Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Balaji Profile picture
@balajis
Nov 15, 2022 • 11 tweets • 7 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
The net result of FTX is that billions of dollars was stolen from crypto investors to give to Democrat-aligned politicians, nonprofits, and journalists.

This is why there may be no prosecution.
Why is SBF so protected?

Why is everyone from SEC to NYT running interference for him?

He was basically Soros junior — just with stolen customer money — and evidently bought off the entire media, nonprofit, political, and regulatory establishment.
archive.ph/HYdcM
The author is a born-rich journo. So he knows Bankman-Fried’s milieu.

And the overall picture you get is of rats scurrying around now that SBF’s money has been cut off — and very much not wanting defrauded crypto investors to clawback those stolen funds.
archive.ph/HYdcM
The stage is set for an absolutely insane zero-sum match.

On one side, one million crypto investors robbed of ten billion dollars by SBF.

On the other side, a network of dark money Democrats who will fight to keep as much of those stolen funds as possible.

The fur will fly.
The bankruptcy case may play out on social media.

Crypto investors seeking to get FTX funds back may hire lawyers like Irving Picard, who clawed back ~75 cents on the dollar for Madoff victims.

And who would they claw it back from? The groups SBF funded.
archive.ph/Uzsos
The fundamental question is: when did SBF start stealing from customers, and how much did he steal?

This can only be answered by forensic accounting.

The headline amount given to Democrat politicians of $37M+ understates it. FTX Foundation alone was $190M.

How much was stolen?
We need a list of all the “donations” SBF made, potentially with stolen money. Here are at least four:

- $69M in political donations, mostly to Democrats, some to Republicans via his subordinate
- $190M to a foundation
- $128M to a PAC
- Undisclosed amount (!)

There’s more…
All kinds of obfuscation games have been played here. Donations made with possibly stolen funds. Numbers that are publicly known may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Where did the ten billion go? How much was stolen? And when was it stolen?
The Crypto Clawback

Anyone with money on FTX may want to learn the following terms:

- clawback
- lookback
- fraudulent conveyance
- unjust enrichment
- voidable preference

Ask a lawyer. You may be able to recover funds by pursuing the organizations SBF “donated” your money to.
This is why the establishment has been so muted on SBF!

It’s because one million crypto investors might clawback billions of dollars, by pursuing the many nonprofits, politicians, and media corporations SBF “donated” their money to.
Ask a lawyer. If FTX stole your money, you may be able to sell your bankruptcy claim.

An investor might buy claims for X cents on the dollar, taking on the risk of getting Y>X at a future date.

For $10B, many groups SBF “donated” to could be pursued. lowenstein.com/media/6418/nat…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Balaji

Balaji Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @balajis

Balaji Profile picture
Jun 28
CHEVRON DOMINANCE

Technology is about to accelerate.
Because Chevron deference is over.
And regulators can't just make up laws anymore.
So, countless new startups just became feasible.
This is often spoken about in the abstract, so let's do three examples and two visuals.

THREE EXAMPLES

1) Genomics. Did Congress explicitly give FDA authority to regulate genetic tests in a bill like Kefauver-Harris (1962) or PDUFA (1992)? No, it did not. But in the early 2010s, FDA attacked 23andMe and forced them to take personal genomic tests offline. Implicitly, this was under Chevron.

2) Nuclear power. Did Congress explicitly give EPA and NRC the authority to implement ALARA? No, it did not. But these agencies came up with this "as low as reasonably achievable" standard, forcing nuclear energy to become as expensive as other energy sources by spending all the cost-savings on "safety." Implicitly, this was under Chevron too.

3) Cryptocurrency. You guessed it. Did Congress explicitly give the SEC authority to regulate crypto? No, it did not. Cryptocurrencies didn't exist when the 1933 and 1934 acts were written. However, the SEC says it has regulatory authority over crypto, even when Congress is deliberating on bills to the contrary. Implicitly, that claim of SEC authority too was under Chevron.

In other words: if a regulator can't point to the law that gives them the power, they may not have the power. And you might be able to win in a court of law.

