General

Escobar: Putin Peels Off The Masks Of The Ceasefire Kabuki

/1 Comment/in /by

As we peel off the successive masks, the last one standing inside the matryoshka is a woke transvestite tiny dancer: a Minsk 3 in drag.

Now cue to a “ceasefire” redux: President Putin in uniform only for the second time since the start of the SMO, dead serious, visiting the frontline in Kursk.

Finally, cue to the actual peel off operation: Putin’s press conference after his meeting with Lukashenko in Moscow.

Ceasefire? Of course. We support it. And then, methodically, diplomatically, the Russian President pulled a Caravaggio, and went all-out chiaroscuro on every geopolitical and military detail of the American gambit. A consumate artful deconstruction.

End result: the ball is now back in Donald Trump’s court. Incidentally the leader of the revamping-in-progress Empire of Chaos who does not (italics mine) have the cards.

The art of diplomatic nuance

That’s how diplomacy at the highest level works – something out of reach of American bumpkins of the Rubio variety.

Putin was gracious enough to thank “the President of the United States, Mr. Trump, for paying so much attention to resolving the conflict.”

After all the Americans also seem to be involved in “achieving a noble mission, a mission to stop hostilities and the loss of human lives.”

Then he went for the kill: “This ceasefire should lead to a long-term peace and eliminate the initial causes of this crisis.”

As in all Russian key imperatives – widely known since at least June 2024 – will have to be satisfied. After all, it’s Russia that’s winning the war in the battlefield, not the U.S., the – already fragmented – NATO, and much less Ukraine.

Putin was adamant on the ceasefire: “We are for it.”

But there are nuances; once again, it’s called diplomacy. Starting with verification – arguably the crux of Putin’s reasoning:

“These 30 days — how will they be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To receive more arms supplies? To train newly mobilized units? Or will none of this happen?

How will the issues of control and verification be resolved? How can we be guaranteed that nothing like this will happen? How will the control be organized?

I hope that everyone understands this at the level of common sense. These are all serious issues.”

No: the collective EUrocracy, mired in demented Russophobia, does not understand “common sense”.

Once again Putin deferred, diplomatically, to the “need to work with our American partners. Maybe I will speak to President Trump.”

So there will be another phone call soon.

Trump, for his part, perennially floating on the clouds of bombast, already applied “leverage” on the negotiations – even before Putin’s detailed answer to the ceasefire kabuki.

He ramped up sanctions on Russia’s oil, gas and banking, allowing the waiver on Russian oil sales to expire this week.

That means in practice that the EUro-vassals and other assorted “allies” cannot buy Russian oil anymore without evading U.S. sanctions.

Even before that, elements from the Kiev criminal gang were begging for more sanctions on Russia as part of a “peace” plan. Trump obviously agreed by bypassing basic diplomacy once again. Only those with an IQ of less than zero can possibly believe that Moscow will support a ceasefire/’peace process” where it is sanctioned for attempting to end a war that it is actually winning in the battlefield – from Donbass to Kursk.

Sanctions will have to be at the heart of the possible U.S.-Russia negotiations. At least some of those thousands will have to go right from the start. Same for the $300 billion or so in Russian assets “seized” – as in stolen –, most of it parked in Brussels.

I annex, therefore I am

Putin’s Caravaggio ceasefire painting reveals that he has absolutely no interest in antagonizing the notoriously volcanic Trump, or to put in peril the possibility of a U.S.-Russia détente in the making.

As for Kiev and the EUro-chihuahuas, they remain on the menu, and not on the table.

Predictably, Western MSM, as a wave of toxic detritus hitting a pristine shore, is spinning that Putin said “Nyet” to the ceasefire gambit as a prelude to scotching any negotiations about it.

These specimens would not understand the meaning of “diplomacy” even if it was a comet piercing the skies.

As for the spin on the Brits “helping” the Americans and the Ukrainians to concoct the ceasefire gambit, that does not even qualify as a crappy Monty Python sketch.

The Brit ruling classes, MI6, their media and think tanks, simply abhor any negotiations. They are at direct, frontal war with Russia, and their plan A – no plan B – remains the same: inflict a “strategic defeat” on Moscow, as the SVR knows inside out.

The heart of the matter is the Black Sea. Vladimir Karasev’s analysis, as explained to TASS, is spot on: “The British have already entered the city of Odessa, which they view as a key location. Their special services are heavily involved there. The British do not conceal their desire to establish a naval base in Odessa.”

