What America must solve to restore its greatness is the outright anti-white hatred spewed by the near entirety of the left
Below, e.g., a Black Women For Harris leader spews hate that would sound radical coming from Mugabe
This Zimbabweification is ubiquitous and must end
🧵👇
In case you think the Mugabe comparison is overblown, below are examples of the sort of thing he said
Is that any different than Yale proudly inviting a black psychiatrist on campus to tell students she “had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any White person"?
I think not. Nor is it much different than the constant articles published in regime media about how awful white people are
And this sort of hate is far from being solely an American problem; the same is even true in England, the land ostensibly of the English
Below, a supposed Conservative, James Cleverly, attacks a British political party for ostensibly being composed of British people...as if it is wrong for Anglo-Saxons to rule the land of Anglo-Saxons
Of course, the only reason for such sentiment is hatred of whites. You saw the same thing in Scotland, with its former Prime Minister yelling about how much he hates that governmental positions in Scotland are filled by whites, Scots...in the land named for Scots
So, whether it's "conservatives" yelling about the presence of Angles in the government of Angleland or some bizarre, spiteful politician in Scotland screaming about Scots presence in the government of the Scots' Land, the hat the native population for being white
So, our whole lives, we're bombarded with Radio Rwanda-style hatred of the sort shown in the DEI meeting below
Whether it's Australians being lectured on how racist they are for carving civilization out of a barren continent, Americans being lectured constantly by their corporations and schools on why they're the devil himself because of their color, or English protesters being imprisoned for saying that England should be kept English, or South Africans being made the victims of unspeakable crimes the government doesn't even pretend to investigate, the Anglosphere members are bombarded with propaganda that is blatantly hostile to their very existence
And it should be noted that this isn't an exclusively Anglosphere problem, though that's what I tend to focus on
The continent gets its dose of it too
Importantly, the root of it is always the same
It's race communism
Whether farmland confiscation in Zimbabwe or DEI meetings in an American cubicle farm, the motivation is the same
They think "oppressors" (almost always normal white people) should suffer in the physical, spiritual, and economic realms, and that whatever value can be extracted from them should be handed to the "oppressed" (almost always blacks)
This is why the Conservative Party feels comfortable denouncing British people for existing in Britain all while collaborating with Labor to turn England into a Paki-filled favela. It's why the Kamala campaign's main message is that white people are evil. It's why towns like Charloi, PA and villages in Germany are being flooded with violent migrants. It's why the anti-white racism of the sort @realJeremyCarl wrote about in "The Unprotected Class" is so common
It's race communism all the way down
But the key to solving all of that is in America. We, for better or worse, are the global hegemon
The British, French, Germans, all those suffering the ravages of race communism, are doing so because that's been the American position for decades
They might be willing accomplices, a la Attlee and Windrush, but it's because of American force that nothing changes
The European migrant problem could be solved more or less immediately...but American banksters and carrier groups might have something to say about that
The Boers could reclaim South Africa...but American carrier groups would surely end that immediately
Zimbabwe would still be Anglo-ruled and prosperous, but American race communists hated its non-egalitarian existence
And America needn't be under the bootheel of DEI commissars, but the FBI and spite-filled regime have made it so
Whatever the European origins of Cultural Marxism that has more or less morphed into American-style race communism, the problem is now firmly an American one in thought and force
So, to solve the problem, to drive DEI out of businesses, make governments comfortable stopping violent migrants from invading their countries, and generally making national governments positive rather than hostile toward their native populations, the American race communism issue needs to be rooted out by its stems and roots
Doing that will be difficult, but @elonmusk's "Department of Government Efficiency" idea holds some promise
The only reason much of this exists is federal mandates and funding
Universities push it because they're cash-rich enough to do so; slash their funding and end federal student loans so that no one can afford to major in grievance study majors and then go on to push it
Corporate HR and financier ESG push it; slash all in the DOJ unwilling to go after that and investigate the ESG-pushing brokers for not doing their proper fiduciary duty and HR for anti-white, anti-male policies. The data is clear that these ESG companies are discriminating against white job seekers, which is illegal if always unpunished. Used the slimmed down and ideologically in line post-DOGE government to rake them over the coals for it
And, of course, the big problem is government grants for or tolerance of NGOs that aid and abet the invasion, fund soft on crime prosecutors, back riots and rioters, and otherwise turn America into Zimbabwe. Cut the funding and unleash the state on them.
