Author - Dark Urban Christian Fantasy - Picture Books - Adult.
Moncks Corner, SC
Joined October 2022
- Tweets4.3K
- Following4.2K
- Followers4.7K
- Likes7.6K
Pinned Tweet
New Guardians Tom & Twig
"True beauty comes from the heart."
"Spread your wings, because God's love carries you."
@pixiestrmdesign
#Handcraftedwithprayer
#Christiangifts
Violet Tempest retweeted
To every American, and to everyone watching France burn from abroad:
Do not blame the French people for this.
We never asked for it. We never voted for it. And the one time we were clearly asked, we said no.
Here are the numbers your media won't show you.
70% of the French say there are too many immigrants in France today.
79% want a tougher immigration policy.
77% disapprove of the government's record on immigration.
83% want foreign criminals and long-term unemployed foreigners sent home.
And no, it's not just the old. 69% of French 18 to 24 year olds support suspending legal immigration for three years.
This is not a fringe. This is the French people.
In 2005, we were asked if we wanted the European Constitution. 55% voted no. Three years later, our politicians passed the same text under another name, through parliament, without ever asking us again.
That is modern France in one sentence. The people say no. The elites do it anyway.
So who is responsible? The politicians who lied to us. A class of leaders formed in the same schools, the same forums, the same networks, loyal to each other before they are loyal to their nations.
In 2017, at Harvard, Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, bragged about his Young Global Leaders program in four words: "We penetrate the cabinets." He added that it was true in France. Emmanuel Macron was one of his Young Global Leaders.
It's the same project in Brussels with Ursula von der Leyen and in Paris with Macron. Borders treated as an obstacle. Nations treated as relics. The people treated as a problem to be managed.
What you are watching in France is not the French people failing. It is the end of the globalist project, an abject, quasi-communist dream of a world run by unelected planners. It is collapsing everywhere in Europe at once, and the West has to cut this cancer out before it takes the rest of the body with it.
The peoples of Europe don't want this. They never did.
So when you see our town halls burning, don't say "the French chose this."
The French never chose this.
They were forced into it.
If you're French and you agree, repost this so the world hears it from us.
If you're American, look at us carefully. Then choose differently on November 3rd.
Violet Tempest retweeted
My dear American friends, I've shown you where the disease came from and who sells it. Now I want you to look at this email.
January 5, 2020, 2:44 in the morning. Peter Thiel writes to Mark Zuckerberg, Nick Clegg, Sheryl Sandberg and Marc Andreessen. It became public years later, in a lawsuit between the state of Tennessee and Meta. The subject line is one word: Millennials.
Thiel starts from a number: 70% of Millennials say they are pro-socialist.
Read that again. Seven out of ten young adults in the richest, freest, most innovative country in human history say they want the system that ruined every country that tried it.
And Thiel, one of the sharpest minds in Silicon Valley, says something important. Don't just dismiss them as stupid or brainwashed. Understand why. His answer: when you're crushed by student debt and housing is unaffordable, you have no capital and no way to build any. And if you have no stake in capitalism, you turn against it.
He's right. But follow the thread one step further, because that's where it gets interesting.
Who made college unaffordable? Washington flooded universities with easy federal loans, and universities raised their prices year after year, because they could. The same universities that then taught those students, for four years, that capitalism is the problem.
Who made housing unaffordable? Zoning rules, permits, environmental reviews, endless regulation that makes it nearly illegal to build. Remember Piketty's famous rise of capital? It was mostly housing. Scarcity created by the state.
So here's the full picture. The state creates the scarcity. The universities teach that capitalism caused it. The politicians sell socialism as the cure. The arsonist is selling fire insurance.
That's why 70% is not a natural opinion. No generation wakes up one morning wanting central planning. It takes decades of teaching, a captured culture, and an economy rigged to give young people no stake in it. In a healthy country, that number would trigger a serious public investigation into what American universities have been teaching for fifty years. This is not a debate. It's the result of a long, patient operation, exactly the war of position Gramsci described from his prison cell.