Odessa is part of the extensive menu of Ukraine’s resources already, in thesis, handed over to the Brits under the shady – and completely illegal – 100-year agreement signed between Starmer and the sweaty sweatshirt in Kiev.

According to the dodgy deal and its made-in-the-shade footnotes, Zelensky already gave away to the Brits all sorts of control over minerals, nuclear power plants, underground gas storage facilities, key ports (including Odessa), and hydroelectric power plants.

On the ongoing minerals/rare earth saga in 404 – or what will be left of it – the Brits are in vicious, direct competition with the Americans. The CIA is obviously in the know. This whole thing will turn very ugly in no time.

A serious discussion running across informed circles in Moscow is that Putin by all means will never sacrifice Russia’s “indivisibility of security” demands posed to Washington in December 2021 – and met with a no-response response. NATO of course will never agree to it. The final decision will have to come from POTU.S..

And that brings us to the ultimately pathetic role of NATO, graphically illustrated by POTU.S., in the Oval Office, gleefully expanding on his drive to annex both Canada and Greenland – both part of NATO – right in front of the sorry Dutch patsy Tutti Frutti o-Rutti, NATO’s Secretary General.

That amorphous slab of stale Dutch gouda cheese not only did not emit a peep about the annexations: he was gleaming like a baby in front of Trump.

That was NATO stripped bare: His Master’s Voice rules the way he wants it, and whatever he decides, even the “security” and territorial integrity of member states may be in peril. So go back to playing in your sandbox. Onwards to the next Putin-Trump phone call.

Tyler James Satire: Oregon to Replace Stop Signs with ‘Gentle Suggestions’ to Avoid ‘Harmful Command Language’

/3 Comments/in /by

Oregon to Replace Stop Signs with ‘Gentle Suggestions’ to Avoid ‘Harmful Command Language’

Telling Cars When to Stop Is a Form of Road Privilege’

Oregon has officially banned stop signs in an effort to create a more inclusive and emotionally safe driving experience. According to the state’s Department of Transportation, the word “STOP” is simply too aggressive and could be perceived as a harsh command rather than a gentle suggestion.

“We realized that the traditional stop sign relies on outdated, authoritarian language,” said ODOT spokesperson River Moonbeam, who now identifies as a “Traffic Equity Facilitator.” “It’s 2025—we don’t tell people what to do anymore. We simply invite them to participate in a collective driving experience.”

Under the new law, all stop signs across the state will be updated with gentler, more affirming language, ensuring that no driver feels pressured into making a decision they’re not emotionally prepared for. Instead of the harsh, authoritarian “STOP”, Oregon’s traffic engineers have introduced “Pause If You Feel Like It”, “Consider Stopping, But No Pressure”, and “You Do You, But Maybe Stop?”—all displayed on the same classic red octagonal signs because change is hard, and we don’t want to overwhelm anyone.

Officials assure residents that while the signs may look the same, the softer messaging will help foster a more inclusive, self-reflective driving experience. To further ease the transition, the wording was carefully chosen by a diverse committee of traffic psychologists and wellness influencers. “We’re not here to control you,” said one official. “We just want to support your personal traffic journey.”

To ensure a smooth transition, Oregon has launched a public awareness campaign titled “Safe Spaces, Safe Streets” which includes mindfulness workshops for drivers struggling with the concept of optional stopping. The campaign encourages motorists to take a deep breath, check in with their emotions, and make an informed choice about whether stopping aligns with their personal truth at that moment.

“We don’t want to impose rigid, binary choices on our drivers,” said local activist Juniper Featherstone, who spearheaded the initiative. “For too long, stop signs have dictated who moves and who doesn’t, reinforcing systemic hierarchies of motion. We are dismantling that power imbalance.”

Not everyone is thrilled about the change. Some critics argue that removing stop signs could cause a dramatic increase in accidents, particularly at busy intersections. In response, Oregon lawmakers have proposed an innovative solution: replacing intersections with “Consent-Based Traffic Flow Zones” where drivers can make eye contact and negotiate the right-of-way through open dialogue.

State officials remain optimistic, citing the success of previous progressive traffic reforms, such as Portland’s infamous “Bicycle Yield to Vibes” initiative, which allowed cyclists to decide whether traffic laws applied to them based on their mood.

