The thing is, this meme is accurate: were it not for Reagan's abominable surrender on immigration policy, namely amnesty for 3 million illegals, this wouldn't be happening

If Trump wants to fix California, he'll have to do much the opposite. Fortunately, that's possible🧵👇 First, the policy. I've written about this before, so I'll keep it brief (more details in a linked thread at the end of this one)

Under the 1986 Immigration Bill, Reagan gave amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants (first 2.6 million, then 300k minors) who entered the country illegally before 1982

The bill was supposed to have limited future illegal immigration by enacting provisions like harsher punishments for business owners who hired illegals. But those were mostly stripped at the last moment in a bit of perfidy from the Democrats, and Reagan signed it anyway.

He was probably close to being senile at that point, so this was more an HW Bush decision than Reagan's alone. Still, he's the one who signed it

"You Best Start Believing in the South Africanization of America...You're In It!"

See the signal jammer?

This is the big change coming to American crime

We've long suffered the predations of criminals and their enablers, but signal jammer use shows how it'll get worse

🧵👇 First, here's how @k9_reaper described signal jammer use to me in a November of 2023 interview:

Signal jammers are being used for everything from everything from hijackings, cash-in transfer heists, home invasions, and farm attacks as well. So the signal jammer, depending on the model, works at blocking all incoming and outgoing signals from everything from cell phones to radios to even some security cameras in a range of 25 to 100 meters. The sole goal of a signal jammer is to ensure that your target can’t call for help. The reason they use them for farm attacks is that a lot of farmers are out of the community safety initiative and they rely on radios to be able to call for help to one another, to come and assist.

You’re probably thinking of that famous picture of that guy with the signal jammer backpack during a farm attack. It was like a black-and-white photo, and he had that proper military signal jammer. That wasn’t just anything you could get from Alibaba, or even from Mozambique and just driving it over the border or something. That was a proper military use jammer pack in use with the SADF. You’ll see a lot of military and ex-active duty military personnel in these farm attacks, and they often just take what they need from the military before they go out on the attacks.

In essence, the farm attacks are the most brutal thing anyone can imagine. They make those attacks going on in Israel and Gaza look like a walk in the park. And the use of the signal jammer packs is real. It is happening on a daily basis. Both to the citizens of the Republic of South Africa and to people they want to assassinate.

This is such nonsense

Ever since the Greeks built a culture around wine, the West has functioned quite well with alcohol as a social bedrock

And while min-maxing every tidbit of life is ridiculous anyway, there's not really evidence that reasonable drinking is bad for you🧵👇 First, the cultural aspect:

There is something unique about the West that was typified by its Mannerbund beginning but has held true through the ages; the ties of hierarchy, feelings of individualist, and pairings of brotherhood and merit created something truly astounding to behold

Such men could, with their ties that bind intact and providing strength and individual quest for honor and glory providing impulse, conquer the world

In fact, they quite literally did so; only a few minor realms remained outside Great Power control by 1913, and much of that had been conquered by adventurers of the Courtney Selous, James Brooke, and Julius Caesar mold. Men who created intense ties of brotherhood within their group and dominated the world as small bands

Meanwhile, back at home, the societies they lived in and which their compatriots built were, on the whole, more gorgeous than any competitors: where were the county houses of Imperial China, the parks and coverts of Mesoamerica, or the opera houses of Dahomey? None existed

Why did the West work with the communists to destroy Rhodesia?

Or, why would the "free" side of the Cold War ally with the communists to destroy a thriving, resource republic in a critical area

It makes no sense at first. But it makes much sense with a closer look 🧵👇 Critical to understand here is what the two main sides of the Cold War were

On one side was the communist block. It wanted, whatever its internal divisions, to spread communism abroad, mainly by launching revolutions within the old Empires of the Great Powers

The other side was America. It, by hook or crook, aimed to contain and then roll back communism, mainly by subsuming the same former Great Power colonies the communists were aiming for, and replacing colonial government with nationalist-minded locals that would engage in free trade with America and at least pay lip service to liberal democracy

One thing I've seen missed in the housing price debate on here the past few days is that, while the price of houses has increased tremendously in fiat cost over recent years, valued in real money it has held steady for a century

A short thread with some helpful charts🧵👇 This is one helpful chart given its length, and though it only goes to 2020, it does show the general trend:

Priced in real money, housing has actually gotten less expensive, even despite increasing in square footage, quality, and complexity; think of all the extra plumbing and electrical wiring now compared to 1900!

Meanwhile the fiat value has rocketed upward tremendously, as anything exponential eventually does

The only time housing increased priced in gold is when gold was artificially suppressed as inflation raged from the mid-1930s to gold being legal to purchase again in the 70s

This lack of generational continuity is a big problem, as it leads to denying responsibility to the past and future which, in turn, creates a leftist political bent

Americans must learn to be Grosvenors rather than Vanderbilts; America's post-Depression history shows why🧵👇 The lack of "Old Money" in America is often celebrated, as it seems to signal total meritocracy, democracy as applied to the social scene, etc.

