Webster

The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." --American Statesman Daniel Webster (1782-1852)


Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Feminism, Anti-racism, and the Unraveling of Western Civilization

 


I wrote this excerpt "Back in July 2020" if y'all want to read the whole thing.  I had read that thingie from American Greatness and it reminded me of what I wrote back in 2020.  The funny thing is that the White Dudes are going into the Trades to make a living, and it is a good living, but to me there is a long term effect in several generation, all the white guys unless they fall in the alphabet community, will be in the "worker class" category and that is considered a 2nd class status in a lot of cultures.  All the white guys will be blue collar and everyone else will be in the "white collar world", can you imagine the stigma, the discrimination?   The people that settled the world, took us to the moon, and all the great things that our culture did, now digging ditches because that is all our society will let them do because of "ancestral Sin?"     Don't know about you, but that is a frightening future.

    2020 blogpost

 Sure I am enjoying the Hollywood leftist eating their own, there is a certain satisfaction watching that happen after watching that cultural trainwreck coming into the station, after seeing them screw over their country for 20 plus years by embracing the latest and greatest of the leftest causes  all of a sudden to find themselves on the outside looking in and wondering "what just happened" and realized that they are 2nd class citizens now.   But the realization for me is that what happened in Hollywood is happening all over the United States especially in Corporate America.  We have  the CEO of NBC stating that he is pushing to reflect 50% diversity hire in his company in new initiative's  and right now his company is a mix of men and women and he states that he wants to set a cap of 25% of white males in his company and if memory serves, it about 38% white males  so he will have to early retire them, or offer severance packages or outright fire them to meet his goal.  Now this practice will become more widespread as the wave continues and more companies will do the same practice and it will be acceptable.  Sure it is discrimination, but nobody will fight it because of "systemic racism(tm)"  and if somebody tries to fight it in court they will be committing career suicide and they will be toxic for any future employment, Tell me I am wrong in this present corporate environment.

s

By Edward Ring from American Greatness

Earlier this month, Compact Magazine published “The Lost Generation,” written by Jacob Savage, a man who spent fifteen years trying to build a career in screenwriting and finally gave up. He claims he was the victim of active discrimination as a white male, and backs it up with facts:

“In 2011, the year I moved to Los Angeles, white men were 48 percent of lower-level TV writers; by 2024, they accounted for just 11.9 percent… White men fell from 39 percent of tenure-track positions in the humanities at Harvard in 2014 to 18 percent in 2023… In 2024, The Atlantic announced that three-quarters of editorial hires in the past year had been women and 69 percent people of color… In 2018, The New York Times replaced its summer internship with a year-long fellowship. Just 10 percent of the 220 fellows have been white men… Since 2018, only 14.6 percent of tenure-track assistant professors hired at Yale have been white American men. In the humanities, that number was just six out of 76 (7.9 percent)… Today, just one in ten millennial programmers at Sundance is a straight white man…”

Savage goes on to gallop through every other profession in America, citing statistics for each of them. The story stays the same. White males need not apply.

Meanwhile, only two months earlier, in October, Compact Magazine also published “The Great Feminization,” in which the author, Helen Andrews, describes how over the past decades, and especially in just the last ten years, most professions in the United States have become majority female. She writes:

“A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023… Today, women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden… In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female, today, the female share is 55 percent… Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023.”

The closest that Savage comes to exploring the implications of institutionalized anti-white, anti-male bias is to ask the obvious question: “Is the media more trusted now than a decade ago? Is Hollywood making better films and television? Is academia more respected? Have these institutions become stronger since they systematically excluded an entire cohort—or did abandoning meritocracy accelerate their decline?” In his article, weighing in at nearly 9,000 words, he mostly limits his focus to comprehensively quantifying how pervasive and extreme anti-white, anti-male discrimination has become in America.

Andrews goes further in her indictment of the anti-male bias that has transformed American institutions. Her opinion as to the consequences is unambiguous. She writes, “If wokeness really is the result of the Great Feminization, then the eruption of insanity in 2020 was just a small taste of what the future holds. Imagine what will happen as the remaining men age out of these society-shaping professions and the younger, more feminized generations take full control.” In case you’re still wondering what she means by that, she writes, as an example, that “the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.”

