A Sea of Trouble

Under a deluge of, frankly, irrelevant news, was the buried, yet ever pernicious, coming of the third-world to the shores of the "United" Kingdom:

"More than 1,000 people cross Channel in one day"

Luckily for Keir Starmer, the focus of much of the media for the latter half of last week was on the King and his entertaining of Trump 47, temporarily tearing attention away from the whole "Mandelson scandal". And you would've noticed that unlike for Trump 45, Trump 47's visit to Windsor had a much less vitriolic reception from the British public. No useless e-petitions demanding for his invitation to be rescinded, far less media coverage of the so-called backlash from demonstrators, and, believe it or not, many in-and-around Windsor seemed happy to welcome Trump.

That's most likely due to the fact that the president was ahead of his time in his first term; he was the prescient figure in world politics who foresaw the deleterious effects of what allowing millions and millions of unchecked fellas through its borders could do to a country. And so, as I said some weeks ago,

"...by now, the effects of importing hundreds of thousands of people year-on-year are being felt by everyone and their nan."

Perhaps the UK wasn't quite ready to accept the far-right, fascist, racist rhetoric Trump 45 was peddling, despite practically voting for it a few months prior to his 2016 election. But as was shown last Saturday, you can't pass off millions of Brits as far-right, racist thugs: the tide is turning now; the Overton window is shifting. Unfortunately, Keir and co. ain't ready to accept that just yet, and so a thousand here and a thousand there is given the thumbs up. Despite the president even advising Starmer to utilise the military to step in, the pm quite clearly turned a blind eye. Although, such a butch move may not be required. As Milton Friedman observed:

"There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite."

The answer lies in the size of the public sector, not the size of the all-but eviscerated standing British army. 73,000 standing men ain't gonna cut it, not in slowly unravelling "diverse" Britain. 'Cus by my maths, which even in the best of times is shaky, it'll take those fighting-age men just over a couple of months to muster an army the size of Britain's, should these numbers continue. So perhaps Mr. Starmer is right to hard-elbow Mr. Trump, lest he doesn't brew a "civil" war, that definitely won't be civil:

Friedman's point was right on the money: If you stop the ludicrous handouts and government programs, all those sea-going, flotation-device decked Mullahs will most likely call it quits. Plus, you'll probably return the distinguished sword-wielding gentlemen captured above. Because once they figure that there are no more "12th-century samurai awareness days", or payouts for "recently afflicted members of the sword-fighting community", they'll follow-suit.

And as Friedman rightly posited, there's nothing inherently wrong with immigration - so long as the state is small. You have to incentivise the right people to come here, not the freeloaders, the leeches and the machete-community outreach workers.

As Mark Steyn notes:

"Big Government is the small option: it's the guarantee of smaller freedom, smaller homes, smaller cars, smaller opportunities, smaller lives."

When government starts getting bigger, very rarely can it stop; and as it grows, it becomes increasingly inept at implementing solid immigration policy to protect the localities in semi-rural England. Hence, Britain finds itself in a "raise the flag" moment.

Those in Epping knew, just as those in London last weekend knew, that it's gonna take much more than a U.S president's warnings for the pm to start getting serious. Because instead of fighting them on the beaches, we're fighting them in our streets.