Pinned Tweet
I've yet to find a "racist" whose dislike of a race wasn't based on the culture of the members of that race, and who didn't stand ready to make exceptions for the people of that race who don't share that culture.
If people are willing to make exceptions on cultural grounds then their objections weren't ever based on race or colour then, were they?
"Racism" is nothing more than the lie used to silence those who object to their culture being destroyed from those who stand to financially gain from its destruction. It doesn't, and never has, existed.
"All of this is a gift to the racists."
Baroness Casey on how the failure to gather data and to believe survivors has allowed the far-right to exploit the grooming gangs scandal.
@maitlis | @lewis_goodall
Dominic Chambers retweeted
If you don't want another Labour government it's time to accept that Reform are finished
They're in decline & there is no way back up
Nobody wants a party filled with ex Tories who failed us & that panders to Islam
Restore is our only hope for the future our country needs
😂
Well Humza, how do you reconcile child marriage, wife beating, clitorectomies and stoning women...with
traditional English values
Do you see a compromise ? Child marriage is OK if the girl is over ten, perhaps ?
A meeting point, half way ? Stoning women only with pieces of wood ?
Removing only half the clitoris ?
Let's have some suggestions, please, Humza
Dominic Chambers retweeted
Britains's had enough. HD
Please do not rip this content, but please share: repost or quote post.
Dominic Chambers retweeted
Not going to lie, the meltdown from Reform voters has been entertaining. Just look at how both sides reacted to the results yesterday.
Restore - happy with the progress and growth.
Reform - “Restore made us lose”
Nah I’m sorry but we’re not voting for this:
Dominic Chambers retweeted
If English isn't an ethnicity how can there be ethnic minorities living in it?
Take all the time you need with this 😀
🚨 Braverman’s position on #bbcqt is so extraordinary: she internalises the racist premise that a person of Asian heritage cannot truly be English.
She is prepared to accept racial exclusion for herself, to do herself down and doff her cap to ethnic English nationalism, then uses her own self-exclusion to legitimise the exclusion of millions of others.
England is not a racial category. Black and Asian people born and raised here are no less English than anyone else.
This narrow English nationalism also treats England as the default nation of Britain, reducing Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to subordinate appendages.
The UK must be a partnership of equal nations, not a hierarchy with England at the top.
Dominic Chambers retweeted
Can a White Person born in China call themselves Chinese? Yes.
Do the Chinese regard that person as Chinese? No.
Is that Racist? No. That is observing what your eyes are telling you.
But the Left has to barge their way into any Group that excludes them simply because their frailty can’t handle objective truth.
Dominic Chambers retweeted
I’ve seen a lot of Reform accounts getting pissy today because they didn’t win an election, claiming Restore Britain is “splitting the vote.”
I just wanted to say this:
I’ve never once considered voting Reform. I don’t see them as a serious right-wing party. The slandering directed at us isn’t going to convince us either.
Your party is shit. Your leadership is shit.
It’s a left-wing Trojan horse, posing as right-wing so they can fuck the country even further.
A vote for Reform is a vote for Jeffrey Epstein.
This is why we’re voting Restore Britain.
Hop on the train, or enjoy your sinking ship.
Dominic Chambers retweeted
Researchers proved AI has deleted every reason universities exist.
Harvard University ran a controlled experiment pitting a custom AI against their own top-tier classrooms.
And the results are going to collapse the higher education bubble.
They took 194 undergraduates and split them up.
One group learned physics in one of Harvard’s best hands-on, active-learning physical classrooms. Group work. Instructor support. The premium university experience.
The other group went home and learned the exact same material with an AI tutor.
The AI didn't just win. It embarrassed the institution.
Students using the AI learned more than twice as much as the students in the elite Harvard classroom.
They scored 30% higher on the final assessment.
And they did it in less time.
Let that sink in.
A piece of software sitting on a laptop outperformed a world-class faculty in one of the most elite learning environments on Earth.
Universities have always justified their exorbitant tuition with two things: access to elite knowledge and the physical classroom experience.
This study just proved both of those moats are gone.
When software can teach you complex physics twice as well as a $60,000-a-year institution, the math of higher education breaks permanently.
The AI didn't just give the students answers. It used strict pedagogical guardrails. It guided. It questioned. It forced the students to do the cognitive work.
It offered perfect, one-to-one tutoring, personalized to the exact moment a student misunderstood a concept.