The statistics offered in these two articles ought to convince any reasonable person that anti-white, anti-male bias is not just distorted fantasies promulgated by opportunistic right-wing demagogues. It is numerically indisputable, and it’s been going on, steadily getting worse, for a long time. It began back in the 1970s with affirmative action, which, in plain English, institutionalized discrimination in favor of less-qualified people if they belonged to “protected status groups.”

But in the 1970s, hardly anyone noticed, for obvious reasons. In 1970, America’s population of non-Hispanic whites was 89 percent, so if you shoehorned into your company or college student population 11 percent minorities to achieve proportional representation, it wasn’t going to affect very many white applicants.

Today, the impact is felt everywhere. The latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the non-Hispanic white population for people under 30 is now down to 47 percent. This means that non-Hispanic white males under 30 in America are now only around 24 percent of the population. And based on the trends cited by Savage and Andrews, their presence in American institutions is not merely whittled down to proportionate representation but disproportionate underrepresentation.

There is another dimension to this, of course, which is why it’s happening and how it’s being marketed. Because it’s gone well beyond the noble sentiment, expressed by Joe Biden in one of his more coherent moments, who said, “What’s wrong with trying to include people of diverse backgrounds?” Underneath that lofty ideal, unfortunately, is a culture that has turned venomously anti-white and anti-male.

This culture, despite some signs of a return to sanity, persists in every aspect of professional and political life. But to comment on the systematic marginalization of white males, to even identify its existence, is to risk losing credibility on whatever else it is you may wish to accomplish. It is not polite to recognize that you are being erased. It is a sign of racist, sexist, paranoid bigotry.

From the other side of this equation, there are no consequences. You may indulge in uninhibited demonization of the white male, and your professional risk is almost negligible.

This double standard cannot be accepted. These two articles, The Lost Generation and The Great Feminization, describe one of the most significant and rapid transformations of a civilization in the history of the world, and a transformation of this magnitude is not going to end well if only one perspective on its consequences is permissible in polite company or compatible with professional survival.

Nonetheless, I had no intention of commenting on these articles until I was triggered by a post on LinkedIn where a hedge fund manager with a Spanish surname attacked someone for using the term “settlers.” Their transgression had been to post a fascinating map of North America’s unmatched gift of navigable rivers, which, as they explained, made it easier for “settlers” to build a nation.

The rebuke to the use of the term “settlers” was articulate, and the moral outrage evinced by this hedge fund manager was dialed up to eleven, but when I checked his profile, staring back at me was an aging boomer with skin so white that if he went to a football game on a sunny day, his face would probably sprout freckles before the end of the first quarter.

And there in plain sight was the justification used to hide what is the transactional, economic, hypocritical, opportunistic underbelly of the great war on white men. They are to blame for everything. The land wasn’t “settled”; it was stolen. So now we’ll assign perpetually elevating legal privileges and status to “sovereign” tribal “nations” (translation: corporations with foreign investors who get to circumvent anti-gambling and anti-smoking laws). We’ll have “stolen land acknowledgements” prior to commencing any public meeting or allowing performers onstage in a theater. We’ll need to come up with reparations and reallocate vast tracts of stolen land to the “first peoples.”

This is one of the core premises of a bigger story. Along with slavery, it’s one of the “original sins” of the white male. Writ large, we bear collective guilt for conquering the world, and now, in penance, we must renounce and relinquish our culture, pride, our agency, and our participation; even our masculinity is toxic. We deserve to be erased.

Maybe this sounds like hyperbole, but the numbers don’t lie

The way Savage ends his essay is a tribute to his character. He writes, “I could have worked harder, I could have networked better, I could have been better. The truth is, I’m not some extraordinary talent who was passed over; I’m an ordinary talent—and in ordinary times that would have been enough.”

The question we must ask, however, is where these extraordinary times are taking us.

In a speech Andrews delivered on the topic of the Great Feminization, she offered two solutions. The first was to remove artificial pressures favoring women’s employment by reforming “anti-discrimination” laws and HR mandates. That solution would also go a long way toward eliminating anti-white discrimination. Andrews also proposed we address the “two-income trap,” the cost-of-living increases that have forced millions of women into the workforce.