But that's not really true. America in, say, 1890 was a meritocratic time: Rockefeller, Carnegie, the Vanderbilts, etc. built and maintained vast fortunes and were able to do so because the general freedom of action allowed by the time created opportunity. They were free to unleash their genius, in other words, and so created vast fortunes

But it was also an era in which "Old Money" not just existed but dominated the social scene. A great example is Mrs. Astor's New York Four Hundred. Composed almost entirely of families of "gentlemen" in that the family money had been had for at least three generations, it ruled New York society and determined what was posh, fashionable, accessible and so on.

What is it that creates civilization?

As Lee Kuan Yew put it, ending 3rd World behavior: “[We told them] stop spitting, stop littering … you can’t go around peeing everywhere as you did in the old squatter villages”

California's doing the reverse, and thus its decline🧵👇 And this has been something Singapore is serious about: they'll beat you with a cane if you litter, pee in the street, or commit some other crime of 3rd Worldism

Meanwhile they'll execute you if you traffic drugs or commit similarly anti-social crimes

They take maintaining order seriously

Critical to know about the "Cold War" is that, for most of it, "we" aided and abetted communists as they committed the worst atrocities imaginable across the globe:

"We" helped enforce "equity" in its base form, at bayonet point

A few examples, and the reason why, in the 🧵👇 Right after WW2, in China, is a good place to start

There, Chiang Kai-shek could have won, could have kept China free of communism after ridding it of that plague.

Instead, as even liberal historian Paul Thomas Chamberlin notes in The Cold War's Killing Fields, Gen. Marshall aided the Red Chinese. He forced Chiang into pointless peace talks, then yanking aid, all while refusing to aid Chiang as he fought against Mao and Soviets in Manchuria. Marshall remained implacably opposed to Chiang because he was trying to defeat the communists rather than let them into the government (pg 78). Eventually, with US aid gone and the Soviets aiding Mao, China fell to communism, the "political changes" Marshall wanted. This was much like the sort of betrayal and backstabbing via peace conference later seen in Rhodesia's fight against communism

What followed were horrors of the worst sort, with tens of millions left dead as China's very fabric as an ancient civilization was ripped apart by Reds somehow even more destructive of history than the Bolsheviks. Mao, meanwhile, busied himself with molesting teenage girls

This is a critical point that we must remember as we work to reverse America’s South Africanization:

Framed as being for equality, civil rights, and such, there are many laws designed specifically to effect anti-white racism

It’s those laws we must destroy🧵👇 First, as to South Africa, the main issue are the “Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment,” or BEE laws

These are effectively affirmative action on steroids and compliance with them is required for any business that needs a license from or to work with the government must comply

The state measures compliance via a scoring system that tracks compliance based on how companies use racial preferences to hire black workers, promote those black workers to management positions, and hand company ownership to blacks

This is one of those common sentiments that mistakes human flourishing with access to comfort and cheap calories

Yes, grain is cheaper than ever and air conditioning is wonderful, as are antibiotics. But entirely gone are sovereignty and eudaimonia

That matters🧵👇 This is one of my pet peeves, and you see it everywhere

"If you have refrigeration/ice cream/air travel/whatever" you are "living better than X person you might want to be"

Typically kings and Rockefeller come up

What this misses is that that's far from all humans care about in terms of living well

The GOP must end the Reagan worship if it is to succeed in Making America Great Again

Why? His policies wrecked America in the long term

Yes, he fought the Soviets

But he also caused the illegal immigration crisis and destroyed marriage, and we must rectify those issues 🧵👇 This is a forgotten fact, hushed up because Reagan's pro-junk bonds stance buoyed the financial services industry and the Cold War ended in Soviet self-immolation rather than armageddon

But if you look at how his policies impacted America, "the Gipper," a 4-time FDR voter, was a disaster

This is an interesting question that comes up often

Why don't our billionaires build beautiful things as their Gilded Age counterparts did?

Because egalitarian mass democracy neither inculcates an honor-bound duty of noblesse oblige, nor incentivizes commons protection🧵👇 This is a cycle that often repeats: whereas the old wealth has (if properly taught virtue, as it should be) an understood duty to the commons because of the immense privilege with which it was born, "new men" only rarely grasp that duty

For one, they see their wealth as earned rather than the result of privilege, and so like Morrison in the Flashman series are loathe to part with it when called by duty to do so

But, more than that, they have a point: if self-made, they weren't born with the duties and privilege attendant to the silver spoon, and so don't have the same view of duty to the commons

This is why, as a side note, the House of Lords championed labor law reform that got rid of child labor, limited hours, etc.; duty

The Mandelas are back in the news thanks to his grandson's criminal behavior

So, time to discuss how awful the Mandela family was:

Nelson was a communist terrorist on the terror watchlist and his wife Winnie burned enemies alive in necklacing, a horrific execution method 🧵👇 Nelson Mandela himself is as good a place as any to start

While that stupid "Invictus" movie presented him as a lovable grandpa-type figure looking out for the good of the country, the reality is far different

Namely, Mandela was imprisoned not for being a "dissident," but for blowing up civilians in a bombing campaign

Thus misses the point: civilization there didn’t end when the worst of the gang stuff started, but when the political changes that enabled that horrific government decision to tolerate the gangs occurred

And when was that? 1911, with the Parliament Bill

🧵👇 Below is the history of that bill, and what the main change was for England, namely that the democratic elements were enabled by it, and bureaucrats then began to rule instead of country gentlemen, creating a disastrous feedback loop

https://twitter.com/will_tanner_1/status/1856364509197205807

If you’re on the right, and want to read books that present an invigorating view of a better world, what ought you read?

