Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia capitulate and allow the boats.

Since Tony Abbot has been elected prime minister of Australia, no one is known to have successfully illegally immigrated to Australia. Their boat goes back, or if they are unusually stubborn and persistent, they wind up in a military run prison camp in a third world hell hole. From time to time progressives complain about the conditions in these camps. As far as is known, no one has yet wound up in Davey Jones locker, though some have come close.

It looks like one hundred percent successful enforcement and if it is not, it is mighty close to one hundred percent.

Illegal immigration can be stopped. Completely. You have to break a few eggs, and maybe set a few boats on fire. There are underage orphans in those prison camps (and if there are not, the Australian government says that there are so that no one thinks that they can successfully play the pity card), but you don’t have to drown or shoot anyone.

Under international pressure, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia have agreed to accept the illegal immigrants for up to a year, in return for first world promises that the illegals will then go to some first world country – presumably Australia. The Australian government has other ideas. Presumably the pressure will escalate on Australia, while simultaneously, with a deal guaranteeing illegal migrants unspecified first world residence, we can expect a gigantic flood of illegals piling up in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

The flood is going to rapidly grow to spectacular and alarming proportions, so either Thailand and Malaysia are going to get screwed (which I think is the most likely outcome), or Europe and America is going to take this lot (second most likely outcome), or Australia yields, which I think is the least likely outcome, because Tony Abbot has balls.

The plan, however, is that Australia will take them. As illegals pile up in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, pressure will increase on Australia.

This growing pile of illegals will be the camp of the Saints. The plan was probably to rewrite history that Australia had implicitly agreed to take them, and then shame Australia for failing to live up to this implicit and unstated promise, but Tony Abbot’s swift application of a flamethrower has made that rewrite difficult. Anyone joining the camp is expecting an airlift to Europe or the United States, not Australia.

28 Responses to “Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia capitulate and allow the boats.”

  1. […] Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia capitulate and allow the boats. […]

  2. outsider says:

    Won’t anyone think of all the potential future Einsteins or Curies or legal immigrant Daron Dylon Wint in the camps! So far, the Leftocracy has always gotten what it wanted, and Hillary has already ratcheted her position leftward to please La Raza.

  3. Smithy says:

    I’m really proud of what my government has done here, and you can add to this their very bold and outmaneuvering position on foreign fighters (Jihadis returning from Iraq). Tony Abbott is about pass legislation that in the case of dual nations they revoke the Australian passport, but the real SJW anguish point is for those with only Australian passports will have their voting and welfare rights removed. Well done.

    • jim says:

      Looks to me that the US State Department told the Indonesians, and presumably all the states on the eastern edge of the Indian Ocean, that Australia was going to accept illegals. Which would imply that they are going to up the pressure on Australia. But they have a mighty short attention span, and will probably forget the issue until the next crisis.

      • Smithy says:

        The problem with that strategy, now, for America, is that its traditional allies, like us Aussies, have seen them really fall in world influence. Whereas they might have said “jump” at one stage, and we’d say “how high?”, nowadays the response would be “sure, in a minute, I’ll just check with China what they’re doing first”.

  4. Glenfilthie says:

    Tony Abbot may or may not have balls; but he certainly does see this issue for what it is. The third world is a chit hole because of the simian morons that live there. They will do the same in our country if the swarms are allowed in.

    The proper way to look at the boat people is thusly: you see the wallowing scows riding low in the water – packed with human scum? In 20 years that mess will be 6 times bigger. In 40 years it will be 36 times bigger.

    Balls? I would torpedo those boats 20 miles off shore! That is balls!

  5. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Jim”

    B.U.G.S. doesn’t differentiate between “illegal” or “legal” (quote marks because they’re both illegal in my eyes), and perhaps neither should you. In fact, “legal” immigration could probably be even seen as worse as it is given a false sheen of legitimacy by official state approval. In fact, in the third sentence of The Mantra, “bringing in the third-world” suggesting that the third-worlders have significantly less agency than the white anti-whites, also called Traitors. Indeed, the fight is not between browns and whites, it is between whites (pro-whites) and anti-whites.

    That reason is the reason that “invasion” or “invaders” should also not be used, as some others word it.

    A.J.P.