Why are these solutions so hard to imagine? Why not restore a meritocracy? Why not rediscover the economic model where any person earning an average income can sustain a family? As AI and social media actively melt down our brains, shouldn’t selecting our engineers and teachers, and other professionals based on their individual skill and aptitude become an even more compelling priority? Now more than ever, don’t we need the smartest and hardest-working people, selected based on merit instead of group identity?

It is difficult today to even discuss the feminization of our institutions, a quantitative reality, much less propose a new approach. But the threats of feminization alleged by Andrews are even bigger than the impact it is having on our freedom and creativity as a society. It threatens our survival as a civilization. Women empowered by careers are not typically attracted to men whose careers have been sidelined. Marriages are down. Childbirth is down. Throughout the West, birthrates are so low that entire cultures will be extinct within a few generations. The birth deficit has been accelerating for the last 40 years, but we are only just beginning to talk about it, and there is no mainstream consensus for what to do.

The only acceptable solutions so far are to import replacement populations while replacing jobs with automation, and malign anyone who objects to this as sexist and racist.

The mainstream commentariat in America is literally incapable of honestly addressing the issues that matter in a way that will matter. They deny the existence, much less the harm caused by institutionalized anti-white and anti-male discrimination, feminization of our institutions, the existential threat of extinction-level rates of reproduction, and the inevitable chaos that will result if we continue to import non-white immigrants by the tens of millions who are then taught to resent white men, resent wealth, and view the land they’ve moved to as illegitimately stolen and hence up for grabs.

An example of a mainstream approach to profound challenges that is utterly vapid would be the recent bestseller by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Abundance. In a nutshell, instead of proposing across-the-board deregulation of the laws that have choked the life out of American productivity and innovation, driving the cost of living sky-high (and forcing two-income households), the authors propose deregulating their favored industries—renewable energy and subsidized infill housing. To put it mildly, this is a hopelessly inadequate, ideologically hamstrung cop-out.

Co-author Thompson displayed further evidence of the fear and denial that prevent honest dialogue on the biggest challenges facing Western Civilization when, earlier this month, he wrote “The 26 Most Important Ideas For 2026.” This is a terrific essay by a top-tier writer and analyst. But #11 was revealing. He presented a chart showing the number of births to everyone living on the European Continent versus births in the one African nation of Nigeria. In 1950, more than 12 million babies were born in Europe, and fewer than two million were born in Nigeria. In 2026, European mothers had barely 6 million babies, half as many as 75 years ago, while in Nigeria, 7.5 million babies were born.

And what did Thompson have to say about this? “Presented without comment” was all he wrote. One may commend him for dipping his toe into some cold and forbidden water. But given Thompson’s verbosity and useful insights on 25 other “most important ideas,” he could have done much better.

Only taking it one step further, Andrews and Savage were willing to at least identify what has undermined our country and embittered a generation. That’s as far as they were willing to go. So far, only outcasts are willing to speculate as to the causes and motivations behind the numbers we see, and even offer solutions to change the trend. Some of these outcasts are extreme; others are genuinely searching with their compassion intact. But all of them, so far, are dismissed as dangerous extremists.

This must change. Time is running out for Western civilization.

Monday, December 29, 2025

Monday Music "Let's All Chant" By The Michael Zanger Band


Yeah I'm using a 70's Icon to describe my life right now, I am working 6 days a week,amd been for awhile,  and I am tired, I have all these great blog ideas and by the time I get home*snort* they are toast, I have no energy, all I want to do is take a nap, I think I'm getting old, LOL.  Trust me I ain't neglecting my blog, or Im trying not to, but real life is getting in the way.


Next week will be "Love Train" by the O"Jays


"Let's All Chant" is a song written by Michael Zager and Alvin Fields and performed by the Michael Zager Band. It was based on an idea originally suggested by former head of A&R Jerry Love after he visited clubs in New York and saw people endlessly chanting "Ooh-ah, Ooh-ah". Although Zager was first embarrassed when Love asked him to write a song using these chants, he accepted the proposal and later co-wrote "Let's All Chant" with Fields.
The opening track and lead single from the group's eponymous LP, "Let's All Chant" was released as a single in December 1977, with the track "Love Express" as a B-side. An unexpected smash hit, the single reached number one on the disco chart and crossed over to the Soul Singles chart, where it peaked at number 15, and to the Billboard Hot 100, where it peaked at number 36. In Europe, the single reached the top 10 in several countries, including the UK, Ireland and France. It eventually sold five million copies worldwide, making it one of the best-selling singles of all time.


