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
It is completely false that redlining was "explicit racial gatekeeping." 92% of redlined homes were white! Redlining was based on bureaucrats trying to predict if home values in an area would go up or down so as to avoid wasting taxpayer money on bad loans.
Almost all black neighborhoods were redlined because black neighborhoods tend to be poor, violent, dirty, and getting worse (because of black behavior), and so not places people want to move to. This was true in 1936, it was true in 1966, and it is true today.
The current view of "redlining" in the popular consciousness is a (wholly, 100% false) narrative to frame current black lack of housing wealth as the result of past white malfeasance and hence justify white expropriation.
Thread with excerpts from Charles Murray's "Losing Ground" (1984), a book on the failure of US welfare and social policy 1950-1980 to achieve its goals.
In 1950, poverty was such a non-issue it was causing problems - philanthropists had nothing obvious to do [perhaps the foundations went race communist]. In 1968, after a huge economic boom, mainstream papers predicted imminent race war without massive welfare expansion.
Social welfare expenditures increased by a factor of 20 (!) 1950-1980. The goals, per Kennedy, who initiated this change: preserving the family unit and ending dependency, disability, ill health, and juvenile delinquency.
Most Spanish South American countries had very liberal constitutions on independence, guaranteeing property, liberal freedoms like speech and contract, and abolishing the fueros and legal caste/race distinctions, often inspired by but going further than the United States.
Many people claim the US was founded as a [classical] liberal state without racial or ethnic content. This is mostly not true; the US was founded by Whigs (the word liberal was coined around 1800) and had explicit race laws. But it *is* true of most of Latin America.
Spanish-American liberals were within the Spanish liberal tradition, much like the Founding Fathers were Whigs. 19th Hispanic century liberalism, politically very successful, is overlooked vs Britain or France. Liberalism won but failed in both Spain and America.
In experimental settings, blacks of both parties and white Democrats favor black criminals over white ones in sentencing and pardoning decisions, while white Republicans have no racial preference.
The same effect shows for sentencing. Of note: black Republicans are basically indistinguishable from black Democrats, in aggregate.
This is driven by racial liberalism (believing things such as anti-black bias being a major problem in the justice system). More racial liberalism => more pro-black bias.
In 2009, Denmark cut the top marginal tax rate 7%, from 63% to 56%. Thanks to Denmark's population register, we can estimate the effect of this tax cut on the fertility of coupled (married+cohabitation) men and women. More money increased male and reduced female fertility.
Specifically: higher wages (increasing the opportunity cost of time) reduced women's fertility and had negligible effects on men, while higher incomes (increased money overall) had negligible effects on women and increased male fertility (ie, children are a normal good).
Many pro-natal policies are effectively transfers from men to women, which is counterproductive.
Thread with excerpts from "Why Post-Liberalism Failed." Thesis: liberalism is dead and has been for a long time. Modern post-liberalism fails because self-described post-liberals are attacking an order that died a century ago; we live under actually-existing post-liberalism.
(I would recommend reading the entire essay rather than this thread, because I'm leaving out a lot, but it is quite long. Link here. Thread continues below.) web.archive.org/web/2023063016…
The liberal order was defined by non-interference, freedom of contract, and negative right. It was already clearly threatened by the 1880s in Britain, as lamented by Herbert Spencer.