Fantastic newsletter again Helen. The Anne Helen Peterson piece reminds me of this Adam Curtis quote from an interview with Jon Ronson a decade ago: “"I have this perverse theory that, in about ten years, sections of the internet will have become like the American inner cities of the 1980s. Like a John Carpenter film—where, among the ruins, there are fierce warrior gangs, all with their own complex codes and rules—and all shouting at each other. And everyone else will have fled to the suburbs of the internet, where you can move on and change the world. I think those suburbs are going to be the exciting, dynamic future of the internet. But to build them I think it will be necessary to leave the warrior trolls behind. And to move beyond the tech-utopianism that simply says that passing information around a network is a new form of democracy. That is naive, because it ignores the realities of power." Need to rewatch Assault on Precinct 13 soon.
Spent a good thirty seconds researching the countercultural phenomenon "Daliha Groups" before realizing you were just discussing gardening. (Or were you? ;o))
Thanks for the continued excellence and occasional red herring.
I'm sorry, but stating that 'wokeness' is akin to a religion is just plain silly. Wokeness is best described as a set of morals - treat everyone equally and fairly, don't be hateful, try to learn about and understand people unlike yourself, understand the implicit meaning of the words you use to describe other people etc. It holds some of those morals in common with some other religions, but it isn't a religion as defined, for example, by the Cambridge dictionary: "the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship". Most people are unconsciously 'woke' in many ways, but perhaps not in all ways, depending on the culture they live in. And they always have been - these morals have existed for centuries and across cultures.
As for the internet creating communities that didn't exist IRL, that's also not really the case. The lesbian and gay community, for example, had, in countries with a degree of freedom, places to gather - bars, cafés, bookshops etc. People interested in certain types of music, in certain kinds of crafts etc did have clubs and magazines and national and international gatherings. People wrote letters to each other, sometimes prolifically. To say that it was only because of the internet that 'people found each other based on niche interests that they would never have encountered another person with IRL' is simply not accurate. But yes, the internet has made it easier to find MORE like-minded people, and to interact with more of them around the world.
If you define “wokeness” as “be nice to people,” then of course it’s silly to compare it to a religion. But that’s not the argument — the argument is that it had hidden truths and rituals that required a priest class to interpret and enforce. The dynamics of that period were more distinct than a general awareness of prejudice, eg “if two people are in conflict, side with the most marginalised”. (You can see the practical effects of that in my story, The Guggenheim’s Scapegoat, from 2022.)
As far as I'm concerned, wokeness continues to this day, so I am puzzled by your use of the past tense. There are no rituals and no priest class that I have ever even heard of. If you go on any social media platform, you will find countless people who say they are 'woke'. According to Wikipedia the term has been in use, in the black community of the US, for at least 100 years.
It seems to me that you are talking about a relatively small sub-set of people whose behaviours you don't approve of. That's fine, of course, but I don't see what that has to do with the millions of people who simply believe in "being nice to people" (with some detail about what that entails in modern society).
Perhaps it would avoid misunderstandings if you adhered to the definition of woke given by the Cambridge Dictionary: "aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality".
I like the religion analogy a lot. The rituals are echoed in the request (sometimes a demand) to share pronouns in a group/in emails; compulsory DEI ‘training’ for all; the language of ‘birthing people’ & ‘chestfeeding’ & ‘bodies with vaginas’. The priest class is comprised of activists; those who sneak to HR or who sack/cancel sinners; those who decide some aberration reveals bigotry.
When it comes to sex/gender ID, most of us really don’t care how others present (following norms of decency) or what they call themselves (& how could it be policed, anyway). But of course sex matters, & both women & men can only have sex-specific spaces, services & sports if we acknowledge its reality. Your supposed gender identity, like your supposed God/church/beliefs, remains private, though it can continue to feel meaningful to you, without anyone else feeling impacted.
Let’s hope the Paul Graham thing is the last shared column about wokeness, either for or against. Of course it is a rehash of your column from 2022 as it’s no doubt a rehash of a dozen other columns from 2021-23, I mean haven’t we said everything that needs to be said by now. People went nuts in the Trump years turbo-charged by the pandemic, the right has cynically rode the wave of backlash to the excesses of the movement and now it seems the only reason to continue to write about it is that a bunch of people built lucrative subscriber bases from one side or other of that part of the culture war but lack the intellect, talent, skill or wit to write about literally anything other subject so are rewriting basically the same column again and again and again with only the names changing to a new baddie that week but the format never changing as the two sides continue to talk past each other and to their bubbles while most people who aren’t obsessively online think the whole lot of you, for or against are stark raving lunatics on the odd occasions fragments of the debate leak into their world and they catch a glimpse
Seriously, find a mum or uncle or anyone who’s not obsessively online and try to explain the whole woke/anti-woke debate to them and before the 3 minute mark when their eyes glaze over take note of their facial expressions, they correctly think the whole thing is bonkers
I have a lot of sympathy with that. I don’t write much on it myself for exactly the reasons you describe. But I do think it’s interesting to analyse a big and sudden cultural shift like that (and how much backlash it provoked) not least for the insight into human psychology.