Recognizable by both its vocal hooks and its classical section, which is featured in the middle of the song, "Let's All Chant" was well received by critics, who have praised its musical arrangement and its catchiness. Many reviewers regard the song as a classic of the disco era. It also became a turning point in Michael Zager's career. As well as being used in many TV advertisements and movies, it has become an influential dance song which has been extensively covered or remixed by numerous artists and has been interpolated or sampled in many other tracks

Friday, December 26, 2025

"Our Elites Are Insane"

Sorry I didn't post any for the past few days, "Meatspace got hold of me.  I hope everyone had a very Merry Christmas.


 I have noticed the words "Merry Christmas vanishing from the American Lexicon, to the politically correct Happy Holidays, for fear of "offending" some group.  Jeez, it has gotten really bad, not as bad here as in Europe where "The Adherents of the Religion of Pieces" keep either harassing people at the Christmas markets in Europe, or driving vehicles through the markets.  And for some reason the PTB keep bringing in more of them.  Definition of Insanity I suppose.


  I shamelessly "Clipped This", 


AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File

Ed mentioned this story in his Wednesday Final Word. Still, I have to assume that at least a few of you were sharing some Christmas Eve cheer with friends and family instead of doing what every normal person in the world was doing, which was checking in on what the geniuses at Hot Air had to say. 

Advertisement

This story encapsulates what is so wrong with the transnational elite, who are so divorced not just from the ordinary Westerner, but from the foundations of Western society itself. 

How insane are our elites? This insane:

The folks over at POLITICOEurope are scandalized by the fact that the "extreme" right wing are casting Christmas as a Christian holiday, weaponizing the idea that this clearly secular and multicultural state holiday is being tied to a religion that throws gays off of roofs, promotes child marriage, takes over streets for evening prayer, and has adherents who seem to get it in their mind that raping young girls and occasionally murdering civilians for religious reasons. 

Oh, wait, that is a different religion. 

As usual, The Babylon Bee predicted this. 

Christians wanting to practice Christianity on Christmas is a threat to the proper order of the world

ROME — Christmas is becoming a new front line in Europe’s culture wars.

Far-right parties are claiming the festive season as their own, recasting Christmas as a marker of Christian civilization that is under threat and positioning themselves as its last line of defense against a supposedly hostile, secular left.

The trope echoes a familiar refrain across the Atlantic that was first propagated by Fox News, where hosts have inveighed against a purported “War on Christmas” for years. U.S. President Donald Trump claims to have “brought back” the phrase “Merry Christmas” in the United States, framing it as defiance against political correctness. Now, European far-right parties more usually focused on immigration or law-and-order concerns have adopted similar language, recasting Christmas as the latest battleground in a broader struggle over culture.

Advertisement

Is it perhaps true that there is an elite hostility to Christianity, and that it is getting a far different treatment than religions that are actually alien to Western culture?

In Great Britain there are cities that put up trees, but explicitly make them "multicultural" in order to avoid offending their Muslim citizens. Muslims have been invading Christmas markets and even attacking them, with several terrorist attacks barely avoided. 

Ironically enough, Emirates Airlines is more in the Christmas spirit than European airlines, which have been carefully avoiding the use of the word "Christmas." 

Advertisement

POLITICO wants you to know that the Islamification of Europe and the growing Muslim presence in other Western countries is a myth. All those bollards protecting Christmas markets are perfectly normal, and it is only crazy right wingers who think that Christianity is being driven out of the public square as Islam replaces it

In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has made the defense of Christmas traditions central to her political identity. She has repeatedly framed the holiday as part of the nation’s endangered heritage, railing against what she calls “ideological” attempts to dilute it.

“How can my culture offend you?” Meloni has asked in the past, defending nativity scenes in public spaces. She has argued that children should learn the values of the Nativity — rather than just associating Christmas with food and presents — and rejected the idea that long-standing traditions should be altered. This year, Meloni said she was abstaining from alcohol until Christmas, portraying herself as a practitioner of spirituality and tradition.  

