Thread with excerpts from Helen Andrews "Boomers" (2021).
Steve Jobs was an atypical Boomer - he didn't care for politics or philanthropy. Also did not like porn and saw himself as an institution builder, not a destroyer, and closer in personal habits and ideals to the founder of IBM than his age peers.
Unlike Jobs, Tim Cook is a very political CEO of Apple, and awarded for it by the UN and ADL.
Google's internal discussion group, "Yes, at Google," a “curated monthly newsletter of anonymized incidents of micro-aggressions and micro-corrections.”
The influence of the West Wing, which fooled Obama's staffers in 2012 into believing there was a tradition for cabinet secretaries to resign at the end of the first term (there was/is not). I'm told this influence extends to Britain was well.
The career of Gordon of Khartoum, who was so honest that the one part of the British Empire he did not so serve was India, the one day he spent there he was asked to write a thank-you note assuring a local dignitary that the viceroy would read his book of Parsi poetry.
Kennedy's "Marshall Plan for Latin America", the Alliance for Progress, made up 40% of Bolivia's budget in the 1960s. Much less successful than the actual Marshall Plan.
When Booker T Washington toured Europe to see if he could find a group worse off than Southern blacks, he succeeded - Sicilian peasants.
Jesse Jackson's shakedown racket.
Jackson specialized in sidestepping the democratic process using procedures such as the DNC's diversity requirements or threatening bad press and EEOC lawsuits. Sharpton copied him and got good at shaking corporations in vulnerable moments.
Coates blamed white flight on the "self-generated fears that compelled the people who think they are white to flee the cities" and on another occasion wrote about how normal it was for a public pool to require a police presence. But this is not normal in non-black areas.
The reality of white flight - that it was caused by a huge upsurge in violence - has been memoryholed, in part because the Boomers were just the right age to avoid it (twenties, not kids, no kids of their own, not elderly).
Al Sharpton was Obama's hatchetman on race, visiting the White House more than 70 times.
James' Baldwin's personal life was a mess and this, not oppression or a rational evaluation of the world, inspired his politics.
The extreme corruption of DC mayor Marion Barry, who had 1/13 residents on the municipal payroll and was busted for smoking crack.
Sonia Sotomayor's hysterical Schuette dissent comparing Michigan voters who wanted to ban affirmative action in Michigan schools to Jim Crow and substituting appeals to trauma and feelings to reasoning.
Sotomayor started her political career bullying Princeton into hiring more Hispanics (by going to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). This was not a protest; Princeton welcomed it.
Sotomayor learned from this, and a similar stunt at Yale, that racial bullying (backed by powerful institutions) worked and would be rewarded.
The judicial/legal revolution of public interest law, in which (often publicly funded) leftist activist organizations would cook up cases for sympathetic judges to rule on to create leftist precedents, an institutionalization of the Warren Court.
Sotomayor's noted lack of brains harked back to Earl Warren, who was notorious for being retarded. This made him very powerful, because he simply couldn't understand the reasoning behind past precedents and so felt entitled to just make things up according to his prejudices.
"The Warren Court opened the door to unlimited judicial activism, but it took a younger, bolder generation to shed the self-imposed limits on arbitrary power that the preboomer generations still felt."
• • •
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.