“This Was Not Winston Churchill We’re Dealing With"

This was Trump's remark the other day about Keir Starmer. But here's my question: were we ever dealing with Winston Churchill? YouTube toff Jacob Rees-Mogg in the clip embedded above characterizes Churchill as "one of the great heroes of our country". He lists several others, including Elizabeth I, William Pitt the younger, Lord Nelson, and the Duke of Wellington, but he concludes, "the greatest hero of them all has to be Churchill". Just yesterday, Keith Humphreys in The Washington Monthly referred nostalgically to the UK election of 1924:

Consider some political history. In the 24th year of the century, the Labour Party won a third of the vote in the general election, a disastrous performance that cost it 40 seats and led to a further descent into minority status. That was the nature of British politics in 1924, whereas in 2024 a comparable level of popularity with voters allowed Starmer-led Labour to gain 209 seats and achieve a stonking majority in parliament. If you had told politicians of previous generations that a massive majority in parliament could be secured in an election in which two-thirds of voters supported a different party, they would not have believed you.

I've got to asssume Humphreys was in some way harkening back to the UK's period of greatness -- but let's keep in mind that this was the 1924 UK election, which put the Tories back in power, and in particular made the heroic Churchill Chancellor of the Exchequer, roughly corresponding to the US Secretary of the Treasury. According to Wikipedia,

Winston Churchill was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924 and served until 1929. He presented five budgets during his chancellorship. He was initially sceptical about advice from the Bank of England and leading economists to implement a return to the gold standard. In April 1925, however, he agreed to include the measure in his first budget. It resulted in deflation and unemployment, and was a catalyst to the miners' strike that led to the General Strike of 1926.

. . . Roy Jenkins commented that, the appointment being a surprise, it should have inculcated in Churchill both a respect for Conservative Party ideals and a cautionary approach to a job that he knew little about. Churchill's self-confidence, however, was so pronounced that he showed no such respect or caution.

. . . In his first budget, he controversially announced the return to the gold standard at its 1914 parity of £4.25 to the ounce, the rate set by Isaac Newton in 1717, equivalent to £1 = $4.86. The principal opponent of the proposal was the economist John Maynard Keynes who argued that the measure would lead to a world depression. Keynes later wrote a pamphlet entitled The Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill. Jenkins has pointed out that, as Churchill was a reluctant convert to gold, it is unfair to blame him entirely for the consequences, but it was in the end his decision to implement the measure and he was the one person who could have refused to do so.

. . . The return to gold at the 1914 parity is widely held to have caused deflation and resultant unemployment with a devastating impact on the coal industry in particular – the higher rate of the pound reduced the demand for already declining coal exports.

This policy is generally acknowledged to have brought about the 1926 General Strike, which as I've written here was a cause of bourgeois self-delusion and enmity with the working class, and more imnportantly, the Great Depression itself. Churchill's position during the 1936 abdcation crisis was also unhelpful:

Essentially he opposed any marriage between the King and Mrs. Simpson. He felt a natural sympathy for the King, however, and believed that the solution was a morganatic marriage. Under this plan, Mrs. Simpson would become the Duchess of Cornwall but not Queen. The Cabinet, however, did not approve; neither did the Dominions. Churchill’s only hope then became that the King would see reason, accept his duty as Sovereign, and give up Mrs. Simpson. To this end, Churchill began pressing for time—which put him out of step with most of the nation.

Churchill’s friend J. A. Spender wrote to him in shock on 6 December: “How can you suggest that the present state of things should be prolonged for five months. . . . The thing ought to be settled at once.” Another colleague, Leo Amery, correctly perceived that “the country as a whole was getting progressively more shocked at the idea that the King could hesitate between his duty to the Throne and his affection for a woman.”

His precise role in World War II is difficult to tease out. On one hand, he was an orator who rallied morale in the UK. On the other, insofar as he interfered with military strategy, his proposals were disastrous, and the main task of Eisenhower, Harriman, and Roosevelt after 1943 was to keep him on the sidelines. Churchill's main job between the time he became prime minister and Pearl Harbor was to ingratiate himself with Roosevelt and ensure the US entry into the war, without which the UK would presumably be defeated -- but more recent revisionist opinion suggests the Nazis were themselves their own worst enemy.