France’s National Rally and Spain’s Vox have similarly opposed secularist or “woke” efforts to replace religious imagery with neutral seasonal language, and advocated for nativity scenes in town halls. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has warned that Christmas markets are losing their “German character,” amplifying disinformation about Muslim traditions edging out Christian ones.

It's pure gaslighting. 

Advertisement

A number of Gulf countries are trying to Westernize, banning the Muslim Brotherhood, and ensuring that Christians actually feel more welcome there than in some places in the West. While no Muslim country will ever truly Westernize, the leaders in many are working to modernize and integrate more fully with the West. 

Christians in Western countries should not go out of their way to make Muslims afraid to practice their religion. We believe in freedom of religion. But if your religion requires suppressing the practice of others, such as Christianity, then too bad. Christianity is integral to Western culture. 

Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous atheist in the world who has long been dismissive of Christianity, has come around to the truth that Christian values are integral to our culture and should be celebrated, not suppressed. When Dawkins is worried that the West is losing its Christian roots, perhaps extremist right-wingers have a point, POLITICO. 

Advertisement

There is a reason why, until recently, the West was often referred to as Christendom. Roughly speaking, the West could until recently be defined as those countries that overlapped with the extent of the Roman Empire at its height, although Western values spread after the Enlightenment. That a very rough and ready definition, but for my purposes it works in this context. 

Transnationalists obviously are hostile to Christianity. That is obviously their right as individuals and even a legitimate political argument to make, but to pretend that there is not a transnationalist hostility to Christianity and that it is "extreme" to fight back against this is pure gaslighting. 

It's as ridiculous as the lefties claiming that JD Vance was exaggerating that for many years white people have been asked or even forced to apologize for being white. The entire ideology of "decolonization" is based on hostility to whiteness, and they say so openly. 

The folks at POLITICO may think it is a good idea that Christianity is being pushed out of the public square. Fair enough. Make your case. 


Monday, December 22, 2025

Monday Music "Give it Up" By KC and the Sunshine Band

 This was KC and the Sunshine band entry in the 80's, I thought it was a pretty cool song, As talented as they were, the backlash against Disco caught them pretty hard, not as bad as the "BeeGee's" got it, but near as bad due to the extravagant show aspect of their act.  This song was on my cassette on my Mustang

  Looked like this car, same Mustang type, same color, not this car(Wish it was) means that I have it:)

 And I would drive around Stuttgart and other places with this song, the moody blues, AC/DC, Don Henley, the Eagles...Heck I had an eclectic selection of "burn tapes", well anyway.   This was one of the songs.



"Give It Up" was a hit song for KC and the Sunshine Band, although it was simply credited as KC in many countries, including the US. Following the backlash against many disco artists on the charts at the beginning of the 1980s, the song was a comeback hit for the act in the US, where it peaked at No. 18 on the Billboard Hot 100 in March 1984. The song had been an even bigger hit in the UK several months earlier, where it had hit No. 1 for three weeks in August 1983. It went on to become the 18th best-selling single of the year in the UK. It was the last of the act's hits in the US and UK, and the most successful of its 10 UK hits.


I used to catch the video on MTV and of course "Night Tracks" on NBC, I always thought the video and the song was cool and catchy and I always thought KC and the Sunshine Band was a neat band and they represented the 70's well and they were trying to get past the Disco backlash that was prevalent at the time.

Friday, December 19, 2025

"Fortified, Yet defenseless, The West Suicidal Response to Terrorism.

 I tend to agree, the people of old from the West, would have just eradicated the scrounge from their country, but now they refuse to mention for fear that they might "offend" or be called a "racist" or an islamophobe"...Oh the horror.....the shame.   When regular people are fighting back like that 12 year old girl did in scotland did because she was tired of her and her sister being harassed by "Migrants" and nobody in power would do anything about it, they would turn a blind eye, unless you made a mean tweet or some other social media post, then the full weight of the British judicial system would fall on you.  Me personally, I have concerns about travelling to the former Great Britain because they would lock me up because of my social media post


   The same thing is going on in the rest of Western Europe, the Europeans are afraid to call out the Muslim invaders for what they are, and the common people know but the people in power don't listen to the "Riff-Raff", and any deprevations done by the "refugees" are not experienced by the power class so the S-A's continue, the r*apes continue, in england they have the pakistani grooming gangs and nobody does anything about it...."we can't appear intolerant...mind you".  In a couple of generations, the conquest of Western Europe will be complete, and the people in Eastern Europe will have a hard time stopping the flow of refugees from the west.  I won't live to see it.  The people that built the Sistine Chapel and other great works are being replaced by people that can't build mud huts effectively.




