The Korean War by Indy Neidell
Published 23 Dec 2025Both sides finally release POW information to each other, as required by the Geneva Convention, but neither side is happy with the information, charging it either wildly incomplete or grossly mischaracterized. The Communists also refuse to allow the Red Cross in and the UN doesn’t want compulsory repatriation of POWs, but both are required under Geneva. And away from the truce tables, the Communist air power menace continues to grow, but should there be an armistice will they be allowed to rebuild air bases in North Korea?
00:00 Intro
00:38 Recap
00:58 POW Lists
05:02 Repatriation
07:52 Geoje-Do
09:01 Ambush Program
09:54 Airfields or Armistice
12:00 Communist Air Power
13:23 Summary
13:32 Conclusion
14:50 Call to Action
(more…)
December 24, 2025
The Korean War Week 79: Soviet Technology Surpasses the USA – December 23, 1951
December 23, 2025
How Black WWII Veterans Ignited the Civil Rights Movement – W2W 058
TimeGhost History
Published 22 Dec 2025Decades before the words Black Lives Matter existed, Black American veterans were already fighting the same battle at home. After World War II, hundreds of thousands of Black soldiers returned from the frontlines of Europe and Asia believing they had earned the rights they had defended abroad. Instead, they were met with segregation, voter suppression, police violence, and terror under Jim Crow laws.
This episode explores how Black WWII veterans became a driving force behind the early Civil Rights Movement — joining the NAACP, challenging segregation in court, organizing protests, and refusing to accept second-class citizenship in the nation they had fought to protect.
From the brutal blinding of veteran Isaac Woodard Jr., to landmark legal battles led by Thurgood Marshall, from the Journey of Reconciliation to Brown v. Board of Education, this is the story of how the fight for freedom moved from foreign battlefields to American streets, courtrooms, buses, and classrooms.
We follow the rise of mass nonviolent resistance through figures like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and the creation of the SCLC — while also confronting the violent backlash, political resistance, and human cost that defined the struggle.
This is not just the history of civil rights legislation. It is the story of veterans who refused to stop fighting — and a reminder that equality in the United States has never been automatic, inevitable, or finished.
(more…)
December 22, 2025
The Great Eggnog Riot at West Point Military Academy
Tasting History with Max Miller
Published 6 Dec 2024Boozy, creamy eggnog with foam and nutmeg on top
City/Region: United States of America
Time Period: 1887At West Point in 1826, with alcohol prohibited on campus, students smuggled in large quantities of booze to make eggnog for a secret party on Christmas Eve. Drunkenness led to a riot that involved firearms, swords, broken windows, and barricades.
If you’ve never made homemade eggnog, I highly recommend it. It’s creamy, boozy, and so much more delicious than what you buy at the store. Is it good enough to start a riot over? I’ll leave that judgement up to you.
I have an allergy to raw egg whites, so in the video I used 12 egg whites worth of reconstituted dry aquafaba instead, and it worked great.
Egg Nog
Beat the yolks of twelve eggs very light, stir in as much white sugar as they will dissolve, pour in gradually one glass of brandy to cook the egg, one glass of old whiskey, one grated nutmeg, and three pints of rich milk. Beat the whites to a froth and stir in last.
— The White House Cook Book, 1887
December 21, 2025
Women are walking away from the corporate world
On her Substack, Elizabeth Nickson starts her most recent post with the shocking headline that “400,000 women left the workforce this year”:
Digging into these reports, it seems the problem is that no one wants to mentor young women, as seniors traditionally have done for young men. No one seems to want to promote women as equally as they do men. Also women don’t want to “work as hard”. They aren’t “as ambitious” as men.
Also women do twice as much uncompensated labor as men, taking on the great majority of household chores, and, as well, are expected to organize the Christmas party. Not me, I might add — on a personal note. I cook. He does everything else.(editors note)
This means they are over-burdened and resentful and they are quitting. Four hundred thousand women left the workforce in 2025, putting down their tools and refusing to spend their lives working for “the man”.
The reports and accompanying “analyses” in the mainstream cry that government and corporations should do more! More of other people’s money chasing a fruitless dream that goes against human nature and sets sex against sex, turns family dynamics into a conflict zone, and takes away yet another chunk of private life to be traded on the market.
Quitting is the right choice.