I think this also goes to US expectations about the UK. The Humphreys piece I linked above carries an air of regret that the UK's best days are behind it, but the slightly different question is whether the UK ever had best days the way we somehow want to imagine them. I keep reminding myself that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and the others thought this through very carefully in 1776 and decided we could do perfectly well without the UK.

Keir Starmer Sort Of Resigns

The alt aggregators were teasing Starmer's rumored Monday resignation, or at least his announcement of a transition plan, all weekend, but once the news dropped, only Breitbart had it.

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer at times appeared on the verge of tears as he announced that he’d lost the confidence of the governing Labour Party and would resign, but nevertheless set a months-long departure period that will see him through to the end of the summer.

The resignation of British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer could barely be heard in Downing Street as protesters outside the gate blasted Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’ — the anthem of the European Union — as he spoke on Monday morning. Sir Keir boasted of the achievements he perceived he had made in office before setting out his timetable for departure, confirming he would remain on as caretaker Prime Minister during a summer-long leadership challenge.

The best, though certainly not perfect, analysis I've seen is from Tim Black at Spiked:

Following his resounding victory in the Makerfield by-election, former New Labour hack Andy Burnham is set to return to Westminster next week. Unless something remarkable happens, this will be the prelude to the former Greater Manchester mayor assuming leadership of the Labour Party and becoming our next prime minister.

. . . Labourites and their party’s legion media cheerleaders seem delighted at the prospect. ‘He has delivered hope’, says one Labour old hand. Another has written of the ‘excited anticipation’ leaving the red side [equivalent to blue in the US] of the Commons positively tumescent. Across the board, they all seem gripped by the same delusion – that Labour’s plummeting popularity is all down to the supernaturally unpopular Starmer.

. . . This is desperately wishful thinking. Labour doesn’t have a Keir Starmer problem. It has a Labour problem. It is organisationally and ideologically estranged from its working-class support base.

But here's where I think he slips up:

Labour today is a deracinated, hollowed-out vehicle for the professional managerial class. The only politicians it can produce are different brands of the same technocratic, managerial product.

But Labour hates the current avatar of the West's professional-managerial class, Elon Musk. Yes, he's rich, but he's hands-on, not a rentier. The first months of the Trump 47 administration were dominated by Musk's DOGE boys, a post-millennial version of the traditional corporate "efficiency experts". Labour and the left generally hate all that stuff. Instead, the point I've been making is that Labour is the direct creation of the UK Fabian society, which was comprised almost entirely of UK bourgeoisie from the late 19th and early 20th century:

The standard definition goes on to give a roll call of relentlessly bourgeois figures connected with the movement: George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, Charles Marson, Sydney Olivier, Oliver Lodge, Ramsay MacDonald, Emmeline Pankhurst, and Bertrand Russell, to the point that either consciously or subconsciously, these people recognized what would happen to the bourgeoisie in the event of world proleterian revolution, viz, the gulag, and they were above all intent on saving their own skins.

Thus they concocted a strategy of tempporizing indefinitely with the proletariat, offering cures of one sort or another to social ailments that seldom solved much except to keep the bourgeoisie in place. By the 21st century, as a practical matter, the US solved tbe problem of proletarian revolution, first by containing the Soviet Union, and then by allowing the Marxist-Leninist project to collapse of its own weight. It's worth pointing out that NATO and similar alliances were constructed as part of this containment strategy, but once the Marxist-Leninist model collapsed, they became irrelevant.

Labour in the UK has abandoned even the pretense of working on behalf of the working class; instead, it's adopted programs of importing and then privileging third-world migrants who've been brought in to keep wages down. Other programs, organized and supported by Labour in all but name, are intended to torment and demoralize the working class, such as grooming gangs. Let's get real: the UK uniparty fully recognized over almost the last two generations that the proletarian revolution, the putative threat Fabian socialism was meant to counter and the consensus UK political program of the past century, had disappeared, and the UK dismantled its military as formal recognition of this.

So Labour has dropped its mask. The result is that it's irrelevant, as is the Conservative party that was once intended to counter it. I've been saying for several weeks that changing Labour's leadership is nothing but rearranging the figures standing on top of Lenin's tomb; the next key step is to call an election that will begin to establish the most influential new parties and place them in power. Nigel Farage is belatredly calling for an election:

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has called for a general election in the wake of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation on Monday morning, arguing that any replacement will lack a mandate to govern the British people.