To ensure compliance, police officers will no longer issue tickets for running stop signs but will instead provide “Gentle Course Corrections” in the form of affirming discussions about a driver’s choices and a free journal for self-reflection.

The program has already seen strong support in Eugene, where some residents are petitioning for all traffic lights to be replaced with “Manifest Your Own Path” lanterns. Portland, meanwhile, is considering an even bolder move: replacing crosswalks with public trust exercises, in which pedestrians and drivers simply have faith in each other to make the right decision.

As Oregon continues to lead the nation in redefining how society approaches traffic laws, other states are watching closely. California has already expressed interest in adopting similar measures, with some lawmakers proposing that speed limits be replaced with “personal velocity suggestions.”

Another one from Tyler James:

 | Mar 16, 2025 | Humor, News, Satire

PORTLAND, OR — Local man Brian “Snappy” Thompson has officially petitioned the Oregon Zoo to recognize his true identity as a turtle and grant him permanent residency in the reptile exhibit.

“I’ve spent my whole life feeling like a turtle trapped in a human’s body,” said Thompson, who arrived at the zoo crawling on all fours, his back covered by a massive, eerily realistic turtle shell. “Society just isn’t built for people like me. I move at my own pace, I love basking under heat lamps, and frankly, I’d rather eat lettuce than participate in capitalism.”

Zoo officials were initially confused when Thompson slowly inched his way to the entrance, refusing to stand up and demanding an enclosure next to the Galápagos tortoises. “At first, we thought it was just another Portland performance art piece,” said zookeeper Carl Jensen. “But then he started burrowing into the ground, refusing to pay admission, and snapping at tourists who got too close. That’s when we knew he was serious.”

Thompson, who insists on only being referred to by his new legal name, “Shelly,” says human society has always been too fast-paced for him. “Rent is outrageous, taxes are unfair, and no one lets me nap in the sun for six hours a day without calling the police,” he lamented. “At the zoo, I can finally live the way nature intended.”

Despite skepticism from some zookeepers, Thompson has gained an impressive following. Animal rights activists have thrown their support behind his cause, arguing that “all creatures deserve a habitat where they feel comfortable.” Meanwhile, a group of local activists has started a GoFundMe to provide him with a state-of-the-art fiberglass shell, though experts warn it may not provide adequate back support for a 37-year-old man who works part-time at a vape shop.

As of now, the Oregon Zoo has yet to approve Thompson’s request, but staff say they’re open to negotiations. “We already have birds that identify as dinosaurs and snakes that identify as scary ropes,” said one employee. “What’s one more identity crisis?”

Thompson, undeterred, says he will continue his protest by slowly crawling around the zoo entrance until his demands are met. “You can’t rush a turtle,” he said. “But eventually, I always get where I’m going.”

 

ADL: Joe Rogan hosts Holocaust revisionist Darryl Cooper on his podcast and complains of ‘paranoid’ Jews

/14 Comments/in /by

[Shocking actually. Times they are a-changin’.

Rogan hosts one of the most popular podcasts in the country.

By Ben Sales 

Joe Rogan, who hosts one of the most popular podcasts in the country, invited a Holocaust revisionist to his studio just over a week after interviewing someone who spreads antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Rogan’s interview of so-called “historian” Darryl Cooper on Thursday followed his interview of conspiracy theorist Ian Carroll last week. In Carroll’s interview on March 5, he claimed sex offender Jeffrey Epstein “was clearly a Jewish organization working on behalf of Israel and other groups” and said Israel was founded by Jewish organized crime figures, according to Jewish Insider.

In this week’s interview, Rogan gave Cooper free rein to espouse his views, which he praised as “nuanced” and “comprehensive.” Rogan also claimed to oppose antisemitism, which he said he saw rise following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack, though he added that Jews made too much of it at times.

“And then you start thinking the way your paranoid Jewish friends think, that everybody’s antisemitic, and you go, well, now I kind of understand why they think that way,” he told Cooper at one point. “So I kind of understand the overreaction, but it is still an overreaction and I think what you do is very valuable.”

Cooper promoted similar falsehoods in his Rogan interview and devoted a long segment to explaining — at Rogan’s request — Adolf Hitler’s antisemitism as borne of battle weariness and economic hardship. He claimed among other things that Hitler opposed the mass 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom and that Hitler came to be antisemitic from feeling the reason Germans were in a “sorry state” was because “they’re being manipulated by the Jews, by the Jewish press, by the Jews who own the theaters and put out the films and whatever else.”