Rather than leaving a job they love, they are quitting for a better life. As one creator said, “Women, during the pandemic, got a sense of what it felt like to not be tied to a desk five days a week in an office. Women started to expand their dreams, expand what was inside of them, and they started to really tun into what was in their gut and in their heart. And a lot of that was ‘I don’t want to work for somebody else’s dreams. I want to spend more time with my kids, I want to spend more time in community, I want to launch a business, I wanna a robust side hustle. I want to be an author, I want to be a content creator.’ I’m excited to see what women build when they are untethered to a corporate job. For a lot of millennial women, it’s I’m going to do something better, I’m gonna do something different.”
This in fact, is enormously exciting to me. Because our towns and cities are bereft of female genius — which is not moving widgets around for McKinsey. Our main streets are mostly barren wastes of utility, and the only town center in most places is the parking lot of a big box store. Unless you live in a tourist town and then it’s commercial cosplaying of an earlier better time.
Charitable work is equally as utilitarian, and the assignment of care of the weak to government is brutal and failing. There are more homeless, more lost and broken people every single year. It’s as if the vast, resplendently-funded homeless bureaucracies think that filing quarterly and annual reports filled with noble-sounding “initiatives” is the same as actually solving the problem. I had one middle-class woman warrior in my house say that they were trying to get more hookers on the streets of good neighborhoods. These people are literally, insane.
Women individuating and returning to a private life indicates they are yearning after a more traditional and based occupation for women and I’m not talking about submission, early child bearing and a boss daddy. My pioneer family women, all ten thousand of them ran small businesses, a home farm, the general store, did bookkeeping, ran a workshop, and/or (usually and) some kind of business in town that was charitable, before that was taken over by corporatism and the ravenous maw of the public service who never saw an innovation they didn’t want to ruin by systematizing and ripping out the heart and purpose.
That and only that is the history of women in America, not this cobbled together whining, mewling, weak, oppressed, screeching, “stressed”, “exhausted”, victim. Women, from 1600-1950 had real problems to solve. They were fully adult.
The generations since tried corporate life. It sucked. And they’re not going back. I think this is a forerunner of the life pattern of women into the future. In fact, in millennial-world, one person with a W-2 job and one person with an entrepreneurial spirit is touted as how you game the system to perfection. Taxes are limited, security is up-levelled, and you can actually build something together, rather than both partners slaving away in the globalist maw.
I expect this to take flight almost immediately.
Because women in corporate life?
Nightmare.
This is what these reports are ignoring. Senior officers do not want to mentor or promote women because they are nightmares to work with. They have been trained by their universities and culture to be ideological freaks, demanding and whining and surreptitiously tearing each other down. There was a study done in the 80’s, before ideology took over social research, that found women in corporate life practiced Power Dead Even, which meant crabs in a bucket, baby. If someone was perceived as too powerful, tear them down.
Introduce that into corporate “culture” and nothing gets done. No wonder senior executives don’t mentor or promote women.
Update, 22 December: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Please do have a look around at some of my other posts you may find of interest. I send out a daily summary of posts here through my Substack – https://substack.com/@nicholasrusson that you can subscribe to if you’d like to be informed of new posts in the future.
Boomers – A vampiric generation battening on the blood of the young
As a member of the recently identified “Generation Jones”, I could take part in the widespread boomer hate with a clear conscience … but as Scott Alexander points out, the hate may be more than a little over-done:

“… Millennials and Generation Z have more money (adjusted for inflation ie cost-of-living, and compared at the same age) than their Boomer parents, to about the same degree that the Boomers exceeded their own parents. This is good and how it should be. The Boomers have successfully passed on a better life to their children”
There’s a more developed theory of Boomer-hating. The more developed theory goes: Boomers are plundering the young. We know this, because their share of resources is high and keeps increasing. They use their large population share and good voter turnout to vote themselves ever-higher pensions at the expense of working taxpayers.
How might we investigate this theory? We can’t use total social security spending, because the number of elderly has gone up. Can we use social security spending per elderly person? No; the amount of social security paid out depends on the amount paid in. If each year’s retirees earned more during their career than the previous year’s did (this is true), then each year’s will get a higher SSI payment, even if the system’s “generosity” stays the same.
We might start by looking at change in social security payment divided by change in median income. Over the past fifty years, average Social Security payment in inflation-adjusted dollars increased 60%. If we expect these payments to reflect earnings twenty years before disbursement, we can look at real median personal income from 1953 to 2003; this also increased 60%. There is no increase in generosity.
Or we can just look at the history. The Social Security Administration’s own website says that its generosity peaked in 1972, when the program primarily served the Greatest Generation; since then, it’s been one contraction after another. In 1983, the government increased the full retirement age from 65 to 67; in 1993, they made Social Security more taxable. Since then, most of the changes have been cost-of-living increases, which are indexed to inflation and not the result of active lobbying on old people’s behalf.