The best you could read are the novels of Jane Austen, as they show in unfrightening fashion a world of beauty and truth, which are our strengths

🧵👇 First, what is the right?

Since the French Revolution, it has, put simply, been the side of hierarchy and tradition

That has been lost in the US since it was eradicated to a great extent in and by the Late Unpleasantness

But, still, it is what the right is: natural hierarchy and the tradition that supports it as a political force, with the hierarchy component generally leading to the best governance over the long term as the best we’re in charge, and the tradition component keeping heritage intact and preventing radical shifts in direction

What should a republic's elite do? How ought they behave and for what reasons?

Tiberius Gracchus shows us: aristocratic populism, or the blending of aristocratic care for the state's long-term stability+health with a tribune's concern for the common man

I'll explain in my 🧵👇 Such is what Romulus originally intended of his kingdom. As recorded by Plutarch in his life of Romulus, the first patricians were meant to not be rapacious plutocrats, but true aristocrats who cared for their people:

“Romulus thought it the duty of the foremost and most influential citizens to watch over the more lowly with fatherly care and concern, while he taught the multitude not to fear their superiors nor be vexed at their honours, but to exercise goodwill towards them, considering them and addressing them as fathers[.]”

🧵
Remember, it was foreign labor displacing Romans that infuriated Tiberius Gracchus and sparked his political career. As Plutarch records:

“[W]hen Tiberius went through Tuscany to Numantia, and found the country almost depopulated, there being hardly any free husbandmen or shepherds, but for the most part only barbarian, imported slaves, he then first conceived the course of policy which in the sequel proved so fatal to his family. Though it is also most certain that the people themselves chiefly excited his zeal and determination in the prosecution of it, by setting up writings upon the porches, walls, and monuments, calling upon him to reinstate the poor citizens in their former possessions.” And it is not to be forgotten that it is that foreign labor that hollowed out the Republic from within, replacing sturdy yeomen with foreign slaves, and driving the former footsoldiers of the Republic into the inner city slums:

"the rich men of the neighbourhood contrived to get these lands again into their possession, under other people's names, and at last would not stick to claim most of them publicly in their own. The poor, who were thus deprived of their farms, were no longer either ready, as they had formerly been, to serve in war or careful in the education of their children; insomuch that in a short time there were comparatively few freemen remaining in all Italy, which swarmed with workhouses full of foreign-born slaves. These the rich men employed in cultivating their ground of which they dispossessed the citizens.”

He just died so we're supposed to pretend he's a saint, but Carter was instrumental in killing the free, prosperous state of Rhodesia and aiding Mugabe in his takeover of it, then transforming it into hellish Zimbabwe

In fact, after Harold Wilson, Carter's the key villain🧵👇 I've written much about this before, but a quick summary to set the scene:

Carter was elected in '76 and acceded to power in '77. This coincided with the Bush War taking its final, much more intense form, with Soviet and CCP-backed rebels infiltrating from Zambia and Mozambique, which the Portuguese had lost in '75 after the '74 Carnation Revolution

The Rhodesian Front government, still generally supported by most blacks and whites within the country, was fighting for its life against those communist rebels and in desperate need of Western aid to survive. Its survival would have mean a bulwark against the communists in one of the world's key regions.

It needed that aid because the South Africans had generally stopped helping, as they sensed which way the wind was blowing and sought detente in their region with the black communist governments, and thought throwing Rhodesia to the wolves would buy them some time. Meanwhile, the whole world other than South Africa and Israel had gone along with UN sanctions of Rhodesia, cutting it off from needed trade and access to supplies

It's incredible how little reflection went into this "America needs a billion Tiger Moms" post, as it totally misunderstands what sort of spirit made the West great, and is just an attempt to replace what remains of that unique spirit with a slavish one

A short 🧵👇

https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1872312139945234507

What made the West great, and indeed what made the Occident different from everywhere else, was a very different attitude: individual excellence paired with social charm and grace, and caring deeply about that social aspect of life

So, adventurers, officers, country squires, and all the rest who took over the world on behalf of the Occident over the 18th and 19th century were expected to be well-read, be brave, and be charming; except in rare cases of eccentricity, it wouldn't do to just have one of those virtues

"They do the jobs Americans can't and won't"

The current argument for H-1b expansion is just the illegal immigration argument applied to office work, and is what happened during the Gilded Age, to America's great misfortune

A short 🧵👇 That is incorrect in white-collar work and in the blue-collar work ravaged by decades of mass migration into America.

What is undoubtedly true is that Third World imports can and will work for far less than Americans, and often in far worse conditions...

Well, that and, as @loganclarkhall pointed out, the groups prioritized for H-1b economic migration tend to vote blue (Indians, for example, went for Kamala 70-30)

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.