He added, “I think the thing that gave it emotional valence for him is that his antisemitism is what allowed him to love the German people.”

Cooper has long drawn condemnation from antisemitism and bigotry watchdogs, as well as actual historians of World War II and the Holocaust. His prominence — he has hundreds of thousands of followers on X and other platforms — comes as people espousing white supremacist and pro-Hitler rhetoric have found jobs in the Trump administration as well as in traditional media.

“Engaging in Holocaust denial and distortion disqualifies you as a credible historian,” Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, tweeted in September about Cooper.

This week, an ADL newsletter on extremism said the series of recent appearances by far-right figures on popular podcasts “underscores a worrying trend: false narratives about Jews and Israel are being normalized.”

The ADL drew criticism for giving Elon Musk the benefit of the doubt when the Trump backer and White House advisor gave what appeared to be a Nazi salute in January. This week, it criticized Musk, without using his name, after Musk shared a social media post saying that civil servants, not Hitler, were responsible for the murder of the Jews during the Holocaust [i.e., a post that was nothing more than yet again showing Musk’s distaste for federal bureaucrats.] (The post was later deleted.)

“It is deeply disturbing and irresponsible for someone with a large public platform to elevate the kind of rhetoric that serves to undermine the seriousness of these issues,” the group tweeted.

Jose Nino interviews Paul Kersey on race

/1 Comment/in /by

Excellent interview. At the end, Kersey provides information on is the websites and podcasts he is associated with.

barnesreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/Paul_Kersey_BarnesReview.mp3

Biden Didn’t Pardon, He Erased the Law

/1 Comment/in /by

A snippy article in The New York Times this past weekend — sorry, an unusually snippy article in The New York Times this past weekend — suggested that Trump is using his pardon power to reward those loyal to him and undo what he sees as politically motivated prosecutions. If true, this would make Trump only the 47th president to use his authority this way.

The media’s interest in presidential pardons seems sudden.

Just a few months ago, President Biden granted a blanket clemency to 1,500 criminals in a single day; overruled federal law on capital punishment by rescinding it for 37 of the 40 federal death row prisoners; and nullified federal drug laws by commuting the sentences of 2,500 alleged “nonviolent drug offenders,” in what his White House boasted was “the largest single-day grant of clemency in modern history.”

The Times is worried about Trump abusing the presidential pardon? If Trump were selling pardons at a card table at Mar-a-Lago like merch at comic con, it could not compare to the lawlessness of Biden using the pardon power to repeal federal law. With the stroke of a pen, the dementia patient — or whomever was functioning as president — thumbed his nose at the legislative and judicial branches, the U.S. Code, his own law enforcement officers, the federal judiciary, and, most of all, citizens voting in a democracy (that thing that dies in darkness).

For decades, the progressive wish list has had at the top of the lineup: 1) decriminalizing drugs, 2) decriminalizing illegal immigration, 3) decriminalizing crime and 4) abolishing the death penalty. They push their pro-criminal agenda with Alice in Wonderland locutions, like “mass incarceration,” “the school-to-prison pipeline,” “failed drug war,” “black bodies,” “alternatives to incarceration,” “the new Jim Crow,” “nonviolent drug offenses” and “the defendant was just signed by the Los Angeles Lakers.”

But no matter how they try to camouflage it, these are such obviously crackpot ideas, they’ve been adopted only in a few open-air drug markets, like the entire states of California, Oregon and Washington. Unable to convince a majority of Americans not currently wearing ankle monitors that murderers, rapists and other psychopaths should roam free among us, liberals simply defy the law with moratoriums, executive orders, court rulings and, in Biden’s case, across-the-board mass clemencies.

For example, in contempt of California voters’ clear endorsement of the death penalty in 2016, just three years later, Gov. Gavin Newsom imposed a moratorium on capital punishment. His solidly Democratic constituents have adamantly refused to halt the death penalty in statewide initiatives at least four times. What else can they do? Give everybody on death row the COVID jab?

Forget Biden’s issuing preemptive pardons to Anthony Fauci, members of the Jan. 6 committee, the special prosecutors who hounded Trump, his own multiple-convict son, Hunter, and to be safe, “anyone with the last name Biden.” He used the presidential pardon to overturn federal criminal law, just as he used Alejandro Mayorkas to overturn immigration law.

