A government spends decades disarming the public, then acts shocked when its agents become comfortable using violence against people who cannot meaningfully resist.
Watch closely. The riot shield stops being defensive. The baton stops being protective. The uniform stops being a public service. The mask comes off and power reveals its natural instinct.
Every state promises force will only be used against the worst people. History keeps recording a different story.
An unarmed population is a population that must rely on the restraint of those who hold power over it.
That has never been a bet I was willing to make.
🚨 This is a prime example of fraud and waste inside California's homeless industrial complex
California bought this hotel for $8 million in 2020 and now wants $20 million to fix it. That is $625,000 per homeless person.
6 years later and NOTHING to show.
EXPOSE IT ALL.
🚨BREAKING🚨 the “Stop Nick Shirley” bill just passed through the CA Assembly.
Instead of fixing the fraud and abuse being exposed, Sacramento Democrats would rather go after the people shining a light on it.
Transparency matters. Accountability matters. Free speech matters.
AB 2624 now heads to the Senate.
Call your State Senator and tell them to vote NO on AB 2624.
I don't think women really understand this...
Men can stop this. They can stop it almost immediately. Vigilante and extrajudicial means will be sufficient to deal with this, but they won't.
In my observations, a lot of men would LOVE to handle this. They fantasize about it. Yet they refuse to do it. Why?
Surely, some of it is cowardice and whatnot but the real reason is that they believe that the second they did, women would throw them under the bus instead of being grateful.
The tragedy is that I suspect they're right.
I don't think that modern women would show gratitude. I think they would be repulsed by the violence used on their behalf, and would feel guilty (like Helen of Troy did). They would twist it (the ideology is already in place) and turn it against men, and transfer their affections and sympathies to the men who would victimize them rather than the men who'd protect them.
We've already seen this play out in Europe so it's not wild speculation.
If a neighborhood decided to start a neighborhood watch that "handled" immigrant criminals in a severe manner, they'd have no reason to think that they wouldn't be turned in immediately by their local women. Everyone knows it too. They know that there's some boomer or "woke" girl, or just some "nice Christian" girl who thinks that vigilante justice is bad, or that "violence is never the answer."
The harsh truth is that if women want men to protect them, men will, but women are not conducting themselves (or regulating their peers) such that men feel inclined to do this.
Imagine if at the end of the movie "Taken," the daughter turned her father in because he broke the law. That's basically what modern men expect women to do.
“WE NEED TO LET THEM DO INSIDER TRADING TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES”
That was the actual argument just made in defense of politicians trading stocks.
Members of Congress make $174,000 a year.
The median American income is roughly $63,000. (3x less)
Meanwhile the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour… also unchanged since 2009.
And you’re seriously being told politicians need access to insider trading to survive.
The system is designed to lead earth to neo-feudalism.
And it’s becoming more brazen by the year.
Asset ownership consolidates upward.
Living standards decline downward.
The middle class gets squeezed from both ends and disappears while the elite class accumulates more wealth, more influence, and more protection.
Leaving behind a permanent underclass.
And a permanent political-financial aristocracy at the top…