One of the big questions that has plagued American politics for the last decade and a half is: What the hell is going on? In order to understand what the hell is going on, I think we need to understand the transformation that happened around 2014. In 2012, we had what I consider to be the most consequential election of my lifetime, the one that everybody forgets. That’s the one that I think was really important. Why? Because in 2008, Barack Obama, America’s first black president, was elected on the platform of unifying Americans around race. Racial optimism in the country was at an all-time high, according to the polling data. And then, in 2012, Barack Obama, who had been a very progressive and left-wing president, who had pushed Obamacare through, lost popularity. So he decided that the best way to win reelection was not to broadcast a unifying message, but to divide Americans by race and then to cobble together enough racial coalitions in order to win a victory. He defeated Mitt Romney, the most milquetoast candidate in the history of American politics, in what was a fairly solid victory.  And that seemed to change everything, because by 2014, race relations in the United States were on the decline. Barack Obama — who had made a lot of promises to a lot of people — needed to fulfill those promises, particularly on issues of race. He claimed Trayvon Martin could have been his son. That was a racial claim because what he was saying was that any black person would have been subjected to the same treatment as Trayvon Martin, that circumstances did not matter. He said the same thing with regard to Ferguson, Missouri, where he claimed that nobody would make up the kinds of experiences that Michael Brown had undergone. Of course, it turned out that in Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown’s acolytes, people who were pseudo-witnesses, actually did make up the story about Michael Brown claiming that he had raised his hands: Hands up, don’t shoot! and all of the rest. Thus, by 2014, race relations were on a steep decline in the United States, and have never recovered. That is because so much of this attitude is racially divisive. The attitude was then baked into American politics. There’s a fascinating and important piece in Compact magazine by Jacob Savage, talking about the realities of hiring and firing in the elite institutions of the United States, which became explicitly race-based around 2014. He writes:  The doors seemed to close everywhere and all at once. In 2011, the year I moved to Los Angeles, white men were 48 percent of lower-level TV writers; by 2024, they accounted for just 11.9 percent. The Atlantic’s editorial staff went from 53 percent male and 89 percent white in 2013 to 36 percent male and 66 percent white in 2024. White men fell from 39 percent of tenure-track positions in the humanities at Harvard in 2014 to 18 percent in 2023. In retrospect, 2014 was the hinge, the year DEI became institutionalized across American life.  There are people who are DEI advocates who will claim that this is the natural state of things, that white people were being artificially elevated. And when that ended, thanks to DEI, white people fell out of positions of power.  But the reality is the opposite: America had been, for at least a couple of generations, generally a meritocracy, particularly on issues of race. For example, when you go back to how hiring was done in TV studios, some of the most Left-leaning areas in American life in 2011, it wasn’t that the heads of the writers’ room were selecting for white people; it was that they were selecting for the funniest people.  And then they decided to radically shift how they did hiring and firing, thus dispossessing people of the positions that they had earned in favor of other people based on group characteristics. I’m 41. People of my generation were brought up in the 1990s, and we were taught from a very, very early age that Martin Luther King Jr.’s exhortation to judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, was morally correct. That’s because it is morally correct. And then an entire cadre of elite institutional professionals decided not to do that anymore. Not only that, they decided, in many cases, that the majority of potential employees in a potential applicant pool were bad because of the immutable characteristics, the color of their skin, or their maleness. The idea was that these people were somehow lesser, that they had participated in systemic discrimination, and even if they themselves were not racist, the system was racist and thus these people had to be dispossessed.  