I want to break the impression that Affirmative Action/DEI began in 2014 or is limited to school admissions and a handful of infamously left-wing fields. Here are some excerpts from chapter 4 of the 1992 book "Paved With Good Intentions." First, firefighting.
Police, firefighting, sanitation work, federal civil service. All public fields throwing out tests because blacks scored lower. These fields don't have market competition, so eliminating these tends to make them very dysfunctional.
Court order whites be fired first during teacher cuts, school boards who did not meet racial targets suspended.
The arbitrariness of affirmative action categories - Spaniards qualify. Whites faking black, Hispanic, and Asian ancestry in response.
Extremely tortured legal logic from the Supreme Court. "in order to treat some person's equally, we must treat them differently."
Justice Thurgood Marshall: “You guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it is our turn.”
In 1989, 36 states had set-aside programs mandating a certain % of contracts go to women or nonwhites. This obviously makes government procurement less effective and also invites rampant cheating.
Atlanta (in 1989 under a black government for 20 years) spent half a million dollars on a project to find past discrimination so it could keep these set-asides going. NY and SF similar.
The US Labor Department does not approve government contracts with companies that don't practice affirmative action. The FCC can revoke broadcaster's licenses for insufficient diversity.
Northwest Airlines shaken down and forced to not only set up special promotion channels for nonwhites but also finance scholarships for them.
The Small Business Administration gives preferential loans to minorities.
The FBI gives additional points on its hiring tests to nonwhites, and throws out the results if not enough nonwhites make it through anyways. State Department stopped considering foreign language skills because too few blacks spoke them and has a lower threshold for hiring them.
Not just a govt thing. Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, and many newspapers have special hiring and promotion channels for nonwhites.
Other companies give executives bonuses for hiring and promoting more women and nonwhites, have minority-exclusive internships. KFC makes 3 executive lists so blacks only compete with blacks and women with women.
Only 14% of Fortune 500 CEOs in 1990 said they ignored race and hired exclusively on merit. Which makes sense, since so many companies tie bonuses to hiring fewer white men.
Minority-only job fairs are common. Black engineers are so in demand that Howard University began demanding donations to allow companies to recruit engineers there.
USG used to have a sophisticated psychometric test, the GATB, that they provided as a service to both govt agencies and private employers. But they race-normed results, so given an equal score the reported results would show black > Hispanic > Asian = white.
DEI training is not new. To diffuse white resentment of being discriminated against, companies gave "sensitivity" training to white employees. In one case, answers given when asked for negative stereotypes were used as evidence of bias later by Judge Patel in San Francisco.
Big 3 automakers all subsidize nonwhite-owned car dealerships.
Grant-making bodies, like the Ford and Rockefeller foundations and National Endowment of the Arts, favor nonwhites.
College hiring committees had to justify not hiring minorities as early as the 1970s. Many hiring processes explicitly excluded whites.
Many colleges give additional tuition assistance to nonwhites, as well as money, counseling, tutoring, and advice.
There are many race-exclusive scholarships available. An attempt to stop this was scuttled by Bush I.
In the early 90s, Texas A&M was spending $5.5M/yr on minority recruitment and retention. Too many whites can threaten a college's accreditation status.
At Berkeley, both whites and Asians were discriminated against. However, Asians raised a stink and as a result were not underrepresented while whites were by a factor of two. Racial composition of admissions at selective schools is mostly determined politically.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Rule of law, European Court of Human Rights: the ECHR decided in 2024 that Article 8 (right to privacy and family life) implied a right to protection from climate change and Switzerland was violating human rights by not having sufficiently-strong climate policies.
You might recognize Article 8 from all of those stories of MENA or African rapists and murderers being undeportable (it would violate their right to family life).
(This same logic could be applied to almost anything with a potentially-deleterious impact to human health, which is ~everything, so this is the ECHR giving itself unlimited power over domestic politics of member states)
Brazil is Woke Utopia. Racism is illegal (unbailable, worse than homicide), so is transphobia and damaging a woman's feelings. Everyone is mixed and the country is heavily black, but also there's extremely strong (50%+ quotas) affirmative action, and a judge rules by decree.
Extremely strong gun control laws, which are not enforced against actual criminals.
Insanely high pension spending despite being a poor and young (by OECD standards) country.
This is a conceptual error. The whole reason Orban became enemy #1 for European libs was refusing "Syrian refugees" in 2015. It has nothing to do with "vulgarity" or foreign associations (which came later as an attempt to survive EU hostility). Those are just excuses.
You can't actually trick libs into being OK with "no Africans and Middle Easterners" by being polite about it.
The stuff about vulgarity, corruption etc (neither of which were particularly bad in Hungary, though both existed) is PR. And you can't stop libs from running PR campaigns. What was real was Orban mismanaging the economy 2022-2026 (after doing a perfectly solid job until then).
This is even more true in Britain. The non-US Anglosphere is incredibly illiberal (not just in commerce, but also in freedom of speech and group-rights frameworks) even by the standards of an already long-post-liberal West.
My view is that major Western countries transitioned from broadly liberal to broadly socialist/social-democratic around the Great Depression, and then from there to New Left (with more continuity, but still big changes around things like technology) in the 1960s.
In the US, this is obscured because the socialists - the New Dealers - called themselves "liberals" (which, unlike in Europe, was not in common use in the US already) explicitly as a PR strategy. But it's obvious in Britain, where Labour pwned the actual liberal prty.
Thread with excerpts from "The Information State" by Jacob Siegel (2026). Thesis: The Information State is a new form of political regime that "governs by controlling the codes and protocols of the digital public arena, which it uses to engineer the public’s compliance."
Siegel traces what he calls the information state to the GWOT, when the 1990s libertarian ethos and hostility to the state of tech was replaced with a public-private infrastructure for, initially, mass surveillance and debanking of potential terrorists.
However, tech staid away from domestic issues or governing discourse, until Obama, beginning with a strong partnership between the White House and Google.
Master thread on the 2015-2022 closure of the Internet, the process by which every major Internet platform went from broadly open with a few basic guidelines to strict narrative enforcement, often with the collaboration of govts and outsourcing moderation power to NGOs.
YouTube was the most important platform for reaching The Youth and also uniquely compatible with monetization, allowing independent political/intellectual entrepreneurs to make a career. Closed 2015-2019.
Reddit was known for its "anything goes" speech policy in 2015, and was the hub for text-based debate between normal people on opposing sides of issues. Turned into a leftist echo-chamber to spite r/TheDonald.