So! For technology, the overruling of Chevron could literally reopen innovation in the physical world. This is on par with the 1991 opening of the Internet to commercial traffic. It deprecates the 20th century regulatory state. All the safety theater and security theater that they optimize for sounding good while actually being bad now has to face judicial scrutiny.

TWO VISUALS
How to visualize something as abstract as Chevron reversal? Well, Chevron is the company on which the 1984 Chevron deference case is actually based. And its logo had the arrows pointed down. But now that Chevron has been reversed, we're headed up.

And that's one way to visualize what reversal means: from Chevron deference to Chevron dominance. Because rule-of-law now dominates the lawless regulatory state. If the regulator isn't specifically authorized by statute, they can't invent some regulation to stop your innovation.

But there's a second way to visualize the reversal of Chevron: regulators just got disarmed, in the most literal sense. Because ultimately a regulation is a threat of state force. If you disobey one of a regulator's made up rules, they eventually get a cop to point a gun at you, implicitly or sometimes very explicitly.

^ The photo above is from the 2010 FDA raid on Rawesome Foods for selling raw milk to club members that consciously opted in to eating and drinking foods of their own choice. This may have also been done under Chevron deference because FDA only has the right to regulate interstate commerce, and not commerce within one state (which is all that Rawesome was apparently doing at that time).

To be clear, I don't have a position on raw milk other than I do think people should be able to choose their own foods. In their lawsuit against the Farm To Consumer Legal Defense Fund, FDA strongly disagreed, contending that "there is no generalized right to bodily and physical health" and you "do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” These are real quotes from the now-defanged regulators; see the PDF link below.

Anyway — now you get a sense of how big a deal the Chevron reversal is, and how out of control regulators can get. The Chevron reversal strips regulators of the ability to make up random rules. It calls all their existing made-up rules into question. And it gives you the power to ask where in the law it says they can make up some new rule.

You know that saying — the only way they can stop you is to shoot you? Well, now they can't shoot you as easily. So we're going from Chevron deference to Chevron dominance.

I can already feel the T-levels across tech increasing.Image
Image
Many people encountered insane regulators during COVID. I regret to tell you they've been insane for some time.

As mentioned, here's the FDA's official legal opinion[1] in the 2010 case with FTC LDF[2]. They explicitly contend that "There is No Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food" and "There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health" and "There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract."

They aren't kidding, it's not quoted out of context. Chevron reversal defangs these guys. Very big day.

[1]:
[2]: farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2010/05/0…
farmtoconsumer.org/litigation/ey1…Image
If you want dozens of examples of how regulation holds back innovation, I compiled a list more than 10 years ago for a talk.

Here it is. Almost everything in here could now be revisited.
github.com/ladamalina/cou…
Image
Read 4 tweets
Balaji Profile picture
Jun 28
DEMOCRATS ARE DESTROYING DEMOCRACY

The Democrat primary ended on June 8[1]. So why wasn’t Biden’s age openly contested?

It’s simple: Democrats are intentionally destroying democracy. They all knew Biden was infirm. But they waited till after the primary to acknowledge someone would need to succeed him. They waited till the people no longer had any say in who the Party would nominate. In other words, they waited till there wasn’t any shred of democracy involved in picking the leader of the Democrat Party.

What they want instead is a one-party state like California[2], where “elections” are held but a Party member always wins. They want intra-party selection, not competitive multiparty election. This is why Democrats seek to jail the opposition — so they can run without opposition. And this is also why they seek to control the Internet — so that the Internet doesn’t threaten their control.

All the Party really wants is to steal money and give it to their loyalists. That’s what the millions in student loans[3] and billions for nonfunctional trains[4] and trillions in printed bills[5] are all about — the greatest robbery in history. They just want the public's money, they don’t want the public to have any say over whether they're in power.

Unfortunately for them, the public Internet is outside their power.

Thus, social media circulated clips of Biden’s infirmity[6], even as regime media insisted he should be in charge of the country[7]. And prediction markets bet that Biden would be officially swapped out[8], even as officials tried to shut prediction markets down[9].