They took the most tolerant cohort of people, people who had been trained in the idea of a colorblind meritocracy, and told them that colorblind meritocracy was for them, but it wasn’t for anyone else. These people were told that they should continue to adhere to an idea of colorblind meritocracy because it was morally correct, but they were the beneficiaries of racialist systems, and therefore, they had to pay. Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships That is unsustainable. There’s one system for everyone. And if you are told that colorblind meritocracy is something that you should morally accept — which is true — and then you are told it doesn’t apply to you, it only applies to everyone else, you are likely to get a generation of people who start to reject a colorblind meritocracy and start to look at race relations as a zero sum game rather than an additive bonus. They start to see everything as a question of who gets the job based on immutable characteristics, and start to view themselves as a put-upon identity group, because they are a put-upon identity group. If a group is determined to be lesser on the basis of immutable characteristics, they’re going to start seeing themselves in identitarian ways. That doesn’t mean that they are right to do so. It does mean, however, that the only way to destroy all of this, this new identitarian moment we are living in, where there’s an identitarianism of the Left that adheres to the idea that group identity is really, really good except if you’re talking about white Christian men, and an identitarian Right that is formed in counter-response that says, “Fine, you want to play that game? We’ll play that game, too,” is to go back to a system that we were all taught as kids, and that was natural to us: Colorblind meritocracy. Colorblind meritocracy is good. It is right. Why? Because meritocracy is the only system of human relations ever devised that has positive externalities. When the people who are best at the job, get the job, you get greater efficiency, you get better job performance, you get better innovation, better products. People are able to expend their best abilities to the benefit of everyone else. Every other system, every other anti-meritocratic system has negative externalities. They help the people who are inside the system and hurt the people who are outside the system. Meritocracy benefits everyone because even if you didn’t get the job — let’s say you lost the job to a person who is better qualified than you, better at the job than you — that means that the person who filled the job is going to perform the job better than you would have, and so that company will do better. They will perform better, the prices will be better, and the products will be better. Moreover, you will end up in a job where you are most meritorious. If you want a happier human society, meritocracy is the way. We were told by the leftists that meritocracy is inherently bad. Why? Because people looked at the outcome numbers and they judged for themselves that if outcomes were not equal, the system was unequal and bad. But if you don’t use meritocracy, then you have to prejudge. Either you are going to judge a system based on the effect of the system, or you’re going to prejudge a system based on your perception of fairness between groups. There is nothing just or fair about the idea that a person should be hampered in their capacity to succeed because of their immutable characteristics. That is just wrong. Grievance-based politics need to end. Yes, white male American millennials, Christians do have reason for grievance. But the solution to that grievance is meritocracy. It is not, in fact, reversed grievance. Otherwise, we’re just going to ping-pong between grievances. It will become a question of who grabs the government gun and crams down their preferred solution. That is not what America was built on. And it is not what is going to cause America to succeed. The negative externalities of the DEI system have been felt everywhere from the social sphere to the job sphere to the governmental sphere. And that spiral will keep on swirling in the drain unless we reverse it and go back to what we all taught our kids and what we were taught as kids: to treat every individual human being as an individual, and not on the basis of some sort of immutable characteristic. What happened over the course of the last decade was a sin against decency, and the fact that so many people are still invested in that sin, or who now want to pursue the same sin, but with a different color at the top, will not make for a successful America.

