🧵How 20th Century Women Helped Build the Systems That Silenced Them
Every generation thinks it’s immune to history. But the story of women supporting movements that later enslaved them is as old as civilization itself.
It always begins with virtue. And it always ends with control.👇
2️⃣
In 1978, women filled the streets of Iran demanding justice and moral order.
They thought Islamism would correct the Shah’s corruption and restore dignity after decades of Western humiliation.
Months later, those same women were forced under mandatory hijab. The prisons filled with their sisters.
3️⃣
In Afghanistan, village women blessed their sons and brothers as they joined the Mujahedeen. They thought they were fighting for faith and freedom.
By 1996, the Taliban had banned them from school, work, or even stepping outside without a man.
Their victory became their cage.
4️⃣
In Egypt’s universities of the 1970s, young women led a “modesty revival.”
They wore the veil not by decree, but by choice, A moral protest against state corruption and Western excess.
Within a decade, that choice was gone. What began as empowerment ended as expectation.
5️⃣
Every one of these stories followed the same pattern:
Women joined a cause promising dignity through restraint.
Then men used that restraint as a weapon.
Moral order became moral ownership.
6️⃣
They didn’t vote for oppression. They voted for meaning, protection, belonging.
But the men who promise purity rarely stop at virtue.
They stop at power.
7️⃣
The lesson isn’t anti-faith, it’s anti-amnesia.
When ideology demands submission “for your own good,” when it romanticizes modesty, obedience, or “natural roles,” remember: it’s never about morality.
It’s only about control.
8️⃣
Every society flirts with this cycle.
First the promise of renewal, then the erosion of freedom disguised as virtue.
If you don’t know this history, you’ll mistake the whisper of protection for the sound of chains.
9️⃣
Moral lesson: Authoritarianism rarely marches in wearing jackboots.
It comes draped in silk, speaking softly about tradition and safety, until it owns you.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Military and the Press: Two Centuries of Push–Pull
Ok guys, I see a lot of press hysteria about the new Pentagon rules. I’m going to lay out the history for you, objectively.
From 1812 to now, here’s how military reporting in America has actually evolved: when access expanded, when it tightened, and why.
This isn’t designed to generate rage. It’s to help everyone (especially the media) see the pattern. It’s an ebb and flow that’s been part of American history for over 200 years.
Strap in. It’s a long one. But I think it explains how we got here. 🧵
1) Overview
People keep saying new Pentagon press rules are “unprecedented” and “anti-First Amendment.”
History says otherwise.
America’s default is a free press—but access to military spaces and operations has always been managed. Let’s walk the 200-year arc.
2) War of 1812: the seed of control
News moved slowly, but commanders still tried to shape it. After New Orleans, Gen. Andrew Jackson briefly banned publication without approval and even jailed an editor (we obviously don't do this today).
Courts pushed back—but the point stands: from the start, commanders tightened info when they thought lives were at stake.
🧵When the Game Breaks: Why "Defection" Destroys Neutrality in the Military
I get a lot of grief on my takes these days. After talking with @LibertySuperman today, I found some inspiration in trying to explain the problem.
He will deep dive it soon. But this is important. 👇
1/ The military is meant to be apolitical. That was the status quo: both sides cooperated by keeping partisan politics out of the ranks. It wasn’t perfect, but the trust held. That is, until defection toward ideology occurred.
2/ In game theory, this is the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
If both sides cooperate → stability.
If one defects while the other plays fair → the defector wins.
If both defect → chaos.
The U.S. military’s neutrality was based on cooperation.
I get a lot of questions asking what happened to the great leaders of the Second World War.
Because the machine always resets to comfort.
George Marshall’s purge of deadweight colonels and generals was a wartime anomaly, a moment when the brutal clarity of existential war forced the Army to prioritize combat effectiveness over seniority, connections, or credentials.
But after the war, peacetime priorities crept back in like rot through a cracked hull.
Here’s why Marshall’s system faded, and how we ended up with the mess we have today:👇
🕊️ 1. Victory Bred Complacency
After WWII, the U.S. emerged as the undisputed superpower. That success, ironically, planted the seed of decline.
The Army no longer had to be ruthless, there was no imminent threat to force hard choices.
Promotions reverted to being based on time in grade, politics, and who checked the right boxes.
The institutional attitude shifted from:
“Who can win the next war?” to “Who deserves their turn?”
🏛️ 2. The Bureaucracy Hardened
Marshall used personal judgment, informal feedback, and bold maneuvers to bypass the bureaucracy. But he was the exception, not the rule.
After he left, systems calcified: Promotion boards were bound by OERs, time in service charts, and quotas.
The “plucking boards” were disbanded. Risk aversion became institutional policy.
General officer promotions became a delicate dance of politics, often more about optics than outcomes.
