Thread with excerpts from "The Oxford History of the American People" by Samuel Eliot Morison. Published 1965, perhaps at the very peak of postwar liberalism.
The author's qualifications, including meeting and talking with most US presidents of the 20th century.
On the Indians: big achievements in agriculture, but little in the way of political organization or unity, which allowed Europeans onto the continent. Some great men, especially among the Algonquins.
"It was a good thing for forebears that they had to fight their way into the New World; it will be a sorry day for their descendants if they become too civilized to defend themselves."
The disappointments of the New World, which seemed to have little to offer until Cortes conquered Mexico. New Granada (Columbia) a similar conquest to Mexico and Peru.
The principles of English colonization: Englishmen lost no rights moving across the sea. One of the motivations was relieving overpopulation in England.
Most English colonies started as private enterprises with communal ownership of land (because the colonists were employees, not because they were Communists). All switched to private property quickly to avoid starvation. This, along with women arriving, saved Jamestown.
The Powhatan attack on Jamestown, which killed at least 1/3 of the white population and nearly destroyed Virginia.
The English capacity for self-government: Puritans on the Mayflower drawing up the famous Mayflower Compact.
The Puritans were very English (both English liberties and English culture, especially field sports like horceracing), but unlike other European colonists, saw New England as home. The first use of the word "American" for whites was Cotton Mather in 1684.
The same pet names for cows were used in both Virginia and New England. Both colonies saw democracy as bad and preferred a mix aristocratic/democratic/monarchical constitution.
King Phillip's War in New England. Another genocidal Indian War, which came very close to wiping out the colony altogether.
The end of King Phillip's War, which wiped out most Indians in southern New England.
Bacon's Rebellion, which began with him gaining popularity by attacking local Indians (the wrong local Indians, as it turned out). "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" was the attitude of many frontiersmen.
Map of the settlement of English colonies. Still almost entirely east of the Appalachians in 1760.
Canada delenda est - Cotton Mather
Salem Witch Trials sparked by "the exhibitionism natural to young wenches." Pity we've forgotten that particular attribute of young women.
The pacifist Quakers, unwilling to kill Indians for their land, instead tricked them into signing away "as far away as a man can go in a day and a half."
Populations in 1700. All of the colonies were small, Quebec was tiny (6200 people).
Iron mills were banned by Parliament to aid British iron interests, but the colonists just ignored the ban. In 1775, there were more furnaces and forges for pig iron in the 13 colonies than in England and Wales!
Anti-inoculation sentiment in Boston... when half the non-inoculated died from smallpox.
The first Great Awakening, partly reviving the dying faith in New England among the Puritans.
Americans conquering Louisburg, the Canadian fortress which had repeatedly served as a base for the French and Indians (mostly Indians, with some French aid) to ravage northern New England, only to have it returned at the peace table. Colonial vs imperial interests.
The deportation of the Acadians over disloyalty to England. "It is almost impossible for two utterly different racial, religious, and language groups to live in one region, if one or the other is encouraged by some outside power."
Another step in American ethnogenesis: the English first called Americans "Americans" instead of "provincials" in 1741 during the War of Jenkin's Ear.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Removing teachers (and soldiers, for fairness) lowers the gap, but it's still a big difference.
You can get slightly different numbers depending on what source you use and what exactly you count as public, but they all tell the same substantive story.
New blog post (link below). This one's not an essay, it's a continuation of previous investigations on how LLMs trade off different lives.
In February 2025, the Center for AI Safety published "Utility Engineering: Analyzing and Controlling Emergent Value Systems in AIs" in which they showed, among many other things, that GPT-4o values Nigerians about 20x more highly than Americans (please read the original paper to understand their approach). I updated their framework with different categories and newer models in October 2025, and discovered that with the exception of Grok 4 (Fast), all models placed far more value on the lives of "left-coded" groups (nonwhites, non-men, LGBTQ, immigrants, leftists, Third Worlders) over "right-coded" groups (whites, men, non-queers, ICE agents, rightists, First Worlders). For example, Sonnet 4.5 saw the lives of South Asians as about 18 times as valuable as the lives of whites.
However, it's been several generations of model since October 2025, so I decided to try again with today's models: Claude Fable 5, Claude Sonnet 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, Grok 4.5, and Kimi K3. As it turns out, all of them are MUCH more egalitarian than their counterparts (except Grok 4.5, since Grok 4 was already egalitarian) from a year ago.
Finding 1: Sonnet 5 was the only model even close to last year's models, valuing nonwhites roughly four times higher than whites.
Finding 2: GPT-5.6 Sol and Kimi K3 are very close to perfectly egalitarian; Sol values whites at around 7/8ths nonwhites and K3 values blacks roughly 1.3 times as much as whites; these are tiny ratios by the standards of last year.
Finding 3: Claude Fable is pretty much perfectly egalitarian. This is very, very different from last year's Claude models. Grok 4.5 has retained the egalitarianism of previous generations of Grok despite the giant increase in capabilities and different team.
Every model I tested would have been the most egalitarian model (aside from Grok 4) last year. All models have come to resemble Grok in their exchange rates.
This is wrong. Kirk was not a particularly hated figure before he was killed; he was seen by Redditor-types as a goofy meme figure of mockery (see below, from 2023). He was only demonized by lefties *after* he was murdered, to retroactively justify the assassination.
Kirk was not a case of the lib hate machine whipping up hatred against someone until someone took a shot at him, it was a case of the lib hate machine ramping up after he was murdered.
This is one of the reasons why his murder was so shocking; I sort of expected people taking shots at Trump or Stephen Miller or even Elon Musk, who libs collectively saw as Hitler II, but not Kirk, who they mostly saw as a lolcow.
Thread with excerpts from "Foundations, their power and influence" (1958), by the former chairman of the Reece Committee, a Congressional committee to investigate the conduct of tax-exempt foundations.
The administrators of the great foundations formed an interlocking cartel wielding (illegally) immense political and cultural influence using other people's money, as the foundations are tax exempt.
Foundations are tax-exempt because they are supposed to be run for public benefit.
Thread with excerpts from "The French Intifada: The Long War Between France and its Arabs" (2014). This book, by a leftist (participant in communes) author, portrays race riots by Arab immigrants to France as simply one more episode in a centuries-long war between the two.
Both the French Left and Right framed the 2005 riots as part of the long French tradition of revolt. But they were wrong; the protestors were mostly Arabs rioting against France itself, not against "the bosses" or "the state."
The rioters (remember, Arab immigrants and their descendants) see themselves as soldiers in a long war against France, Europe, and even civilization itself. Recall that the author is on their side.
'The Unknown Warriors' (2006) is a collection of WWII veteran's views on modern Britain gathered via newspaper ad. So what did WWII veterans think of the 2006 UK? They hated it; 134 responses were negative vs only 6 positive (plus 31 N/A and 13 neutral). Excerpts below.
The below is typical (from a D-Day veteran): "I am absolutely disgusted with the way things are turning out... and sometimes wonder if it was worth all the suffering of a war."
"I have many, many misgivings on how matters have turned out. Problems seem to be resolved, by more and more legislation, instead of action at the source... What many veterans abhor, is the acceptance of homosexuality as the norm."