The White House unveiled new plaques beneath the portraits of American presidents on its Presidential Walk of Fame on Wednesday, with some of the plaques including President Donald Trump’s jabs at former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama. The Presidential Walk of Fame, which is located along the outside wall of West Wing, includes biographies for every U.S. president. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump, “as a student of history,” wrote some of the descriptions himself, which is evident, as much of the sentence structure and grammar is reflective of the president’s unique style usually seen in his social media posts. Instead of a photo of Biden for the former president’s portrait, the White House displays an image of an autopen. The text beneath the image reads, “Sleepy Joe Biden was, by far, the worst President in American History. Taking office as a result of the most corrupt Election ever seen in the United States, Biden oversaw a series of unprecedented disasters that brought our Nation to the brink of destruction. His policies caused the highest Inflation ever recorded, leading the U.S. Dollar to lose more than 20% of its value in 4 years. His Green New Scam surrendered American Energy Dominance and, by abolishing the Southern Border, Biden let 21 million people from all over the World pour into the United States, including from prisons, jails, mental institutions, and insane asylums. His Afghanistan Disaster was among the most humiliating events in American History, and resulted in the murder of 13 brave American Servicemembers, with many others gravely wounded. Seeing Biden’s devastating weakness, Russia invaded Ukraine, and Hamas terrorists launched the heinous October 7th attack on Israel.” “Nicknamed both ‘Sleepy’ and ‘Crooked,’ Joe Biden was dominated by his Radical Left handlers,” the biography continues. “They and their allies in the Fake News Media attempted to cover up his severe mental decline, and his unprecedented use of the Autopen. Following his humiliating debate loss to President Trump in the big June 2024 debate, he was forced to withdraw from his campaign for re-election in disgrace. Biden weaponized Law Enforcement against his political opponent, while also prosecuting many other innocent people. He left office issuing blanket pardons to Radical Democrat criminals and thugs, as well as members of the Biden Crime Family — But despite it all, President Trump would get Re-Elected in a Landslide, and SAVE AMERICA!” The plaques for President Obama refer to him as “one of the most divisive political figures in American history” and blast his handling of foreign policy and Obamacare. Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships Obama’s plaques reads, “Barack Hussein Obama was the first Black President, a community organizer, one term Senator from Illinois, and one of the most divisive political figures in American History. As President, he passed the highly ineffective ‘Unaffordable’ Care Act, resulting in his party losing control of both Houses of Congress, and the Election of the largest House Republican majority since 1946. He presided over a stagnant Economy, approved the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal, and signed the one-sided Paris Climate Accords, both of which were later terminated by President Donald J. Trump.” “Under Obama, the ISIS Caliphate spread across the Middle East, Libya collapsed into chaos, and Russia invaded and took Crimea, in Ukraine. He crippled small businesses with crushing regulation and environmental red tape, devastated American coal miners, and weaponized the IRS and Federal bureaucracies against his political opponents. Obama also spied on the 2016 Presidential Campaign of Donald J. Trump and presided over the creation of the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, the worst political scandal in American History. His handpicked successor, Hillary Rodham Clinton, would then lose the Presidency to Donald J. Trump.” Trump’s plaque for President George W. Bush was far more friendly, but it still took a shot at Bush over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The son of former President George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush was the Governor of Texas when he won the hotly contested 2000 Election for President. His Administration was largely defined by the events of September 11, 2001 — The destruction of the World Trade Center, after which he led the war on terror. President Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, but started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which should not have happened. He also enacted Tax Cuts, expanded Medicare, signed the No Child Left Behind education bill, and launched the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Shortly before the end of his Administration, a Global Financial Crisis and major Recession took place.” For President Bill Clinton, Trump’s plaque highlights the economic boom in the 1990s, but it also mentions the “scandals that plagued his presidency.” The end of Clinton’s biography states, “In 2016, President Clinton’s