You could game the system without ever being good at war.
What keeps me up at night isn’t politics. It’s preventing American bloodshed. And I believe we’re getting dangerously close.
This post will be controversial. But if we care about preserving the fabric of our Republic, we need to act.👇
1. The U.S. Constitution says we must count the “whole number of persons” every ten years for congressional representation.
But that word "persons" has a dark origin.
It wasn’t about fairness. It was about slavery.
2. The Framers chose “persons” over “citizens” because Southern states demanded to count their slaves. People who had no rights, no vote, and no freedom. All to inflate their power in Congress.
Nah, you guys know what? I’m just gonna come out and say it. And when I’m done saying it, tell me if it’s “blatant Islamophobia” or just…. you know… reality.
Let me explain to you some of the things I witnessed with my very own eyes in multiple Muslim countries. This will not be for the weak or faint of heart.
1. They didn’t just massacre one another in Baghdad, they chopped each other up into little pieces and stuffed them in underground vats. SPC Plocica was the only one with a strong enough stomach to fish the pieces out with a coat hanger so we could confirm the report. Don’t worry @Primz94933160 was there too as a witness. Rib cages with rotted flesh, pieces of legs with shoes attached, arms, hands, you name it. It was the most disgusting thing I’ve seen with my two eyes.
2. The obsession with having sex with children or feminine men. The saying over there was women are for breeding and men are for fun. We had to protect our fairer looking male Soldiers from being molested CONSTANTLY. But that isn’t the worst part. I once stumbled upon an Afghan colonel r*ping his 11 year old assistant, I heard the unholy noises emanating from his tent on our FOB. When I moved to interdict I was stopped for fear of a Green on Blue incident. And then we were all “educated” on the fact that this was CULTURALLY ACCEPTABLE FOR THEM TO DO. It was as normal as breathing.
3. Women are less than nothing to them. I would always ask how many children elders had for small talk. They could have 10 kids. 7 daughters and 3 sons. What will they tell you? They have 3 sons. I watched a man carrying his dead daughter in his arms to my FOB. She died due to a malfunctioned bomb we dropped. That didn’t matter to him. He dropped her on the ground with a stone cold face and demanded we pay him. She was f*****g NOTHING to him. He left the body with us and walked away counting his money.
4. Some of them have sex with animals. Ask me if I saw a man from COP 763 in east Baghdad mount a donkey in the middle of the night through a RAID FLIR camera. Because the answer will be yes.
5. They did heinous things in battle. Suicide bombings. Using their own wives as human shields. Using children as shields. Shooting from mosques. Spitting at our working dogs… or worse.
This all sounds crazy right? And I bet my comment section will flow with similar horror stories. It almost sounds like I’m making it up huh? I wish I was. I really do.
I know good Muslims in America. One of them is among my closest friends. But he’s passed through the American filter…HEAVILY. I can safely say he is literally one of us.
My question for you is, how are you not “Islamophobic”? My assessment comes from 4 total years immersed in multiple Islamic nations.
I wish I could say I’m sorry that I’m an inconvenient truth teller against your agenda.
But I’m not sorry at all. You must open your eyes. You MUST see this is a problem. Don’t you? How can you not?
I’m barely interested in this “Zohran” person, that’s for NY to figure out. I do however take issue with being labeled “Islamophobic” lazily and without context.
And I just gave you the context. It is informed with experience.
How can you tell me what I’ve seen with my own eyes was just a fluke? GWOT isn’t an excuse. Most of my observations stem from watching them just…. living everyday life.
During the GWOT surge, I had violent criminals in my formation I couldn’t get rid of. One failed five urinalyses with different substances. Took moving mountains to chapter him.
Fast forward to 2025: We have non-criminals begging to stay. Just asking for a clean record to keep serving.
And yet, I don’t know a single troop personally who’s been granted relief by @DoD_IG or BCMR.
Not one. Do you? I'm sure they exist, I just don't know any.
Am I just surrounded by an evil gang of undeserving service members? Possible. But not probable.
@DoD_USD_PR , listen: This position is untenable. And it will get worse. What happens when the suicide stories come out publicly? The ones where legitimately innocent people just....end it? Leaving behind families in the process.
Troops desperate to restore their honor, provide for their families, and they see no path forward except the business end of a rifle?
You already have the path to fix it. I’ve laid it out. Again, you didn't start this, but you can finish it.
But right now? The BCMR is trivializing the momentous, complicating the obvious, and torching warfighter trust in the process.
I'm really not trying to wear a tinfoil hat here. But if I didn't know any better, I'd think the BCMR is sabotaging the agenda of the Secretary of Defense.
You judge a system by what it does. And what does the BCMR and IG do besides say “no”?
Seriously, I want to know the answer to this, because it defies logic.