. . . Although the former Manchester Mayor will not be constitutionally bound to hold a fresh election — with his mandate technically coming from the support of members of the House of Commons — it remains to be seen if he will be able to regain the popular legitimacy that quickly faded away from the Labour Party after being given power in what largely amounted to a protest vote against the Conservatives in 2024.

But this won't be easy to bring about; the big demonstrations that have taken place will need to start focusing on the issue.

🚨BREAKING: MASSIVE crowds of British patriots have flooded the streets of Birmingham to call for remigration.

Britain’s second-largest city now has over 340,000 Muslims.

They want them all gone. pic.twitter.com/PzJ9g8LtX0

— The British Patriot (@TheBritLad) June 20, 2026

Glenn Reynolds On Academic Corruption

Prominent libertarian, transhumanist, law professor, and intellectual welterweight Glenn Reynolds has just run an essay on corruption in universities in the New York Post. I love it when professors stand up and loudly proclaim they're not like the bastards who run the place. The path to tenure is so crowded with choices to take the system or leave it that nobody who's made a career in the academy can claim to be without sin -- but let's leave that aside for now.

Reynolds's latest brought back to mind his transhumanist faith, through which he's publicly acknowledged that he has a contract to have his head removed and frozen at the time of his putative "death", on rhe expectation that at some future date, Science will not only have developed a cure for what finally ailed him, but it will be able to thaw his frozen head out, resuscitate it, reattach it to a donor body, and presumably allow him to resume his tenured chair at the University of Tennessee Knoxville as though nothing had intervened.

I occasionally try to torment my infinitely tolerant wife, a retired insurance attorney, with questions about what the frozen head model of the afterlife would do to the insrance industry if someone proved this could be done -- a likelihood on which Reynolds and others already feel confident enough to have placed serious bets. This time, when I brought the question up again, she was able to counter, "Why don't you ask AI?", which has become her version of "Ask your mother".

So I went to the oracle with this question: "What would be the effect on the life insurance industry if it were proven possible to resuscitate a frozen head and attach it to a new body?" Keep in mind that clients of frozen head enterprises typically finance their contracts by buying a life insurance policy with the beneficiary being the enterprise that proposes to freeze their heads. I wondered if this would actually constitute insurance fraud, since the policyholder would be buying the policy with the expectation that he would come back to life once the policy paid out.

I was actually able to get my wife to help me with my query to AI by specifying that a life insurance carrier could, if it chose, list frozen head enterprises among those whom it will not allow as beneficiaries, but she's not aware of any that have done this. Anyhow, the oracle answered,

If scientists prove we can resucitate a frozen head and attach it to a new body, it would completely disrupt the life insurance industry. The core business model relies on the permanent finality of death.

It went on give what must be a very preliminary and tentative list of changes that would have to be made in the industry:

Redefining the Legal Definition of Death

• Contract triggers must change.
• Policies pay out at "legal death."
• Contracts must define "permanent death."
• Temporary suspension is not death.
• Freeze status might pause payouts.

Restructuring Payouts and Claims

• Claims will turn into loans.
• Payouts may fund the resuscitation.
• Benefits could become medical trusts.
• Families might face frozen assets.
• Fraud risks will skyrocket initially.

In other words, the instant someone could prove you can freeze a head, thaw it out, resuscitate it, and reattach it to a donor body, it would upend the very industry that finances the whole frozen head con, such that all existing frozen head contracts would probably be challenged as invalid, and certainly no further frozen head contracts of the earlier sort could be written. This would almost certainly drive existing frozen head enterprises into bankrupcy well before only a few frozen heads could be properly thawed and reattached -- the scores of thousands remaining would almost certainly be lost before any organized effort could save them.

But let's ask a couple more questions. Glenn Reynolds is a law professor. Not only has he structured his own estate on the basis that he can have his head frozen at "death" and be brought back to life in the future, but he has endorsed those beliefs for the public generally, even though if this were at all practical, it would seriously change the overall legal environment by redefining death. Let's just take another example: currently, you can't libel the dead. So someone publishes a book saying damaging things about a dead guy. Can the dead guy now come back to life and sue the book's author for libel?