wife, Hillary Clinton, lost the Presidency to President Donald J. Trump!” President Ronald Reagan’s plaque reads, “Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, and transformed American politics and the Conservative Movement. Before entering the White House, Reagan was a Hollywood actor, President of the Screen Actors Guild, Governor of California and, for decades, a leading voice in American Conservatism. As President, he enacted Tax Cuts, presided over a thriving Economy, and rebuilt the American Military. He survived being shot by an assassin, and confronted the Soviet Union with striking moral clarity, labeling it an ‘evil empire,’ and putting unprecedented pressure on the Communist menace. Known as ‘The Great Communicator,’ he was re-elected in a landslide in 1984, and left office with high approval, having restored National Confidence, Spirit, and Will. He was a fan of President Donald J. Trump long before President Trump’s Historic run for the White House. Likewise, President Trump was a fan of his!” Of course, the most admiring biography was for Trump, with the president’s plaques reading, “On January 20, 2025, Donald J. Trump became the first President in 132 years to be sworn into office for a second non-consecutive term, following his Historic Victory in an Electoral College landslide, 312 to 226. Overcoming unprecedented Weaponization of Law Enforcement against him, as well as two assassination attempts, he won all battleground States by millions of votes, was the first Republican in decades to win the Popular Vote, BIG, and won 86% of Counties in America, 2,700 to 525. All 50 States shifted toward the Republican Party for the first time ever. At his Inauguration, President Trump announced the beginning of the ‘Golden Age of America,’ and he delivered, ending eight wars in his first eight months, securing the Border, deporting gang members and migrant criminals, making our Cities safe, helping our Farmers, defeating Inflation, reducing Energy costs, and drawing Trillions of Dollars of new Investment, a RECORD, into the United States.” “President Trump signed the Largest Tax Cuts in American History, the Largest Spending Cuts in American History, and implemented the Largest Ever Regulation Cuts,” a second plaque adds. “He obliterated Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity with Operation Midnight Hammer, convinced NATO Countries to agree to increase contributions from 2% to 5% of GDP, reformed the Global Trading System, and made America Rich with Historic Tariffs, removed Critical Race Theory and transgender insanity from public schools, and banned men from women’s sports. He began the construction of the Golden Dome missile defense shield, renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, and has built, right here at the White House, the magnificent Trump Presidential Ballroom after a 225 year wait—but THE BEST IS YET TO COME!”

You don’t usually come across long-form articles that resonate with millions of people these days, mainly because nobody knows how to read anymore. For as long as everyone’s owned a cell phone, pretty much every form of media has been locked in an arms race to make content shorter, more attention-grabbing, and more conspiratorial. So it takes a lot for a 10,000-word essay in a tiny, little-known publication to break containment. But that’s exactly what happened with a new article in Compact magazine, titled “The Lost Generation.” It was written by Jacob Savage — a white man who aspired to be a big player in the entertainment industry, before he had to settle for a much less glamorous career scalping tickets from his bedroom. It’s not hard to see why Savage’s article has been so well-received. It’s a well-researched, well-written explanation of how major institutions in this country — particularly the media and Hollywood — have systematically discriminated against white men over the past decade. It’s definitely not a perfect article, for reasons we’ll get into in a second. And it reaches a conclusion that’s obviously wrong (and frankly embarrassing). At the same time, if you’ve been looking for reasons why every aspect of society seems to be falling apart — as we’ve been doing on this show for the past few weeks — this piece in Compact magazine is a very good jumping-off point. In particular, the article includes the following statistics on writing jobs in the entertainment industry, which help explain why every streaming show and movie, virtually without exception, is now terrible. In 2011, the year I moved to Los Angeles, white men were 48 percent of lower-level TV writers; by 2024, they accounted for just 11.9 percent. … Women of color made up 34.6 percent. White men directed 69 percent of TV episodes in 2014, and just 34 percent by 2021. But that remaining third went overwhelmingly to established names, leaving little space for younger white men. Since 2021, 11 directors under 40 have been nominated for Emmys. None have been white men. The article goes on to describe a white man who wrote a screenplay that made it on Hollywood’s “Black List,” which is a “prestigious list” of unproduced screenplays, as determined