Now let me tell you what history says happens when an ideology captures a generation and turns it against everything that came before.
China, 1966. Mao unleashes the Cultural Revolution and hands it to the youth. Students become Red Guards. Their mission: destroy the "Four Olds," old customs, old culture, old habits, old ideas. Temples, books, art, centuries of history, smashed.
In August 1966, at a girls' school in Beijing, students beat their vice principal, Bian Zhongyun, to death. She was one of the first. Teachers across the country were humiliated, tortured, killed by the children they had taught.
In 1970, a 16-year-old boy named Zhang Hongbing denounced his own mother for criticizing Mao. She was executed. He spent the rest of his life trying to apologize for it.
Children were taught that loyalty to the Party came before loyalty to their parents. Historians estimate the Cultural Revolution killed somewhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of people.
The Soviet Union did it first. It turned a boy named Pavlik Morozov into a national hero for denouncing his father. Generations of Soviet children were raised on his story.
Cambodia, 1975. The Khmer Rouge declare Year Zero. Teenagers with rifles empty the cities. Wearing glasses was enough to mark you as an intellectual. In four years, roughly a quarter of the population was dead.
Every time, the same pattern. Take the young. Teach them that the past is guilty. Teach them that their parents, their teachers, their history are the enemy. Then give them power.
So when you see statues pulled down, words banned, books rewritten, and parents treated as obstacles in their own children's schools, understand what you're looking at. It's not the end of the story. It's the opening act. It always starts with the young, and it always starts with good intentions.
If the West ever gets its Marxist youth revolution, it won't end in Scandinavia. It will end the way it has ended every single time it was tried for real. And we will have learned nothing.
Thiel saw the number. I'm telling you where it leads.
The answer is not to hate the young. It's to give them back a stake in the system. Let them build. Let them buy a home. Make college worth its price or skip it. Let them start companies instead of drowning in debt. A generation that owns something defends it. A generation that owns nothing will burn it down.
I come from your future. Don't let your children write the next chapter of this story.
My dear American friends, today I'm going to take apart the two most successful salesmen of economic snake oil of our time: Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman.
If you read my last post, you know where this comes from. Gramsci told his heirs not to storm the palace but to capture the institutions: schools, universities, media, culture. I showed you how France became the laboratory. Today I want to show you the field where that strategy worked best of all. Economics.
Here's why. In physics, if your theory is wrong, the bridge falls down. In engineering, the rocket explodes. Reality grades your work. In the social sciences, reality grades slowly, and nobody loses their job when the prediction fails. You pick your data, you pick your assumptions, you build a model, and the conclusion you wanted at the start comes out at the end with a lot of equations attached. That's the perfect terrain for a war of position. You don't need to be right. You need to be cited.
Meet the two generals.
Thomas Piketty wrote Capital in the Twenty-First Century. It sold millions of copies and became the most celebrated economics book of the decade. Gabriel Zucman, his former student, wrote The Triumph of Injustice with Emmanuel Saez and helped design the wealth taxes that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders campaigned on. This is not a French problem. Their ideas are already inside your Democratic Party.
Now let's go through their theses one by one.
Thesis one: "r > g." Piketty's famous formula says the return on capital grows faster than the economy, so wealth inevitably concentrates in the hands of a few dynasties, and capitalism slides back to the aristocracy of the 19th century.
Look at the list of the richest Americans today. Elon Musk. Jeff Bezos. Jensen Huang. Mark Zuckerberg. Larry Page. First-generation builders. Not heirs. Most of the names on the first Forbes 400 list in 1982 have since fallen off it. Fortunes don't compound forever. They get split between children, spent, mismanaged, and overtaken by people who build something new. And when an MIT graduate student, Matthew Rognlie, looked closely at Piketty's own numbers, he found that the rise in capital's share of income came almost entirely from housing. Not factories. Not shareholders. Real estate, which is a story about building restrictions, not about capitalism. The law of history turned out to be a law of zoning.