  6. Forwarded from elsewhere says:

    Forwarded comments re chip fabrication:

    “we have 22nm circuits just fine…since about 2009 or so…HOWEVER, it’s not really used in consumer grade stuff because there’s no reason…parts of the Ivy Bridge CPU is 22nm, it’s literally a shrink of Sandy Bridge…also we have 24nm NAND flash devices from Toshiba since 2010…Hynix Semiconductor made 26nm 64gbit flash gates.”

    I particularly like “there’s no reason”, echoing your “we could if we wanted to”.

  7. vxxc2014 says:

    O/T Jim but I was going to mention your Stationary Bandits have arrived.

    The Clintons.

    • jim says:

      Eight years and only one child, and that child female, is not all that stationary. Now if Bill got sixteen years, and a fair prospect of his eldest son succeeding him, that would be getting stationary. But his semi estranged wife getting eight years, just sucks.

      • Hidden Author says:

        Are you telling us you would value a daughter less than a son?

        • jim says:

          No, I am telling you it is a lot harder to be succeeded by a daughter than a son, and if he is succeeded by her, she will likely have no children. Thus, he would probably prefer not to be succeeded by her.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Yes in a royal family where the house law bans succession by females or puts the eldest daughter after the youngest son, the likelihood of succession by a daughter is minimized by design. But that has nothing to do with whether or not Chelsea Clinton can become President or have children (she already has a spouse).

          • Hidden Author says:

            Look up Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky. Oh wait! By Jim decree, she doesn’t exist since alpha women don’t have children!

            • jim says:

              If Chelsea is having babies for her husband, not going to succeed Hilary Clinton. Babies take a lot of time and energy, and gaining power takes a lot of time and energy. Cannot do both.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Examples? If so, give them, then explain how they are more typical than the opposite situation. Regardless that hasn’t stopped Bill and Hillary from grooming their daughter politically!

            • jim says:

              Infamous examples are the Sikh succession, and the rule of women over the Ottoman empire.

              Katharine the Great was a pretty good empress, as was the Dragon lady, but they murdered and fucked their way to the throne, and sat upon it dripping with blood and semen without a drop of royal blood in their veins, extinguishing the previous royal line, which process selects for competent women.

          • Hidden Author says:

            So was Catherine the Great competent because she was a conniving slut or in spite of that? For that matter, what qualities do you define as competent? And while Chelsea Clinton can not have a career if she is a full-time housewife, it is not unknown for executive women to take maternity leave for a few weeks and then entrust their child to nannies. It’s not good for the child but kings and queens are hardly famous for being good people especially the ones that accumulate extraordinarily high levels of power.

            • jim says:

              Most conniving sluts are not competent. Catherine the Great was competent because out of every conniving slut in Russia, she was the one that clawed her way to the top over the bodies of lovers and enemies.

          • Hidden Author says:

            I thought you said wives and mistresses mar a great man’s legacy due to incompetence. Now you say snagging a great man is a sign of competence!

            • jim says:

              It is not that snagging him is a sign of competence. It is more that snagging him, murdering him, and murdering all your competitors is a sign of competence.

      • vxxc2014 says:

        This may be it Jim.

        And 8 years of reign especially followed by another 4-8 is a pretty long time for bandit rule…and there’s a good chance their issue will succeed them.

        Take what you can get. They – who are quite good at politics – are running on ‘take what you can get’.

        No? Well …there is the Bushes. 12 years and counting.

        Maybe the Bushes are the stationary bandits. They don’t seem like bandits, although they certainly permit it. They’re nice, aw shucks bandit enablers.

        That’s it’s own form of genius.

        8-12 years for founding dynasty’s a pretty good haul.

        • jim says:

          Clinton was OK. He ended welfare as we know, though it rapidly crept back again in new disguises.

          The rule of women who get into power by being married to, mothers of, or mistresses of men tends to be disastrous. They lack both competence and correct incentives. They burn the assets their partner created. Historically, wife, mistress, or mother of stationary bandit acts like a mobile bandit.

          Hillary Clinton is Jind Kaur.

  8. […] that Antipodean Anglophones have found to stem the tide. Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia buckle. He also pens A letter to Sunnis facing Shia […]

Leave a Reply