Thread with excerpts from the Mexican-American War section of TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973). Since independence, Mexico had seemingly gone backwards in all respects; in 1840 Mexico was less civilized than it had been.
An incident where French warships blockaded Veracruz over nonpayment of debts from unstable and perpetually-bankrupt Mexican governments. The Mexican response: show "Death to the Anglo-Saxons and Jews" and bring back Santa Anna.
After the secession of Texas, Mexico appeared to be disintegrating, with the Pacific areas effectively independent, much of the North run by bandits chiefs, and Yucatan seceding.
Somehow, Santa Anna returned (after yet another coup).
Inevitably, Santa Anna ran out of money again and was ran out of Mexico in yet another coup. Meanwhile, Texas and Mexico were fighting an undeclared war, with Mexican atrocities against Texan prisoners.
Polk was happy to bargain with the Mexican Government, offering to pay them desperately needed cash in exchange for depopulated land, but didn't understand the Mexican need to preserve appearances.
After the war began (over Mexicans attacking the US Army in land between the Rio Grande and Rio Nueces, claimed by both Mexico and Texas), the US strategy was to seize the despoblada (US Southwest), which was defenseless (which they did trivially), then invade Mexico proper.
The US military establishment had never fought a war and was consistently greatly outnumbered in Mexico proper (rarely more than 10K troops), but won anyways due to superior morale and technique. The distance, terrain, and climate was more dangerous than the Mexicans.
Early US victories in the North toppled the Mexican government, various caciques in the provinces started an insurgency against the Mexican government, and Santa Anna tricked the Yankees into letting him back into Mexican, where he was given power yet again.
In the meantime, the Democratic Polk administration fell out with the Whig army leaders (mostly Taylor); this led to an amphibious invasion across the Gulf of Mexico through Veracruz under Winfield Scott.
Santa Anna, who was actually a decent general, surprised Taylor with a force outnumbering them 3:1, but superior American artillery decided the issue.
When Winfield Scott, launching an amphibious invasion from Veracruz across the Gulf of Mexico, landed to attack the Mexican heartland with a greatly outnumbered force, almost all contemporary military opinion regarded him as lost. He took inspiration from Cortes.
Santa Anna's generalship was good, but his junior officers were terrible. Scott beat the Mexicans in several battles and took Mexico City without resistance; the Americans neither looted nor raped the city.
The Americans did not have a great counter to Mexican guerilla war, but the Mexican elite did not want to spark a general insurgency, fearing it would devour them as well. The North was once again threatening secession and a whites vs Indians race war began in the Yucatan.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was basically fair; it took territories only nominally Mexican for a realistic price. Neither the income nor usable resources of Mexico were reduced. But it devastated Mexican pride, as they had not won even a single battle.
• • •
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."