I just feel there was a time and a place for it and you & left wing British feminists were vital voices at that time, I’ll admit you caused me to look more critically at the issues if that time, especially the women’s single sex spaces issue (even if the American left refuses to accept it) and for actually talented writers like you there might occasionally still be a rare justification for another piece on that topic, but for everyone else seriously, enough already, the points been made and way way way too much of it is very lazy very boring substackers writing what is effectively the same piece again and again, that piece being take this weeks online obsession, put it through the woke/anti-woke structure they’ve written a 100 times before telling people who already agree them with what they want to hear with a sneer at their perceived enemies in a desperate bid to hang on to subscribers and avoid actually working for a living
My main question is, if I’m bored by just seeing yet another headline, how the hell do people paying $7 a month and reading every word not themselves get bored reading the same column again and again from untalented hack writers? Is being told how clever you are and how awful your ideological enemies are really that satisfying?
"the internet caused a massive social shift by moving us from geography-based communities to interest-based communities" I think this is a really interesting idea and I'd love to read/hear your thoughts on this.
It feels like with the current culture of streaming services (tv, film, and music) we've lost that commonality of experience. Talking to my teen, while he and his friends have some overlapping interests, they all watch and listen to a huge variation of stuff. On the one hand, I feel that they're missing those easy small talk things (OMG did you see the Traitors last night?) but one the other, they can share the random film or band they heard.
I am not sure that your footnote on trump's gender order quite captures what it does. It seems on my reading to erase trans identities from US law altogether, which seems a lot more than some sensible tidying up of the rules on prison accommodation.
I agree it has the possibility of over-reach, and I suspect some of it will be litigated away over the next few months. But I also think the status quo ante wasn’t sustainable and was hurting women.
This is going to be a bit of a rant, and not directed at the person who made the comment. Just "triggered" me, as we say.
If you are required to acknowledge your biological sex for some purposes, does that actually erase your trans identity? Is that identity only real if it is validated by everyone else?
To put it another way, when should society permit the falsification of a person's sex? And when is it important, even vital, to know this person is male or female, and to organise lives and services accordingly?
The UK passed a Gender Recognition Act in 2004, which allows sex falsification in official documents for people who undergo formal gender transition. It was understood to be needed for a small number of individuals who had gone through therapy, were acknowledged to have unresolvable gender dysphoria that was causing them mental suffering, and who were in most cases intending to undergo surgery to change their exterior sex markers. This law was seen as a good law, largely because in 2004 gay marriage was still unlawful, so the GRA allowed a person who had transitioned to marry a person of the same sex. And it was understood, by all of society, that the fact of "biological sex" continued to exist (indeed "sex" was made a protected class in later Equality legislation) and that female single-sex spaces and sports were not going to be affected by a male now having an F on a passport. Perish the thought!
The conflict that has arisen, which Trump has capitalised on, began when activists in Western countries, who had adopted gender ideology, began a top-down, "inside the institutions" campaign to replace sex with gender self-identity, arguing that simple self-identifying as the other sex made a person the other sex, and that was how we should organise society. There was no downside to be discussed, in their view. But, by the way, there WAS a general avoidance of having any public discussion on the issues for and against allowing self ID to replace sex, unlike the long, open campaigns of persuasion around gay rights and for the end of discrimination against LGBT people. Gender ideology was seen as obviously right, no questions to be raised, bigots. Most of us just turned up at a HR training session at work one day to learn that we were getting gender neutral toilets, or got news from our kid's school that they were teaching the concept that children can have a gender identity, separate from their biological sex, as a fact.