Thesis two: "Inequality in America has exploded." Piketty, Saez and Zucman built the charts every journalist uses. Top 1% capturing everything, the middle class crushed.
Then two economists at the US Treasury and the Joint Committee on Taxation, Gerald Auten and David Splinter, redid the work. They counted what the famous charts left out or treated differently: taxes paid, government transfers, retirement income, changes in how people file. Their result: after taxes and transfers, the top 1%'s share of income has barely moved since the 1960s. Same country, same tax data, a completely different story. The difference isn't reality. It's the assumptions. And Piketty's data was already in trouble in 2014, when the Financial Times published an investigation pointing out errors and unexplained adjustments in his spreadsheets.
Thesis three: "Billionaires pay a lower tax rate than the working class." This was the headline of Saez and Zucman's book, and it went viral. The 400 richest Americans supposedly paid less than the bottom half.
To get there, they made choices that critics across the spectrum, including Larry Summers, Obama's own former Treasury Secretary, challenged: how corporate taxes are assigned, how refundable credits that put money into lower-income households' pockets are counted. Meanwhile, the IRS's own numbers say the top 1% of earners pay more than 40% of all federal income taxes. A viral claim is not a fact. It's a campaign slogan with footnotes.
Thesis four: "A small wealth tax on the ultra-rich will fund everything." In France, Zucman's proposal became the left's flagship measure: a 2% minimum tax every year on fortunes over €100 million.
Here's what they never explain. The fortunes of builders are not piles of cash. They are shares in the companies they built. Imagine a founder whose startup is valued at a billion euros but doesn't make a profit yet. To pay a 2% tax on paper wealth, every year, he has to sell pieces of his company. Year after year, he loses control, and the buyers are usually foreign funds. Congratulations, you just exported your best companies.
And we know what happens next, because it already happened. In 1990, twelve OECD countries had a wealth tax. By 2017, only four did. Nearly all of them repealed it, because it raised little and chased away capital. Norway raised its wealth tax in 2022 and dozens of its richest people moved to Switzerland. France ran the experiment for decades before abolishing most of its wealth tax in 2018. Their policy has been tested. It failed every time.
Thesis five: and here they stop pretending. In his next book, Capital and Ideology, Piketty proposes what he openly calls "participatory socialism." Taxes on the largest fortunes up to 90%. Property that is no longer permanent, but "temporary," returned to the collective at regular intervals. He's not hiding anything. The goal isn't to fix capitalism. It's to end private ownership of anything big enough to matter.
So why are they celebrated? Why do they have the prizes, the chairs, the front pages, the invitations to Davos? Zucman even won the John Bates Clark Medal in 2023, one of the most prestigious awards in economics.
That's not a refutation of what I'm telling you. That's the proof of it. That's what it looks like when Gramsci's long march reaches the economics departments. The institutions give each other medals, the media quote the medals, and the politicians quote the media. Nobody ever checks whether the predictions came true.
So stop calling them neutral economists. They are activists with PhDs. Their work starts from a conclusion, that private wealth is illegitimate, and builds the data to justify it.
And understand where that conclusion leads. I'm not saying Piketty or Zucman want camps. I'm saying every regime that tried to abolish large private property ended in poverty, and the worst of them ended in prisons and mass graves. The intellectuals who cheered Lenin didn't want gulags either. Many of them ended up in one. Good intentions have never been a firewall.
Next time someone quotes Piketty or Zucman at you, don't get angry. Ask questions. Who are the richest people today, heirs or builders? Why did almost every country that tried a wealth tax repeal it? Why do two teams using the same tax data reach opposite conclusions? What does Piketty mean by temporary property?
You don't need to win the argument. You just need to make them check.
I come from your future. We gave these men our universities, our newspapers and our budget debates. Don't give them yours.