So, once again the Network triumphed over the State. Biden loyalists did their level best to control the debate in the smallest and largest senses of that term — by excluding RFK, excluding other outlets, muting Trump, “fact checking” one side, and attacking internet debate itself — but that faction within the regime just couldn’t hide the truth from Twitter.

THE PARTY DECIDES
Now everyone agrees that the hot swap is on. Because only Biden's faction wanted Biden to run.

Recall that after the Democrat primary ended on June 8, Obama very consciously put Biden on stage, let him stumble and mumble, and then held his hand[10] to usher him off stage.

That was the act of a savvy politician: Obama was ostensibly appearing with Biden to help him, but was really there to help finish him. He intentionally ushered the old man off in that way to visibly (but deniably) show the world how powerless the “most powerful man in the world” was.

That primed his team for an intra-party contest, and foreshadowed what just happened. The Party put Biden on stage for the debate, let him stumble and mumble, and is now very firmly ushering him off stage.

So, as often happens these days, internet “conspiracy theory” anticipated the regime’s now-consensus reality. Solzhenitsyn[11] put it well: we knew that they were lying, they knew that they were lying, they even knew that we knew they were lying…but they were still lying.

It suited the Democrat Party to lie, to keep an aged and infirm man as their nominal head, just as it suited the Communist Party to have Andropov and Chernenko[12] in nominal command towards the end of the Soviet era. With no one man in charge, each Party apparatchik can quietly loot the public blind, while letting the walking corpse take the public blame.

PRESIDENT NPC
Remember also: the nature of the NPC is that any one man is dispensable. The NPC’s role is to just repeat the party line, strengthening the Party in return for the support of the Party. The person is nothing, the Party is everything.

Biden simply took this principle to its absolute limit. With no onboard cognition whatsoever, he was the NPC President, and has been for years. A mindless mouthpiece for party propaganda, a hollow shell of a man, a Potemkin[13] president. He was nothing without the Party. And now, without the Party, he is nothing.

AMERICAN KREMLIN
So, what happens next? Well, in the late Soviet Union, there was a discipline called Kremlinology[14]. It was about inferring what that opaque and undemocratic system would do, about reading internal factional conflict from public hints.

Today the free world is online, while Washington itself is the Kremlin. So we do Kremlinology through digital prediction markets[15] that the state can't stop. There you will see the Obama faction, the Newsom faction, the Clinton faction, the Warren faction, and the likes of AOC and Bernie all viciously clash and contend for who will succeed President NPC.

Needless to say...there will be no democracy in those smoke-filled rooms. No public input into those Party struggles.

But there will be at the end. Because despite the Democrats’ best efforts to destroy democracy — despite all the show trials and Internet censorship and dissident prosecution — unlike the Soviet system, there does remain that extreme inconvenience of a presidential election.

So, it’s quite possible they pick Newsom. If the Party needs someone completely without conscience to succeed Biden and make centrist noises, he can do it.

Newsom is after all a 6’3” tall, handsome white guy with a beautiful wife and four children. Visually, he's a candidate from central casting. Sure, running him would be a completely unprincipled throwback for a Party that nominally opposes “white privilege” — but all that matters is that the Party retain control to loot the public, so they may get behind him regardless.

And what would Newsom do if he wins? Well, he was mayor of San Francisco and governor of California. So he will bring San Francisco- and California-quality governance to America — complete with dysfunctional million dollar toilets[16] and nonfunctional billion dollar trains[17].

Even more ominously, as you can see from the screenshot below and citations here[18-21] Newsom has already strongly committed in Chinese state media to be "China's long-term, stable, and strong partner". That's why Xinhua welcomes more Newsoms to come:

Moreover, as many in San Francisco saw to their dismay, Newsom personally welcomed Comrade Xi to California by escorting him from the plane, cleaning up the city, and (as you can see above) symbolically handing over the Golden State to Xi with a giant smile[22].