That level of attention is mathematically impossible to scale in a physical lecture hall.
For a thousand years, the university was the only place to get a premium education.
Now, it’s the bottleneck.
If AI can double your learning speed for a fraction of the cost, what exactly are students taking on decades of debt to pay for?
Ouch!
The sons of black millionaires have the same crime rate as the sons of white families earning $36,000.
It's not poverty. Group differences are real and not eliminated by material redistribution. You can't just give "free" stuff to people and expect everyone will behave the same.
Dominic Chambers retweeted
Feminism is nothing but the bottom level of maturity for women. It is the idea that women should lead.
Everyone is familiar with men's flaws. Very few are familiar with women's.
Young or stupid men overestimate their strength, power, competence, and status. They say "I could kick that guy's ass" when there's no chance in hell, or "I would never fuck that girl, she has pointy elbows" when there's no way she would ever give him a shot.
The idea is "my dick is so big! I can dominate anything! I have power!"
But nobody talks about the female equivalent. We pretend there isn't one! Women are just nicer and smarter and never cause any trouble! 😅
Actually though, the opposite of "my male energy is so big" is "my female energy is so big."
Of course it is.
So what does that look like?
Well, male energy is active and takes initiative. "I'm going to build something! I'm going to destroy something! Listen to me speak!"
So female energy would have to be the opposite. It is passive and it responds to initiative. "I like / do not like what you built! I'm happy / angry you destroyed that! I'm impressed / repulsed by what you said!"
Immature masculine behavior doesn't know its limits. Immature men jump their bikes over trains and get smashed to pulp. They make claims they can't back up.
Mature masculine, on the other hand, knows exactly what it can do and where and when and how, and makes no promises otherwise. It also seeks to become more competent. More powerful. Instead of just... you know... SAYING so.
So then what would immature feminine behavior be?
Copied from above: "I like / do not like what you built! I'm happy / angry you destroyed that! I'm impressed / repulsed by what you did!"
In other words, "my approval matters because my vagina is so important. All the powerful men move mountains for me! EVERYONE WANTS ME SO BAD!"
Do you see how this is the female mirror image of "my dick is so big, I can do anything?"
"Everyone wants my vagina, so I can demand anything."
Now you understand why female comedians never shut up about their vaginas, and why Zoomer tiktok feminists call everyone they don't like an "incel" or a "pick me." Those words mean "no vagina for you!" and "you're so unwanted, you have to sell your vagina!"
The female version of power is based on BEING WANTED, and then SELECTING who they prefer. They leverage this selection to pressure men to obey them. "Incel" = "you are not selected because you did not obey!"
Just like the male version of power is immature when it doesn't know its limits, the female version of power is immature when it doesn't know how desirable it is.
"I'm a 10!"
"We're all 10s!"
This is why the mature masculine leads the mature feminine, but the immature masculine is led by the immature feminine. This is also why everything is falling apart.
Mature masculine: "This is what I can do. Here is the proof. Do you like it?"
Mature feminine: "Yes I do, show me more." / "No thank you."
But immature men cannot lead, and immature women will not be led.
Immature masculine: "I'm so strong and cool! I can do anything!"
Immature feminine: "Ew, no you can't! Incel! Icky! No one can do enough for me! I'm a 10!"
This results in hatred and chaos between the sexes.
So then what happens if both men and women refuse to grow up? Women begin to lead, of course.
Immature feminine: "I'm a 10! I'm perfect! Everyone has to do what I say and be what I want!"
Immature masculine: "Of course you are a 10, m'lady! I have all the opinions you say to have! I hate all those icky incels and misogynists, too! PUNCH A NAZI!" [never punches any nazis]
...But women cannot lead. They cannot build or destroy. They cannot provide. They cannot protect.
There has never been an all woman army. There has never been an all woman large business. An all woman government. Any time this has been tried, they never leave the stone age, or return to it.
This is what the maturity crisis means. And feminism caused it.
Dominic Chambers retweeted
Potentially true.
Most of us have this picture of leftists as rapid, anti-civilizational destroyers who seek to eliminate all that is good and beautiful.
But in reality, many leftists believe they are the good guys. They want the right thing - and are just fundamentally misguided.
For the educated and discerning mind , certain causal chains are obvious and engrained:
Socialism > starvation > civil war / revolution
Open borders > rape and murder > balkanization > civil war
Centralized power > government overreach > tech dystopia and dissident jailing
DEI > race hate > race war
But now imagine your brain has never considered anything. You then may think
Socialism > everyone has money > kumbaya!