Violet Tempest retweeted
Health Update: I’m doing MUCH better! I’m finally able to eat solid food again, got a bunch of much needed sleep. Not sure what caused me to feel so miserable ☹️ but I’m just happy to be doing much better. Thank you all for your prayers and well wishes! 💖
Violet Tempest retweeted
Activist: "The difference is nothing died for my dinner."
Farmer: "What did you have?"
Activist: "Rice, roast veg, hummus, a bit of bread. Oat milk in my tea."
Farmer: "The rice."
Activist: "Grown in a paddy."
Farmer: "A flooded field, drained for harvest. Frogs, fish, snails, eels, all of it dies in the mud. Then the combine. The veg?"
Activist: "Carrots, peppers, courgettes."
Farmer: "Carrots are a ploughed field. I've ploughed. The gulls follow the tractor because of what comes up in pieces. Peppers and courgettes are a polytunnel. Slug pellets, and a hive of bees trucked in to pollinate them, then the hive's left to die at the end of the season because it's cheaper than feeding it. The hummus?"
Activist: "Chickpeas."
Farmer: "Sprayed with something to kill the plant so it dries evenly for the combine. I've done that too. Whatever's living in it dries out with it. Mice, voles, leverets, partridge chicks. Twelve miles an hour, a blade eight metres wide. The bread?"
Activist: "...Wheat."
Farmer: "Same field, same machine, plus the rats in the grain store and what's done about them. Your oat milk's the same again, with a factory on the end."
Activist: "Those are all accidents."
Farmer: "I've killed more voles with a plough than I ever have with a bolt gun, and I'm the one with the bolt gun. One bullock off that hill is one death and a year's dinners. Your plate's about forty and you didn't see any of them."
Activist: "At least I didn't choose it."
Farmer: "You chose to be the only one at the table who didn't know."
Violet Tempest retweeted
This is such a great take.
It’s because they know he exists. They know that if they don’t seek their salvation through Christ, they’ll end up where they don’t want to be.
It is what it is.
Violet Tempest retweeted
I’m a Black man in an Arab man’s world! We get ZERO justice in Detroit! We are under a two tier justice system (Sharia Law) They own all the essential businesses (necessary to live), and when we want to have a discussion look how we get treated! Detroit are you sick and tired of being, sick and tired!
Violet Tempest retweeted
I warned the West about them before. This is only the beginning. When their numbers grow and they start electing politicians who share their views, you should consider yourselves as good as dead. We’ve experienced this in Iran.
Violet Tempest retweeted
Bernie Sanders says the top 1% owns more than the bottom 93%, that fewer than a thousand billionaires got $2.2 trillion richer last year, and that it's "obscene."
It's the most seductive and most wrong economic argument of our time. Let me explain why.
First, wealth distribution follows a power law. Always. Everywhere. Books, music, startups, followers on X, goals in soccer. A small minority captures most of the value. That's not a bug of capitalism. It's the mathematical signature of every system where value gets created.
So the only question that matters isn't "how big is the rich's slice?" It's "is the cake growing, and is the slice of the poorest growing with it?"
And the answer is yes. In 1990, more than one human in three lived in extreme poverty. Today it's about one in ten. During exactly the period when billionaires multiplied.
Bernie shows you the slice. He never shows you the cake.
Second thing he won't tell you: past a certain level, wealth stops being consumption. It becomes capital allocation.
Elon Musk isn't sleeping on a pile of cash. He owns stakes in Tesla, SpaceX, xAI. Jeff Bezos owns Amazon stock. That "$2.2 trillion" isn't sitting in a checking account. It's factories, rockets, data centers, millions of jobs. Nobody can eat $100 billion. You can only decide where to invest it.
Once you understand that, the whole debate changes. The real question becomes: who allocates capital better?
The people who built Amazon, SpaceX and Nvidia? Or politicians?
A 5% wealth tax isn't "taking money from the rich." It's taking investment decisions away from people who proved they can create value and handing them to people who proved the opposite.
Because the fundamental difference between an entrepreneur and a politician is consequences.
The entrepreneur invests his own money. If he allocates badly, he loses everything. The market corrects him brutally, no appeal. That's why most startups die: the system kills bad decisions.