In short, Newsom has very publicly committed to reversing the last eight years of US resistance to China and completely conceding DC to Xi. If he is the candidate, that is the likely consequence.

FROM DEMOCRACY TO ONE-PARTY STATE
So as the journos keep saying, this election may in fact end America's democracy...but for reasons completely different from what has been publicly discussed. It's not the Republican who could end democracy, but the Democrat, in the sense of ending competitive multiparty elections and erecting a one-party state.

Newsom wouldn't acknowledge it, of course. His party will lie without apology just as they lied about Biden's senility. As Democrat Party leader he'd just maintain the pretense of democracy, just as the PRC calls themselves the "People's Republic" of China.

But in practice, as in his home state, and in many blue states, all multiparty elections will be replaced with de facto intra-party selections. They'll accomplish it through court-packing[23], gerrymandering[24], persecuting[25], and prosecuting[26] — as they've actually already done and promised to do!

So the threat to democracy is real. But it comes from the left. If Newsom wins, there is a real risk that he'll succeed in destroying democracy and replacing it with a one-party state.

As they've already done in California, and in China.Image
Image
Image
Image
CITATIONS

[1]: Guam and US Virgin Islands were the last primaries, on June 8, 2024:

[2]: California is not a democracy, it's a one-party state:


[3]: Student loan forgiveness is a political bribe to Democrat Party supporters:

[4]: Not a single mile of track laid as of May 2023 for the $100B California train:

[5]: We don't even really know how many trillions they printed. That's all just seizure by the state — because as Milton Friedman said "inflation is taxation without legislation."

[6]: See for example the clip of Biden at the G7:

[7]: Remember how they called these "cheap fakes"? They even doxxed one of the RNC staffers for doing this. Regime media defended Biden to the hilt just days ago:

[8]: Polymarket is a prediction market that had a nonzero price of Biden getting swapped out even before the debate:

[9]: US Senators attacked prediction markets just last year:

[10]: Here's the video of Obama leading Biden off stage:

[11]: The full Solzhenitsyn quote:

[12]: Andropov and Chernenko were two Soviet leaders elevated at a late age that died within a year of taking office. They were then replaced by the much younger Gorbachev, who ended up ending the Soviet Union:

[13]: A Potemkin village in the Soviet Union was a fake facade erected for the purpose of fooling outsiders. In Woke America, given his now-acknowledged senility, Biden has been a Potemkin President — a fake cardboard cutout to fool the public.

[14]: Kremlinology:

[15]: There's now almost $60M in volume on who will be the Democrat Nominee in 2024, with Biden crashing:

[16]: It was a $1.7M public toilet in San Francisco:

[17]: California spent billions on a high-speed rail train, spending it all on "jobs" but not actually building the train. See here:

[18]: Xinhua: “Welcome more Newsoms to come”


[19]: China Today: “Newsom said he is willing to push California…to be China's long-term, stable and strong partner”


[20]: CGTN: “Newsom's visit…strengthen the relationship between China and the US”


[21]: CGTN: “California governor says China's success to benefit the world”


[22]: Here's Newsom symbolically handing over the Golden State to Xi:

[23]: Democrats proposed packing the court in 2021, one of the few remaining institutions that they don't fully control:

[24]: Here's ProPublica on how "Democrats fooled California's Redistricting Commission". It's a hint of the gerrymandering to come:

[25]: The Democrat Party has been persecuting Elon relentlessly with lawfare for opposing them:

[26]: Even Cuomo, former New York State attorney general, admitted the Trump prosecution was a show trial, a case that "should never have been brought" and would not have been brought if his "name was not Donald Trump":

And here are a few supplementary references.