Why do so many believe that old people have discovered a vote-themselves-infinite-benefits hack? Since old people represent an increasing fraction of the population, are living longer, and face a secular trend of rising healthcare costs, even when their benefits per capita per year are stable or declining the government will spend more money on them as a group. This spending is indeed rapidly becoming unsustainable, the elderly will need to accept big benefit cuts to make it sustainable again, and they are resisting those cuts.
So have we finally discovered the fabled Boomer selfishness? Call it what you want. But remember that the Boomers did pay money into Social Security to support their own parents, believing that they would be supported in turn. Learning that yours is the generation where the pyramid collapses is a hard pill to swallow. Maybe they should suck it up and take the sacrifice. You’d do this, right? Voluntarily give up money which is yours by right, in order to help other generations? Oh, sorry, you didn’t hear the question, you were too busy writing your 500th “You don’t hate Boomers enough, why won’t they hurry up and die, we need to declare intergenerational warfare and seize our rightful inheritance” post.
Update, 22 December: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Please do have a look around at some of my other posts you may find of interest. I send out a daily summary of posts here through my Substack – https://substack.com/@nicholasrusson that you can subscribe to if you’d like to be informed of new posts in the future.
December 20, 2025
The “pursuit” of the Brown University shooter as a parable of incompetence
Mark Steyn is supremely unimpressed with the quality of police work demonstrated by the “forty-seven genius law-enforcement agencies” apparently involved in investigating the murders at Brown University and the murder of an MIT nuclear fusion expert:
The Brown University shooter has been found dead by his own hand in a storage locker in southern New Hampshire. The entire officialdom of Providence, Rhode Island celebrated by throwing “the most worthless, uninformative, cover-your-ass press conference I have ever seen in my entire life“.
You’ll be glad to hear that the DEI Mayor of Providence has declared “we believe that you remain safe in our community“. He said this at 11pm last Sunday, but his statement was technically true because at that point the shooter was driving out of “our community” up to someone else’s community to kill an MIT professor, who would assuredly be alive today had not everybody in Providence bungled everything that could be bungled. The storage-locker guy and the Boston guy are both Portuguese nationals of the same age who are believed by the FBI to have attended the same university in Lisbon at the end of the last century. What that means, who knows? A random mass-shooting as prelude to something more personal and targeted? As is now traditional, I doubt we shall ever know, […] However, we do know how the forty-seven genius law-enforcement agencies “cracked the case”. An Internet user saw this post on Reddit, and brought it to the attention of one of the forty-seven agencies, who shortly thereafter swung into what passes for action. Here’s what the Redditor wrote:
I’m being dead serious. The police need to look into a grey Nissan with Florida plates, possibly a rental. That was the car he was driving. It was parked in front of the little shack behind the Rhode Island Historical Society on the Cooke St side. I know because he used his key fob to open the car, approached it and then something prompted him to back away. When he backed away he relocked the car. I found that odd so when he circled the block I approached the car and that is when I saw the Florida plates. He was parked in the section between the gate of the RIHS and the corner of Cooke and George St.
That’s it. That’s the entire “investigation”. “He blew this case right open. He blew it open,” cooed the Rhode Island Attorney-General, Peter Neronha. “That person led us to the car, which led us to the name, which led us to the photographs of that individual renting the car, which matched the clothing of our shooter here in Providence, that matched the satchel which we see here in Providence.”
Great. His name is “John”, and he had multiple interactions with the killer on the day of the shooting — both in the bathroom of the building two hours beforehand and by the car to which the killer kept circling back to see if “John” had ended his apparent stakeout of the vehicle. He spoke to the man long enough to determine that he had an “Hispanic” accent. In fact, Portuguese. But close enough. Or closer than the forty-seven kick-ass agencies.
But here’s the thing: “John” only wrote his post on Reddit because nobody on the scene was interested in what he’d seen that day. “John” is apparently a homeless man who lives in the basement below the scene of the shooting.
Come again? Brown University lets the homeless live in its faculty buildings? You might want to bear that in mind if you’re thinking of taking on six-figure debt to be gunned down at the Ivy League.
Oh, wait, no, relax: “John” is not any old homeless man but a graduate of Brown. They’re not all working as baristas. So it’s some grandfathered-in alumni legacy racket.
