At this point, we all know that they're doing this
Britain's locking up protesters for speaking against immigration, and American prosecutors won't lock up felons
But why do they do it?
It's the time-tested way tyrants like them win power 🧵👇
First, there are various people and interests behind this, of course
George Soros and his Open Societies Foundation are a good example: that's where woke American AGs and prosecutors who won't lock up felons get their campaign cash from
Similarly, you can bet a whole host of NGOs fund those who are letting criminals out of jail to make room for normal people who will be locked up
But it's bigger than that. It's not just that insane woke people are causing chaos
It's also that this is a repeated tactic communists, and tyrants generally, use to gain power: create chaos and then exploit stopping it to become popular and have an excuse for solidifying power and crack down on dissent
The communists, for example, opened up the prisons and let all manner of violent thugs out of jail, letting them prey on the populace
It's one of the more shocking parts of "Always with Honor" by General Wrangel, for example: as the Revolution began, the prison population of the Crimea was suddenly out on the streets and causing chaos, often when garbed in the insignia of the communists and with their support
Similarly, much the same thing began the French Revolution: the mob stormed the Bastille, killed the guards, and freed the (couple remaining) prisoners, including the Marquis de Sade
Anarchy then followed, which the worst of the revolutionaries were quick to exploit
In both cases, it ought be remembered, it wasn't that those taking power were against locking people up in prison
Both were known for covering their hands with blood in the years that followed, with many a poor soul sent to a prison camp and killed
So, it's not that they were against prison, whatever their rhetoric surrounding it might have been
Rather, it's that they knew criminals were their allies in the war against the old order
Whether the scum of Russia locked up during the Great War for stealing, murdering, draft dodging, and so on, or the enemies of the enemies of the French state, rotting in the symbol of the king's power, those locked up by the sane state were beloved by its demented attackers
The old orders in France and Russia weren't prison camp states in the Soviet mold, after all. Yes, both had prisoners and the Russian czars had the exile camps in
Siberia. But their hands were hardly stained with blood. They weren't wiping out an entire order like France or murdering millions like the Soviets
But it wasn't just that the bloodthirsty revolutionaries were ideologically allied with the sorts who would steal and murder
It was also that they knew letting such people out of prison would help them gain power
Thousands of criminals running loose during the revolution would cause chaos, reduce the existing state's legitimacy, distract people from paying attention politically, and, most importantly, tire them out and make them crave order, no matter who provided it
Countless tyrants have done this. The Nazis were well known for it with the street fights against the communists, the Soviets did it during the Revolution, and the blood-soaked tyrants of the French Revolution used the preceding chaos to justify their rule
Augustus, similarly, was accepted by Rome in part because of the decades of chaos and bloodshed that preceded him. He was less of a tyrant, but it was a similar justification
To return to Britain, and the rest of the West as well, particularly crime-wracked and illegal migrant-saturated countries like the United States, that's why they're doing this
Think, for example, of all they want to do. The Great Reset. Civilian disarmament (gun control). Outlawing beef. 15-minute cities. Getting rid of gas-powered cars
All of that will be highly unpopular. No one wants to eat cockroaches and not be allowed to leave a small radius, like some medieval peasant
But they might be willing to accept all of it, to accept the outcome @Babygravy9 wrote about in The Eggs Benedict Option, if there's enough chaos to make them accept it. If the Great Reset seems worth it in comparison to the chaos of rampaging, crime-causing foreigners
So, their whole goal is to make The Great Reset seem worth it, just as earlier their goal was to make Marat seem worth it or Lenin and the Reds seem worth it
So, when normal people are locked up for speaking their mind and some illegal immigrant gets away with murder, that's why. They want you to accept their tyranny
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think this awesome ad, probably one of the best ever, is partially responsible for the continued hate directed Rhodesia's way, as every aspect is irreconcilable with liberalism
From the shades to the slogan, it's implacably opposed to and the opposite of modern wokism🧵👇
What is modernity? Well, a slew of things, from Office Space-style corporate life to Boeing sending up a diversity capsule unable to bring back astronauts
But, really, there are two defining features: the feminization of everything and the utter ugliness of everything modern life
The feminization side is easy. @L0m3z described it quite well in his superb "What is the Longhouse" essay for First Things, noting, in part:
"The most important feature of the Longhouse, and why it makes such a resonant (and controversial) symbol of our current circumstances, is the ubiquitous rule of the Den Mother. More than anything, the Longhouse refers to the remarkable overcorrection of the last two generations toward social norms centering feminine needs and feminine methods for controlling, directing, and modeling behavior. Many from left, right, and center have made note of this shift. In 2010, Hanna Rosin announced “The End of Men.” Hillary Clinton made it a slogan of her 2016 campaign: “The future is female.” She was correct.