[27]: Only Newsom Can Go To China.
This details how Newsom/Xi is shaping up to be the new Nixon/Mao:

[28]: Here's Newsom greeting Xi as he comes off the plane, a visit that only happened after Newsom visited Xi personally in China, and a visit that many other Democrat Party members tried to make happen without success:

[29]: And finally, and most importantly, here's video of Newsom admitting they removed San Francisco's drug addicts for Xi's visit...thereby conceding that Democrats had the power all along to clean up the city. But they did it for Communists, not for Americans.

apnews.com/article/presid…
balajis.com/p/california-i…
aei.org/op-eds/student…
cnbc.com/2023/05/17/why…
mises.org/power-market/h…

apnews.com/article/biden-…
polymarket.com/event/democrat…
ft.com/content/9108f3…

goodreads.com/quotes/1075742…
britannica.com/place/Soviet-U…
britannica.com/topic/Potemkin…
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kre…
polymarket.com/event/democrat…
archive.is/5OHSb

english.news.cn/20231027/fbab3…
chinatoday.com.cn/ctenglish/2018…
news.cgtn.com/news/2023-10-3…
news.cgtn.com/news/2023-10-2…

nbcnews.com/politics/supre…
propublica.org/article/how-de…
wsj.com/articles/elon-…
thehill.com/regulation/cou…
balajis.com/p/only-newsom-…
ourchinastory.com/en/10775/Xi%20…
Image
Image
Naval comes to similar conclusions.
Who’s been in charge the whole time?
Read 9 tweets
Balaji Profile picture
Jun 10
This is San Francisco.
It’s not a bad part of town.
It’s the Embarcadero where families walk.
And now?
It’s where howling mobs light cars on fire.
Not even as a protest.
Or for some fake cause.
But for fun.


Like a Black Mirror episode. Image
Pier 1 is a beautiful location in a nice part of town. It’s not where you expect to see cars lit on fire. maps.app.goo.gl/9WCVEANwNQSW7h…

Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Balaji Profile picture
Jun 9
CALIFORNIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY

California is not a democracy. It’s a one-party state.

Because California Democrats do not hold competitive multiparty elections. No matter how the people vote, a Democrat always wins.

The real election is thus actually a selection, where candidates are chosen[1] before the primary in a smoke-filled room by the Party. And around the time one-party control was consolidated in the early 2010s, governance started to dramatically worsen, and California's growth rate suddenly leveled off:

Now more than one million citizens have fled[2] the once-Golden state for other locales, voting with their feet because they’ve been stripped of the ability to substantively vote with their ballot.

ONE PARTY "DEMOCRACY"
California illustrates the gap between deed and word. Consider that Democrats managed to (a) build a one-party state that (b) a million people fled while (c) holding faux “elections” that a Party member always won whilst also (d) endlessly proclaiming their regime democratic!

This unmistakably resembles China. They've also (a) built a one-party state which (b) millions of people fled that (c) holds faux “elections" where a Communist Party member always wins while (d) endlessly proclaiming their regime democratic[3,4].

There are other similarities, too.

Democrats ruthlessly censor internet speech, just like Communists. Democrats use the state as a battering ram against tech companies, just like Communists. Democrats tax citizens and hand the resulting funds to Party affiliates, just like Communists. Democrats encourage loyalists to move to contested territories to strengthen political control, just like Communists. Democrats funded gain-of function research, just like Communists. And most ominously, Democrats are now persecuting their political opponents on trumped up charges — just like Communists[5-16].

This is no small thing. When Communists talk about "communism", what they mean is rule by the Communist Party. And when Democrats talk about “democracy”, what they mean is rule by the Democrat Party. California is their desired end state — where blues never lose.

Now, let’s handle the objections.

FOR CHOICE...BUT AGAINST DEMOCRATIC CHOICE
The first objection is that Republicans do it too. Look at all the red trifectas, as per the quoted tweet[17]! But this argument fails on three counts.

1) First, when Republicans overturned Roe, Democrats affirmed reproductive choice at the state level[18]. They didn’t just copy Republicans — they did something different. So if Democrats actually believed in democratic choice, they would affirm competitive multiparty elections in their states even if Republicans pursued the opposite policy. They aren’t doing that. Which means Democrats genuinely believe in reproductive choice, but not democratic choice.

2) Second, Democrat control of blue states is much stronger than Republican control of red states. For example, even within a “Republican stronghold” like Texas, Austin is a deep blue city. There is no equivalent of red cities within blue states[19]. This alone means blues have significant political power within red territory, but not vice versa.