by Hollywood executives. But despite that achievement, he couldn’t land a full-time staff job from any showrunner. At one point, he was told to his face by a showrunner — a “Gen X white guy” — that they already had too many white people on staff. The author also notes that Dan Erickson, the white man who created the AppleTV show “Severance” — which is the best show on TV today, and one of the best this century — “wasn’t able to land a job in a TV writer’s room until his own show began production.” And in some cases, the discrimination was put in writing. One higher-up at a talent agency wrote, “Chicago Fire—the UL [upper level] can be [anyone], but we need diverse SWs [staff writers].” Savage also points to the “Disney Writing Program,” which is basically a boot camp that leads, in most cases, directly to full-time staff writing jobs on major shows. And over the past decade, Savage notes, the writing program has awarded “107 writing fellowships and 17 directing fellowships” — none of which have been given to white men. Here’s the webpage for the current crop of fellows in the Disney Writing Program. See what you notice. Credit: Disney.com/ctd/writingprogram There’s only one person who can plausibly be described as a white male in the entire cohort. And when you look at that guy’s bio, he informs you that he’s a “Tejano comedy writer” who’s proud of his “queer crime comedy pilot.” Every single one of the bios on this webpage begins with a statement about the person’s ethnic origin. Neda is a “first-generation Iranian-American drama writer.” Alie is a “Lebanese-American writer from Detroit, Michigan.” Monib is a “first-generation Afghan-American writer.” Jason is a “first-generation Korean-American drama writer.” Ananya is a “first-generation Indian-American dramedy writer.” Fatima is a “Sudanese-American “traumedy” writer based in Los Angeles.” It’s pretty obvious that, in the eyes of Disney and the rest of Hollywood, it doesn’t actually matter if you’re a good writer. Your most important attribute is your ethnicity. And if you look even vaguely white, then you’d better be writing “queer comedies” about your “Tejano heritage.” I’m not going to summarize all of Savage’s findings, but this should give you some idea. He goes on to describe, in much the same way, how other fields — from academia to the corporate press — practiced the same kind of anti-white discrimination, particularly for entry-level jobs. The statistics from the university system in California, in particular, are actually so over-the-top, they’re hard to believe. UC Irvine has hired 64 tenure-track assistant professors in the liberal arts since 2020, and only three were white men. And for its part, UC Santa Cruz only hired two white men out of 59 assistant professors in the humanities in that time period. Savage’s thesis is that, starting around 2014, in response to political and social pressures, older and more established white men — the decision-makers and hiring managers — began openly discriminating against younger white applicants who were starting their careers. Rather than stand on principle, Savage writes, the boomers effectively sabotaged younger generations. 2014, he writes, “was the hinge, the year DEI became institutionalized across American life.” And then we get this conclusion, which is where things go off the rails: I’m not angry at the women and people of color who made it instead of me—people have the right, in most cases the responsibility, to take the opportunities that are offered them—or even at the older white guys who ensured that I didn’t.  . … Mostly I’m annoyed at myself. Because instead of settling down, proposing to my then-girlfriend (now wife), and earning a steady income that might support a family, I spent a decade insisting the world treat me fairly, when the world was loudly telling me it had no intention of doing so. So he’s not angry about the people who discriminate against him on the basis of his skin color. He’s angry at himself. This was the moment, in reading this article, that I decided to look into Compact Magazine a little more closely. And in doing so, I found the following tidbit of information, per Vanity Fair. “At a recent get-together, lefty mags were roiled to learn that George Soros’s foundations are supporting Compact, a publication that’s flirted with authoritarianism. “It was weird to me the whole f—ing time,” says one attendee.” The article goes on to note that Soros’ Open Society Foundations have sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Compact. Now, I have no idea why that donation was made, or what it may have purchased. The Leftists at Vanity Fair weren’t sure, either. But I can say that, having read this article, I find myself agreeing with commentators like Auron MacIntyre, who have called Jacob Savage’s article a “permission piece.” It’s a way to finally admit something that the Left had previously described as a “conspiracy” — except the admission is done in a way that lessens the impact and frames the narrative in a way that’s beneficial to the Left. Meanwhile, all of the Leftist journalists can act shocked by the findings, even