"As of 2022, women held 52 percent of professional-managerial roles in the U.S. Women earn more than 57 percent of bachelor degrees, 61 percent of master’s degrees, and 54 percent of doctoral degrees. And because they are overrepresented in professions, such as human resource management (73 percent) and compliance officers (57 percent), that determine workplace behavioral norms, they have an outsized influence on professional culture, which itself has an outsized influence on American culture more generally.
...
"The implications of the Longhouse reach yet further across the social landscape. The Longhouse distrusts overt ambition. It censures the drive to assert oneself on the world, to strike out for conquest and expansion. Male competition and the hierarchies that drive it are unwelcome. Even constructive expressions of these instincts are deemed toxic, patriarchal, or even racist. When Marc Andreessen declares that it is time to build, he must understand that the recognition of merit and the willingness to assume risk that such building depends on cannot be achieved under Longhouse rule."
To enliven your day and remind you of the beautiful pre-decolonization world, here is a collection of some fun pics of Rhodesia
Not of the Bush War and incredibly cool and brave soldiers, but of the civilian nation's impeccable beauty and civilization 🧵👇
The above pictures, for starters, come from the "Rhodesia Calls" magazine, the official magazine of the Rhodesia National Tourist Board, published every two months from 1960 to Rhodesia's fall in 1979
It's full of fun pictures of Rhodesian civilians enjoying life and showing the nation's natural beauty, incredible megafuana and impeccable aesthetics
Speaking of the region's wildlife, there;s this incredible picture of PM Ian Smith with a yawning leopard
If you know the context for it, please let me know...I have no idea
But it's awesome, and one of my favorite pictures of that great man, from his impeccable suit and cufflinks to his demure behavior around a leopard
Time for a more lighthearted 🧵about a subject I find fun and important:
The Gentleman's Guide to Fall Fashion
Looking good while dressing practically is critical bc it puts our best feet forward; hence why our ancestors dressed sa they did
Here's how to do so in the fall🧵👇
The general idea is that one should look good, like a gentleman, while also dressing practically and appropriately for life. In other words, being neither a slob nor a dandy
A story @ChivalryGuild tells about Charlemagne is indicative of this:
"According to the De Carlo Magno, courtiers had just returned to Charlemagne’s palace after doing his business in Pavia, still wearing the fashionable attire of the place, silk clothing with ribbons and feathers.
Their lord was not impressed.
Charles immediately decided he was going on a hunting expedition, and he insisted on his courtiers joining him. He did not give them time to change.
For several hours they rode with the emperor through storms and forests, muddying and shredding their fancy clothing. When they returned from the chase, Charles had them continue attending on him throughout the night while in their ruined fineries.
Even into the next day Charles had them parade around in the same clothes for everyone to see.
His intent was clear enough: he wanted to make them—and all the men of his court—think twice about attire that compromises one's manhood. His men were to be hardy and ready to fight, not dandified and decadent."