Which brings us to the other thing: He was generally known to be living there. So, on Saturday or at the very latest Sunday, why did no-one from the forty-seven kick-ass agencies seek to interview him? His would surely have been a unique perspective: neither teacher nor pupil, but someone who knows the building after-hours and observes the comings and goings. One expects the three-mil-a-year DEI president’s “campus security” to totally suck, but how can you call in the FBI and then the elite best-of-the-best G-men not be aware that there’s a guy living in the basement under the scene of the crime who had multiple interactions with the perp?
As I have had cause to remark a thousand times, nothing works anymore. When I observe that of the UK, English readers get mildly peeved. When I observe it of the Fifth Republic, French readers start gabbling and waving their Gauloise-stained hands around so animatedly their strings of onions fall from their shoulders. And, when I observe it of the United States, American readers get particularly chippy. But I’m an equal-opportunity civilisational doom-monger: we’re all going over the falls, and arguing that the canoe of the Euro-pussies or the tight-assed Brits is a foot-and-a-half ahead isn’t really much consolation. Police-wise, the Aussie constabulary bollocksed Bondi Beach and the forty-seven Yank agencies bollocksed Brown and MIT.
Of course, with the revelation that the shooter may have been Portuguese, the race hustlers are busy re-sorting the hierarchies of victimhood:
Christmas During the Great Depression
Tasting History with Max Miller
Published 17 Dec 2024Gelatinous Christmas pudding with chocolate, nuts, dried fruit, and whipped cream
City/Region: United States of America
Time Period: 1931During the Great Depression, making Christmas festive was more important than ever. Homemade gifts, cards, and decorations defined the season when money was tight for everyone. Many people who lived through the Great Depression recalled that no matter what, Christmas dinner was special.
This recipe from 1931 comes from a radio program hosted by the fictional character Aunt Sammy, who was supposedly the wife of Uncle Sam. I’m not quite sure how this Christmas pudding was much less expensive than a traditional boiled pudding, but it’s an interesting change nonetheless. I like the flavors of the chocolate and fruit coming through, though I do wish the texture was a little smoother.
There are twelve ingredients. Quite a lot to write down but I’ll go slowly.
2 tablespoons of granulated gelatin
1 cup of cold water
1 pint of milk
1 cup of sugar
1 and 1/2 squares of chocolate
1 cup of seeded raisins
3/4 of a cup of dates
1/2 cup of nuts
1/2 cup of currants, and
3 egg whitesThat’s a long list. I’ll go over it again while you check. (Repeat)
To make this pudding, first soften the gelatin in the cold water for ten minutes. While the gelatin is soaking, melt the chocolate with part of the sugar. When it is melted, add a little of the milk, just enough to make a smooth paste. Put the rest of the milk in the upper part of the double boiler. When the milk is hot, add to it the melted chocolate. Then the sugar and salt. And, finally, the soaked gelatin. Stir the mixture. Then remove it from the fire. Set it away to grow cold. When it begins to thicken, add the vanilla, the fruit, and the chopped nut meats. Then fold in the beaten egg whites.
Now turn the mixture into a wet pudding mold decorated with whole nut meats and raisins. Set the mold in the refrigerator or other cold place, to chill. When the pudding is cold and firm, and it is time for serving at dinner, turn it out on a pudding plate or platter. Garnish it with sprigs of holly. A wreath of holly springs around the edge and one stuck in the top makes it look like a real Christmas pudding.
Serve the pudding with whipped cream, sweetened and flavored with vanilla, or with a currant jelly sauce.
— Aunt Sammy, December 1931
December 19, 2025
“2014 was the hinge, the year DEI became institutionalized across American life”
In Compact, Jacob Savage talks about the “Lost Generation” … not a reference to the group before the “Greatest Generation” who fought and died in their millions in the trenches of World War One … but a much more recent group who are still becoming living casualties of a war fought without weapons and uniforms, but just as bitter and unnecessary:
In retrospect, 2014 was the hinge, the year DEI became institutionalized across American life.
In industry after industry, gatekeepers promised extra consideration to anyone who wasn’t a white man — and then provided just that. “With every announcement of promotions, there was a desire to put extra emphasis on gender [or race],” a former management consultant recalled. “And when you don’t fall into those groups, that message gets louder and louder, and gains more and more emphasis. On the one hand, you want to celebrate people who have been at a disadvantage. On the other hand, you look and you say, wow, the world is not rooting for you — in fact, it’s deliberately rooting against you.”
As the Trump Administration takes a chainsaw to the diversity, equity, and inclusion apparatus, there’s a tendency to portray DEI as a series of well-meaning but ineffectual HR modules. “Undoubtedly, there has been ham-fisted DEI programming that is intrusive or even alienating,” explained Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor in The New Yorker. “But, for the most part, it is a relatively benign practice meant to increase diversity, while also sending a message that workplaces should be fair and open to everyone.”
