The other day, I heard something along the lines of the statement above and it got me thinking - and looking at California.
You see, California is a state that the Democrats control with very minimal opposition, so a quick look at that state can reveal a lot about what the party has planned. We see: a strong welfare system; high property and income taxes; lenient border policy; resistance to federal immigration control services, such as ICE. We also see an endorsement of sanctuary cities, and attempt to harness the power of ethno-populism by presenting all of the above as something that speaks to the interests of the Latino community, which Latinos should therefore unconditionally support.
At first glance, none of this ties directly into the American Civil War. But take a close look at what happens when you put the policy initiatives listed above together; you have welfare programs and migrant-friendly policy, which encourages poor, foreign-born migrants to try to enter the state. In turn, the Democrats tax heavily to generate the funding necessary to support these programs and build the infrastructure required to accommodate the migrant influx, which only reinforces the migration trend, because it reaffirms that support is waiting and America's place as a refuge for migrants. This only increases the need for funding and taxes, and adds bloat to the social welfare system. Meanwhile, with high taxes, the population has less money to invest and build capital with, which stagnates growth and leaves more of the population unable to move beyond their current welfare-dependent state, especially when their behavior, and wages, are based on what is deemed necessary to live with that extra support system in place and part of the equation. At the same time, through the influx of poor migrants, the state grows with those who are no more likely to vote against the state's welfare assistance than the others living in California at or below the poverty line. Add all that to the Democrats presenting immigration as a "pro-Latino" position all should favor, and you have what makes the majority of California - including a Latino demographic that is now nearing 40% of the state's total population - either dependent on or partial to the Democrats.
With an election nothing short of guaranteed, the Democrats will be able to keep the policy in place that continues to motivate poor migrants below the border to move into the state, which increases the yield from the Democrats' welfare regime and ethnic pandering and creates an ever larger base of support that prevents Democrats from being knocked from power. And that is pretty much where we are with California.
Basically, what we are witnessing is the late Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson's alleged strategy of giving "a little something [but] not enough to make a difference" so as to "have those niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years ", only now the strategy has gone global; that is, the strategy has evolved beyond targeting Black America to now affect immigration and border policy, utilizing an appeal to those outside U.S. borders in a sort of turbo-charged version of the same. Ultimately, the Democrats holding open the door for destitute migrants entering California allows for a certain type of people to take haven and multiply there who are inclined to back the Democrats because of what the Democrats say and promise to give out. Just as importantly, the migrants are unlikely to take the kind of jobs that pay enough to allow them to leave that station of dependence.
With this understanding, the parallel to the strategy in the American Civil War (1861-1865) becomes clear; because, shortly after the war began in 1861, the U.S. military began throwing promises and offers at newly-arriving Irish migrants in New York in exchange for enlistment, which tied the migrants down to fight the war against the seceding states that had formed the Southern Confederacy. In another parallel, to bring that desired effect, the propaganda aimed at the migrants featured inclusive language and ethnic sentiment designed to inspire patronage:
The strategy worked for several reasons, some of which pertained to that era and situation. For example, some Irishmen viewed the American Civil War as an opportunity to gain combat experience to later put into practice back in Ireland against the British Crown, aiding the Fenian movement of rebellion (1, 2). And, like most people subject to cultural/ethnic suppression under the British Crown, the Irish had become attached to and proud of their ethnicity, so speaking to points of Irish identity, or channeling that sentiment into a passion for American identity, became a powerful tool under those circumstances.
But there were other reasons for the success, some which actually help us understand the power of the card that the Democrats are currently playing. For instance, the Irish had a tendency to stick to and follow their own, and that tendency was and remains common of immigrants crossing the U.S. southern border into California. Just as importantly, the Irish came to the U.S. in a destitute condition, and were being targeted for service as little as an hour or few years after their arrival, making them susceptible to offerings of economic security in their time of need and uncertainty. But this mirrors the current situation in the U.S. concerning the newly-arriving migrant caravans crossing into the U.S. from Mexico. The trick is, just as military enlistment kept the Irish migrants tied to "the hand that fed them", the early handouts offered by the Democrats today are creating a state of dependence, as is the inability of migrants to take any position of employment with a salary that will help them sustain independent of said welfare.