Why isn't he publishing books warning of the implications of this, rather than blowing the whistle about how AI will make porn impossibly irresistible? He begins his clarion call on academic corruption thus:

One industry in America pumps out toxic waste day and night, but suffers no penalty for the damage it causes.

It operates at enormous public and private expense, sucking up hundreds of billions of dollars in government money.

He concludes,

And much of what students learn isn’t so.

For example Marxism, which has never worked in the real world, remains stylish on campuses — still treated as a hot new concept, though it hasn’t changed much in over a century.

Racism, sexism, antisemitism and destructive economic ignorance, all from a huge and vastly expensive system that was supposed to make our society better.

It’s time for a change.

But Reynolds himself is ensorsing cryonics, another piece of hokum that's never worked in the real world, and he's using his academic prestige to do it. Marxism as a tool for social analysis has a good deal more merit than cryonics, which at best is nothing but insurance fraud, espeically if it ever could be shown actually to work. If anyone wants a good example of academic corruption, I'd point to Glenn Reynolds a lot sooner than many other people.

The UK Makerfield Election

The UK held an unscheduled election in the district of Makerfield, part of greater Manchester, on Thursday:

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Friday he would not walk away, vowing ​to fight any challenge from his leading party rival Andy Burnham and potentially ushering in a new bout of political instability.

Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, won ‌a decisive victory for Labour to claim a parliamentary seat in northwest England, and has signalled that he will use it to enter any contest to replace Starmer.

However, except for the race being a focus of Labour's effort to replace its own leader, Starmer, this would be a dog-bites-man story; Makerfield has been a safe Labour seat for over 100 years. However, Nigel Farage seems to have had a vain hope to win the seat for Reform in an upset:

Nigel Farage says he is disappointed with Reform UK's performance in the Makerfield by-election, as he blamed his party's defeat on a desire among voters to eject Sir Keir Starmer from Downing Street.

The Reform leader claimed frustration with the embattled prime minister had driven Andy Burnham's "emphatic" Labour victory over his party's candidate, Rob Kenyon, who finished more than 9,000 votes behind.

He also conceded his party had also lost votes to right-wing rival Restore Britain, founded by ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe, which finished third in a breakthrough night for the fledgling party.

Restore Britain is a very new factor in the UK political scene:

Restore Britain is a right-wing to far-right political party in the United Kingdom led by Rupert Lowe, the Member of Parliament for Great Yarmouth. The organisation was officially launched as a pressure group on 30 June 2025 and as a political party on 13 February 2026. It presents itself as an umbrella organisation for local grassroots groups and has been labelled as more right-wing than Reform UK on the political spectrum.

Lowe was elected to Parliament for Reform but formally left the party after public disputes with its leadership and criticism of Nigel Farage. Reform subsequently alleged threatening behaviour from Lowe as a reason for his suspension, which Lowe and his staff denied. Later in 2025, he established Restore as a pressure group, with an initial advisory board that included Conservative politicians such as Susan Hall and Gavin Williamson. The party also raised funds via crowdfunding for an inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal.

Farage also blames Reform UK's alleged underperformance in the Makerfield election on the emergence of Restore Britain. At the second link above,

He issued a plea for Restore voters to back Reform instead, as the main "challenger party to the left".

Reform had sought to defeat Burnham in the Makerfield seat, giving it a high-profile scalp to boost its credentials as the likely main opposition party to Labour at the next general election.

But Burnham increased Labour's majority over Reform in the constituency, in a rare feat for a candidate from the governing party.

One problem for Reform UK has been that several high-profile Conservative MPs have left the increasinigly discredited Conservative Party for Reform UK, casting doubt on Reform's commitment to solve the migration crisis:

The latest high-profile member of the struggling main opposition Conservative Party to jump ship on Monday, January 26 announced she was defecting to the anti-immigrant Reform UK party. Former home secretary Suella Braverman became the third senior Conservative Party figure in less than a month to join Reform, led by Brexit figurehead Nigel Farage.

. . . Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick announced his defection on January 15, days after former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi, who is no longer a lawmaker, also announced that he would join Reform. Braverman's defection brings the number of Reform UK members of Parliament to eight.