3) Third, Democrat control of national institutions — both elected and unelected — is overwhelming. As the graphs show, Democrats control academia[20], media[21], US government agencies[22], and even 70%+ of GDP[23]. In the language of diversity, Republicans are vastly underrepresented. They’re not even close to 50/50.

So: Democrats have more control at the national level, more control within red states, and total control within their own blue states — yet have not used that control to restore democratic choice.

Actions speak louder than words.

NO COMPETITION = FAUX ELECTION
The second objection is that no really — Republicans do it too! They have one-party states, so Democrats are justified in having the same thing. You can’t expect Democrats to enable other parties to not just run, but win. That’s not in their political interest. And it’ll weaken the Democrat Party!

And now we get to the nub of the issue. Communists also have one-party states. Does it then follow that Democrats should have them too?

Because the whole theory of why democracy is supposed to be superior to communism is that it provides real alternatives, real feedback. Just like capitalism provides choice in the market, democracy provides choice in the electorate[24]. So if you actually believed in democracy, you’d believe alternation of power strengthens society in a way one-party control never would. And you’d hold competitive one-party elections even if the other guy didn’t, because it makes your society stronger.

This gives the game away. We know Democrats do not believe in democracy, because they’ve ended competitive multiparty elections in the states they control. Unless other parties are routinely taking political power, it is not a democracy.

VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO
The last objection is around motive: ok, but why would Democrats destroy democracy?

It’s simple: once blues gain total control, they begin funneling tax dollars to Democrat affiliates. This is how you get a $100B train in California where no train is built but Democrat unions get paid[25]. And this is how the homeless industrial complex makes money[26], by getting people addicted to drugs and then getting paid by the size of the problem:

This is also how BLM burned down black businesses while lining blue pockets[27], and why student loan relief goes to Democrat voters[28], and in general why so much public money produces so little today in the way of public goods[29].

This, in short, is the blue business model. The purpose of the blue political machine is to fleece Americans while enriching Democrat loyalists.

However, they can only pull off this scam with total one-party control. Outside eyes would stop the gravy train. And that's how you get “vote blue, no matter who[30].”

"Vote blue no matter who" came out of the mouths of Democratic presidential candidates[31]. It's a straightforward rejection of democracy as ideology in favor of Democrat tribalism. All that matters is that blue tribe gains power, so blues can get paid.

Of course, not all blues get paid! Only the connected ones do, political consultants and union bosses and key interest groups and the like. Many blues pull the lever without getting the cheddar. They fall for the marketing.

After all, remember how much blue people pretended to care about black people in 2020, and how little they spoke about them afterwards? “Democracy” serves a similar role for the Party in 2024. It's just a marketing slogan, and can be discarded like BLM once it’s no longer useful.

Look how they pumped and dumped Ibram Kendi[31]. After the election, the Party can easily flip from declaiming for democracy to decrying populism, as it has before.

THE FUTURE
In short, if Democrats actually believed in competitive multiparty elections, they'd pursue them regardless of what others did. All their rhetoric revolves around democracy as stated principle, but in blue states where they have total power they've ended it in practice. The obvious reason for this is graft and tribalism: vote blue, no matter who.

It is only a matter of time before Democrats scale what they've done in blue cities and states to the federal level. That's certainly the goal. And it returns us to the original question.

Given that blues now unapologetically reject competitive multiparty elections at the state level in favor of faux contests that their Party always wins...given that they've created electorally unaccountable governments that steal billions from their citizens...given that California and China have both built one-party states...what might the future of blue governance look like?

It sure ain't multiparty democracy.
What it looks like is an exercise for the reader.Image
Image
Image
Image
REFERENCES (1-10)

[1]: For example, the Los Angeles DCP endorsement is a candidate interview prior to the primary. In a one-party Democrat state, this endorsement carries significant weight.