That brings us to a final point, which is perhaps the most important: the size of the audience being spoken to and its potential impact on external affairs. Concentrating on luring impoverished migrants on both sides of the border can do a great deal for the Democrats of California based on the size of the population-mass involved, the long-term consequences and the effect on the ballot box. Similarly, targeting Irish immigrants put over 150,000 additional men in uniform for the U.S. military, and this force was subsequently thrown at the break-away states of the Southern Confederacy. The importance of this added strength cannot be emphasized enough, given the fact that the South was already outmatched in terms of manpower, and bleeding the South dry became the U.S. army strategy that won the war. Targeting newly-arriving migrants, thus, was the ultimate strategy.
Recruiting the recently-migrated Irish population was such an important factor in the war that the Confederacy tried to do it, too. Over 40,000 Irishmen fought for the Confederacy. Some even served under Confederate general Robert E. Lee in his most critical moment, at the Battle of Gettysburg of 1863. Of course, the battle ended in disaster for the South, and put its forces on a permanent defense. But few realize that, as the U.S. military marched southward and its strategy of bleeding the South dry kicked into full gear, the Irish became increasingly aware of the fratricide and, with their role as fodder in an offensive war, increasingly sympathetic towards the Confederacy.
In any case, the bottom line remains: that importing foreign populations is a powerful weapon to swell the ranks, whether in military conflict or in the voting precinct. Today, an "import strategy" is being used by the Democrats to monopolize their hold on California for all time. In doing so, the Democrats are doing what both sides did in the American Civil War, which turned a conflict between different-minded souls into a race at an open-body buzz mill, where the future of the country was left to whoever the larger side happened to pull in. To an ever larger extent, sadly, that appears to be where we are headed - likely sending us not out of a civil war, but into one.
You see, California is a state that the Democrats control with very minimal opposition, so a quick look at that state can reveal a lot about what the party has planned. We see: a strong welfare system; high property and income taxes; lenient border policy; resistance to federal immigration control services, such as ICE. We also see an endorsement of sanctuary cities, and attempt to harness the power of ethno-populism by presenting all of the above as something that speaks to the interests of the Latino community, which Latinos should therefore unconditionally support.
At first glance, none of this ties directly into the American Civil War. But take a close look at what happens when you put the policy initiatives listed above together; you have welfare programs and migrant-friendly policy, which encourages poor, foreign-born migrants to try to enter the state. In turn, the Democrats tax heavily to generate the funding necessary to support these programs and build the infrastructure required to accommodate the migrant influx, which only reinforces the migration trend, because it reaffirms that support is waiting and America's place as a refuge for migrants. This only increases the need for funding and taxes, and adds bloat to the social welfare system. Meanwhile, with high taxes, the population has less money to invest and build capital with, which stagnates growth and leaves more of the population unable to move beyond their current welfare-dependent state, especially when their behavior, and wages, are based on what is deemed necessary to live with that extra support system in place and part of the equation. At the same time, through the influx of poor migrants, the state grows with those who are no more likely to vote against the state's welfare assistance than the others living in California at or below the poverty line. Add all that to the Democrats presenting immigration as a "pro-Latino" position all should favor, and you have what makes the majority of California - including a Latino demographic that is now nearing 40% of the state's total population - either dependent on or partial to the Democrats.
With an election nothing short of guaranteed, the Democrats will be able to keep the policy in place that continues to motivate poor migrants below the border to move into the state, which increases the yield from the Democrats' welfare regime and ethnic pandering and creates an ever larger base of support that prevents Democrats from being knocked from power. And that is pretty much where we are with California.
