Conservative is Another Word for Surrender

One wouldn’t have thought it possible, but somehow, David French is actually expanding the borders of cuckservatism:

Writing for National Review Online in 2018, French argued that conservatives must resist the cultural pressure to use someone’s preferred pronouns. “The use of a pronoun isn’t a matter of mere manners. It’s a declaration of a fact. I won’t call Chelsea Manning ‘she’ for a very simple reason. He’s a man. If a person legally changes his name, I’ll use his legal name. But I will not use my words to endorse a falsehood. I simply won’t. We’re on a dangerous road if we imply that treating a person with ‘basic human dignity’ requires acquiescing to claims we know to be false.” Echoing his colleague Michael Brendan Dougherty, French asked, “‘[A]re we allowed to tell the truth?’ Increasingly, the answer is no.”

He concludes: “Treating every single human being with dignity and respect means not just defending their constitutional liberties and showing them basic human kindness, it also means telling the truth—even when the truth is hard. Any compromise that requires conservatives to grant the other side’s false and harmful premise is no compromise at all.”

One wishes that 2018 David French could have a word with 2025 David French. The latest iteration has seemingly abandoned his argument from seven years ago, and is instead celebrating the Dispatch’s hiring of Brian “Jessica” Riedl, a center-right economist who transitioned from male to female within the last year and prominently flies the rainbow flag on his X account. In a recent interview with Riedl, the new David French abandons the counsel of the old French and instead repeatedly refers to Riedl as “she.” In response to the controversy, other ostensible conservatives defended French and Riedl, arguing that politeness requires us to use someone’s preferred pronouns.

I’m reminded of the fact when all the 85-IQ conservatives were absolutely convinced that Jordan Peterson was the Great White Hero who would provide them with intellectual cover after he very publicly and dramatically announced in the interview that made him famouse that while he would use preferred pronouns, he would only do so out of a desire to be polite.

So brave. Much wow. Please clap.

DISCUSS ON SG

Shipbuilding is Naval Power

An Analysis of a US-China Naval War

The balance of naval power in the 21st century increasingly hinges on industrial capacity rather than technological superiority alone. Today’s comparison between Chinese and American shipbuilding capabilities reveals a strategic reality reminiscent of the industrial imbalances that defined naval warfare in World War II. China’s shipbuilding capacity is estimated to be 230 times greater than that of the United States, with Chinese shipyards having a manufacturing capacity of roughly 23.25 million tons compared to less than 100,000 tons for U.S. shipyards. This disparity represents one of the most significant shifts in global naval industrial power since the rise of American maritime dominance in the 20th century.

This analysis examines three critical dimensions: the current state of Chinese versus American shipbuilding capacity, the historical lessons from the U.S.-Japan naval competition during World War II, and the potential implications for modern naval warfare scenarios. The findings suggest that while technological advantages and operational expertise remain important, the sheer scale of China’s industrial capacity provides strategic advantages in any prolonged naval conflict, fundamentally altering the calculus of maritime deterrence and warfare.

Part I: Contemporary Shipbuilding Capacity Comparison

China’s Maritime Industrial Revolution

China dominates the global shipbuilding industry, producing over 70% of new orders in 2024, with seven of the world’s top ten shipbuilders being Chinese companies. This transformation represents what analysts describe as the most significant shift in maritime industrial power since the decline of European shipbuilding in the mid-20th century.

As part of its “military-civil fusion” strategy, China is tapping into the dual-use resources of its commercial shipbuilding empire to support its ongoing naval modernization. The China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), the world’s largest shipbuilder, exemplifies this integration. In 2024 alone, one Chinese shipbuilder constructed more commercial vessels by tonnage than the entire U.S. shipbuilding industry has built since the end of World War II.

China’s shipbuilding supremacy extends across multiple vessel categories:

Commercial Dominance: China secured 388 bulk carrier orders in 2024, accounting for 75% of global activity, and captured 74% of the global tanker market with 322 vessel orders. In container vessels, Chinese dominance is even more pronounced, with 259 vessels representing 81% of global activity.

High-Value Markets: Perhaps most significantly for naval implications, China overtook South Korea in the LPG carrier sector, securing 62 LPG carrier orders compared to South Korea’s 59, giving China a 48% market share. This represents a breakthrough into traditionally sophisticated shipbuilding markets previously dominated by South Korean and Japanese yards.

Infrastructure and Scale: China has “dozens” of commercial shipyards larger and more productive than the largest U.S. shipyards. China’s total shipbuilding capacity increased by 12% to 47.8 million deadweight tons in 2024, with most Chinese shipyards fully booked for the next three to four years.