Open borders > everyone is welcome > kumbaya!
Centralized power > we can take care of everyone > kumbaya!
DEI > share your privilege > kumbaya!
Them, when they implement these things and inevitably the first causal chains kick in , they might truly be dumbfounded.
It’s like a child who thinks it’s too cold and light the sofa on fire. Then, when the house burns down , it is truly surprised and sorry.
Who could have known that lighting the sofa on fire could generate excess heat and burn the house down ?
Dominic Chambers retweeted
Visited Dartmouth today.
Almost everybody there was white.
I approached a local:
“What’s the food like here?”
“It’s terrible. We barely eat. Most days we survive on tinned meat and potatoes. There are no restaurants because there’s no immigrants to open them or work in them. You can’t even go to the supermarket because there are no immigrants to stock the shelves.”
“Oh dear” I said. “What about hospitals and stuff? Are they good around here?”
“We don’t have hospitals or doctors” he told me. “We have no Nigerians and Indians so when you get sick you just die. It’s terrible. You just have to hope that you get better because there are no immigrants to care for us.”
“What about general infrastructure?”
“There’s no fuel for cars because there are no Indians to work in the petrol stations. If you want to go somewhere - you walk or go by boat.”
Truly a grim place. I don’t know how we ever managed before mass immigration.
Dominic Chambers retweeted
The conventional explanation for Rome’s demographic collapse is wealth. People got comfortable. They stopped having children. It happens to every prosperous civilization. Nothing to be done.
This is wrong. Or rather, it is incomplete in the way that matters most.
Rome didn’t stop having children because it got wealthy. It stopped having children because it built a welfare state – and the welfare state did what welfare states always do: it replaced the incentives that make people build families with incentives that make people consume instead.
The grain dole began modestly. Around 40,000 recipients in 73 BC. By Caesar’s time: 320,000. That eightfold expansion in under three decades was not a plan – it was a political mechanism. Each magistrate who wanted votes expanded eligibility. Each expansion normalized the next. The citizen who once considered the dole shameful eventually expected it, then demanded it, then organized politically to protect it.
The dole didn’t just feed people. It changed what people were for. A Roman citizen with guaranteed grain, free entertainment at the arena, and no frontier left to conquer has no pressing need to build anything – including a family. Children are a project. Projects require purpose. The welfare state had quietly removed the purpose while appearing to provide security.
Augustus saw the birth rate collapsing and did what statists always do: he legislated. The Lex Julia, the Lex Papia Poppaea – penalties for the unmarried, rewards for the fertile, the full power of the empire deployed to engineer a baby boom by decree. It didn’t work. It never works. You cannot legislate desire. You cannot fine people into wanting a future.
What Augustus didn’t have was Mises and Hayek. He didn’t understand that the system he was trying to fix with more intervention was being destroyed by the intervention he had already deployed. He saw the symptom — falling birth rates — and reached for the tool he knew: state power. He didn’t see the cause, because no one in his world had yet articulated it: when you replace personal purpose with state provision, you replace the human drive to build with the human tendency to consume. The dole didn’t just feed the hungry. It fed the purposeless.
We have Mises. We have Hayek. We have the complete theoretical account of what the welfare state does to human motivation, to family formation, to the incentive structures that make people want to build something that outlasts them. We know what Augustus didn’t know. We know why the laws failed. We know what produces the behavior he was trying to legislate into existence.
The answer is not more legislation. It is less welfare state. Not because cruelty is a virtue – but because purpose is. The person who must build to survive builds. The person who must form a family to transmit what they have built forms one. The person who receives guaranteed grain, guaranteed entertainment, and guaranteed security from the state has been given everything except the reason to do any of those things.
Scrap the socialism. Restore the purpose. The birth rate will follow – not because anyone ordered it, but because people who have something to build and something to transmit tend, given the choice, to build and transmit.
Rome didn’t know it had a choice. We do.
Rome handed out free grain to 40,000 citizens in 73 BC. By 46 BC, Julius Caesar found 320,000 people lining up for their monthly ration. That eight-fold expansion happened in under three decades, and it shows you how welfare states actually grow.
No Roman senator stood up and announced a plan to addict a third of the city to government bread. It happened incrementally, through political competition. Each magistrate who wanted votes expanded eligibility. Each expansion normalized the next one. The citizen who once considered the dole shameful eventually expected it, then demanded it, then organized politically to protect it.