Basically, what we are witnessing is the late Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson's alleged strategy of giving "a little something [but] not enough to make a difference" so as to "have those niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years ", only now the strategy has gone global; that is, the strategy has evolved beyond targeting Black America to now affect immigration and border policy, utilizing an appeal to those outside U.S. borders in a sort of turbo-charged version of the same. Ultimately, the Democrats holding open the door for destitute migrants entering California allows for a certain type of people to take haven and multiply there who are inclined to back the Democrats because of what the Democrats say and promise to give out. Just as importantly, the migrants are unlikely to take the kind of jobs that pay enough to allow them to leave that station of dependence.
With this understanding, the parallel to the strategy in the American Civil War (1861-1865) becomes clear; because, shortly after the war began in 1861, the U.S. military began throwing promises and offers at newly-arriving Irish migrants in New York in exchange for enlistment, which tied the migrants down to fight the war against the seceding states that had formed the Southern Confederacy. In another parallel, to bring that desired effect, the propaganda aimed at the migrants featured inclusive language and ethnic sentiment designed to inspire patronage:
Left: "The Glory of other Irish regiments. $150 Bounty"
Right: "Then up with the Green Flag, The Red White and Blue;
In Striking for Columbia, we strike for Erin too"
Right: "Then up with the Green Flag, The Red White and Blue;
In Striking for Columbia, we strike for Erin too"
The strategy worked for several reasons, some of which pertained to that era and situation. For example, some Irishmen viewed the American Civil War as an opportunity to gain combat experience to later put into practice back in Ireland against the British Crown, aiding the Fenian movement of rebellion (1, 2). And, like most people subject to cultural/ethnic suppression under the British Crown, the Irish had become attached to and proud of their ethnicity, so speaking to points of Irish identity, or channeling that sentiment into a passion for American identity, became a powerful tool under those circumstances.
But there were other reasons for the success, some which actually help us understand the power of the card that the Democrats are currently playing. For instance, the Irish had a tendency to stick to and follow their own, and that tendency was and remains common of immigrants crossing the U.S. southern border into California. Just as importantly, the Irish came to the U.S. in a destitute condition, and were being targeted for service as little as an hour or few years after their arrival, making them susceptible to offerings of economic security in their time of need and uncertainty. But this mirrors the current situation in the U.S. concerning the newly-arriving migrant caravans crossing into the U.S. from Mexico. The trick is, just as military enlistment kept the Irish migrants tied to "the hand that fed them", the early handouts offered by the Democrats today are creating a state of dependence, as is the inability of migrants to take any position of employment with a salary that will help them sustain independent of said welfare.
That brings us to a final point, which is perhaps the most important: the size of the audience being spoken to and its potential impact on external affairs. Concentrating on luring impoverished migrants on both sides of the border can do a great deal for the Democrats of California based on the size of the population-mass involved, the long-term consequences and the effect on the ballot box. Similarly, targeting Irish immigrants put over 150,000 additional men in uniform for the U.S. military, and this force was subsequently thrown at the break-away states of the Southern Confederacy. The importance of this added strength cannot be emphasized enough, given the fact that the South was already outmatched in terms of manpower, and bleeding the South dry became the U.S. army strategy that won the war. Targeting newly-arriving migrants, thus, was the ultimate strategy.
Recruiting the recently-migrated Irish population was such an important factor in the war that the Confederacy tried to do it, too. Over 40,000 Irishmen fought for the Confederacy. Some even served under Confederate general Robert E. Lee in his most critical moment, at the Battle of Gettysburg of 1863. Of course, the battle ended in disaster for the South, and put its forces on a permanent defense. But few realize that, as the U.S. military marched southward and its strategy of bleeding the South dry kicked into full gear, the Irish became increasingly aware of the fratricide and, with their role as fodder in an offensive war, increasingly sympathetic towards the Confederacy.
In any case, the bottom line remains: that importing foreign populations is a powerful weapon to swell the ranks, whether in military conflict or in the voting precinct. Today, an "import strategy" is being used by the Democrats to monopolize their hold on California for all time. In doing so, the Democrats are doing what both sides did in the American Civil War, which turned a conflict between different-minded souls into a race at an open-body buzz mill, where the future of the country was left to whoever the larger side happened to pull in. To an ever larger extent, sadly, that appears to be where we are headed - likely sending us not out of a civil war, but into one.