American Shipbuilding Decline

The United States presents a stark contrast to China’s expansion. The United States has a relatively insignificant capacity at 0.13 percent of global shipbuilding output, compared to China’s 46.59 percent. This represents a dramatic fall from American maritime industrial leadership.

Historical Context: America reached the pinnacle of its shipbuilding history during WWII and continued to serve as the world’s leading shipbuilder for decades thereafter. But competition from subsidized foreign shipyards quickly eroded that lead, especially after U.S. shipbuilding subsidies expired in 1981.

Current Infrastructure: The United States currently boasts the same number of private shipyards capable of producing new warships as it did in 1933: just seven. In addition, the Navy’s four public yards are no longer available for new construction like the ten public yards were in 1933.

Production Rates: From 2012 to 2021, the U.S. fleet added an average of 10.1 new ships a year—even fewer than the inadequate 12.7 production rate before World War I. Although the Fiscal Year 2025 budget requested an increase in shipbuilding to $32.4 billion, the U.S. Navy requested only six new ships, instead of the seven ships projected, remaining below the 10 to 11 new ships needed each year over the next 35 years.

Capacity Constraints: Despite nearly doubling its shipbuilding budget over the last 2 decades, the U.S. Navy hasn’t increased its number of ships. The Virginia-class submarine program exemplifies these challenges: in June 2024, the program’s rate of production was at about 60% of its annual goal—putting it years behind schedule, with much of this delay resting on the shipbuilder’s capacity to meet construction deadlines due to workforce shortages.

Strategic Implications of the Capacity Gap

The shipbuilding disparity carries profound implications beyond simple vessel counts. China’s massive shipbuilding industry would provide a strategic advantage in a war that stretches beyond a few weeks, allowing it to repair damaged vessels or construct replacements much faster than the United States, which continues to face a significant maintenance backlog and would probably be unable to quickly construct many new ships or to repair damaged fighting ships in a great power conflict.

This industrial capacity translates into fleet expansion rates that favor China. The U.S. Defense Department estimated China’s naval fleet would grow from 395 ships in 2025 to 435 by the end of the decade, while the U.S. Navy’s fleet was projected to decrease to 285 ships by 2025 and slightly rebound to 290 by 2030.

DISCUSS ON SG

Continue reading “Shipbuilding is Naval Power”

It’s Really Not a Flex

I have no sympathy for Mr. Vylan. None whatsoever. I wouldn’t blame the British people who want their country back for deporting him. but I also wonder if the people of no particular ethnicity who just happen to rush to crush critics of the Israeli Defense Forces like Mr. Vylan for no reason at all ever stop to think through the obvious consequences of their actions and how those actions look to others around the world. There was a time when it was hard to understand the intensity of the Chinese focus on the Great Firewall of China, its decoupling from the West, and the development of a BRICS financial system, but now it’s obvious that the Chinese have been paying attention to the way that the people of the West are being oppressed and have no intention of being subjected to similar restraints.

But at least the so-called Enlightenment ideals that supposedly defined the modern facsimile of the traditional West have been revealed for the satanic deceptions that they always were.

I also wonder how those who are celebrating the deplatforming of IDF critics are going to like it when critics of the People’s Liberation Army and the Russian Armed Forces are subjected to similar treatment.

DISCUSS ON SG

JD vs VD

Vox Day is the Lead Editor of Castalia House and the author of the Sigma Game blog. He has been nominated for 7 Hugo Awards and is an Award-winning Cruelty Artist. In this terrifyingly erudite podcast, the publisher, polymath and provocateur tries to persuade James that AI isn’t totally evil. Also on the menu: what’s really happening with the Iran thing; comic books; why Milo and Owen Benjamin get more hate than Vox; composing film scores; and why James’s ‘we’re all going to die soon’ pension plan may not work.

The two-hour interview is available on the Delingpod, as well as on UATV for the subscribers.

DISCUSS ON SG

Self-Determination

Thanks to Vladimir Putin and the soldiers of Russia, the Russian people of Lugansk are finally free from the murderous usurpers of the Kiev regime:

After the 2014 coup in Ukraine, mass protests against the new Ukrainian leadership began in Lugansk.

On April 27, at a rally, the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) was proclaimed within the Lugansk Oblast. On May 11, a referendum on self-determination was held in the republic, with organizers announcing that 96.2% of voters supported independence. On May 12, the LPR authorities proclaimed the republic’s sovereignty. On May 24, the LPR authorities signed an agreement with the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) to create the Union of People’s Republics (from July 2014 – Novorossiya; this decision was solidified in 2015).

On May 18, 2014, the Constitution of the LPR was adopted.

By mid-August 2014, the AFU had managed to establish control over territories in western LPR and partially encircle Lugansk. However, in August, the Army of the Southeast was able to push back the enemy somewhat. A ceasefire agreement was reached on September 5, 2014 in Minsk at a meeting of the Contact Group on Ukraine.