That self ID argument was adopted by left-wing and liberal parties as an "equality" policy, and they legislated to replace the fact of biological sex with "sex by self ID" in every aspect of society - leading to male sex crimes now being recorded as female crimes, males in female single-sex spaces including changing rooms, prisons and refuges, and males in female sport. It has lead to women and girls, particularly lesbians, being coerced into participating in the fetishes of male transvestites - a group of mainly heterosexual men who were never considered transsexual before this ideology gave them a safe harbour. Male voyeurism and indecent exposure are now freely practiced, under the cover of self ID, in " female" changing rooms. And there are male rapists in women's prisons. (Every time I write those words I am horrified at the cruelty to women that men will allow, to give other men what they want)
All of which social engineering turns out, in practice, to be very unpopular with the majority of the public - including a majority of liberals and centrists who are long time LGBT allies. Ridiculously, it has also enabled the US right wing, the anti-abortion party, to become the champions of fairness and safety for females. The nastiest, most racist and anti-poor political parties in the US and America can now appear reasonable and caring about women and girls rights. Well done, everyone.
If you mean that it forces people to put their biological sex on federal documents (passports, yes.. but driving licences are state? What if they disagree) then yes, it does. It doesn’t require people to change their names though since that’s allowed for anyone.
I guess it depends on precisely what you mean by “identity”.
Though RealID is a State issued document conforming to Federal standards. So to get by the TSA your biological sex would need to be what the Feds say it is ?
ReadID seems (from reading the Wikipedia page) to be both obeyed and ignored (simultaneously). I don't know whether ReadID documents have to be presented for internal flights in the US? Even then, isn't this essentially confirming the idea of being gender-non-conforming: it says M on the birth certificate and RealID docs, but the person presents as F. Is this the biggest problem in the world? Essentially it's between them and the person on passport duty.
They keep delaying its introduction, but eventually Driving Licenses will not be permitted as ID if they don't conform to RealID standards. Alternatively you can use a passport
OK - and what do we think will be the real-world effect of that? Do you think a driving licence will be refused if someone is GNC to what their passport says? Will someone be refused boarding on a plane? What happens now, because this must be a situation that already arises.
At the moment you can board a domestic flight with a state issued, drivers license or a passport. Currently May 7th 2025 is the date RealID becomes a requirement and a regular license won't be enough
If you're refused a RealID license because your declared gender is different from your birth certificate, and if you don't have a passport you won't get on the flight.
If I were in that position I'd apply for RealID this week, before they make that rule
In re the mess over birthright citizenship, you should know that I have clients at Freedom from Torture (survivors of torture and of the uk asylum system, which some say is worse) who have indefinite leave to remain and the right to citizenship, but whose children, born here before their parents became legal refugees, don't have citizenship or even leave to remain. Their parents have to pay £1,240 each for the privilege of applying. (Obviously, the parents also have to pay large sums at every stage of the asylum system - not easy if you don't have a job, which most don't - but that's a different thing.)
Yes, I was going to say the same: some British people assume, wrongly, that a child born in Britain has a “right” to citizenship. Not so: at least one parent has to be a British citizen for the child to be a British citizen, too. British citizenship is also among the most expensive, if not the most expensive in the world. And it’s the same in many other countries - you inherit citizenship, rather than have a right to it by virtue of being born in the country.
It’s not some kind of a special sanction for children of refugees. I’m an Aussie living in the uk and my daughters were born here before I took British citizenship. Therefore, they were Australian even though they’d never been there. We’re all naturalised now and yes it’s expensive but it’s much more logical to inherit the citizenship of your parents than happening to be born somewhere. Very few countries have ‘birthright’ , UK is not unusual.
Strong echoes of the Corbynites who clucked "we are his media" as Jeremy was being (justifiably or otherwise) slated in the mainstream press. I guess the podcasters were better at their job
Whenever a “writer” starts by corralling their cult members behind the very shit that binds them, you know you’ve stumbled into a place where freethinking is not tolerated.
The cult mentality, regardless of which side you’ve chosen to represent, is a sickness that only you can save yourself from.
Trump's pardon of 6 Jan insurrectionists restores the leadership of the Proud Boys, the de facto private militia of dj trump. Joining him in the winner's circle is unelected Elon Musk who paid a quarter of a billion dollars to install trump at Casablanca West and was so elated on inauguration day that he gave "roman salutes" to the assembled crowd, mimicking the most grotesque gesture of the twentieth century.
Fantastic newsletter again Helen. The Anne Helen Peterson piece reminds me of this Adam Curtis quote from an interview with Jon Ronson a decade ago: “"I have this perverse theory that, in about ten years, sections of the internet will have become like the American inner cities of the 1980s. Like a John Carpenter film—where, among the ruins, there are fierce warrior gangs, all with their own complex codes and rules—and all shouting at each other. And everyone else will have fled to the suburbs of the internet, where you can move on and change the world. I think those suburbs are going to be the exciting, dynamic future of the internet. But to build them I think it will be necessary to leave the warrior trolls behind. And to move beyond the tech-utopianism that simply says that passing information around a network is a new form of democracy. That is naive, because it ignores the realities of power." Need to rewatch Assault on Precinct 13 soon.