Ex-Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak sacked Braverman as home secretary in November 2023 after she accused police of left-wing bias and said homelessness was a "lifestyle choice." After her dismissal, the outspoken lawmaker publicly condemned Sunak for "equivocation, disregard and a lack of interest" over several policies, including cutting immigration.

Last year saw the second-highest annual number of migrants arrive on UK shores in small boats across from France since records began in 2018. A total of 41,472 migrants landed on England's southern coast in 2025 after making the perilous Channel crossing from northern France.

Reform – founded in 2021 from the ashes of Farage's Brexit Party – won the most seats at last year's local elections in England. That has prompted predictions it could seize power from the ruling center-left Labour at the next general election, due by August 2029. The party is also hoping to make major gains in local elections slated for May.

However, Reform UK appears to have underperformed in Makerfield at 34.5%, while Labour, winning at 54.8%, increased its majority from 43% in 2024. Restore Britain, a party only since this past February, came in at 6.8%. The other parties all lost vote shares over 2024. Although Farage complained that Restore Britain took votes from Reform UK, the two together would have been 41.3% still a landslide defeat. One problem for Reform UK is Robert Jenrick, whose defection from (or ouster by) the Conservatives could lead to the impression that he's an opportunist who will betray prcinciples on key issues.

While he's vociferously supported mass deportations since joining Reform UK, while he was Immigration Minister in the Sunak Tory government, net migration reached record highs. While Reform UK had hoped even to pull an upset in Makerfield, it underperformed. This view in the UK Indepedent may explain why:

The biggest issue for Reform is that it has always depended on the personality and political skills of its leader, Mr Farage, and offered almost nothing in terms of substance, policy or political philosophy.

It is probably not a complete coincidence that their only serious economic policy for most of the past year has been to liberalise cryptocurrency.

. . . Like Reform itself, crypto is based more on vibes without any obvious substantial value. It has an empty quality to it that is just waiting to be found out when the bottom drops out of the market.

. . . And this makes them particularly vulnerable to an aspect of British politics which has been underpriced – tactical voting in the first past the post system.

.. . Some 77 per cent of Labour voters would tactically vote Lib Dem or Green to prevent Reform UK winning. And if only the Conservatives or Reform UK stood a chance of winning in their seat, voters would favour the Tories by 31 per cent to 24 per cent.

It means Reform could still be the biggest party in vote share, but only win a handful of seats.

. . . Meanwhile, Reform has clearly been spooked by Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain on its right flank.

While Restore did not win anywhere near enough votes to make the difference in Makerfield, its presence has pushed Reform from a trajectory of being more centre-ground back to a core vote strategy based on extreme rhetoric against migrants.

In other words, Reform UK can stand for nothing much and lose, or it could be more hard core like Restore Britain and also lose. Someone is going to have to solve this puzzle.

OK, It's Clearer Why UK Labour Hates Musk

𝕏 is the #1 news app in the UK.

This is exactly why the BBC, The Telegraph and other UK legacy media keep pushing negative fake attacks on Elon Musk.

They are getting destroyed in the rankings. The British public has rejected them.

Legacy media is finished. They are lashing… pic.twitter.com/UBdVCU65eM

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) June 18, 2026

This post here from last weekend gives just a glimpse of the UK uniparty's program to control media coverage of migrant stabbings and grooming gangs, and in fact, UK legacy media has been generally cooperative. The problem is that, just as in the US, people are bypassing legacy media to get their news. In the post embedded above, the legacy BBC, equivalent to the US PBS, is ranked fourth behind X, reddit, and something called Nextdoor: Neighbour Network. I asked the AI oracle if Nextdoor: Neighbour Network is legacy media, and it answered,

No, Nextdoor is not a legacy media organization. It is a hyper-local social networking platform. While it partners with thousands of publishers to distribute local journalism and emphasizes community information, its core function is peer-to-peer social interaction rather than a traditional publisher.