[2]: California's growth trajectory dramatically slows from 2013 projections:


2021: "In the last decade, 1.3 million more people left California than came in from other states. And, it’s accelerating. Half a million people have left for other states in the last two years alone."


[3]: China actually holds elections:

[4]: Remember, they call themselves the "People's Republic" of China. Two out of the three characters in PRC are devoted to extolling how democratic they are.

[5]: Here's the Atlantic saying "In the debate over freedom versus control of the global network, China was largely correct, and the U.S. was wrong."


[6]: Here's NYT saying "Free Speech is killing us":

I don't think I really need a citation on China's internet censorship, but you can look up the Great Firewall.

[7]: Here's one of many articles on the Democrat anti-tech turn:

[8]: Here's the Communist techlash, best illustrated with the regime's attacks on Jack Ma:


[9]: Here's an excellent piece on how elected Democrats send taxpayer money to their nonprofit affiliates:

[10]: Here's another from Pirate Wires on the same topic:
lacdp.org/endorsement
siliconvalley.com/2023/07/26/cal…
dailybreeze.com/2021/05/02/the…
english.www.gov.cn/archive/china_…
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opi…
nymag.com/intelligencer/…
edition.cnn.com/2023/07/12/bus…
americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/05/the-no…
piratewires.com/p/san-francisc…
REFERENCES (11-23)

[11]: The Emerging Democrat Majority is the Judis/Texeira playbook for how Democrats could rely on immigration to flip states blue:

[12]: Communists use similar tactics. "Over the decades, Beijing has...attempted to transfer large number of Han Chinese people into Tibet":


[13]: On gain-of-function research, news keeps breaking on this topic, but suffice to say that science funding is largely run by Democrats and the Wuhan lab was certainly run by Communists:


[14]: Are Democrats persecuting their political opponents? Even NYMag admits they are:

[15]: There's a long list of Republicans being prosecuted. One interpretation is that they actually committed a crime. Another interpretation is that they committed the crime of being Republican.


[16]: Do Communists persecute their political opponents? Well, you wouldn't want to be Bo Xilai or Hu Jintao.

[17]: Nothing against Mr Bump. But his tweet implies that Republican trifectas (where Republicans control governor/house/senate at state level) are justification for why Democrats should enjoy decades of one party control in blue states.

However, if you listed Republican states where reproductive choice had been abrogated, that wouldn't justify symmetrical Democrat abrogation of reproductive choice.

By analogy, given that Democrats campaign on democracy, and claim to believe in it as a core principle that differentiates them from Republicans, you'd expect them to pursue a different policy. But they aren't.



[18]: Many blue states passed laws affirming reproductive choice after Roe was overturned:


[19]: Bryan Caplan discussed the dearth of red cities in blue states here:


And you can see the list of party affiliations of city mayors here:


You can calculate the stats, but in general, there are many more blue cities in red states than vice versa.

[20]: Academia is blue.

See thread here:


[21]: Legacy media is blue


[22]: US government agencies are blue


[23]: 70%+ of GDP is blue too:
amazon.com/Emerging-Democ…
tibetpolicy.net/ccp-and-sinici…
reason.com/2024/06/04/ant…
nymag.com/intelligencer/…



wsj.com/us-news/aborti…
econlib.org/why-are-there-…
ballotpedia.org/Party_affiliat…

medium.com/@TheMaxDenning…
bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-…
brookings.edu/articles/biden…Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Balaji Profile picture
Jun 7
Democrats and Communists have both built one-party states. Image
Biden represents an older generation.
TikTok Democrats will align with China. Image
The future is Democrats and Communists vs Republicans and Indians.

The leader of the largest Democrat state aligns with China.

And the leader of the largest Republican state aligns with India. Image
Read 7 tweets
Balaji Profile picture
May 20
China is dedollarizing. Image
Russia/China trade dedollarized after Ukraine.
And Bloomberg reports it's >90% dedollarized now.

[1]:
[2]: archive.is/wip/60pTG
archive.is/KS3vt
Image
China sold $50B+ in US debt, the largest on record.
[1]: watcher.guru/news/brics-chi…
Image
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(