Spent a good thirty seconds researching the countercultural phenomenon "Daliha Groups" before realizing you were just discussing gardening. (Or were you? ;o))
Thanks for the continued excellence and occasional red herring.
I'm sorry, but stating that 'wokeness' is akin to a religion is just plain silly. Wokeness is best described as a set of morals - treat everyone equally and fairly, don't be hateful, try to learn about and understand people unlike yourself, understand the implicit meaning of the words you use to describe other people etc. It holds some of those morals in common with some other religions, but it isn't a religion as defined, for example, by the Cambridge dictionary: "the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship". Most people are unconsciously 'woke' in many ways, but perhaps not in all ways, depending on the culture they live in. And they always have been - these morals have existed for centuries and across cultures.
As for the internet creating communities that didn't exist IRL, that's also not really the case. The lesbian and gay community, for example, had, in countries with a degree of freedom, places to gather - bars, cafés, bookshops etc. People interested in certain types of music, in certain kinds of crafts etc did have clubs and magazines and national and international gatherings. People wrote letters to each other, sometimes prolifically. To say that it was only because of the internet that 'people found each other based on niche interests that they would never have encountered another person with IRL' is simply not accurate. But yes, the internet has made it easier to find MORE like-minded people, and to interact with more of them around the world.
If you define “wokeness” as “be nice to people,” then of course it’s silly to compare it to a religion. But that’s not the argument — the argument is that it had hidden truths and rituals that required a priest class to interpret and enforce. The dynamics of that period were more distinct than a general awareness of prejudice, eg “if two people are in conflict, side with the most marginalised”. (You can see the practical effects of that in my story, The Guggenheim’s Scapegoat, from 2022.)
As far as I'm concerned, wokeness continues to this day, so I am puzzled by your use of the past tense. There are no rituals and no priest class that I have ever even heard of. If you go on any social media platform, you will find countless people who say they are 'woke'. According to Wikipedia the term has been in use, in the black community of the US, for at least 100 years.
It seems to me that you are talking about a relatively small sub-set of people whose behaviours you don't approve of. That's fine, of course, but I don't see what that has to do with the millions of people who simply believe in "being nice to people" (with some detail about what that entails in modern society).
Perhaps it would avoid misunderstandings if you adhered to the definition of woke given by the Cambridge Dictionary: "aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality".
I like the religion analogy a lot. The rituals are echoed in the request (sometimes a demand) to share pronouns in a group/in emails; compulsory DEI ‘training’ for all; the language of ‘birthing people’ & ‘chestfeeding’ & ‘bodies with vaginas’. The priest class is comprised of activists; those who sneak to HR or who sack/cancel sinners; those who decide some aberration reveals bigotry.
When it comes to sex/gender ID, most of us really don’t care how others present (following norms of decency) or what they call themselves (& how could it be policed, anyway). But of course sex matters, & both women & men can only have sex-specific spaces, services & sports if we acknowledge its reality. Your supposed gender identity, like your supposed God/church/beliefs, remains private, though it can continue to feel meaningful to you, without anyone else feeling impacted.
Let’s hope the Paul Graham thing is the last shared column about wokeness, either for or against. Of course it is a rehash of your column from 2022 as it’s no doubt a rehash of a dozen other columns from 2021-23, I mean haven’t we said everything that needs to be said by now. People went nuts in the Trump years turbo-charged by the pandemic, the right has cynically rode the wave of backlash to the excesses of the movement and now it seems the only reason to continue to write about it is that a bunch of people built lucrative subscriber bases from one side or other of that part of the culture war but lack the intellect, talent, skill or wit to write about literally anything other subject so are rewriting basically the same column again and again and again with only the names changing to a new baddie that week but the format never changing as the two sides continue to talk past each other and to their bubbles while most people who aren’t obsessively online think the whole lot of you, for or against are stark raving lunatics on the odd occasions fragments of the debate leak into their world and they catch a glimpse
Seriously, find a mum or uncle or anyone who’s not obsessively online and try to explain the whole woke/anti-woke debate to them and before the 3 minute mark when their eyes glaze over take note of their facial expressions, they correctly think the whole thing is bonkers
I have a lot of sympathy with that. I don’t write much on it myself for exactly the reasons you describe. But I do think it’s interesting to analyse a big and sudden cultural shift like that (and how much backlash it provoked) not least for the insight into human psychology.