[I rather doubt Mayorkas needed any convincing. In fact, given Biden’s dementia, all the blame should go to Mayorkas.]

The 4,000 criminals granted clemency by Biden were in prison only after undergoing a lengthy, meticulous, painstakingly fair process in the most advanced criminal justice system in the world. So many obstacles are thrown in the way of prosecutors (exclusionary rule, Miranda, double jeopardy, jury nullification, fruit of the poisoned tree, etc.) that it’s a miracle they get any convictions even of obviously guilty people — as long as the defendant’s name isn’t “Trump” and the trial isn’t in New York or D.C.

But after all that, Biden tossed out the hard work of Congress, federal law enforcement and the judiciary, and imposed his own law: The death penalty is abolished, drugs are legal and crime will not be punished.

Out of pure spite against those of us who, oddly enough, would prefer to keep serial killers, rapists, arsonists and drug kingpins in prison, the media enragingly claim that the thousands of criminals Biden sprung were merely guilty of “nonviolent drug offenses.”

They are referring to the crime of record, which is never what the guy actually did, a fact well known to anyone familiar with the law, police procedural shows on TV or the expression “plea bargaining.”

As the Times itself has reported, 97% of federal prosecutions end with a plea bargain. You don’t plea to the worst thing you did. You plea to the bare minimum to spare the state a trial. “Possession” of guns or drugs shows up in a lot of plea deals because 1) almost all criminals have guns or drugs on them; 2) guns and drugs can’t be intimidated out of testifying; and 3) Hunter Biden.

The truth is something like this:

Actual crime: Homicide

Plea bargain: Manufacturing of narcotics

Actual crime: Assault with a deadly weapon

Plea bargain: Distribution of narcotics

Actual crime: Rape

Plea bargain: Possession of narcotics

Even so, only about 0.7% of drug offenders in federal prison have “possession” as the crime of record.

But now, thanks to Biden’s unprecedented abuse of the pardon power, they’re all walking free, able to vote and buy guns. Solely because of these clemencies, thousands of Americans, happily going about their lives today, will, within the next few years, be murdered, raped, assaulted, brain-damaged, robbed, stolen from, set on fire, etc., etc., unexpectedly beating Biden to the grave.

What do you call a leader who does not feel bound by the law, but makes his own law by diktat? Autocr-something? It reminds me of a time, long ago, when a leader came to power in Germany … [Biden = Hitler; that’s a new one.]

But, sure, New York Times, try to make a big issue of Trump contemplating a pardon for reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley.

COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER

About Nietzsche’s Maxim

/8 Comments/in /by

In publications like this one, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1840–1900) comes up a lot.  Just about everybody knows his maxim, “What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.”  Or at least some version of it, the wording varies from speaker to speaker.  Sometimes the reference is “us” rather than “me”: the 1982 movie “Conan the Barbarian” opens with the title card, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger—Friedrich Nietzsche.”  Watergate conspirator G. Gordon Liddy in the 1970s got a lot of attention using this “us” version.  A Kelly Clarkson song makes it “you”: “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, stronger.”  Here’s my take on this dictum, another word for it.

In Nietzsche’s essay published in 1889, Twilight of the Idols, he wrote: “Out of life’s school of war: what does not kill me makes me stronger.”  Here, he likens life to being in a war, one that, if survived, has this personally strengthening outcome.  I’m not sure if he was just talking about himself in this instance or setting out a fact of life that applies to everybody or just some people.  He wrote a lot about a superior brand of human being, the übermensch in German, or overman or superman, so he may have been applying this axiom, yet another term for it, only to people of this higher sort and included himself—or a fictionalized version of himself, in real life Nietzsche wasn’t exactly a dynamo—among their number.

Although it has received little attention, with a different twist, Nietzsche got at this basic notion in an earlier collection of thought fragments entitled Maxims of a Hyperborean: “What does not destroy us—we destroy and it makes us stronger.”  Notice in this case we become stronger not by enduring adversity or attack but rather by destroying what would destroy us.

With reference to the maxim as it stands in our time, it seems to me that whether the referent is “me,” “us,” or “you,” they all mean “a person”: that which doesn’t kill a person makes him or her stronger.  And that “kill” is not to be taken literally.  “Kill” means “devastates,” “personally destroys,” “shatters,” debilitates,” “crushes”—where someone is brought down in a major, lasting way.  And notice it isn’t about getting anything accomplished in this circumstance other than you becoming more capable.