This is the core mechanism free market thinkers have identified across every era: once you create a transfer program, you create a constituency for that program. Recipients vote. Administrators build careers. Grain merchants who supply the state develop a stake in keeping the contracts flowing. The political economy locks in.
Caesar, to his credit, actually cut the rolls back to 150,000 through verification audits. It was one of his more economically coherent moves, though the Senate still murdered him. His successors quietly let the numbers climb again.
What did the dole require? Massive grain imports from Sicily, Sardinia, and Egypt, organized through state logistics at state expense, funded by taxation and conquest. When the conquest revenue dried up, the obligation remained. Rome had written a check against future military success, and future military success eventually failed to arrive.
The lesson is not complicated. Distribute a benefit and you distribute dependency. Distribute dependency and you distribute political power to whoever controls the distribution. The grain dole didn't weaken Rome overnight, but it made every subsequent reform politically impossible.
Dominic Chambers retweeted
Here again is another example of pure DESERVING.
She DESERVES to vote. Why? Because she was born!
Kitty, when this nation was founded, voting was restricted by several metrics that were intended to exclude the incompetent. In order to vote, you had to be white, male, educated, land owning, not a felon. In other words, somebody who knows right from wrong, as proven by the fruits of your behavior.
Things have changed, and not for the better.
If you want to talk about "absolutely unhinged," let's talk about universal suffrage.
Should women be allowed to vote? Non-whites? Felons? What about people who don't own anything and have no families and have no investment in the future? Should they be allowed to vote? Will they vote for things that are good for the rest of us?
What about a million Indians that moved here yesterday? Should they be allowed to vote? What about somalians? Don't you think that they might just vote for somalians? And islam? Don't you think that would destroy the country and replace it with a Somalian colony?
It should be obvious that universal suffrage is "absolutely unhinged." It's not obvious to you because it's normalized, and what's normal is also what's good in your mind (because you are a normie). But if you have any kind of intellectual ability, universal suffrage is obviously ridiculous. The old cliche is "asking wolves and sheep to vote on what's for dinner."
If you want to evaluate the morality of an idea, you have to look at what it produces. What has women voting gotten us? Third world cities. Average IQ fallen by 20 points due to race mixing. Infinity third world immigration. Economy destroyed. Jobs sent overseas. Brand new houses crumbling around their owners because they're built by Mexicans for 20% of the price. Men dressing as women welcome in women's bathrooms and sport teams. College acceptance and employment based on demographic category instead of performance. A bunch of fat black retards getting paid a quarter million dollars a year to be "diversity experts" while white men sit at home dying alone with no money because no one will hire them.
That's absolutely unhinged!
But it happened because women are easy to manipulate. They are emotional. Their little tiktok videos make them feel cranky in their tum tums and then they go out and vote about it. They don't understand the consequences of their actions. They only understand that they are acting out their feelings. They don't even understand where their feelings are coming from!
And very likely, neither do you.
You only know that you DESERVE, because no one has ever told you otherwise, no matter how destructive your choices are.
And that's absolutely unhinged!
This is absolutely unhinged.
A horrific case involving one woman’s severe mental health crisis somehow leads to: maybe women shouldn’t vote and maybe women shouldn’t be allowed to freely interact online.
That isn’t an argument. It’s collective punishment dressed up as political commentary.
Imagine applying this logic to men. Every time a man commits an act of violence, should we reconsider men’s voting rights? Restrict their internet access? Of course not because we understand that one individual’s actions do not justify stripping civil liberties from an entire sex.
You can debate the Lindsay Clancy case. You can disagree about culpability, psychosis, treatment, or the legal standard for insanity. But using a tragedy as an excuse to suggest women deserve fewer constitutional freedoms is not serious thinking.
The 19th Amendment isn’t conditional upon women behaving in ways you approve of. Neither is our basic freedom to participate in public life.
Dominic Chambers retweeted
People keep asking “why are so many women are defending Lindsay Clancy?!”
The answer is simple: over 25% of women did exactly what Lindsay did. They murdered their children, too, in cold blood, just like she did, via abortion.
They empathize with her because they’re murderers and they got away with it. So, why shouldn’t she?
We live in a world where the people are blood thirsty for child sacrifice. We desperately need to repent and abolish abortion from our land.