The politician invests other people's money. If he allocates badly, nothing happens. Worse, he gets a bigger budget to "fix the problem."
Milton Friedman put it better than anyone. There are four ways to spend money. Your money on yourself: you care about price and quality. Your money on others: you care about price. Others' money on yourself: you care about quality. Others' money on others: you care about nothing.
Government is the fourth box. By design.
Perfect example: California high-speed rail. Approved in 2008 for about $33 billion. Current estimated cost: over $100 billion. Passengers carried: zero. No entrepreneur would have survived that. The politicians who pushed it built careers on it.
And when allocation has no consequences, it eventually finds a buyer. A politician who controls billions without accountability becomes the most profitable target in the world for anyone who wants to steer that money.
The irony is that the left that rails against billionaires is itself funded by billionaires. George Soros is one of the biggest Democratic donors in history. The Gates Foundation shapes public health policy across the planet.
Politicians don't fight billionaires. They pick their own. The ones who fund the state over the ones who compete with it.
So if we actually want fewer poor people, we have to stop judging ideas by their intentions and start judging them by their results. And the results are brutally clear.
China, 1978: Deng Xiaoping opens the economy to markets. More than 800 million people escape extreme poverty. The largest retreat of misery in human history. Not through redistribution. Through the freedom to build.
India, 1991: liberalization. Same movie.
South Korea and North Korea: same people, same language, same starting point in 1953. One became one of the most advanced economies on earth. The other has famines.
Poland and Ukraine: comparable living standards in 1990. Today the average Pole is more than three times richer than the average Ukrainian.
Argentina: a year and a half of liberalization, and the poverty rate falls from over 50% to around 30%.
No country in history escaped poverty by punishing the people who build. Every single one did it by letting them build.
And if you want to see what Bernie's program looks like in real life, you don't have to imagine it. It exists. It's called France. We've been running it for 45 years.
Mass nationalizations in 1981. Two years later, Socialist president Mitterrand has to reverse course into austerity.
Retirement at 60. The 35-hour workweek.
A wealth tax for 35 years. Hundreds of wealthy households left every year for Belgium, Switzerland, London, taking their capital, their companies and their future taxes with them. Macron finally scrapped it in 2018.
Hollande's 75% tax: raised a few hundred million, drove talent out, abandoned after two years.
One of the highest tax burdens in the OECD. Public spending around 57% of GDP, a record in the developed world.
Last balanced budget: 1974. Public debt: over €3.4 trillion. Mass unemployment for four decades.
If taxing the rich and growing the state made people prosperous, France would be the richest country on the planet.
It isn't. GDP per capita in France is barely more than half of America's. It's lower than Mississippi, the poorest state in the US. Not a single global tech giant. Our best engineers build Silicon Valley instead. I've been going back and forth between Paris and San Francisco for years. I see it every week.
And California is about to replay the movie. Prop 40, on the ballot November 3rd, would take 5% of billionaires' net worth. Even Gavin Newsom, a Democratic governor, opposes it. The state's own nonpartisan budget analyst warns that income tax revenue could drop every year if the wealthy leave. Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Peter Thiel have reportedly already started moving their assets out.
You don't fight poverty by shrinking the top. You fight it by growing the cake.
Bernie wants a society where nobody has too much. I want a society where nobody has too little.
The first has been tried everywhere and produces equality in stagnation. The second lifted a billion people out of misery.
Choose.
The top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 93%.
1 man owns more wealth than the bottom 53% of households.
Less than a thousand billionaires got $2.2 trillion richer in the last year.
Obscene.
Yes. We need a 5% billionaire wealth tax in California and throughout America.
Violet Tempest retweeted
I'm South African. I also want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. To warn you.
I come from even further into the future.
South Africa used to be a first-world country. We had the best infrastructure and hospitals in the world, and we were developing our own nuclear capability.
Today, there is literally shit running in the streets; people in our capital, Johannesburg, haven't had running water for months and more than 40 000 rape cases are reported every year.
