1/ There's an incredible irony in all the white nationalist paranoia abt the 'great replacement' (i.e., the idea that people of color, Muslims & other 'non-Westerners') are demographically supplanting whites & Christians in places like the US/Europe due to higher birth rates...
2/ That irony is this: the differential birth rates between women of color and whites (and which they find so calamitous) is entirely a function of the very inequalities the far right demands be kept in place. How? Simple: birth rates are driven by educational levels for women...
3/ So women w/access to education & better jobs have fewer kids, per capita, than women w/o access. This is true for all ethnic/national groups at all times in history...it's why immigrant working class "whites" who came here used to have 5-10 kids but their descendants don't...
4/ So as 'white' women have gained opportunity (not fast enough or completely but relative 2 women of color for sure, globally), they have reduced birth rates, while women of color (still lagging in access due 2 systemic inequities which the right defends) have higher rates...
5/ Meaning, if the right is so worried about "replacement" due to birth rates there is a simple answer: a massive investment in opportunities for women of color for schooling and jobs, globally! That would bring down their birth rates very quickly actually...
6/ It's why in the U.S., for instance, birth rates for black women with degrees are equal to white women with degrees, and why black birth rates generally have fallen dramatically as opportunity expanded...
7/ But of course the right will NEVER call 4 more investment in expanding opportunities 4 women of color, even though this would "solve" their stupid replacement fears (re: demographic change). Hmmm, why? Must b bc demographic # s alone aren't their real concern. It's power...
8/ So expanding opportunity 4 women of color would defeat the purpose of their entire politic: maintaining white male dominance. Even if they retained numerical majority in the culture, if folks of color have = opportunity what good is that?...
9/ Which then brings us to the link between their racism and their misogyny. Rather than expand opps for WoC, which would solve their demographic "problem," they advocate restricting opps for white women. They want "traditional families" so white women have to bow to them too...
10/ And if white women don't have opportunities, presumably, they will start making white babies again and solve the demographic "problem" that way...in other words, they just want hegemony. They want to control POC and white women for their own benefit....
11/ It's not about demographic numbers alone, because that part could be addressed by producing greater EQUALITY. Inequality is what drives the very phenomenon they now fear. But they can't give up inequality because they are dependent on it for their own sense of importance...
12/ And 4 the relative benefits it provides them (privileges & advantages) which they're loath to give up, even as they deny they exist. They just want power at the expense of every1 who isn't white & male & are willing 2 use force, violence & authoritarian means 2 maintain it...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Blaming the left for the right's embrace of "identitarianism" (as Ben Shapiro did in his critique of Tucker and Fuentes) is revisionist nonsense. The far-right, in every generation has been identitarian around whiteness, and especially in the recent past. A 🧵 to demonstrate...
2/ If we understand right and left in classical terms -- w/ the right defending and supporting traditional authority/hierarchy and the left critiquing and seeking to diminish it (as with the French Assembly, whence the terms originate post-revolution), the evidence is clear...
3/ The "right" in the U.S. were the enslavers, represented mostly by the Democratic Party at first, who sought to preserve the domination of traditional white, male, wealthy landowners -- the antebellum period's hierarchy -- and the left were abolitionists...
I'm thinking everyone's interpretation of Tyler Robinson is wrong. First, he wasn't someone steeped in left political thought, so whatever sympathies he had in that direction were shallow and ill-formed. Second, he wasn't a right wing Groyper. There's a 3rd option. A 🧵...
2/ Before I offer that alternative, let me explain why I think the dominant narratives from the right and left are both wrong. First, let's look at the "he was an Antifa leftist" argument. What is the evidence for this? Only 3 pieces of possible evidence and none are strong...
3/ The pieces are: a) the engravings on the bullet casings; b) a vague comment from family that he was moving left and disagreed with his family, especially on LGBTQ issues, and c) his texts to his partner where he references CK spreading hate or something to that effect..
Trump saying things like "the courts won't let me do what I was elected to do" -- and his cult buying it -- is an indication of the sorry state of civics education in this country. These people have a sub-8th grade level of the Constitution. A 🧵...
2/ Any remotely educated person knows that presidents don't get to just do whatever they want, nor do voters get everything they might want from a president just because that person gets elected. The reason? The Constitution...
3/ Presidents can't do things that violate the Constitution & the courts are the arbiters of Constitutional interpretation since 1803. So unless the right wants to overturn 222 years of precedent -- the ultimate judicial activism -- y'all will just have to suck it (legal term)..
Just a reminder for the people who clearly don't understand this: due process is only necessary for people who have been accused of wrongdoing. That's the entire point. Unless you're just a gleeful fascist you should support due process for all accused persons. A brief 🧵...
2/ I'm tired of these folks saying stupid shit like "what about the due process for people who've been harmed by 'illegals'...? Huh, what about Laken Riley?" STFU. Those people don't need due process they need justice, and THAT requires due process!...
3/ Because without it, you can't be sure you got the right person who harmed your loved one, or whatever. Jesus, some of y'all hate the Constitution so much it's amazing you can still wave a flag. You don't love this country. You despise everything that makes it decent.
People who say Social Security is a Ponzi scheme are the most uninformed people in the world. The argument, it seems, is that because current workers pay current retirees it's some kind of scam, like a Ponzi, but this is just silly. A 🧵...
2/ First off, the only way SS could have been set up was for current retirees to have their benefits paid by current workers, because when it was established, retirees obviously hadn't paid in enough to fully fund their retirement accounts. So yeah, that's how it works...
3/ But that doesn't make it a Ponzi. Everyone gets retirement money commensurate w/earnings. No it's not YOUR money you get back (there's no lock box where contributions are stored), but it's an amount based on what you DID pay in, which was previously paid to earlier retirees...
Saying "He who saves his country does not break any law," is not only ridiculous, legally, but it's an incitement to extremist violence. Whether one is "saving one's country" is a matter of interpretation. And to Trump, anything that makes America whiter saves it.
A 🧵...
2/ This is the position of every neo-Nazi and other white nationalist too. So whether it's anti-Black violence, anti-immigrant violence, or other related forms (anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish), extremists will see this statement from Trump as a green light...
3/ And the threat is not academic or hypothetical. Right now the DOJ is prosecuting leaders of the Terrorgram Collective -- a white supremacist group designated as a terrorist org in the waning days of the Biden administration. So far Trump's DOJ is still prosecuting them...