Fortunately, as is the point of this thread, fall and winter are a great time to dress well while also not being a dandy, particularly if you're in the "country" rather than the city
The key to this is British country clothing: Harris tweed, corduroy, tattersall, and so on
Those fabrics, discussed below, have been used for hunting for generations. They're meant to be durable outdoor material that looks sharp as you wear it, making it great for gentlemanly dress
Kamala isn't just incompetent and vapid, though she is; she's also one of the most pro-race communism candidates in our history aiming to emulate Mugabe and South Africa to destroy the country
In fact, her Mugabe-like beliefs show she wants to South Africanize America🧵👇
Take the above program, one that's almost certainly unconstitutional, that would provide loans to "black entrepreneurs"
How would those loans be paid for, as they almost certainly won't be paid back?
Tax dollars. Specifically, as whites are the only major group that contributes on a net basis to the treasury, white tax dollars would pay for it
So, much like Mugabe confiscating the land of white farmers to hand it to his cronies, Kamala would tax the hated Amerikaner group to pay for a rediculous program for her client group. It's racially motivated expropriation and cronyism by another name
Tellingly, she, like Mugabe, also wants to confiscate our firearms, leaving us defenseless for what she has in mind for next
That's far from all
In addition to being Mugabe-like in economic terms, she wants to South Africanize America
This turn of hers is somewhat recently; while she was a relatively tough on crime prosecutor, in 2020 she became the one who wanted to bail out the BLM rioters, and did so, helping promote a fund that bailed out rioters who torched Minneapolis, including a thug who went on to murder someone
Notably, her "compassion" didn't extend to the J6ers. Her administration has savagely repressed them, throwing grandmas in solitary for trespassing
So, much like South Africa, the regime's client group gets away with murder, literally (95% of farm murders go unsolved there, as Kamala bailed out a killer) as the "oppressors" face the full force of the state for even minor offenses
For whatever reason, the concept of "inheritance" and helping children in life has exploded on here the past few days
That discussion has been nonsense, as it has been the Prodigal Sons of the world arguing with the Ebenezer Scrooges of America
So, I'd like to give my take🧵👇
There are two problems with the discussion
One is that the Prodigal Sons frame access the earned wealth of parents as a right, which is tiresome for obvious reasons
The other is that the Scrooges think not of dynasty or family, but rather in terms of "mine" and the present
Both discussions seemingly ignore the concept of family, and that in a functioning family it is odd for parents and children to not help each other. Instead, it mostly assumes that we're all atomized individuals with a moral right to money at some point or another, either because it was "earned" or because of the familial relationship
It's tiresome because it ignores history, and the point of how Westerners saw wealth for all of history until five minutes ago
Included below are some of the tiresome arguments made
Ignored in all that is what the mindset of the West from roughly the Classical Greeks until 1980 or so is this:
Wealth is most honorable when inherited. If earned rather than inherited, it should be spent not on vice-driven pleasure, but invested in a way that allows one's descendants to live as gentlemen and serve the state rather than grubbing for money in a profession or job that takes time that would have been better spent as a legislator, imperial administrator, or officer
Ruins might sound like an extreme word to use in modernity...but the Acropolis is better preserved than Rhodesia
But our regime shows no remorse for having destroyed it and turned it into a hellhole
Why? Destruction of civilization was the point; that's what liberalism is 🧵👇
Remember, Rhodesia was a modern and functional country
It had a booming industrial sector, the beautiful city of Salisbury, and a famed and highly efficient agricultural sector.
Further, it was a free country in the real sense of the word. It had free speech, gun ownership, property rights, freedom of association, and so on. All the rights that matter, for black and white alike
The only thing it didn't have was mass democracy. Instead, it had a propertied voting system of sorts, with either the modern equivalent of $60k in Rhodesian property or a college degree to vote
That applied to blacks and whites alike and was meant to screen out the fools and incompetents, which it succeeded in doing
But "democracy" of the sort that existed in the West through the 1830s was deemed unacceptable in 1960, as the free and non-racial system was deemed "discriminatory"
Why? Merely because a higher per capita proportion of whites met the requirements than blacks. That's essentially the prohibition on "disparate impact" as applied to a voting system; since different ethnic groups don't pass it equally, it's "racist"