Undoubtedly the popularity of this Nietzschean notion stems from the fact that despite its grim imagery—confronting something that could, figuratively anyway, kill you—it’s a positive, hopeful, feel-good idea.  If things are really rough, keep the faith, because getting through this ordeal is going to beef you up.  In fact, if you are looking to get stronger—tougher, more resilient, less vulnerable, more battle ready—you might even be advised to seek out trouble, or at least not duck it when it shows itself, because it’ll accomplish this good thing if you hang in there.

Amid all this optimism, however, we need to keep in mind that everything is what it is and isn’t anything else.  In this case, a maxim is a maxim and real life is real life.  Reality is far more complex and one-of-a-kind than any maxim can capture.  My experience with reality—actual existence, my own and from what I can discern from observing the lives of other people, both directly and indirectly through reading and film and such—leads me to conclude that what doesn’t kill us indeed does makes us stronger . . . sometimes.   And that the times it makes us stronger, it does so in every imaginable way and to every imaginable extent.  And that sometimes what doesn’t kill us doesn’t strengthen us at all; rather, it diminishes us, hurts us, injures us, and again, in different ways and degrees.  And that sometimes what doesn’t kill us weakens us in some ways and strengthens us in others, and again in every possible combination, although I’ve noticed (if I’m not kidding myself) that the balance usually tips in favor of strengthens.

This last possibility—some combination of weakening and strengthening—seems to me the most likely outcome of survived adversity, and that leads me to a modification of this most famous Nietzsche maxim:

That which doesn’t kill you will leave its scars, but on balance you’ll be stronger than before.  But then again, it might not happen that way in your case, so keep your eyes open and use your wits to do whatever is best for you in this particular instance.

Thus, when confronted with something that could kill you, you might be advised to fight like a wildcat, or placate, or work out a deal, or finesse and con, or lay low, or cut and run, or just bear up under whatever it is; it’s a judgment call.

DEI quotes: “useless white male pilots” and recruiting workers who are “less white,” which the presentation helpfully defined as being “less oppressive,” “less arrogant” and “less ignorant.”

/19 Comments/in /by
The RAF is facing a pilot shortage after a diversity hiring scheme backfired. …

Air chiefs want the gaps filled by those who may have previously been rejected. …

‘Woke manipulation of recruiting practices’

“As we approach VE Day celebrations, it is worth remembering that the RAF never ran out of Spitfires or Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain, but we very nearly ran out of fighter pilots.”

The shortage comes after the RAF’s diversity drive was found to be unlawful to white male would-be recruits.

During the drive, leaked emails showed air chiefs were told to stop choosing “useless white male pilots” in an attempt to improve diversity.

In 2023, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton apologised following an inquiry into the bias.

Sir Richard admitted that the force’s recruitment process had erroneously “fast-tracked” 161 enlisted aviators, who were either women or from ethnic minority backgrounds, into initial training before other candidates between 2020 and 2021.

From an op-ed in The New York Times (surprisingly):

Unfortunately, the D.E.I. policies that followed at Anheuser-Busch were none of the above. In 2021 the company started using online dashboards that gave managers a breakdown of their employee base by demographic characteristics.

Then the company created annual performance targets linked to the company’s environmental, social and governance strategy, of which D.E.I. was one component, for thousands of employees. It was clear to me that if teams didn’t check the right boxes, managers could be punished. Promotions could be withheld. Bonuses could be lost. That year, senior executives, including me, attended weekly meetings to discuss D.E.I. initiatives. These meetings often distracted from more critical business matters, like the fact that the company risked losing employees as the Great Resignation set in. (Anheuser-Busch declined to comment for this article.)

Anheuser-Busch was hardly alone. At least 70 big companies — from Airbnb to G.E. — had set public targets for gender diversity hiring. Among the worst examples of efforts to accomplish D.E.I. goals was a diversity training course offered to Coca-Cola employees via a third-party platform that urged workers to “be less white,” which the presentation helpfully defined as being “less oppressive,” “less arrogant” and “less ignorant.” A course in Kentucky reportedly told nurses that “implicit bias kills,” that white privilege is a “covert” form of racism and that nurses may contribute to “modern-day lynchings in the workplace.” …

You can see how performative many companies were in their imposition of D.E.I. policies simply by how quickly they have retreated from those policies. And their demise was well underway before the election. No one wanted to become the next Bud Light.