The Open Societies Foundation, BlackRock, the university system, the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation, HIAS and the similar Lutheran + Catholic charities that abet the illegal immigrants, all of them are vectors of DEI and race communism, whether through ESG, affirmative action, or something else. Go after them with a vengeance
All hope isn't lost
As this South African notes, things are far better here than in South Africa or Zimbabwe; those are where race communism was fully carried out rather than only being in its nascent stages
But it is progressing. It is getting worse. We are racing towards Zimbabwe. It must be stopped and can be stopped; doing so will be difficult, but free the West and Anglosphere from the civilization-killer that is race communism
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Why is it that leftists are always so opposed to pedos facing any sort of justice for their abuse of kids? It's not that they're all pedos, which is the usual answer
No, it's Bioleninism, the idea that nature's worst should rule, the dominating ideology of the present 🧵👇
That's not to say many of them aren't pedos, that's certainly the case. But it's not the whole situation, not why it's allowed
Take the case below: some transgender weirdo buying a child through surrogacy so that he can play mom.
Why would the regime allow this shocking, dangerous behavior to happen? It's because they want a loyal class of followers - an army of jannissaries - who will be ruthlessly loyal to this regime because it's the only one that'll allow them to act out their worst and most degenerate impulses.
No other regime would allow this. It's too sick, too weird, too morally wrong. But that's not really the point. Ours doesn't care about morality. It does care about having soldiers in its war on nature.
So, the allowance of anti-social behavior, and indeed the glorification of awful impulses, is how the regime builds its follower base
By waging a war on nature, or at least creating a legal framework allowing others to do so, it creates a class of people whose only shred of legitimacy in their behavior, behavior to which they're quite committed because it is their "identity."
Thus, they're loyal to it, and will be till the end, because they and their existence is wrapped up in the continuation of a war on nature that, given its inherent instability, requires ever more effort and manpower to keep going
This is undoubtedly accurate, but I don't see much recognition of why it's the case
Democracy, by its nature, empowers bureaucracy
This is the opposite of rule by gentlemen, and it's what has led us quite quickly to the hell of bureaucratic tyranny
I'll explain in the 🧵👇
It all comes down to incentives, and the fact that there are two basic types of on-the-ground governance, whatever the highest form of government is:
One is local lords, or gentry. This is when the big landowner(s) in a given area, generally a town or county, handles the administration of it. This is generally the traditional form of government, hence the title "count" and unit "county," though barons also filled this role.
The other is bureaucracy of one sort another. This is when appointed government officials have a grant of power to rule over a certain aspect of life in the aforementioned administrative unit. This is the Parks and Rec form of government, where various forms of petty individuals are put in charge to regulate some aspect of life in that area
Importantly, most forms of national government can use either form of local administration
Kings are best known for having nobles under them, this is the count-->duke--->king form of county and region administration that is famous. But the Byzantines were known for their bureaucracy, at certain points (they also had a dux form of administration), as were the Chinese emperors. Similarly, the Prussians had their junkers, but those were gradually replaced by the famous Prussian bureaucracy
And while Republics like the French and American Republics are best known for their bureaucracies, the pre-Lincoln American Republic was long largely ruled and administered at the local level by the large landowners. The Virginia gentry, Southern plantation owners, and New York baronial estate owners were long in charge of state government, state representation in the national government, and county administration. It is of the "county" that all the characters in Gone with the Wind speak at the beginning, for example, and it is they at the barbeque who ruled that county
Do people really not know about primogeniture and entail?