Amid Ukraine’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements on Donbass settlement and escalating tensions on the contact line between LPR forces and the AFU, deputies from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation faction submitted a draft appeal to the State Duma on January 19, 2022, calling on Russian President V.V. Putin to recognize the independence of the DPR and LPR as “independent, sovereign and independent states.” On February 15, the State Duma approved the appeal by a majority vote (351 for, 16 against, 1 abstained) and sent it to the President of Russia.

On February 17, the situation on the contact line became even more acute. The LPR reported the most intense shelling by the AFU in recent months, while the OSCE reported a sharp increase in hostilities. The evacuation of the republic’s population to Russia began, with Russian authorities guaranteeing temporary asylum to refugees. Mobilization was announced in the LPR.

On February 21, 2022, LPR and DPR leaders L.I. Pasechnik and D.V. Pushilin appealed to V.V. Putin to recognize the independence of the Donbass republics. The same day, after an expanded meeting with members of the Russian Security Council, V.V. Putin in a televised address to the nation announced recognition of LPR and DPR sovereignty and signed decrees recognizing the LPR and DPR, ordering the Russian Armed Forces to maintain peace in the republics.

On February 24, 2022, in response to requests for assistance from LPR and DPR leadership, Russia began its Special Military Operation in Ukraine.

On June 30, 2025, LPR Head Leonid Pasechnik announced that the territory of the LPR had been completely liberated from the Nazi invaders of the AFU.

The mainstream media narrative in the West has never been able to admit that the Kiev regime is illegitimate, that the Russian Special Military Operation has always been a war of liberation, and that the moral high ground belongs, first and foremost, to the people of Luhansk and Donask who were never guilty of anything more than pursuing the self-determination that the West has supposedly championed for more than 100 years.

But the West is no longer the West of yore, or it would have been supporting the Novorossyans, not arming and abetting their illegitimate occupiers.

DISCUSS ON SG

Cathedra Book 2

We’ve got books for all three subscription series to announce, so we’ll start with announcing Castalia Cathedra Book 2, which is PRAYER AND THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE by St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by Hugh Pope.

For more information, an example of the interior layout, and an excerpt from the Introduction, visit the Castalia Library stack. Tomorrow, we’ll announce the next History book, and Wednesday, the next Library book.

DISCUSS ON SG

They Tell You It’s Not Real

Both /pol/ and Dr. Mark Trozzi have been warning Americans about the scenario from The National Blueprint for Biodefense that involves a bioweapon attack that kills 280,000 Americans on July 4, 2025. Now, we all know that these “hypothetical scenarios” and “training exercises” are sometimes, though not usually, cover for the launch of the real thing. But what I found most interesting, in perusing the document, was the way in which its intrinsic falsity was clearly conveyed within the document itself.

Where, my fellow Omni-Narrational Skeptic, is the clue that this urgent biodefense blueprint is pure bureaucratic fiction?

We also believe that the United States, its allies, and partners in industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations can eliminate pandemics entirely in 10 years by fully implementing the recommendations we made in our earlier report, The Apollo Program for Biodefense. Ending pandemics is more achievable today than landing on the Moon was in 1961.

THE APOLLO PROGRAM FOR BIODEFENSE
Technology holds great promise. Within weeks of recognizing the existence of COVID-19, scientists mapped its entire genome and developed and produced vaccines faster than ever before. They accomplished these previously unimaginable feats because of forward-looking programs (e.g., Human Genome Project, advanced research programs that previously led to many vaccines currently used to treat a variety of diseases). Nonetheless, we failed to adequately harness scientific and technological capabilities, and undermined response efforts by failing to implement new strategies and defenses. We have an unknown period to address those shortcomings before the next devastating pandemic occurs.

The need to control COVID-19 created momentum to produce many technologies that we previously lacked the will and resources to pursue before the pandemic began. We need to build on that progress and push for technological advances to protect us from the next biological threat. Our Nation rises to seemingly impossible challenges by pursuing grand programs. The United States can similarly put an end to pandemics within a decade, but only with leadership, resources, and interest that go beyond technical constraints and the usual crisis-neglect cycles.

The United States should leverage basic research portfolios to study pathogens of concern, conduct pre-clinical and clinical testing of priority and prototype pathogens, develop products to detect and treat the diseases they cause. These programs must involve domestic, international, private, and public sector partners.

The Commission proposed The Apollo Program for Biodefense in 2021 to undertake targeted research and development to detect and continually trace any new pathogen from the source, distribute rapid point-of-use tests to every household and farm in the country within days of that detection, have effective treatments already in-hand, and develop and rollout vaccines in weeks rather than years. This ambitious program, at about $10 billion annually for ten years, would be a small fraction of the trillions in costs incurred by the COVID-19 pandemic and would contribute immensely to our country’s public health, economic, and national security.