This may be how Boomer and Gen-X white men experienced DEI. But for white male millennials, DEI wasn’t a gentle rebalancing — it was a profound shift in how power and prestige were distributed. Yet practically none of the thousands of articles and think-pieces about diversity have considered the issue by cohort.
This isn’t a story about all white men. It’s a story about white male millennials in professional America, about those who stayed, and who (mostly) stayed quiet. The same identity, a decade apart, meant entirely different professional fates. If you were forty in 2014 — born in 1974, beginning your career in the late-90s — you were already established. If you were thirty in 2014, you hit the wall.
Because the mandates to diversify didn’t fall on older white men, who in many cases still wield enormous power: They landed on us.
[…]
Institutions pursuing diversity decided that there would be no backsliding. If a position was vacated by a woman or person of color, the expectation was it would be filled by another woman or person of color. “The hope was always that you were going to hire a diverse candidate,” a senior hiring editor at a major outlet told me. “If there was a black woman at the beginning of her career you wanted to hire, you could find someone … but if she was any good you knew she would get accelerated to The New York Times or The Washington Post in short order.”
The truth is, after years of concerted effort, most news outlets had already reached and quietly surpassed gender parity. By 2019, the newsrooms of ProPublica, The Washington Post, and The New York Times were majority female, as were New Media upstarts Vice, Vox, Buzzfeed, and The Huffington Post.
And then 2020 happened, and the wheels came off.
[…]
There are many stories we tell ourselves about race and gender, especially in academia. But the one thing everyone I spoke to seemed to agree on is it’s best not to talk about it, at least not in public, at least not with your name attached. “The humanities are so small,” a millennial professor nervously explained. “There’s a difference between thinking something and making common knowledge that you think it,” said another.
So it came as a bit of a shock when David Austin Walsh, a Yale postdoc and left-wing Twitter personality, decided to detonate any chance he had at a career with a single tweet.
“I’m 35 years old, I’m 4+ years post-Ph.D, and — quite frankly — I’m also a white dude,” he wrote on X. “Combine those factors together and I’m for all intents and purposes unemployable as a 20th-century American historian.”
The pile-on was swift and vicious. “You are all just laughable,” wrote The New York Times‘ Nikole Hannah-Jones. “Have you seen the data on professorships?” “White males are 30 percent of the US population but nearly 40 percent of faculty,” tweeted a tenured professor at GWU. “Hard to make the case for systemic discrimination.”
It didn’t matter that as far back as 2012 women were more likely to be tenure-track across the humanities than men, or that a 2015 peer-reviewed study suggested that STEM hiring favored women, or even that CUPAHR, an association of academic DEI professionals, found that “assistant professors of color (35 percent) and female assistant professors (52 percent) are overrepresented in comparison to US doctoral degree recipients (32 percent and 44 percent respectively).”
As in other industries, what mattered were the optics. When people looked at academia, they still saw old white men. Lots of them.
“A big part of why it’s hard to diversify is the turnover is really slow,” a tenured millennial professor explained. “And that’s become worse now, because Boomers live a long time.” Many elite universities once had mandatory retirement at 70. But in 1994, Congress sunsetted the academic exemption for age discrimination, locking in the demographics of the largely white male professoriate for a generation.
White men may still be 55 percent of Harvard’s Arts & Sciences faculty (down from 63 percent a decade ago), but this is a legacy of Boomer and Gen-X employment patterns. For tenure-track positions — the pipeline for future faculty — white men have gone from 49 percent in 2014 to 27 percent in 2024 (in the humanities, they’ve gone from 39 percent to 21 percent).
QotD: “1998 was the official start of the Girlboss Era”
Paltrow seemed to arrive on the scene having everything and wanting for nothing.
Funny, that’s also the most accurate description of an AWFL ever penned. Who the hell are they, and where did they come from? How do they have the free time and endless disposable cash to do literally every single thing they do?
In 2001, she promoted Shallow Hal — in which she played Rosemary, an obese woman whose “inner beauty” is only visible to Hal (Jack Black) — by talking about doing practice runs in her character’s fat suit. “I got a real sense of what it would be like to be that overweight, and every pretty girl should be forced to do that.”
Wait, this is supposed to be a hit piece? Because that might be the most sensible thing I have ever heard a woman say. Yes, definitely they should be forced to do that, if not the full Norah Vincent. If you’re halfway presentable, ladies — hell, if you’re not grossly deformed — you’re playing life on “God mode”. Look at all the simps in your social media feeds, and tell me I’m wrong. Being forced to go around in a fat suit for a week or two is a necessary corrective.