The reason for this is that the Anglosphere continued operating on that concept into the 20th century, even when not legally required: the land was kept intact to keep with the title at each generation
Generally this was the eldest surviving son, but it could go to a cousin, as happens in Downton Abbey, if that person is the one in line for the title
But the actual legal mechanism by which land was tied together and passed down was somewhat different, as primogeniture as a requirement ended over the 18th and early 19th centuries
The legal process of this was called entail, which existed far longer than primogeniture as a law
Under it, the land was "entailed" to the title, and generally couldn't be sold, so as the title was inherited the estate was too; farms in the estate were gradually amalgamated into the most efficient size, around 300ish acres, and because they were owned by the estate owner rather than the farmer they weren't divided up upon the farmer's death, instead generally going to his firstborn son
Generally, this operated as something of a generation-skipping trust; when a grandson was born, he would sign an agreement with the grandfather about the terms of the handoff. This generally was maintaining the entail for the estate. Thus, for at least three generations it would be locked up in the estate; when the grandfather established his will around the grandson, that involved the grandson creating his will with the entail provisions
Sometimes, it wasn't generation-skipping, and the entail was just renewed each generation. Regardless, the effect was the same
Why's he so angry? Because this is a Trump-sparked, quiet reversal of the civilization-obliterating DEI mindset that has been pushing America toward South Africanization
We'll now see if this is a bump on a dark path to bloody South African egalitarianism or a real reversal🧵👇
The degree to which DEI, the polite name for race communism, leads to perdition can't be overstated
And though South Africa's descent is highly relevant, really it's Zimbabwe that best emphasizes the ends of that mindset
It was best reflected when Mugabe said, "The only white man you can trust is a dead white man... our party must continue to strike fear in the heart of the white man, our real enemy... the white man is not indigenous to Africa."
He proceeded to expropriate the white-owned farms and chase the white farmers out of the country. The result of that race communist tyranny was not just horror and murder for the whites, but starvation and hyperinflation for the blacks he claimed to be aiding
But while Mugabe is the best example, the same mindset is present elsewhere
Take the below clip of EFF leaders Julius Malema, a race communist radical even for South Africa, saying, "The revolution will require us to kill" while calling for Mugabe-style land expropriation
He's the same one known for chanting the genocidal "Kill the Boer" song
Buffett is portrayed as being virtuous for this "I never wanted to found a dynasty" attitude but it's actually quite anti-civilizational, and is the opposite of how the men who built the West thought
The thing is, it's only dynastic thinking that leads to lont-term thinking🧵👇
This is, frankly, the difference between a Lord and a modern CEO:
One cares about what will be happening 6 quarters from now, if he thinks even that far ahead. The other thinks six generations from now, as it is his duty to do so
While Buffett is undoubtedly a longer-term thinker than most of his peer group, he still faces the modern problem of assuming that what is most moral is for things to be (mostly) reset at each generation. He (and many others like him) see inheritance of a vast fortune as wrong because it is "unearned"
So, instead of keeping the fortune intact so that it can be used for great ends, it's wasted away on vague "philanthropy" that does little, in the end, to actually help anyone, at least compared to what could be done with a vast estate
At least Buffett isn't a "die with zero," type who wants to spend everything
But, still, his flaw in thinking about wealth is that it prevents anything substantial from being built over time
So, whereas in the past projects could be multi-generational, whether it was the building and maintenance of a grand estate or the turning of a bank like JP Morgan into an immensely powerful, influential behemoth, now they can't be. Instead, whatever was intended to be accomplished has to be accomplished in essentially the prime of life, or it will fail for lack of time, as the next generation can't be get involved
While this is bad enough in the case of Buffett, who at least managed to build an interesting business that might survive him, it's even worse in the case of people who did little that will survive, instead only accumulating money. The trend of celebrities announcing their kids won't inherit anything of note is such an example. That means nothing real will ever be accomplished. Whatever charity gets the money will either waste it or never spend it, limiting its usefulness, and what could have been the start of a multi-generational ascent to greatness is instead over before it ever began
This was somewhat accurate around the early 20th century and is becoming true again, at least for some swathes of people in some jobs
But it was fixed then and could be fixed with similar policies now
Fortunately, it was McKinely who fixed it and Trump wants to emulate him🧵👇
McKinley's main problem, as a governer and then as president, was that labor and capital were at each other's throats, seeing each other as the enemy
Both had fair points
On one hand, labor was underpaid compared to its basic life expenses, though things were better for our industrial laborers than in England
But, on the other, capital noted that stiff competition from abroad via imports meant that higher wages weren't economically feasible. It's profits were generally thin, thanks to imports, so higher wages would sink companies and lead to higher unemployment
And, both sides had valid complaints of violence directed at them; tempers were reaching a boiling point
Related to that was the issue of money
Debtors, particularly farmers, largely wanted an inflationary money supply because it made their debts easier to pay off
Creditors wanted a rigorous gold standard, as a lack of inflation, or better yet deflation, made their loans worth more and made business easier to plan for
This was a huge issue, with William Jennings Bryan winning immense popularity on the back of his anti-gold standard, pro-silver speeches
Like the wage issue, this was reaching a boiling point