For most South Africans, there is no such thing as healthcare. You go and stand in a queue for days, then go home.
This is what happens when you hand your country to economically illiterate progressive fools with catchy slogans.
Don't do it.
I’m French. I want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. Not to insult you. To warn you.
I come from your future.
In France we did everything your progressive politicians promise. Free healthcare, free college, generous welfare, strong unions, heavy regulation, high taxes on the rich, a state that takes care of everything. Public spending close to 57% of GDP, one of the highest on the planet. On paper, it’s the dream.
Here’s what it looks like from the inside. France hasn’t passed a balanced budget since 1974. Our debt is above 3,300 billion euros. Interest on that debt is becoming one of the biggest items in the national budget. Our hospitals are collapsing despite record funding. Our schools rank lower every year. Young people with degrees can’t afford an apartment in the city they were born in. Our best engineers leave for London, Zurich and San Francisco. And the rich you wanted to tax? They left too, and took the jobs with them.
The promise was protection. The result is stagnation.
The worst part is that nobody in France voted for decline. Every single step sounded generous, compassionate, reasonable. One more program. One more regulation. One more tax to fund it. Each step alone makes sense. Fifty years of them, and you wake up in a country that can no longer build a nuclear plant on time or keep its streets safe.
I love America because it’s the one place on earth where people still believe they can build something from nothing. I came to Silicon Valley as a self-taught kid and it changed my life. That spirit is the most precious thing your country has.
Before you vote, ask yourself one question: is the program you’re voting for making America more like America, or more like France?
Trust me. You don’t want to be France.
Violet Tempest retweeted
I’m Polish. If France is your future, I come from the end of that road.
France shows you the slow version. We lived the full one – the version where the state doesn’t just take care of everything. It owns everything.
In Poland it arrived with Soviet bayonets. In America it would arrive by vote – slower, softer, with better slogans. But the destination is the same, and so is the mechanism.
It starts with prices. When the state decides what things should cost, prices stop telling the truth. A price is a message: this is scarce, this is wanted, make more of this. Abolish the message, and the whole economy goes deaf. So the shelves emptied – first of meat, then of almost everything.
Every Pole knew the joke. A man walks into a shop: "No meat?" The clerk: "No, sir. Here is no fish. No meat is across the street."
We queued for everything. People wrote their place in line on their palms and kept lists through the night. You waited years for a small car, and often more than a decade for an apartment. Not because Poles were lazy. Because nobody in the system had any reason to produce what we needed.
At work, we had another joke: we pretended to work, and they pretended to pay us.
And the promise of equality? It produced the most unequal system of all. The party elite had their own shops – Poles called them the shops behind the yellow curtains. Those with dollars shopped in special stores. Everyone else got the queue.
Then the system needed informers, because nobody believed in it anymore. Our neighbors were recruited to report on us. You never knew who was listening – the colleague, the friend, sometimes family. So we learned to live a double life: one language in public, another at home.
Those who spoke up got the wolf ticket: no job, no promotion, sometimes no university place for their children. Nobody needed to send them to prison. They just couldn’t live.
The newspapers reported record harvests while the shelves stood empty. Everyone knew. Nobody said it. That is what a society looks like when the lie becomes the system.
In 1950 we were about as rich as Spain. By 1989, Spain was twice as rich. That is what forty years of "fairness" cost us.
Today in America, the method is softer. Your neighbor won’t inform on you to the secret police. Someone will report your post, and you’ll be cancelled – no job, no account, no platform. Different tools, same machine.
We got out. Ten million of us joined Solidarity, and in 1989 a system that looked eternal collapsed. Since then, Poland has become one of the great success stories of Europe – because people were finally free to build.
But we still carry it. More than thirty years later, you can see it in the careful answers, the closed faces - the system leaves faster than the fear does. It takes generations to get out of it fully once you fall into that trap.
Nobody votes for the queue. Nobody votes for the informer. They come with the promise.