Paltrow’s first big trip on the Hollywood hater-go-round was 1998, the year she won the Best Actress Oscar for Shakespeare in Love and gave a memorably messy, genuinely emotional acceptance speech. (Days after her win, Salon was among many outlets eviscerating her.) What viewers didn’t see, Odell notes, is the amount of effort by Miramax head Harvey Weinstein to make Shakespeare a winner, raise the profile of his still-independent studio, and solidify his belief that Paltrow belonged to him.
I’m going to stop here, because there’s really no point. I just wanted everyone to remember Shakespeare in Love. You do remember Shakespeare in Love, don’t you?
Of course you don’t; it was silly and forgettable at the time, and now is remembered, if at all, as a bizarre footnote — it’s the movie that won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan. From the perspective of 2025, then, it sure looks like 1998 was the official start of the Girlboss Era.
Severian, “Kvetching Up With Karen: DC Edition”, Founding Questions, 2025-08-14.
December 17, 2025
The Korean War Week 78: Communists See 100% Success in the Skies! – December 16, 1951
The Korean War by Indy Neidell
Published 16 Dec 2025The Communist forces’ air power grows and grows, to the point where the UN wonders if they will lose aerial supremacy. This colors the Peace Talks, because should infrastructure be allowed to be rebuilt and rehabilitated during an eventual armistice, what airfields might the Communist side soon have in North Korea? Not just as a threat should an armistice fail, but to Japan as well.
Chapters
00:00 Intro
00:49 Recap
01:23 General Hsieh Probes
06:22 Communist Air Power
12:06 POW Issues
14:54 Summary
15:14 Conclusion
15:51 Call to Action
(more…)
“The core hypocrisy of modern Western governance”
On the social media site formerly known as Twitter, Tom Marazzo discusses the extremely weird experience we’ve all lived through since 9/11 in almost every major western nation:
For more than 20 years, Western governments told their citizens that Islamist extremism posed an existential threat. Entire generations were sent to fight the Global War on Terror. Soldiers were killed, families were broken, civil liberties were curtailed, and trillions were spent, all justified by the claim that terrorism had to be stopped over there so it would not reach us here.
Then something strange happened.
The same governments that built their legitimacy on that fear now insist that even discussing the cultural, security, or integration risks associated with mass immigration from unstable regions is immoral. Raise concerns and you are no longer a citizen asking questions, but a bigot, an extremist, or a threat yourself. In some countries, speech alone now draws police attention, while violent acts are reframed as isolated incidents or stripped of ideological context.
The irony deepens when you look at the timeline.
During the first years of Covid, terrorism all but vanished from news coverage, just as Covid seemed to erase the common cold, cancer, and every other cause of death from public discourse. Nothing had disappeared. The narrative had simply changed. Attention was redirected. Fear was reassigned.
Now, as governments pursue aggressive mass immigration policies, the public is told that questioning outcomes is unacceptable, even as the very threats once used to justify war reappear domestically. The message is clear and profoundly cynical: the danger was real when it justified foreign wars, but discussion becomes forbidden when it complicates domestic policy.
This is not tolerance. It is coercion.
And now comes the final insult.
The same political class that demands silence at home is preparing to demand sacrifice abroad. The same citizens who are told to accept social breakdown, rising crime, collapsing services, and cultural fragmentation are being told they may soon be required to fight Russia to “defend our way of life”.
What way of life, exactly?
The one being systematically dismantled by the very governments issuing the call. The one they are actively transforming into something unrecognizable through reckless policy, moral intimidation, and managed decline. They are asking people to die for values they no longer practice and for societies they are actively degrading.
This is the core hypocrisy of modern Western governance.
We were told to fight, bleed, and die to defend liberal democratic values. Now we are told those same values require silence, compliance, and obedience, while our countries are reshaped without consent and against the will of the people who built them.
A government that suppresses debate at home while demanding loyalty abroad is not defending democracy. It is consuming it.
And history is not kind to regimes that ask their people to die for a future they are busy destroying.
December 15, 2025
“America has always been a racist country”
On the social media site formerly known as Twitter, Devon Eriksen responds to an agent provocateur on the topic of racism:
Lance Cooper @lmauricecpr
A white woman called a Somali couple niggers and raised $153k in five days. America has proven again that it is a racist country. They don’t even bother to hide it anymore.America has always been a racist country in a racist world.
Indigenous Tribals were racist.
Whites were racist.
