in place) and turn it against men, and transfer their affections and sympathies to the men who would victimize them rather than the men who'd protect them. We've already seen this play out in Europe so it's not wild speculation. If a neighborhood decided to start a neighborhood watch that "handled" immigrant criminals in a severe manner, they'd have no reason to think that they wouldn't be turned in immediately by their local women. Everyone knows it too. They know that there's some boomer or "woke" girl, or just some "nice Christian" girl who thinks that vigilante justice is bad, or that "violence is never the answer." The harsh truth is that if women want men to protect them, men will, but women are not conducting themselves (or regulating their peers) such that men feel inclined to do this. Imagine if at the end of the movie "Taken," the daughter turned her father in because he broke the law. That's basically what modern men expect women to do.
I'm going to keep saying it - women and girls are the first casualties of mass immigration from the third world. It is only going to get worse for us if we continue on like this.
280
693
6,672
318,598
The Archivist retweeted
During the Ellis Island era, roughly one out of every three immigrants were sent back to their homes. We pretend like America was always this place where anyone was welcome. That’s simply not true. Most were turned away or sent back after vetting for reasons among the following: -They were too sickly or had diseases -They arrived too poor to sustain themselves, and the fear was that they would be put on public subsidy. -They arrived as single mothers with children and no man to take care of them -They were too elderly or disabled to contribute to national production or productivity -They practiced family norms at odds with the American tradition (prostitution, polygamy) -They were contract laborers that would suppress agreed-upon wages in the American system -They did not come from a foreign nation that was under the approved quota umbrella -they were determined to have been imported for “immoral purposes” (sex, work, homosexuality, etc.) The standards were set on culture and ethnicity, not Creedal assent. The whole poem thing on the Statue of Liberty about the refuse of the Earth is completely fake left-wing propaganda. Nevertheless, even here, the people coming in were from Europe and had nothing to do with the Indians, Arabs, and Third World invaders that we are presently working to send back to their own homes.
87
1,296
5,594
65,438
The Archivist retweeted
For everyone saying “file a complaint here”pointing to some online complaint form, that’s what they want the public to think is the best way to take action.. it is not. Look up the judicial cannons for this district, type up a judicial complaint based on the canons he violated, then send it in certified mail requiring a signature. Even if dismissed, it has to be reported to his insurance. I had a 20 year federal magistrate judge hand off my free speech case and step down immediately retiring early after receiving my formal judicial complaint. It has to be legit. Find the actual judicial cannons he has violated and include only that in the complaint. This is what they don’t want you to know, trust me.
Jake Lang taken into custody at streamer Chud the Builder’s bond hearing after speaking out about a “two-tiered justice system.”
43
264
2,004
87,691
The Archivist retweeted
An alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply. This policy allows our immigration system to function as the law intended instead of incentivizing loopholes. The era of abusing our nation’s immigration system is over.
EXCLUSIVE: Trump Admin Closes Loophole Letting Migrants Stay In US While Awaiting Green Cards: 'We're returning to the original intent of the law' dlvr.it/TSgK6R
3,930
13,212
74,400
43,896,692