Trust me, you don’t want to go down that road.
I’m French. I want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. Not to insult you. To warn you.
I come from your future.
In France we did everything your progressive politicians promise. Free healthcare, free college, generous welfare, strong unions, heavy regulation, high taxes on the rich, a state that takes care of everything. Public spending close to 57% of GDP, one of the highest on the planet. On paper, it’s the dream.
Here’s what it looks like from the inside. France hasn’t passed a balanced budget since 1974. Our debt is above 3,300 billion euros. Interest on that debt is becoming one of the biggest items in the national budget. Our hospitals are collapsing despite record funding. Our schools rank lower every year. Young people with degrees can’t afford an apartment in the city they were born in. Our best engineers leave for London, Zurich and San Francisco. And the rich you wanted to tax? They left too, and took the jobs with them.
The promise was protection. The result is stagnation.
The worst part is that nobody in France voted for decline. Every single step sounded generous, compassionate, reasonable. One more program. One more regulation. One more tax to fund it. Each step alone makes sense. Fifty years of them, and you wake up in a country that can no longer build a nuclear plant on time or keep its streets safe.
I love America because it’s the one place on earth where people still believe they can build something from nothing. I came to Silicon Valley as a self-taught kid and it changed my life. That spirit is the most precious thing your country has.
Before you vote, ask yourself one question: is the program you’re voting for making America more like America, or more like France?
Trust me. You don’t want to be France.
Violet Tempest retweeted
Elon Musk:
“The reason I went so hardcore for Trump was because, to me, this was a fork in the road. If they had another four years, they would legalize enough illegals in the swing states to make the swing states not swing states, they would be blue states. Then they would win the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. And then they will keep importing more illegals to cement that outcome. Basically what happened in California.
It would have been the end. That's why I went so hardcore for Trump. I invite people to do their research. The more they do their research, the more they will see that what I'm saying is absolutely true.”
Violet Tempest retweeted
The rioting in France is not about cafeteria food, and over crowded classrooms . It’s about an Islamic takeover !
Ps if you need a reason not to sit the election out .. watch this video on loop..
Credit Liz Wheeler
Violet Tempest retweeted
A lot of uneducated people fall into this capitalism vs public trap. So let me explain why the "public" side of this debate comes down to one thing: it doesn't work.
And it's not because the State is evil. It's because the State is made of people. Same people as everywhere else. Same incentives, same laziness, same temptations. The only difference is whose money they're spending.
Milton Friedman nailed it. There are four ways to spend money. Your money on yourself: you watch the price and the quality. Your money on someone else: you watch the price, less the quality. Someone else's money on yourself: you stop caring about the price. Someone else's money on someone else: you care about neither. Every public budget on earth lives in that fourth box.
Now let me explain it like you're 8. Picture a schoolyard. 100 kids, Pokémon cards handed out at random. Nobody plans anything. Kids trade, collectors sort, good players accumulate. Very quickly every card ends up with the kid who values it most. Then the teacher walks in, decides it's unfair, confiscates everything and redistributes it herself. Problem: she has no idea who wants what. She can't. Nobody can. Trades stop, good players quit, and somehow the kids sitting closest to her desk end up with all the rare cards.
That last part is the one everyone forgets. When money flows from a central desk instead of voluntary trade, the winners are the people who know the desk best. Lobbyists, connected contractors, consultants billing 10x. California high-speed rail: budget tripled, still no train. That's not a bug, it's what happens every single time someone spends money that isn't theirs, on people they'll never meet, with zero consequences if they fail.
And here's the irony in your take. The capitalists who love public infrastructure the most are the cronies who win the contracts. That's not the free market. That's the exact opposite of it.
The free market is the only system where bad allocators lose their money and good allocators get more to allocate. Profit is the signal. Losses are the correction. The State has neither. A failing company goes bankrupt. A failing ministry gets a bigger budget next year.