Blacks were racist.
Orientals were racist.
Arabs were racist.
Jews were racist.
Hispanics were racist.After being shocked by the excesses of the Third Reich, Whites stopped being racist for a while, and suffered for it.
Everyone else stayed racist, and prospered by it at White people’s expense.
Now White people are sick of it, and they’re becoming racist again, because the only other solution is for everybody else to stop being racist, and there’s no way to make them do that.
So the future is racist. Doesn’t particularly matter if you think that’s good or bad, or if I think that’s good or bad, or if anyone thinks it’s good or bad. It is what’s going to happen.
There was a time when it might have been possible to for everyone to simultaneously stop being racist. But it didn’t happen, because only White people were being told to stop, only White people listened, and only White people stopped.
Everyone else was told that, in the abstract, racism was bad, but they were never called out, lectured, or confronted about their own racism. In fact, that racism was tacitly encouraged, for profit and ego gratification.
Someone even invented rationalizations that only White people even could be racist, because only White people had Power™, which was different from power, because white people somehow had Power™ even if they had no power, and everyone else had no Power™ even if they were billionaires or the King of Sumatra.
So Power™ was just another word for Whiteness.
Around the time when some people started openly calling for the elimination of Whiteness from the nation, the globe, and the human race, White people’s common sense finally started winning out over our desire to be nice and and cooperative and have everyone like us.
We realized it was impossible for everyone else to like us.
Because they didn’t hate us for not being nice. Hell, the nicer we got, the more they hated us. No, they hated us for being White. They hated us for not being like them. They hated us for being successful. They hated us for thriving. They hated us for building civilization. And they wanted us to just hand it over to them, despite the clearly evident fact that a great many of them lacked the skills and temperament to even to maintain it, much less to build more.
(Hint: that desire to be nice and cooperative and have people like us is what enabled us to build all that stuff and get rich in the first place.)
So we’re just going to have to settle for liking each other, preferring each other’s company, and not particularly worrying about whether other races like us or not.
Because that’s the only remaining alternative to suicide.
And, yeah, sure, whatever, you can call me delusional or a liar. You can say White people never stopped being racist, or that we just didn’t anti-racist hard enough.
But, even if that were true, so what? The rest of y’all never stopped being racist. And you never did the anti-racist thing at all. Y’all just kept telling us to do it.
Well, no thanks. Juice isn’t worth the squeeze, because there is no juice, and we’re the ones who were getting squeezed.
And yeah, sure, that’ll keep happening for a while, because some White people haven’t figured it out yet.
And yeah, sure, you can continue to lecture me about how racism is evil, as if you weren’t super-racist yourself, every goddamn day.
But I no longer believe that moral lectures about racism from non-Whites are anything but an attempt to make Whites drop loot.
So I’m not listening.
A lot of people are about to learn the meaning of the term “preference cascade”, and it isn’t going to be pretty.
ESR responded:
I am deeply unhappy about Devon’s conclusion here. But I fear he is probably correct.
There is an alternative, which is to be explicitly high-IQist and mostly ignore skin color. But I admit that such an attempt would probably be sabotaged by the same people who insisted that anti-white racism should be government policy everywhere.
The wrong way to address the credit card debt issue
Daniel Mitchell says that US politicians seem to have identified a real problem and they’re proposing solutions. Unfortunately, the biggest proposal not only won’t solve the problem … it’ll make it worse for the most vulnerable credit card debtors:

“Credit Cards” by Sean MacEntee is licensed under CC BY 2.0 .
According to a new report from the New York Federal Reserve, Americans have accumulated over one trillion in credit card debt, an all-time high. It’s a record that would make financial advisor Dave Ramsey lose the remaining hair on his head, but even worse, the share of balances in serious delinquency climbed to a nearly financial-crash level of 7.1%. In other words, Americans are borrowing more and paying back less.
This alarming trend has naturally drawn the attention of politicians eager to offer a quick fix.
Unfortunately, the solution gaining bipartisan traction is a blanket cap on credit card interest rates. Like most political quick fixes, it is an economic prescription guaranteed to harm the very individuals it claims to protect.
The impulse to cap rates is rooted in a fundamental economic misunderstanding. It treats the interest rate as an arbitrary fee levied by greedy banks rather than the essential economic mechanism it is: the price of risk. This misguided philosophy is embodied in the legislation introduced by the populist duo of Senators Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), which seeks to impose a nationwide cap on Annual Percentage Rates (APRs), sometimes as low as 10%.