Yeah I shamelessly clipped this one also.

When terrorists strike, Western governments have perfected a predictable playbook: retreat, restrict, and reassure the public that their growing helplessness equals safety. This defensive surrender, while wrapped in the language of security, represents a catastrophic misunderstanding of how free societies survive existential threats. We’re building a modern Maginot Line—and pretending it’s victory.
The Maginot Line failed because France chose expensive static fortifications over adaptable strength. The Germans simply went around it. Today’s security theater follows the same doomed logic. Birmingham installs “hostile vehicle mitigation bollards and upgraded CCTV at strategic locations” to keep the city centre safe. The Australian Prime Minister responds to violence by demanding even tighter gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens. These aren’t solutions—they’re admissions of defeat dressed up as policy.
Consider what this approach actually accomplishes. Bollards protect one street while terrorists strike the next. CCTV cameras create perfect footage of atrocities for the evening news. Gun control ensures that when violence erupts, victims are guaranteed to be defenseless for the critical minutes before police arrive—if they arrive at all. We’re not making citizens safer; we’re making them more photogenic victims.
This is the bunker mentality in action: harden specific targets, disarm the public, expand surveillance, and hope terrorists don’t notice the obvious workarounds. But terrorism succeeds precisely by exploiting vulnerability and spreading fear. When governments respond by rendering citizens even more dependent on protection that cannot be everywhere at once, they validate the terrorist’s central message: you are helpless, your leaders cannot save you, and your way of life is indefensible.
The alternative requires acknowledging an uncomfortable truth: in a free society, security is a distributed responsibility, not a service governments can provide through concrete barriers and security cameras. This means empowering citizens to respond to threats rather than training them to cower and wait for rescue. It means recognizing that capable, trained civilians are force multipliers, not liabilities to be managed.
History demonstrates this clearly. Israel’s security model, forged through necessity, emphasizes armed citizens and immediate response over passive measures. Switzerland’s approach reflects similar wisdom: a prepared populace is itself the deterrent. These societies haven’t eliminated terrorism, but they’ve fundamentally changed the equation. An attacker facing potential resistance from multiple directions confronts a vastly different scenario than one assured several minutes of unopposed slaughter.
The standard objection—that armed civilians would cause chaos—reveals the bankruptcy of current thinking. This argument demands that citizens remain helpless while assuming they’re too incompetent for anything else. But proper training and clear legal frameworks address these concerns far better than policies guaranteeing that only criminals come armed. The real question is whether we trust free people with the responsibility of freedom, or whether we prefer the comforting illusion of safety through submission.
Each bollard installed, each surveillance camera mounted, each restriction imposed on law-abiding citizens represents a choice: are we free people capable of defending ourselves and our communities, or subjects to be managed and protected by an apparatus that demonstrably cannot be everywhere at once? The bunker mentality chooses the latter while pretending it’s the former.
True security in a free society doesn’t come from fortifying targets and disarming citizens. It comes from distributed resilience—the recognition that strength resides in the fabric of civil society itself, not in fixed defenses that can be bypassed or overwhelmed. When Birmingham installs more bollards—and inventing Orwellian names for them like Hostile Vehicle Mitigation barriers—and Canberra demands more gun restrictions on top of some of the strictest in the Western world, they’re not solving the problem. They’re building their own Maginot Line while congratulating themselves on their prudence.
The Maginot Line was expensive, impressive—and ultimately useless— because it was static and rigid. Our current response to terrorism follows the same failed playbook. Strategists bank on the enemy following their playbook.
The question is whether we’ll recognize this before the cost becomes unbearable, or whether we’ll continue fortifying while surrendering the very freedoms that make our societies worth defending.