though everyone on the Right has known all of it for years. Think of the mainstream articles that finally acknowledged COVID came from a lab in China, or the articles that acknowledged that the COVID shot can cause serious heart problems. These were all “permission pieces.” Audiences on the Left were finally told a semblance of the truth — but there’s never any accountability for the liars, nor is there a full explanation of what actually happened. Basically, you get a “permission piece” when the Left’s hand is forced. They can’t deny reality anymore, because the truth has become too obvious. So they spin it. In the case of the piece in Compact Magazine, there are a few elements of obvious spin. The first is the article’s implication that systematic anti-white discrimination only really took hold in 2014. In fact, Savage even writes that, if you were born in 1974 or earlier, then “you were already established” and didn’t hit the “wall” of anti-white discrimination. But that’s a claim that makes the generational divide seem much starker than it really is. In reality, the Left’s efforts to systematically discriminate against white males have been in place for many decades. Back in 2003, there was a major Supreme Court case about the University of Michigan’s application process, which was similar to the process used by many other schools. If you were black, Hispanic, or Native American, then your application automatically received 20 points. By contrast, if you earned a perfect SAT score — something only a few hundred students do every year, out of millions of test takers — then you only got 12 points. And an “outstanding personal essay” would only get you 3 points. In other words, a white student from a middle-class background with a perfect SAT score and a flawless essay received fewer points than a black applicant would receive, simply for being black. And even after the Supreme Court struck down this kind of quota system, it persisted, as we all know. The universities just stopped admitting they were doing it. And long before that, in the 1960s, there was the “Philadelphia Plan,” where federal contractors were required to start hiring so-called “minority workers” in the trades — a practice that continues today, with a fairly explicit quota system. For tens of thousands of white construction workers, beginning in the 1970s, it became more difficult to get an apprenticeship — not because they weren’t skilled, not because they didn’t have potential, but because of the color of their skin. We could talk about many more examples, but put simply, the idea that DEI and anti-white racism only became a systemic barrier to white education and employment in 2014 is not remotely true. Savage is probably correct to point out that, in the industries he’s talking about — mainly media and entertainment — things accelerated in 2014. But plenty of people in other industries hit this “wall” before then. The other element of the story that’s being de-emphasized here is that, when white men are passed over for jobs because of their skin color, there are plenty of downstream consequences. It’s not simply the fact that white men have to settle for worse salaries and less fulfilling careers. They’re also less likely to ever own a home, or to get married, start a family, and have kids. They’re more likely to become depressed and turn to drugs, which explains why overdose rates are so high. And through it all, as fertility rates plummet and men are forced to work jobs that they’re overqualified for, men realize exactly what’s happening to them. It’s not some great mystery. And that leads to justifiable rage, as millions of working-age men come to realize that their lives have been sacrificed for a Leftist experiment. The biggest and most important downstream consequence of this open discrimination against white men is that everything in society gets worse as a result. That’s the second-order effect that the Compact piece doesn’t get into. It’s the third rail — the part you’re not supposed to talk about. But the truth, which everyone intuitively knows, is that things were a lot better back when white men weren’t being discriminated against by every institution in the country, but instead were running most of them. The fact of the matter is that a hugely disproportionate number of our greatest leaders, innovators, pioneers, explorers, philosophers, and so on were white men. Without white men, we wouldn’t have airplanes or spaceships or trains or phones or lightbulbs or computers or the internet or batteries or X-ray machines or jet engines or rockets or a thousand other things that our society depends on to exist, and to flourish. We never would have had a railway system or the printing press. We wouldn’t have this country, which was founded by white men, and led by white men, and expanded from coast to coast, and settled, and built up mostly by white men. These are all facts. Historical realities that cannot be denied by reasonable people. And while black women are encouraged to be proud of the historical achievements of black women, whatever those might be — and Asians to be proud of Asian achievements — and Native Americans of Native American achievements — white men are the one group on the entire face of the planet who have been forbidden to even acknowledge what other white men have accomplished, much less to express any pride in it. Instead, our society set out on a campaign to punish, exclude, and alienate this very group. That is their reward for having carried the weight of Western civilization on their shoulders. But white men, as it turns out, aren’t just good at building and flying spaceships. They’re also good at writing television shows, covering the news, teaching students at the university level, and so on. In fact, in the aggregate, based on every existing piece of available evidence, white men are much better at all of these tasks than the allegedly “underprivileged communities” that are replacing them. If that sounds harsh, I really don’t care. It happens to be true. And the “underrepresented minorities” I’m talking about, in many cases, are some of the most vindictive, evil people in the country. Back in 2015, as the author Wesley Yang pointed out, BuzzFeed published one of their insufferable “listicles” titled, “23 Writers With Messages For Straight White Male Publishing.” Here are some of those messages: Credit: BuzzFeed Credit: BuzzFeed Credit: BuzzFeed So you have girlbosses of various ethnicities, saying things like, “Sit down and let us abolish you,” and “She’s coming for you,” with the middle finger extended. These are explicitly hateful, deranged messages directed at white men, and they were published — enthusiastically — by a major news outlet. This kind of race-hate was commonplace in 2015. Well, guess what? The girlbosses were right. They did abolish white men in the entertainment industry. The writers are mostly women and “minorities” now. And all of their shows are garbage — almost as if they’re intentionally bad. Television peaked before these people took over. The only conclusion you can draw, realistically, is that girlbosses shouldn’t be allowed to write shows. They’re not good at it. Bring back the white men. If that ever happens, it will only happen if — unlike this Compact article — we’re honest about what white men have achieved in the past. The Left can only ever tear down what has been built. And white men are the primary builders of Western civilization. Make a list of the 1,000 greatest and most influential figures of the past two millennia, and like 975 of them will be white men. It’s suicidal to target this group, of all groups, for ostracizing and alienation. But that, of course, is the point. The Compact piece is the “tell” that lets you know what’s going on here. You’re finally being allowed to say, out loud, that white men have been discriminated against for many years. But you’re not allowed to talk about the extent of the discrimination. You’re not allowed to talk about the full effects of it. And in polite company, you’re still expected to elevate mediocrity in the name of “racial justice.” Call this article whatever you want — a “permission piece,” a “limited hangout,” whatever — but it’s not the way to course-correct the self-inflicted collapse of our country. The way to fix it — or to have any hope of fixing it — is to admit that white men aren’t simply victims. They were also the key to building Western civilization. And by the same token, they’re also key to saving it.

A lengthy exposé highlighting the negative effects DEI has had on white males, in particular millennials, has gone mega viral on social media. The Compact piece “The Lost Generation” by Jacob Savage goes into detail about how white men have been discriminated against over the past decade, especially in the fields of entertainment and academia. The statistical truths laid out plainly have struck a chord with the general public, leading to the article being viewed on X more than 11 million times. Beginning in 2014, prestige industries decided they urgently needed to diversify. They didn’t purge established Boomers. Instead, they did everything possible to avoid hiring white millennial men. This is the story of a generation derailed by DEI. https://t.co/kUfmpHfaMH — Matthew Schmitz (@matthewschmitz) December 15, 2025 Savage, who tried to make it as a Hollywood writer, reported that in 2011, “white men were 48 percent of lower-level TV writers; by 2024, they accounted for just 11.9 percent.” He further noted that The Atlantic’s editorial staff “went from 53 percent male and 89 percent white in 2013 to 36 percent male and 66 percent white in 2024.” Also, “white men fell from 39 percent of tenure-track positions in the humanities at Harvard in 2014 to 18 percent in 2023.” The author points to the death of George Floyd as a major turning point for industries that were already trying to “diversify.” “In 2021, new hires at Condé Nast were just 25 percent male and 49 percent white; at the California Times, parent company of The Los Angeles Times and The San Diego Union-Tribune, they were just 39 percent male and 31 percent white. That year ProPublica hired 66 percent women and 58 percent people of color; at NPR, 78 percent of new hires were people of color,” he wrote. Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships A hiring manager told Savage, “For a typical job we’d get a couple hundred applications, probably at least 80 from white guys. It was a given that we weren’t gonna hire the best person. … It was jarring how we would talk about excluding white guys.” White male writers have been kept out of other major outlets, too, including The New York Times and Buzzfeed. The article noted that Vox Media was 82 percent male and 88 percent white in 2013. By 2022, the company was just 37 percent male and 59 percent white, and by 2025 leadership was 73 percent female. Savage said while the problem looks less stark in academia, he believes that Boomers are occupying all the tenure positions at elite institutions while millennial white men are being ignored for jobs they’re qualified for. One notable statistic Savage found was that since 2022, Brown University “has hired forty-five tenure track professors in the humanities and social sciences. Just three were white American men (6.7 percent).” The article points out similar situations in other industries, such as tech, publishing, and management. Savage notes how white men were pushed to crypto, podcasting, and Substack because “institutional barriers to entry didn’t exist” there. His exposé was met with support and commiseration on social media. “The phenomenon of white male dispossession strikes at the core of what’s been going on over the last decade,” one commenter wrote. “Any politician, anyone with any ambition to influence, must take on this fight. The time is now.” “Truly extraordinary,” said another. “Impossible to fathom all that’s been lost.” Some argued that Savage’s piece didn’t go far enough and that it placed too much blame on the established Boomers who were also subject to discrimination. “People complaining about the rise of radicalism need to realize the number one thing they could do to contain it is to speak up,” political commentator Jeremy Carl wrote.

Police in Providence, Rhode Island, are asking the public to help them identify and speak to another person who they say “was in proximity of the person of interest” in the Brown University shooting investigation. The Providence Police Department released three grainy photos that show a person in a coat and hoodie walking through a yard on what appears to be a residential street. “Investigators are asking for the public’s help in identifying and speaking to the individual shown in these photos who was in proximity of the person of interest. Anyone with information is urged to contact the tip line at 401-272-3121,” Providence Police said. Investigators are asking for the public’s help in identifying and speaking to the individual shown in these photos who was in proximity of the person of interest. Anyone with information is urged to contact the tip line at 401-272-3121. pic.twitter.com/DJ26rruuc9 — Providence Police (@ProvidenceRIPD) December 17, 2025 Authorities investigating the attack that left two students dead and nine other wounded on Saturday have been criticized for their lack of progress in identifying and locating a suspect. On Monday, police released “enhanced” footage of a person of interest, which shows a person wearing a hat and mask walking down the street in Providence’s East Side before the shooting took place. Students at Brown, and even President Donald Trump, have asked why there are so few security cameras on campus. “There can be no excuse for that,” Trump said. “In the modern age, it just doesn’t get worse!!!” Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships Asked about the lack of footage of the person of interest, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said that “unfortunately” due to the age of the building where the gunman opened fire, “we just don’t have additional video footage.” “So, there’s the back part of the building, the old part, and the front part, the new part,” Neronha said. “The shooting occurs in the old part towards the back … and that older part of the building, there are fewer, if any, cameras in that location, I imagine, because it’s an older building. The attacker shot and killed 19-year-old University College Republicans Vice President Ella Cook and 18-year-old Mukhammad Aziz Umurzokov while they were studying in a first-floor classroom in the Barus & Holley building. Neither Neronha nor school officials have explained why the older building could not have been equipped with security cameras. Fox News reported that the university president’s residence is even older than the Barus & Holley building, but appears to have multiple security cameras. The university said its cameras focus on “high-traffic areas, such as streets, sidewalks and campus walkways with significant foot traffic; and in academic and administrative buildings with an emphasis on entry and exit points. Brown’s security cameras do not extend to every hallway, classroom, laboratory and office across the 250+ buildings on campus.” “For security reasons, it is not prudent to share where cameras are and are not relative to individual buildings and locations,” Brown University added.