So if you actually care about the common good, you should want more free market, not less. Freedom means the freedom to build, to trade, to keep what you create. It does not mean the freedom to hand other people's money to people who've proven they don't know how to invest it.
The question was never capitalism vs public. It's who allocates the next dollar best. 200 years of data, same answer every time.
Violet Tempest retweeted
My dear American friends,
Someone just quoted my post saying "the anti-fascists are bringing more fascism." He's more right than he knows. Let me tell you the history of that word, because nobody teaches it to you.
"Fascism" comes from Mussolini, Italy, 1919. "Antifascism" was born there a few years later, among his opponents: socialists, liberals, Catholics, communists. At that moment, the word meant something real.
Then Moscow took it.
In the late 1920s, the Comintern, Stalin's international arm, adopted a doctrine called "social fascism." The idea was simple: the moderate left, the social democrats, were fascists too. If you weren't with the Communists, you were a fascist. The word stopped describing an ideology and became a label for enemies.
In 1932, the German Communist Party launched "Antifaschistische Aktion." Look at its logo: two flags in a circle. It's the same logo you see on Antifa banners in American cities today. Same symbol, almost a century later. Back then, that movement spent as much energy attacking the Social Democrats as attacking the Nazis. While the left tore itself apart, Hitler took power.
After the war, the Soviet bloc made "antifascism" its official state religion. East Germany officially named the Berlin Wall the "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart." A wall built to keep its own people from escaping. Called antifascist.
That's the whole trick. Whoever controls the word "fascist" decides who is allowed to speak. Orwell saw it in 1946, when he wrote that "fascism" had come to mean little more than "something I don't like."
Real antifascists existed. The French Resistance. The soldiers who landed in Normandy. They fought fascism with their lives. They didn't need the word as a brand.
Today, you live in a world of inverted words. Censorship is "fighting misinformation." Burning cities is "mostly peaceful." Disagreement is "hate." And the person screaming "fascist" at everyone who disagrees with him is usually the one who wants power without debate.
So here's the test. When someone calls himself an antifascist, ignore the label and watch what he does. Does he want to silence opponents? Cancel speakers? Get people fired, banned, deplatformed? Then the label is a costume.
I'm French. We've lived this. For decades, anyone in France who questioned immigration, taxes, or the size of the state was called "far right" or "fascist." Half the country has been labeled that way. The result was no debate, only exclusion. And a country that stopped growing.
This vocabulary is now the vocabulary of the American left. Every Republican is "a threat to democracy." Every opponent is "fascist." And once your opponent is a fascist, everything becomes permitted against him. That's the logic of 1932, recycled.
So, my American friends, before you vote, ask yourself one question: who wants to argue with you, and who wants to silence you?
The answer tells you who the real fascist is.
Violet Tempest retweeted
I am a naturalized citizen. I came the legal way. This is why I am voting red.
-I did the full process: specialty occupation, job posted publicly, prevailing wage, fees paid by us, background checks that examined every part of my life, medical exams, interviews, green card, then citizenship.
It took more than ten years. You don't get to skip the line and that's what the Democrats want
-That process required real sacrifices years of family time I will never get back, money, and patience while I followed every rule.
-I am not a Republican. I am independent. I vote red because the other choice is the Democratic Party that already ran open borders and feeling-based policy from 2020 to 2024.
-I was not this political until I watched what those policies did to the country I chose. Four years was enough. I show up so they do not get the win again.
-I love this country. I chose it, earned my place in it, and took the oath. Citizenship is not a feeling. It is a privilege I respect.
-The other side spent years treating those rules as optional. Open borders and illegal entry skip the line I waited in and cheapen what the process is supposed to mean.
-H-1B gaming and wage undercutting undercut the people who followed the law. Equal rules are not cruelty.
Volume has real costs crime, housing, schools, hospitals. That is data.
Feeling-based policy ignored it.
-Merit got replaced by identity checkboxes. I earned my place by the rules, not by a category.
I am independent. I am not voting for perfection. I am voting so the country I chose and the process I completed still mean something. Logic over emotions.