As if to twist the knife, Musk polsted this in response to the Rupert Lowe-Restore Britain report on grooming gangs:

Those who knew must go to prison for a long time https://t.co/ZxhquiGct9

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 16, 2026

The Labour government has been implementing new policies to control social media, the best known of which is to keep children under 16 off most social platforms, especially X, entirely. However, a more comprehensive program will limit or prohibit social media postings the government deems harmful during "crises":

Social media companies have been ordered to have emergency measures in place to stop illegal content going viral, as regulators battle to stop the type of misinformation spiral that circulated after the 2024 summer riots.

Sites such as X, formerly Twitter, and TikTok will have to have a “crisis protocol” in place to intervene when the sharing of dangerous content begins to rise.

Under the measures to be implemented by Ofcom, the UK’s tech regulator, online platforms will also need to reserve a dedicated line of communication channel through which the police can contact them in a crisis.

It follows concerns at the top of government over the speed with which misinformation spreads at pivotal moments. Ofcom’s announcement also follows the outbreak of rioting in Southampton over the police response to the fatal stabbing of Henry Nowak.

. . . “For example, evidence from previous crisis events illustrate how the perpetrators use online services to carry out illegal activity, such as inciting racial or religious hatred, making threats or inciting violence. This can lead to an increase in the amount of illegal content circulating online but also manifest in violence in the real world.

The consensus is that the proposed controls will require everyone to have a digital ID, if only to verify age. But kids around the world have found ways to bypass this:

Im over 18 but I didn’t want to give Twitter my ID or selfie because [redacted] the government so I just took photo of some random dude on a different screen and on third attempt it worked.

I’m not in the UK but I imagine that it’s similar there ?

My experience of online controls in the US -- for instance, corporate attempts to block work computers from accessing adult-content sites -- are largely unsuccessful; as the user just above suggested, people can just keep trying, and nobody has the resources to monitor that sort of thing. Controlling VPNs woluld be an even bigger task:

The United Kingdom is going to announce additional restrictions in July on VPN usage. This is ON TOP OF the social media restrictions and mandated online identity verifications.

It's over, UK. You sold out your own society. Absolute tragedy. Very sad.
pic.twitter.com/cJRYSwqTlI

— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) June 17, 2026

The idea of a “Great British Firewall” makes for a catchy headline, but it would be riddled with holes and cause huge problems.

. . . To comprehensively block VPNs, the government would need to require internet providers to inspect traffic, restrict apps from app stores, and attempt to cut off access to thousands of VPN servers worldwide. That would be a massive, expensive, and deeply complicated undertaking—and it still wouldn’t work.

. . . Even if the government successfully blocked every major commercial VPN app and service, technically skilled users could simply rent a cheap server anywhere in the world and set up their own private tunnel in under ten minutes. There are also tools designed to evade exactly this kind of blocking, disguising encrypted traffic as ordinary web activity.

To give an idea of the popularity of VPNs, although I don't use one myself -- I'm too small potatoes -- simple math from my blog statistics tells me that roughly 99.5% of my traffic comes from VPNs. That's how many people don't want a record that they're visiting this blog, and it's probably the reason there are almost no comments. But it's also an indication of how big a problem the UK would have in trying to ban VPNs.

The Death Of Hollywood

A recent piece, The Inexplicable Suicide of Hollywood, inadvertently ties the disastrous underperformance of the two latest summer blockbusters together:

Since starting this article, Hollywood has experienced a summer blockbuster phenomenon with the success of two thrillers, Obsession, an indie produced by a YouTuber making over $230 million on a budget of $750,000 and Backrooms, a larger indie distributed by A24 making $118 million on a $10 million budget and directed by twenty-year-old. Audiences showed up to theaters for these two movies while shunning a $165 million Disney Star Wars movie released at the same time.

It looks like he submitted his piece before this past weekend's disappointment with Spielberg, which just reinforces his point.

To be fair, there really isn’t one single cause, but the ones you don’t hear are probative. You’ll never hear that the content just sucks; that we just haven’t been producing entertainment that’s widely enjoyed. And that we’re willing to let Hollywood die before re-focusing from politics and morals to art and commerce.

On rare occasions, you can get a glimpse at internal data. In a break from conformity, Disney made public that they were desperate to attract young men back to the brand. The announcement came as a shock and resulted in pushback from employees. This sheds light on how much they devalued the golden goose of Lucasfilm and Marvel. Most of the industry will remain in denial, but you can feel an inkling of understanding rising under bouts of lashing out in hatred of the very audience they rely on to survive.