I just feel there was a time and a place for it and you & left wing British feminists were vital voices at that time, I’ll admit you caused me to look more critically at the issues if that time, especially the women’s single sex spaces issue (even if the American left refuses to accept it) and for actually talented writers like you there might occasionally still be a rare justification for another piece on that topic, but for everyone else seriously, enough already, the points been made and way way way too much of it is very lazy very boring substackers writing what is effectively the same piece again and again, that piece being take this weeks online obsession, put it through the woke/anti-woke structure they’ve written a 100 times before telling people who already agree them with what they want to hear with a sneer at their perceived enemies in a desperate bid to hang on to subscribers and avoid actually working for a living
My main question is, if I’m bored by just seeing yet another headline, how the hell do people paying $7 a month and reading every word not themselves get bored reading the same column again and again from untalented hack writers? Is being told how clever you are and how awful your ideological enemies are really that satisfying?
"the internet caused a massive social shift by moving us from geography-based communities to interest-based communities" I think this is a really interesting idea and I'd love to read/hear your thoughts on this.
It feels like with the current culture of streaming services (tv, film, and music) we've lost that commonality of experience. Talking to my teen, while he and his friends have some overlapping interests, they all watch and listen to a huge variation of stuff. On the one hand, I feel that they're missing those easy small talk things (OMG did you see the Traitors last night?) but one the other, they can share the random film or band they heard.
You are going to keep me sane through all of this. Thank you!
I am not sure that your footnote on trump's gender order quite captures what it does. It seems on my reading to erase trans identities from US law altogether, which seems a lot more than some sensible tidying up of the rules on prison accommodation.
I agree it has the possibility of over-reach, and I suspect some of it will be litigated away over the next few months. But I also think the status quo ante wasn’t sustainable and was hurting women.
This is going to be a bit of a rant, and not directed at the person who made the comment. Just "triggered" me, as we say.
If you are required to acknowledge your biological sex for some purposes, does that actually erase your trans identity? Is that identity only real if it is validated by everyone else?
To put it another way, when should society permit the falsification of a person's sex? And when is it important, even vital, to know this person is male or female, and to organise lives and services accordingly?
The UK passed a Gender Recognition Act in 2004, which allows sex falsification in official documents for people who undergo formal gender transition. It was understood to be needed for a small number of individuals who had gone through therapy, were acknowledged to have unresolvable gender dysphoria that was causing them mental suffering, and who were in most cases intending to undergo surgery to change their exterior sex markers. This law was seen as a good law, largely because in 2004 gay marriage was still unlawful, so the GRA allowed a person who had transitioned to marry a person of the same sex. And it was understood, by all of society, that the fact of "biological sex" continued to exist (indeed "sex" was made a protected class in later Equality legislation) and that female single-sex spaces and sports were not going to be affected by a male now having an F on a passport. Perish the thought!
The conflict that has arisen, which Trump has capitalised on, began when activists in Western countries, who had adopted gender ideology, began a top-down, "inside the institutions" campaign to replace sex with gender self-identity, arguing that simple self-identifying as the other sex made a person the other sex, and that was how we should organise society. There was no downside to be discussed, in their view. But, by the way, there WAS a general avoidance of having any public discussion on the issues for and against allowing self ID to replace sex, unlike the long, open campaigns of persuasion around gay rights and for the end of discrimination against LGBT people. Gender ideology was seen as obviously right, no questions to be raised, bigots. Most of us just turned up at a HR training session at work one day to learn that we were getting gender neutral toilets, or got news from our kid's school that they were teaching the concept that children can have a gender identity, separate from their biological sex, as a fact.
That self ID argument was adopted by left-wing and liberal parties as an "equality" policy, and they legislated to replace the fact of biological sex with "sex by self ID" in every aspect of society - leading to male sex crimes now being recorded as female crimes, males in female single-sex spaces including changing rooms, prisons and refuges, and males in female sport. It has lead to women and girls, particularly lesbians, being coerced into participating in the fetishes of male transvestites - a group of mainly heterosexual men who were never considered transsexual before this ideology gave them a safe harbour. Male voyeurism and indecent exposure are now freely practiced, under the cover of self ID, in " female" changing rooms. And there are male rapists in women's prisons. (Every time I write those words I am horrified at the cruelty to women that men will allow, to give other men what they want)
All of which social engineering turns out, in practice, to be very unpopular with the majority of the public - including a majority of liberals and centrists who are long time LGBT allies. Ridiculously, it has also enabled the US right wing, the anti-abortion party, to become the champions of fairness and safety for females. The nastiest, most racist and anti-poor political parties in the US and America can now appear reasonable and caring about women and girls rights. Well done, everyone.