Make no mistake: two politicians don’t know better than the marketplace and the law of supply and demand that governs it. The consequences of imposing a price ceiling on credit are not debatable. They are historically certain. Interest rates on credit cards are higher than on mortgages, for instance, because credit cards are unsecured debt. If a borrower defaults, the bank cannot seize collateral to cover the loss. The interest rate must therefore be high enough to reflect the expected default rate across the entire high-risk pool.
It’s wrongheaded. Faced with the possibility of a government-imposed price cap, credit card companies would of course respond as any company would. They will stop extending credit to those who will possibly not pay them back. Studies show that even a cap as high as 18% would put nearly 80% of subprime borrowers at risk of losing access to credit. In other words, the 10% cap proposed by the Hawley–Sanders alliance would have truly devastating effects for credit access, potentially eliminating millions of accounts.
The victims of this policy will not be the wealthy, who already qualify for prime rates; nor will they be the financially literate, who pay their balances in full. The victims will be the economically vulnerable, the working-class single mother needing a short-term buffer, the recent immigrant attempting to build a credit score, or the young person trying to establish his or her financial footing. For these individuals, the Hawley–Sanders policy will deliver not cheap credit, but no credit at all.
December 14, 2025
Andrea Dworkin – feminism’s anti-sex evangelist
On her Substack, Janice Fiamengo examines the life and work of Andrea Dworkin, whose influence on modern feminism is still quite strong, twenty years after her death:
A friend wrote a couple of days ago to say that he had seen shiny new copies of works by feminist author Andrea Dworkin (1946-2005) in Munro’s Books, one of Canada’s premier independent bookstores. One of the books was positioned on a shelf with the cover facing out to indicate that it was being showcased.
It is both shocking and unsurprising that Picador Books decided to reprint three of Dworkin’s texts in the past year, calling her a “prescient and visionary writer” who was “ahead of her time”. Anti-male paranoia is a sanctioned, cultivated taste more popular now, perhaps, than ever before, and Andrea Dworkin is its most notorious propagandist.
Known for her physical bulk, impassioned rhetoric, unkempt hair, and lesbian-identified overalls, Dworkin was a feminist icon in the 1980s and 90s, loved and hated in equal measure. No one did more to outline and consolidate the modern feminist understanding of sex than she, writing on the subject obsessively and with unparalleled fervor in books with titles such as Woman Hating (1974) and Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1981). The MeToo movement is almost unimaginable without the influence of Dworkin’s pronouncements.
Like other radical feminists, Dworkin wrote about rape, pornography, and prostitution, but her special focus was the degradation for women of sex itself: regular sex, the commonly accepted, normalized indignity that men allegedly inflict on women every day. Tempering her words in the white-heat of her revulsion, Dworkin became feminism’s anti-sex evangelist.
Sex, Dworkin believed, embodied nothing less than men’s hatred of everything female: “Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women” (p. 175). This is the thesis of her most representative book, Intercourse, which was first published in 1987 when Dworkin was 41 years old. Dworkin’s characterization of heterosexual sex as the ultimate enactment of misogyny has had an enduring impact on North American culture.
Intercourse set out to illuminate, through select readings of literary texts, what Dworkin believed to be a constant of male culture: the “hatred of women, unexplained, undiagnosed, mostly unacknowledged, that pervades sexual practice and sexual passion” (pp. 175-76). The phrase she most often used in the book to refer to intercourse was “the fuck”, which was meant to signify the raw dehumanization that supposedly characterized it.
Dworkin nominated herself the expert on male contempt for women because she had been its victim. “Specifically, am I saying that I know more than men about fucking?” she asked defiantly in the book’s preface, and answered, “Yes, I am […] the way anyone used knows the user” (p. xxxi).
While she also claimed in the preface that the book “does not say that all men are rapists or that all intercourse is rape” (p. xxxii), she does essentially say that, if not in quite those words. As she asserted only a page after the denial, “Intercourse conveys […] what it means that men — and now boys — feel entitled to come into the privacy of a woman’s body in a context of inequality” (p. xxxiv).
In another segment, she clarified that most, even the vast majority, of men were sexually abusive. She charged that men object to feminist criticism of pornography and prostitution because “So many men use these ignoble routes of access and domination to get laid,” that “without them the number of fucks would so significantly decrease that men might nearly be chaste” (p. 61). The implication was that men who objected to her arguments about the omnipresence of sexual exploitation were themselves sexual abusers who didn’t like the thought of their exploitation being curtailed.
This was the Dworkin who made feminists swoon with admiration: bombastic, hyperbolic, and incandescent with accusatory rage.