As they say, space may be the final frontier, but it’s filmed in a Hollywood basement. Which means that any “biodefense” program is almost certainly cover for domestic bioattacks on the citizenry. And we can even see whom the parties we’re supposed to believe will be responsible are.

The Department of State assesses that China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia continue to engage in biological weapons-specific or dual-use research activities, and fail to comply with the BWC. New state programs can still access caches of incompletely destroyed or buried biological weapons materials from old state programs, and then smuggle them to other regions for use by today’s militaries and terrorist organizations. Weapons that once consumed a great deal of time and resources to make now take far less, and what the United States could accomplish more than 40 years ago, others can accomplish today.

Now, despite all this documentaion, I tend to doubt that there will be any bioweapon attack on July 4th, and if there is, it will, like the Covid-19 and vaccine attacks, almost certainly be less effective than intended. It also won’t be Iran who is responsible, although obviously that’s who the next false flag will be blamed upon since Clown World still can’t quite wrap its collective head around the fact that it somehow didn’t manage to trigger its long-sought US-Iran war despite multiple attacks by Israel and by the USA itself.

DISCUSS ON SG

Five Generations of Modern War

Military history buffs and fans of William S. Lind should recognize the form of this AI-generated lecture, which updates his famous Four Generations of Modern War lecture with the latest transformations in warfare. Read the whole thing at AI Central. It’s not too much of an exaggeration to observe that this is probably in advance and more up-to-date than what is presently being taught at most military colleges today, if the actions of various militaries, including the US Navy and the IDF, are any guide. And I think you’ll agree that this is an absolute tour de force of applied AI in action.

The Fifth Generation of Modern War: Drones, Attrition, and the Collapse of the Logistics Sanctuary

A lecture examining how unmanned systems fundamentally transform the nature of warfare by eliminating the distinction between the front lines and the logistics space.

Introduction:

Ladies and gentlemen, what I’m going to present to you today builds directly on the intellectual framework that William Lind laid out in his groundbreaking lecture entitled the Four Generations of Modern War. As Lind emphasized, we cannot determine the consistency of a system from inside itself—we must stand outside it to see clearly. Today, we must step outside not just our current military thinking, but outside the entire framework of the first four generations to understand what is happening in conflicts from Nagorno-Karabakh to Ukraine to the skies over Israel and Iran.

We are witnessing the emergence of the Fifth Generation of Modern War, and like each previous generational shift, it represents what the Hegelians would call a dialectically qualitative change—not merely an evolution in tactics or technology, but a fundamental transformation in the nature of warfare itself. This transformation is driven by the proliferation of unmanned systems—drones—which have done something unprecedented since the Peace of Westphalia: they have eliminated the sanctuary of the logistics space.

For the first time since modern warfare began, there is no safe rear area. The combat zone has expanded from what was traditionally a 5-kilometer depth to 25 kilometers and beyond. This is not simply longer-range artillery or deeper penetration by special forces—this is the permanent, persistent threat of attack against every element of military force, from the frontline rifleman to the supply depot hundreds of kilometers from the front.

But before we examine this revolutionary change, we must understand what came before. Lind’s framework of the Four Generations provides the foundation upon which we must build our understanding of the Fifth.

DISCUSS ON SG

How China is Ending Divorce

The recent memes about the changes to Chinese divorce law are more than a month out of date and a little exaggerated. But the changes show that the Chinese government is serious about winning the 21st century as the West continues to spiral downward into dyscivilization:

China has made significant changes to its divorce laws, aimed at making marriage registration simpler and divorce harder. A new 30-day cooling-off period has been introduced, requiring couples to wait before finalizing their divorce. This period gives couples a chance to reconsider their decision, potentially preventing hasty decisions, but it also raises concerns about women who may feel trapped in abusive or unhappy relationships.

The law overhauls property division, shifting from equal distribution to ownership based on who paid for the property. This means that if one spouse paid for the property, they retain ownership even if the other spouse’s name is on the title. Property gifts from family members to one spouse are also exempt from being shared. Additionally, the law grants equal custody of children to both parents, meaning both parents retain their rights to the children unless there are extenuating circumstances. This aims to reduce custody battles, making the process smoother and ensuring that both parents have a say in raising their children after separation.

The West is going to have to follow suit sooner or later, because the current female-favoring divorce laws are not only destroying far too many existing marriages, but are preventing men from pursuing marriage, or even relationships, in the first place.

Simply refraining from distributing men’s property to women and preventing women from being able to use access to children as a post-marital weapon would significantly remove some of the current disincentives to marriage.

DISCUSS ON SG