If you mean that it forces people to put their biological sex on federal documents (passports, yes.. but driving licences are state? What if they disagree) then yes, it does. It doesn’t require people to change their names though since that’s allowed for anyone.
I guess it depends on precisely what you mean by “identity”.
Though RealID is a State issued document conforming to Federal standards. So to get by the TSA your biological sex would need to be what the Feds say it is ?
ReadID seems (from reading the Wikipedia page) to be both obeyed and ignored (simultaneously). I don't know whether ReadID documents have to be presented for internal flights in the US? Even then, isn't this essentially confirming the idea of being gender-non-conforming: it says M on the birth certificate and RealID docs, but the person presents as F. Is this the biggest problem in the world? Essentially it's between them and the person on passport duty.
They keep delaying its introduction, but eventually Driving Licenses will not be permitted as ID if they don't conform to RealID standards. Alternatively you can use a passport
OK - and what do we think will be the real-world effect of that? Do you think a driving licence will be refused if someone is GNC to what their passport says? Will someone be refused boarding on a plane? What happens now, because this must be a situation that already arises.
At the moment you can board a domestic flight with a state issued, drivers license or a passport. Currently May 7th 2025 is the date RealID becomes a requirement and a regular license won't be enough
If you're refused a RealID license because your declared gender is different from your birth certificate, and if you don't have a passport you won't get on the flight.
If I were in that position I'd apply for RealID this week, before they make that rule
In re the mess over birthright citizenship, you should know that I have clients at Freedom from Torture (survivors of torture and of the uk asylum system, which some say is worse) who have indefinite leave to remain and the right to citizenship, but whose children, born here before their parents became legal refugees, don't have citizenship or even leave to remain. Their parents have to pay £1,240 each for the privilege of applying. (Obviously, the parents also have to pay large sums at every stage of the asylum system - not easy if you don't have a job, which most don't - but that's a different thing.)
Yes, I was going to say the same: some British people assume, wrongly, that a child born in Britain has a “right” to citizenship. Not so: at least one parent has to be a British citizen for the child to be a British citizen, too. British citizenship is also among the most expensive, if not the most expensive in the world. And it’s the same in many other countries - you inherit citizenship, rather than have a right to it by virtue of being born in the country.
It’s not some kind of a special sanction for children of refugees. I’m an Aussie living in the uk and my daughters were born here before I took British citizenship. Therefore, they were Australian even though they’d never been there. We’re all naturalised now and yes it’s expensive but it’s much more logical to inherit the citizenship of your parents than happening to be born somewhere. Very few countries have ‘birthright’ , UK is not unusual.
Strong echoes of the Corbynites who clucked "we are his media" as Jeremy was being (justifiably or otherwise) slated in the mainstream press. I guess the podcasters were better at their job
If only Ash Sarkar and Owen Jones had gotten into MMA and crypto...
Still time to launch a CORBCOIN I reckon...
A very interesting read, things to think about, perspectives I hadn’t considered, intelligent and funny. Helen Lewis is one of our best writers.
Whenever a “writer” starts by corralling their cult members behind the very shit that binds them, you know you’ve stumbled into a place where freethinking is not tolerated.
The cult mentality, regardless of which side you’ve chosen to represent, is a sickness that only you can save yourself from.
Good luck cultists
Big fan of yours, Hislop and Iannucci. Here’s a link to a fun meander into the vibe shift, written by my alter-ego. Go’on then, have a read. https://princealiababoua.substack.com/p/venn-and-the-art-of-dodging-nonsense?r=2s1zik
It's just fairly inconvenient if the citizenship of your parents isn't available to you - or them - so yes, it IS different for refugees.
Depressing, ain't it?
Trump's pardon of 6 Jan insurrectionists restores the leadership of the Proud Boys, the de facto private militia of dj trump. Joining him in the winner's circle is unelected Elon Musk who paid a quarter of a billion dollars to install trump at Casablanca West and was so elated on inauguration day that he gave "roman salutes" to the assembled crowd, mimicking the most grotesque gesture of the twentieth century.
Lorenzo Sewell basically saying the quiet bit out loud there. I probably shouldn't be shocked, but still...