During my time at film school, I was forced to pledge to use any opportunity I’d have working in the film industry to support and promote women. I didn’t think much of it at the time. Two decades in, it’s clear how much this sort of indoctrination has shaped the landscape. During the mid-2010s, the generation raised on this ideology hit critical mass.

. . . Laying low became a skill. The revolutionaries saw their power and control proliferate. Every major studio somehow became beholden to the whims of some obscure administrator at San Diego State University, and suddenly, no project would be greenlit unless it met certain quotas in front of and behind the camera. People with no experience dictated terms. This was “important” and the “right thing to do.” Men were purged for the sake of being men.

I'm actually remiinded of Tom Wolfe's argument in his 1975 The Painted Word:

Wolfe's thesis in The Painted Word was that by the 1970s, modern art had moved away from being a visual experience, and more often was an illustration of art critics' theories. Wolfe criticized avant-garde art, Andy Warhol, Willem de Kooning, and Jackson Pollock. The main target of Wolfe's book, however, was not so much the artists, as the critics. In particular, Wolfe criticized three prominent art critics whom he dubbed the kings of "Cultureburg": Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, and Leo Steinberg. Wolfe argued that these three men were dominating the world of art with their theories and that, unlike the world of literature in which anyone can buy a book, the art world was controlled by an insular circle of rich collectors, museums, and critics with outsized influence.

Let's move to a piece at Real Clear Politics by Roger L Simon. Once again, in my view, RCP is conventional wisdom, and Simon is the sort of elder statesman of conservatism that they like to platform. Here's his take on Disclosure Day:

[B]efore I get into details, let me say that I enjoyed the movie; at least I didn’t feel compelled to leave, as I do with so many these days. Mediocre Spielberg is better than almost everything else out there.

Contrast that with the YouTube reviewer in the clip embedded above, who cites tweet after tweet, "Possibly the worst Spielberg film yet. . . . This is one of the cringiest experiences I've ever had in a movie theater. . . . This is 'alien conspiracy movie' for normies. . . . Disclosure Day is genuinely one of the dumbest science fiction movies I've ever seen. . . . Word of mouth is burying this movie. . . . Felt like someone tried to imitate a Spielberg movie. . . . I mean, potentially one of the worst movies I've ever seen."

Well, Roger L Simon is a respectable conservative who's made a media career for himself as a novelist, playwright, screenwriter, director, and pundit as both a liberal and a conservative. He likely has too many friends in the film industry to step too far out of line. Spielberg is still a Great Man, apparently, so Simon gives us dimestore social analysis:

The Spielberg of the late 70s and early 80s was working in an optimistic America that was still relatively postwar. Sometimes accused of being shallow, he turned his attention to the darker moments of recent history with Schindler’s List, Munich, Saving Private Ryan, and an even darker fantasy of an alien invasion, an adaptation of H. G. Wells’s War of the Worlds. The latter contains giant extraterrestrials of a rather distant kind from the benign characters of his earlier films.

By then, we were in a post-9/11 America, and nothing was the same. The journey to Disclosure Day is not all that far. Conspiracies, real or imagined, are the order of the day. No one trusts anyone. Why shouldn’t we be housing extraterrestrials as if they were animals in a zoo? Why not make a movie about it?

A simpler explanation is that Spielberg made a career out of exploiting cinematic cliches, but cliches by their nature go out of date. The people who master and exploit them don't recognize it when they do. Judging from the remarkable number of YouTube reviews that suggest Disclosure Day is comically bad, it's not hard to think it's a symptom of Hollywood's complacency, something Simon's Oscar and detective novel awaard nominations may have blinded him from recognizing.

New UK Grooming Gangs Report, One Of Several

In connection with my recent posts on migrant-related stabbings in the UK, I've mentioned a related problem referred to there as "grooming gangs". According to Wikipedia,

Several government reviews have reported failures by British institutions in preventing, identifying and prosecuting the widespread cases of group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation that mostly occurred between the 1990s and 2010s. Allegations of governmental and institutional failures to respond to the problem or to downplay or cover up the issue have been described as a grooming gangs scandal.

. . . Media coverage and political discourse around these crimes has especially focused on the ethnic and religious background of perpetrators in high-profile cases, most of whom were Muslim men of Pakistani descent, and whether this prevented proper investigation. Data in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire shows that, in the 2020s, men of an Asian ethnic background are disproportionately represented among perpetrators in those areas, but there is insufficient data to draw conclusions about ethnicity of perpetrators across the UK [cough, cough].

. . . Group-based child sexual exploitation and localised grooming are terms used to describe the sexual exploitation or grooming of children and adolescents by groups

. . . A 2013 report by the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee describes a group first making contact with the child in a public place. After the group's initial contact with the child, offers of treats (takeaway food, cigarettes, drugs) persuade the child to maintain the relationship. Sometimes a boy similar in age presents himself as a "boyfriend"; this person arranges for the child to be raped by other members of the group.

There were numerous local investigations of individual cases in the 2010s, but reports from government and local agencies routinely downplayed the ethnicity of the offenders, often going so far as to say they were mostly white.

In 2023, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stated that victims had been failed due to political correctness, and established a taskforce to target this specific issue. In 2025, the Labour government commissioned Baroness Casey to make a detailed audit of these cases, published as the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. In her audit, Baroness Casey wrote: "Assertions that the majority of child sexual abuse offenders are White, even if true, are at best misleading. In a population with over of 80% of people of White ethnicity, it should always be a significant issue when people from a White background are not in the majority of victims or perpetrators of crime". The review found that there were serious shortcomings in the recording of ethnicity data about perpetrators of group-based sexual abuse. In one instance, Casey stated finding a case file where the word "Pakistani" had been tippexed [whited] out. On 14 June 2025, having previously resisted launching an investigation, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that the British government would launch a full national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.

The "Casey Report" was released in June 2025.

The British government has announced a national inquiry into organised child sexual abuse following the release of a damning report by Baroness Louise Casey that criticised decades of institutional failure to protect children from so-called “grooming gangs”.

It marks a remarkable U-turn by the Labour Party government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, which had resisted months of calls for an inquiry, stating that it was focusing on recommendations already made in an earlier seven-year probe.

. . . In her report, Casey concluded that too many grooming cases have been dropped or downgraded from rape to lesser charges because a 13- to 15-year-old is perceived to have been “in love with” or have “consented to” sex with the perpetrator.

Her review also highlighted reluctance by the authorities to “examine the ethnicity of the offenders”, saying it was not racist to do so.

The formal parliamentary report is still in progress; its partial results can be found here. But yesterday, UK MP Rupert Lowe released his own crowd-funded report on rape gangs. Lowe has previosuly been associated with Brexit and Reform, but as of 2025, he founded the Restore Britain party, which is somewhat to the right of Reform, and as of now he is the only member of Restore Britain in parliament.

The full Lowe report can be found here. Its main point is that "at least 250,000" white girls were raped and trafficked by predominantly Muslim gangs since the 1950s. The reaction I've seen so far confirms what I've been saying here about the problem of the working class in the UK:

We have class issues in this country, though we deny it, but nothing like the deep loathing that the UK middle classes (not the upper classes) have for the working class. We are talking about the university credentialed class (used to be a lot smaller). A whole class of…

— Daniel Heneghan (@dpheneghan1) June 17, 2026

As I've noted, the loathing of the UK lower bourgeoisie for the working class dates back at least to the General Strike of 1926, there's nothing recent about it. It's also reflected in Henry James's 1898 story "In the Cage", where a working-class woman in a telegraph office becomes fascinated with what the bourgeois people in the neighborhood reveal about their lives in the telegrams they send. She becomes particularly attracted to the complex relationships of a Mr Everard, and the two develop a special intimacy on that basis.

Finally they meet outside the office and acknowledge the special relationship -- but soon, Mr Everard's complex dealings require that the woman retrieve a particular telegram, sent months earlier, from the office records. If it can't be found, Mr Everard and a certain noblewoman will be ruined. The woman retrieves it, only to discover that it will put a potential scandal to rest and allow Mr Everard and the noblewoman to marry. So much for the other "special" relationship.

It looks like Henry James had insights into UK class relations as far back as Victoria's reign. The stuff you can pick up in English class! Here's a relevant YouTube as well: