Category: Culture

  • Is Jeremy Strong our John Cazale?

    Is Jeremy Strong our John Cazale?

    If you’re a big Bruce Springsteen fan, then this weekend’s new release, Deliver Me from Nowhere, will be one of the year’s most eagerly awaited releases. But more-casual fans of the Boss – and I include myself in this category, despite a great admiration for a vast amount of the Springsteen recorded canon – may find the film, which focuses on the recording of his notoriously sparse Nebraska album in the early Eighties, a strange mixture of hard-going and unedifying. Jeremy Allen White may be an award-winning actor for his role in The Bear, but he neither looks like Springsteen nor sounds like him, and Scott Cooper’s film offers the actor little to work with, other than some rote daddy trauma that, we are supposed to infer, has led to all the troubles and difficulties that finally led to Great Art.

    The film does, however, have a saving grace – and it’s a considerable one – in the form of Jeremy Strong, who plays Springsteen’s manager Jon Landau. On paper, it’s a thin role, the kind of all-purpose mentor-cheerleader character who appears in virtually all biopics to tell us how talented the protagonist is, even when his actions seem to fall short of greatness. Yet Strong brings a wired intensity to the part that makes the film come alive every time he’s on screen. A million miles away from his star-making character, Kendall Roy in Succession, his Landau is a decent, thoughtful man who does not resent his status as Springsteen’s representative on earth, but instead sees his role as John the Baptist to the other man’s savage messiah. It is a tricky task to make goodness – the kind of dutiful, unglamorous goodness that exists a million times a day, but seldom gets depicted on screen – dramatically interesting, but Strong excels at it.

    Following on from his Oscar-nominated turn as the Machiavellian Roy Cohn in last year’s super-controversial The Apprentice, Strong seems to be cornering the market in mentors, good and nefarious alike. Next up is Mark Zuckeberg in Aaron Sorkin’s belated sequel to The Social Network, and it is a given that Strong will own the role. He is one of those rare American actors who is incapable of giving a bad, or dishonest, performance; for all his much-ridiculed method acting, which he is said to have learned at the feet of his mentor Daniel Day-Lewis, he remains an electrifying, wholly surprising presence on screen.

    I’ve been trying to figure out who Strong reminds me of, and it came to me the other day in a moment of blinding clarity. The late actor John Cazale, who died of lung cancer aged 42, has a deserved reputation as a peerless performer on stage and screen alike, for the simple reason that all five films he made – including The Godfather I and II, The Conversation, Dog Day Afternoon and The Deer Hunter – were nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and three of them won. Like Strong, he was an actor devoid of ego on-screen, whose saturnine demeanor could be turned either to weakness – as in his doomed Fredo Corleone in the Godfather films – or something shiftier, as in The Conversation. He was an actor’s actor who never did anything cheap, crass or uninteresting, and he died in Meryl Streep’s arms. There are, admittedly, worse ways to be regarded by posterity.

    Cazale’s reputation has never diminished in the decades since he died, and so it is that I increasingly believe that Strong will be regarded in a similar fashion by future generations. Thankfully, he’s still a relatively young man at 46, and, all being well, we can expect decades of interesting, challenging and honest work from him. Cazale was robbed of the opportunity to go on to household name status by his untimely demise, but let us hope that his true successor is able to steal films from the supposed leads for years to come.

  • Legal immigration is a nightmare

    Legal immigration is a nightmare

    A personal note as October 15, 2025, marks an occasion of sorts: when my husband’s and my Portuguese residency permits expire. Isn’t that a bit sloppy, you might ask, allowing your permission to remain in a country where you live to lapse? On one party’s part, very sloppy, but not ours.

    At least a dozen people must have exclaimed to me: “Oh, I’ve thought about moving to Portugal!” After emigrating from London in 2023, I’m not issuing a warning, exactly. We don’t regret the move. Landscape gorgeous, food great, people nice, wine cheap. But this country is notoriously bureaucratic, and the paperwork side of playing Mother, May I? with Portuguese immigration was and remains a nightmare. More generally, there seems to be a perversely inverse relationship between the ease with which foreigners can gatecrash western countries by breaking the law and the diabolical complexity, expense, effort and time required to immigrate to these same countries by following the rules.

    Let’s revisit an era subject to very little nostalgia on my end. Our original visa application required: a Portuguese bank account with at least €18,000. A Número de Identificação Fiscal, or NIF. Travel health insurance and private in-country health insurance (along with Medicare, Britain’s National Health Service and emergency evacuation insurance for a lit fest at sea, that year I was covered by five health insurance entities simultaneously; my, didn’t I feel safe). A criminal records check from London’s Metropolitan Police (lo, a summons for running a light on my bicycle in the city at 3 a.m. – with no traffic in sight – is actually lodged in my UK criminal record. That’ll teach me). Formal permission for a Portuguese criminal records check. Certified copies of both the deed and the land registry certificate for our new house outside Lisbon (of that agonizing purchase another time). Copies of the last three months’ statements of all our bank accounts in the UK, US and Portugal. Notarized copies of our passports. Proof of our permanent leave to remain in the UK. Copies of our London council tax bills going back several years, and two passport photographs each.

    The process required two in-person appointments, the first in London with an overwhelmed embassy; pouncing on an available slot online demanded the same vigilance and uncanny good luck currently required to get a GP appointment in Britain. Its date delivered from on high with no warning, the Portuguese appointment required a larcenous, jam-packed round trip from New York to Lisbon during tourist season. Residency finally approved, the attempted delivery of our permits failed because we were abroad, so we had to grant our immigration lawyer power of attorney, then pay her to retrieve and FedEx the cards. Naturally, the legal fees for dotting every I throughout this rigmarole were substantial.

    Legal immigration is a colossal headache for the very people the West should be welcoming

    But! Residency must be renewed after two years (which fly by) and again three years after that; only thereafter can one apply for permanent settlement. But Portugal has made itself too popular for its own good, and last I read it had either 400,000 or 900,000 unaddressed immigration cases – how many hundreds of thousands hardly matters, given that the country’s entire population is only 11 million.

    Originally expiring in July, our residency was extended to mid-October by a sweep of Portugal’s bureaucratic wand. Yet the rest of the EU won’t necessarily recognize this edict, of which we’ve no documentary evidence. We’re US passport holders, who like Britons may not spend more than 90 days out of 180 as tourists in the EU. Without proof of valid residency, my traveling to countries such as France, where I’ve a hefty fiction readership and translations coming out, risks being banned for five years from a continent where we live and own a house. Afraid to leave Portugal for exactly this reason, an American musician friend of ours had to decline multiple continental gigs for five months while waiting for his renewed residency card to arrive in the post.

    The state of play now? After getting NIFs, SNS numbers ( = NHS) and 12-digit tax portal passwords, we must still acquire “NISS” numbers, apparently for no other reason than to prevent the residency renewal process from snagging; getting social security numbers entails waiting in an office in Lisbon for hours and possibly all day. 

    Scuttlebutt has it that because Portuguese immigration has hired a batch of inexperienced employees to clear the case backlog, many newbies are turning down residency renewal applications even from well-off foreigners with local property due to niggling paperwork infractions.

    That’s hardly in Portugal’s interest, after for years deliberately enticing foreigners with assets to invest here. Imagine, after all this blindingly tedious crap, we could be kicked out after two years.

    Put off yet? And permanent residency will involve amassing the notarized passports, the three months’ worth of all our most recent bank statements, etc – oh, how much bother and boredom lurks in that tiny abbreviation – three more times. Portugal may be worse than some countries, but I bet it’s no worse than the United States, whose green card shenanigans are infamous. Legal immigration is a colossal headache for the very people the West should be welcoming – well-educated, law-abiding, unlikely to become dependent on the state and apt to be net cultural and economic contributors.

    I’ve written repeatedly that we need to make immigration easier for qualified, credentialed and solvent applicants and vastly harder for less desirable immigrants hoping to sneak through the back door. Given the costly, byzantine horror show of the legit route to Portugal, we might have been better off spending £699: the price of an inflatable dinghy.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 27, 2025 World edition.

  • How Alex Jones won

    How Alex Jones won

    One of my favorite Walt Whitman stanzas goes like this:

    I’m a pioneer! I’m an explorer! I’m a human, and I’m comin’!

    I’m animated! I’m alive! My heart’s big! It’s got hot blood goin’ through it fast!

    I like to fight! I like to eat! I like to have children! I’m here! I got a life force!

    This is a human! This is what we look like! This is what we act like!

    This is what everyone was like before us! This is what I am!

    Just kidding. That’s Alex Jones, the voice of our time. Nobody in media has won more in the past 20 years than Jones. He’s lost a lot along the way, of course, including the largest defamation suit in American history and access to every mainstream media platform. But those were only temporary slowdowns. They may even have been accelerants.

    In 2018, a bunch of nervous Silicon Valleyites overestimated their control of the web and deplatformed Jones. Today, he’s back on Twitter with 4.4 million followers. Pressure is mounting to reinstate his YouTube channel. His app was recently allowed on the Apple Store again. It’s currently ranked 13th in the news section – higher than Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the AP, NPR, the Washington Post, the Atlantic and CNN. His shows pull in millions of streams every week. He’s not fringe. I’m watching InfoWars as I write this. His guest is Senator Tommy Tuberville.

    All you really need, Jones has proven, is a mic and an internet connection. In fact, he’s proven that only having a mic and an internet connection might be better than having, say, a primetime slot on Fox. Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens – hosts of the first and third most popular news podcasts in the country, respectively – certainly learned this lesson from Jones. So did Joe Rogan and Steve Bannon.

    Jones also changed what these voices dare speak about. Owens is obsessed with proving that Brigitte Macron was born a man, Carlson with UFOs and 9/11 trutherism – such topics would fit right into a Jones segment, but would have been unthinkable subjects for the biggest names in media to cover a few years ago. Carlson just brought Jones onto his broadcast for an episode titled “Alex Jones Warns of the Globalist Death Cult Fueling the Next Civil War and Rise of the Antichrist.”

    More important than that, however, is that Jones has shifted the way regular Americans think, even those who’ve never listened to him. It’s totally unsurprising to go to a party and hear someone say the world is run by a cabal of pedophiles – a theory that he’s been incubating for decades.

    “Globalism” has become a dirty word; populism is in; no one likes Bill Gates; Christian nationalism is on the upswing. Jones has been screaming for all this for the past two decades. He was doing so when no one else with a major platform would. Everyone – on the left and the right – has a pet conspiracy these days, because the average American thinks a lot more like Alex Jones than most people are willing to admit.

    Still, he’s nuts. For every one thing he gets right – for example, that George Soros is flooding the country with bad prosecutors – he gets 99 things wrong, such as his theory that Charlie Kirk’s assassination was an inside job. Given his nuttiness, journalists have a hard time accounting for his popularity. This is because journalists, as a rule, tend to lack imagination.

    A mixture of Martin Luther King Jr. and L. Ron Hubbard, Jones combines biblical diction with sci-fi bunkum

    There’s a discomfiting but simple explanation for Jones’s popularity: he is America’s greatest living orator. (Sorry, Obama.) His Texas voice growls like a souped-up semitruck engine; his monologues burn with Christian fire and swinging fists; you can smell the whiskey on his breath and hear him fire Colt .45s skyward before raising his arms and proclaiming, “Praise Jesus, amen!”

    This puts him in the same tradition as Whitman, Cotton Mather and William Jennings Bryan. A mixture of Martin Luther King Jr. and L. Ron Hubbard, Jones combines King James biblical diction with science-fiction bunkum. “Get behind me Satan!” he yells into the microphone during a sermonette on the New World Order before describing interdimensional systems beyond our imagination and declaring that “Humanity is going interstellar!”

    Soothsaying and calls to repentance spill from him as if against his own will – the Large Hadron Collider opened a portal to hell; death-worshipping, third-world hordes will fall upon the American promised; the Devil is building a machine to impersonate God; men must stop watching football. It’s all very prophetic-sounding.

    Sometimes he adopts the persona of Jeremiah weeping over his people. “People are ugly now,” he laments. “They’re stupid. Their IQs are dropping. They’re dying all around us. I feel like a failure. God, if I ruled the planet, I’d feel like I ruled a pile of cockroaches or something. I mean, who the hell would want to rule this?”

    But most of the time, his prophesying is a rallying call against the forces of evil in his cosmology: Democrats, globalists, Justin Bieber. His monologues are often uploaded to Instagram and TikTok and backed by rousing music. One such speech sees him shouting, “I’m so full of life and so full of resistance to these murdering pedophiles who want to get in the way of God’s plan! And let me tell you, I’ve been taken up to the third heaven. I’ve been jacked into the big plan. I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it and I can’t even compute all of it, it’s so fantastical.”

    He goes on, “Anybody that tries to get in the way of the incredible plan the big guy’s got for us has got me pissed and I’m just begging to stay on the team man. Just put me in the game coach, whatever you say coach, I know I’m weak, I know I’m pathetic. Man, you’re amazing. I’m so lucky you made me. What do I need to do boss!?” Then he starts panting like a dog and growls, “I’m like a hunting dog man, just take me out of the house, just turn me on them!”

    For a religion-starved population – which American zoomers and millennials certainly are – this is water in the desert. (Is the water safe to drink? That’s another question.) Jones’s audience skews young. It’s composed largely of people who grew up in a secular world. Most of these young people probably didn’t go to church growing up, and if they did, they were exposed to the milquetoast Protestantism so common across the country. But it’s human nature to want a prophet, and a few decades of secularization can’t change that. For these listeners, hearing Jones for the first time must be like hearing thunder for the first time. Pollsters insist that America’s young men are turning back to religion. That’s a hopeful idea. But what if Alex Jones is the nation’s highest prophet?

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 27, 2025 World edition.

  • What did the ancients consider a ‘just war’?

    What did the ancients consider a ‘just war’?

    Since the UN does not provide a definition of the “just war,” it is interesting to see the ancient take on the matter.

    The Greeks contributed little. For Plato, war was necessary for the creation and survival of the city, but it was not its ultimate purpose: that was peace. For Aristotle, life consisted of three arenas of activity: war for the sake of peace, work for the sake of leisure and necessary and useful activities to demonstrate one’s worth.

    But Cicero (d. 43 BC) understood war in ways that have shaped our own understanding. His starting point was that there were two ways of settling an issue: by discussion, or by force. As he said, “the former [is] appropriate for human beings, the latter for animals.” Further, although Rome always marked a just war with a religious ceremony, Cicero thought a just war should flow not from religious sanction but from natural law.

    The search, then, was on for a iusta causa to rectify the rupture of mankind’s natural state, peace. Clearly, self-defense was the most obvious, but equally no war would be just unless the enemy had been given the chance to offer redress. War should advance some good beyond merely self-interested expansion. Other legitimate reasons for going to war, Cicero suggested, should be as a response to an earlier wrong, such as an attack on allies or ambassadors, or to a breach of treaties; or against those who supported an enemy of Rome (which might involve punishing an enemy). Further, Cicero believed that Rome must fight honorably, must not involve civilians and must show mercy to the conquered, though Roman rules of war permitted the seizure of property and enslavement. Most significantly, the word “revenge” plays almost no part.

    But Cicero’s world was torn apart by civil wars in the 1st century BC, triggering his reflections. He lamented that those unjust wars had destroyed the republic and ruefully commented: “As long as the sway of the Roman people was maintained by the bestowal of benefits, not by injustice, our sovereignty might then have been termed patronage, rather than domination, of the world.” Cause for thought?

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 27, 2025 World edition.

  • Why the Army needs the cavalry

    Why the Army needs the cavalry

    A generation ago, I was an officer in the US Army National Guard and later in the Army Reserve. I did absolutely nothing important, and never saw any places more exotic than Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, and Camp Atterbury, Indiana. I then spent a dozen years working for the Army as a civilian employee.

    I had already decided before these events to devote my academic career to the study of the Army. I loved (and still do love) it in an abstract and historical sense. However, only after my personal association with it did I realize how profoundly shortsighted it was. I observed this myopia daily and marveled at its immensity. Veterans may remember the adage that there is “the right way, the wrong way and the Army way.” The Army way is usually just plain dumb.

    Veterans may remember ‘the right way, the wrong way and the Army way.’ The Army way is usually plain dumb

    Where am I going with all this? You may have seen the Army’s recent decision to eliminate all its horse-mounted ceremonial units in a cost-saving measure. Many will immediately attribute this decision exclusively to President Trump and the Department of Government Deficiency (DoGE). I know better, and so does anybody who served in the Army but retained a healthy sense of skepticism. While there has certainly been an emphasis on cost-cutting and savings, this decision was made by someone much lower in the food chain. Some one- or two-star general or some Deputy Assistant Undersecretary of the Army for God Knows What decided that for a mere $2,000,000 of savings (the Department of the Army’s total annual budget for 2024 was $165.6 billion), the Army would eliminate one of its few historical vestiges and an example for relatively cheap positive public relations.

    Every other branch of the armed forces has its quirks. The Air Force has been described as an organization staffed with businessmen in flight suits. The Navy is an organization that will sacrifice anyone to save face (do a Google search on how often ship commanders are relieved because of a “loss of confidence.”) The Marine Corps not only takes pride in being the physically toughest branch of service but also seems to enjoy suffering in an almost strangely masochistic way. The Army, however, owing to its status as the first American armed force and almost always the largest, doesn’t seem to have a true ethos of its own.

    Its advertising campaign could almost be (paraphrasing the internet) “Not smart enough for the Air Force? Don’t want to be trapped on a ship with 1,000 other people? Not tough enough for the Marines? Well then, what about the Army, you don’t have any other choices…”

    When it comes to history and public relations, the Army’s incompetence truly shines. There is scarcely a ground combat situation in our history where it was not present. Yet it seems unable to inform the American public about this storied history. Even among people who know scarcely any US history, I would be shocked to find those who do not know about the Marine Corps and its role in World War Two. Why? The Marine Corps treats history more like hagiography, and they have lovingly wrapped their history and public relations together.

    The Air Force maintains the Thunderbirds ($35 million annual budget), and the Navy maintains the Blue Angels ($40 million), both of which go around the country providing examples of aerobatic excellence, which enthrall crowds and entice young people to join their services.

    We have already mentioned the Marine Corps’s brilliance in merging history and public relations. Where does that leave the Army? Ironically, the mounted units, which it has now decided to get rid of, are one of the few examples of effective public relations without explicitly recruiting – generating goodwill and positive feelings among the public. Yes, the horses were a throwback to a bygone era, but isn’t the Army proud of its history?

    So, here it stands, shooting itself in the proverbial foot for the savings of 0.00001 percent of its annual budget. Unlike the Navy and the Air Force, the Army is an institution whose backbone is people, not aircraft or ships. The Marine Corps is organized similarly to the Army, but it seems to understand what it is and how to relate that information to the public.

    There was a memoir written back in the 1980s by a man who served in the cavalry during its final years. He told the story of how an Army officer and a sergeant violated regulations to allow an old cavalry horse to live out its final days in a pasture rather than be sold off for dog food. He then contrasted that behavior with what he saw when he later served in the Air Force in the 1950s.

    For him, the distinction demonstrated the different service cultures and why he preferred the Army’s. Unfortunately, I think that culture no longer exists in the Army. Can it be revived? I certainly hope so, but this latest decision gives me very little hope.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 27, 2025 World edition.

  • ‘Gender-affirming care’ is never justified

    ‘Gender-affirming care’ is never justified

    Even now, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans just assume that there is a vast and vulnerable cohort of kids who are born “trans” and need so-called “gender-affirming care.” They look at the protests and listen to progressive politicians and assume that there must be at least some evidence that pediatric medical transition helps children in distress.

    It would be unthinkable to have put children through all this for nothing, and for American medics to have gone along with it all. But the awful truth is that there is no evidence that allowing children to transition actually works in any meaningful sense. An analysis recently published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy has finally cut through the noise with a simple but devastating tool: a calculator.

    And as you read the evidence and absorb its implications, consider also that the European Commission is about to propose new legislation that would allow any European citizen, of any age, to legally change gender without consulting a physician or getting their parents’ permission and support. And under the proposed legislation, any nation that objects would be subject to having all its EU funding cut off.

    The paper, by my colleague, Lauren Schwartz, a senior fellow at the non-profit Do No Harm, and M. Lal, uses the medical establishment’s own numbers to check its work. The conclusion is disturbing, suggesting that a medical scandal is unfolding on a scale that has been dangerously underappreciated.

    In short, the article shows that, even according to the standards of those who would help children to transition, there is simply no justification for the mass medicalization of healthy children under the guise of “gender-affirming care.”

    The harms are significant, including diminished bone density, cardiovascular disease and infertility

    The authors’ method is simple. First, they establish a clear baseline for the number of adolescents who meet gender activists’ own “clinical” criteria for gender dysphoria. They do this by synthesizing three major reviews co-authored by ten of the key figures behind the most recent World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) standards of care – the very guidelines cited by proponents of medical transition. These WPATH-aligned professionals estimate the prevalence of the clinical population to be around 4.6 to 7.5 per 100,000 individuals.

    Next, the authors compare these numbers with recent data on how many adolescents are actually being diagnosed and treated. They cite a study from this year in the journal JAMA Pediatrics which found that approximately 100 out of every 100,000 American adolescents received puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones between 2018 and 2022.

    The discrepancy between the clinical population and those receiving treatment is staggering – a gap greater than one order of magnitude. According to the field’s own standards, more than 92 percent of kids receiving these interventions fall outside the clinical threshold for severe gender-related distress. Yet these are also vulnerable, confused kids, often struggling with a multitude of behavioral health challenges.

    Lisa Littman was among the first researchers to observe such a troubling trend beyond baseline prevalence: a surge of adolescent girls suddenly identifying as transgender despite no earlier signs of gender-related distress.

    In 2018, she published a study based on parent reports, introducing the term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” Rather than sparking thoughtful inquiry within the field, her work was met with intense backlash.

    But Littman was on to something. Her early observations pointed to a powerful influence: the role of social contagion and online communities. These platforms often amplify certain narratives, contributing to a surge in self-identification that far exceeds the true clinical population.

    Moreover, this troubling trend isn’t just confined to the United States. Britain has seen a similar phenomenon with a rapid rise in diagnoses beyond any prior prediction. Another study from this year found a 50-fold increase in gender dysphoria diagnoses in UK primary care for children and young people between 2011 and 2021.

    The Schwartz and Lal analysis provides the chilling answer to what this really means: a profound shift from treating a small, well-defined clinical group to medicalizing a much larger, overwhelmingly non-clinical population. It’s no longer a vague feeling that “too many kids are being medicalized.” It is a specific, quantifiable crisis.

    Yet even among the minority of children who do fall within the clinical population, puberty blockers and hormones aren’t the answer. Multiple systematic reviews reveal no reliable evidence of benefit. The harms, however, are significant, including diminished bone density, cardiovascular disease and infertility – to name just a few.

    What these struggling kids need is psychosocial support and psychotherapy. In that regard, countries such as England, Finland and Sweden are now leading the way in restricting medicalization and focusing on psychological and psychiatric care, while around them many in the EU double down.

    Simply put, subjecting children to dangerous medical interventions in the name of “gender-affirming care” is never justified.

    The scale of the problem is no longer a matter of opinion; it’s a number. We now have the data to demand accountability and we must do just that. We must use this new evidence to ensure that we protect vulnerable children by returning to a standard of care that is cautious, ethical and, above all, evidence-based.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 27, 2025 World edition.

  • New York City belongs to the rats

    New York City belongs to the rats

    Before I moved to New York City five and a half years ago, the warnings were never about astronomical rent prices, apocalyptic winters or days-long subway delays. They were about rats.

    Former Manhattanites authoritatively spoke of them with the kind of hushed dread usually reserved to conjure biblical plagues. These weren’t mere animals, I was told, but tiny demons in fur coats – miniature Tony Sopranos with tails – who were quick to scuttle from the shadows at the merest whiff of a discarded bagel, bold enough to set up camp in your kitchen and perfectly willing to maul a callow pug or nibble on an unsuspecting baby.

    One friend cautioned me to keep the toilet lid shut at all times. He delivered this advice without further explanation, implying that the mere possibility of undignified rat horror would be enough to cow me into lifelong vigilance.

    But what no one warned me about five-and-a-half years ago was the city’s epic inability to rein in these rodent terrorists; the government’s pitiful failure to mount anything resembling a serious defense against these whiskered warlords who – from Brooklyn to the Bronx – have credibly claimed their crown.

    For a short time in 2023, it looked like Mayor Eric Adams might finally have found a fight he was willing to take up seriously – and potentially even win. In April of that year, Adams anointed Kathleen Corradi the city’s first ever “Rat Czar,” proudly declaring that she had “the knowledge, drive, experience and energy to send rats packing.”

    I’m amazed by the cult status rats have been able to assume. Rats grace T‑shirts, mugs and caps

    He started by giving her $3.5 million to clean up a particularly ratty neighborhood in Harlem. That’s fine, until you remember that $3.5 million won’t buy you even half a decent apartment in many parts of Manhattan. But sure, it was better than nothing. Then last year the city, under Corradi’s direction, proudly hosted a “National Urban Rat Summit.” What exactly happened at the summit isn’t clear to me. My requests for press accreditation went unanswered. But according to Corradi’s opening remarks, which were later published, it was “two full days of content and collaboration” and “part of a much larger dialogue, a centuries-long conversation between humans, their urban spaces and the rats who have eagerly exploited them both.” If I were a rat hearing that, I would’ve hightailed it to Canada – or, at the very least New Jersey – as fast as my teeny legs could carry me.

    To her credit, Corradi did take some other initiatives. She campaigned hard for waste management reforms. She ushered in a pilot scheme to deploy rat contraceptives, potentially giving New York rats better access to birth control than some women across America. And sure, there were even some tentative signs of progress. Early this year, calls to the government’s designated phone line for reporting community problems, including rat-related ones, had reportedly fallen by a not-insignificant 24 percent compared with the same period a year ago. Separately, a recent report from the mayor’s office noted that responses to rodent complaints were getting swifter.

    But all of this, as it turns out, wasn’t enough. In September, in what can only really be considered a major victory for our four-legged foes, Corradi quit her post, unable to finish the job she’d been so determined to complete. New York’s anti-rat brigade is – at least at the time of writing – leaderless. Public enemy number one, as Corradi once dubbed the rats, is winning. Has there ever been a clearer indication of urban decay? Perhaps not.

    While all of this does paint a picture of doom, all might not be lost. As long as I’ve lived here, one of the things that’s never ceased to amaze me is the cult status that rats have been able to assume. Rats grace T‑shirts, mugs and caps in souvenir stores. Street vendors flog rat fridge magnets. Even I couldn’t resist buying a grinning, pizza-scoffing rat Christmas tree trinket for $15 at Union Square Market last year. It was pricier than a decent slice of pizza. But, mercifully, it was fair trade. I have standards.

    Hated by locals, rats now seem to rival Carrie Bradshaw’s townhouse and the Ghostbusters fire station as tourist attractions. And yes, for the modest sum of $45, you too can take part in a late-night rat tour hosted by a man named Kenny Bollwerk, who created a viral “RatTok” social media page. He answers to “Rat Daddy.”

    So sure, the Rat Czar is out. Her boss is also scurrying off the stage: Adams recently dropped out of the mayoral race. But for the city’s true citizens – and much to the delight of our eager, revenue-generating visitors – incumbency is guaranteed. Cover your toilets, lock your doors and leash your dogs. Long live Rat Town – the only party still running this wretched city that never sweeps.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 27, 2025 World edition.

  • Gossip is good for you… so I’m told

    Gossip is good for you… so I’m told

    The late Pope Francis hated gossip. In his Christmas message to his Vatican advisors last year, he warned that it is “an evil that destroys social life.” It wasn’t the first time he’d attacked rumor-spreading. He once compared gossips to terrorists because “he or she throws a bomb and leaves.”

    His condemnations are of particular concern for me because I was recently accused of being a “notorious gossip.” I vehemently reject the charge, but if it were true, at least I’d be following a proud journalistic tradition. In fact, if it were not for gossip, this very magazine might not exist. The original Spectator’s founders, Joseph Addison and Richard Steele, filled the 1711 incarnation by hovering around coffee-houses, picking up gossip for stories. Coffee-houses had become so hated by the establishment that Charles II denounced them as “places where the disaffected met and spread scandalous reports concerning the conduct of His Majesty and his Ministers.”

    Rumor has it that the first example of gossip dates back to 1500 BC. According to the journalist Roger Wilkes, who wrote a history of scandal, cuneiform tablets describe a Mesopotamian mayor having an affair with a married woman. While the details remain unclear – Mesopotamian languages are hard to interpret – this anecdote suggests that humans have always been fascinated by the lives of others, par-tic-u-larly when a story involves betrayal or impropriety. Gossip in ancient Mesopotamia didn’t just circulate privately, it was often formalized in public records, scratched into clay for all eternity.

    So why do we gossip? The word itself descended from godsibb (“God sibling”), an Old English term for women who would support a friend or relative through childbirth. The term lost its positive connotations over the centuries, as exemplified by a 16th-century Scottish torture instrument called a “gossip’s bridle,” a horrifying spiked muzzle that was clamped down on to the tongues of women accused of witchcraft.

    Yet anthropologists believe the innate desire to gossip might not be bad for society; indeed, it has some evolutionary advantages. One study argues that human society would not be sustainable if it weren’t for gossip, as for much of our history it was the only way to spread information over large groups. Another paper says that gossip reinforces and polices cultural norms and keeps members of the tribe in check. The most recent paper on the subject agrees, finding that “dissemination of information about individuals’ reputations leads more individuals to condition their behavior on others’ reputations.” In other words, gossip is evolution’s way of saying “Don’t be a dick.”

    I hear gossip’s good for our health, too. One 2012 study found that when participants were gossiping about an antisocial person or behavior, their heart rates reduced and the activity “calmed the body.” Another set of experiments shows that sharing rumors activates the ventral striatum – a part of the brain’s reward and motivation system – while another study found that gossipers going through tough situations had lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol than those better at keeping secrets. So gossiping is quite literally good for body, mind and maybe even soul.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 27, 2025 World edition.

  • Should we fear the feminization of society?

    Should we fear the feminization of society?

    I am a proud father. Both my daughters got good degrees. But better still, they smoke, go to pubs and drink Guinness. I suspect they may sometimes drink rosé or prosecco behind my back, but I soldier on. You see, if you are the lone man in an otherwise all-female family, it’s important to make sure overall testosterone levels don’t decline too far. Kanye West found much the same thing when he lived with the Kardashians.

    And at least neither of my daughters likes Taylor Swift. So that’s another small win for the Y chromosome. Is it just me, or is there something odd with the culture when the world’s most successful musician has absolutely no appeal to men whatsoever? It’s not as though my own musical tastes are aggressively heterosexual: I love a good Bonnie Tyler power ballad, and I consider Abba’s “The Day Before You Came” one of the greatest songs ever written (even though the timeline in the lyrics doesn’t quite stack up).

    A conservative take on this topic is to be found on YouTube, where at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, DC last month Helen Andrews gave a talk entitled “Overcoming the Feminization of Culture.” Watch it and it’s hard to deny that she has a point. As women continue their long sashay through the institutions, and given the curse of the double-income trap which means it is impossible in many places to own or even rent a home on a single salary, we should be alert to unintended consequences of overly feminized domains. For instance, Andrews points out that men no longer read fiction – which may be connected to the fact that 80 percent of people working in publishing are women. HR as a discipline is a complete matriarchy.

    Nonetheless, I think Andrews might have branded this wrongly. The thing to fear may not be feminization, but emasculation: the loss of traditionally male qualities which cannot survive below a certain threshold. You might expect me here to cite honor or bravery or parallel parking or something. No. In evolutionary terms, two of the most essential male qualities are stupidity and the ability to behave with a complete lack of empathy, even to the point of taking delight in the misfortunes of your own friends.

    In reproductive terms, men are disposable. It is their “job”, in a wider evolutionary sense, to be stupid – to take rapid, risky decisions with high variance outcomes in the hope that they pay off.

    In certain settings, it is also vital to achieve a complete suspension of empathy. The solicitor for Lucy Letby, a British neonatal nurse convicted of murder and attempted murder of infants, recently said of the nurse’s trial that it was upsetting to the victims’ families to question the verdict. What?

    If you want to know what it once meant to be a man, consider someone who worked for my grandfather in Tredegar in the 1930s. He had spent several years in the trenches on the Western Front in World War One. As a hardened group of fighting men, they were put under the command of an overzealous young officer. Eager to prove himself, this lieutenant climbed to the top of a trench ladder and ordered them to advance, gesturing forwards with his right arm. At this precise moment, his shoulder was hit by shrapnel, causing his arm to detach completely from his body. With the forward momentum of his gesture, it continued flying forward still clad in its sleeve, landing in the mud six feet away, its hand still clutching the service revolver.

    They all fell about laughing.

    Just to be clear, I don’t want to live in a world where dismemberment is a regular source of amusement. But compared with spending your life treading on eggshells in case something you say makes someone sad, it has its advantages.

  • The Le Carré exhibition reversing America’s monopoly on British archives

    The Le Carré exhibition reversing America’s monopoly on British archives

    When Richard Ovenden of the University of Oxford’s Bodleian Library wrote to John le Carré asking if the writer would leave it his papers, he got more than he could ever have bargained for. Le Carré not only responded with enthusiasm, explaining that “Oxford was Smiley’s spiritual home, as it is mine”, but also sent along 85 boxes of neatly arranged papers and memorabilia. After le Carré’s death in 2020 came a second larger tranche; the total archive consisted of more than 1,200 boxes. This was a writer who threw nothing out.

    Selected fruits of this vast haul can be seen in a new and impressive exhibition in the Bodleian’s Weston Library (formerly the New Bodleian).

    It is organized partly by title and partly by theme, and includes samples of the writer’s annotated typescripts, outlines and notes, flow charts of plots, photos of family members (including his reprobate father), research notes about locations used in his books, original pen and ink sketches and caricatures, and letters both to and from le Carré. It is a remarkable treasure trove, yet constitutes only a very small selection of the holdings now catalogued and available for consultation in the Bodleian.

    What the exhibition shows most clearly are le Carré’s working methods. He wrote by hand (except for “one-finger email”) and relied on his wife Jane to type the multiple drafts of his novels as well as all his business correspondence (letters to friends were handwritten). Jane was much more than an amanuensis, however, for she had strong publishing credentials as well as secretarial skills, having worked as a publicist and then foreign rights manager for Hodder & Stoughton.

    Le Carré tinkered endlessly with the drafts of his books, even rewriting substantially in proof, an indulgence granted by his publishers that other writers can only envy. Tinker Tailor alone went through 30 drafts between 1972 and its publication in 1974 (and for a time had the intriguing title of  The Reluctant Autumn of George Smiley). The papers on display do not always tell us much about the finished novels, but they are, at least for le Carré fans, deeply interesting in their own right.

    There are also insights into le Carré’s insights, as it were, showing the keen authorial intelligence he brought to bear on his creation of character. When Alec Guinness expresses doubts about playing the role of Smiley, worried that he wasn’t round enough or double-chinned, le Carré responds subtly: “You have a mildness of manner, stretched taut… In the best sense, you are uncomfortable company, as I suspect Smiley is.” Not all the items on display involve writing: there is the touching inclusion of a suitcase that belonged to le Carré’s mother, virtually the only thing she left behind when she abandoned both her marriage and her two little boys (le Carré was then five years old). It conveys more than any words could our poignant sense of a wound that never healed.

    For those who find le Carré’s best work in the Karla trilogy, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1963), and the heavily autobiographical A Perfect Spy (1986), the exhibition will seem lopsided, slanted towards the more recent novels, which required more research as they were often set in exotic locations. For a writer of such marvelous fictions, le Carré became increasingly obsessive about facts. His preoccupation with the accuracy of his scene-setting begins with The Honourable Schoolboy (1977), which required two trips to Hong Kong; it intensified when, in the post-Glasnost era, he set many of his books in faraway places. “Countries are characters too,” le Carré declared, and he proved an intrepid traveler, visiting Asia, Africa and the Middle East in search of stories reflecting post-Cold War themes – including the rapacity of pharmaceutical multinationals and the venality of the international arms trade. “A non-political novel,” he declared, “accepts the status quo. I happen to think the status quo spells political disaster.” Yet ultimately it is the world he invented rather than the real one he reported on that represents his best work.

    The exhibition is accompanied by a book, Tradecraft, edited by Federico Varese, a longstanding associate of the writer and the co-curator of the exhibition. It will be of greatest interest to aficionados, though it includes a helpful timeline of the writer’s life, and a perceptive and fond recollection of his father by his son Nicholas, author of the recent (and excellent) Smiley successor novel, Karla’s Choice (2024). The exhibition itself is a landmark in two respects. It represents a major collection of materials by an indisputably major writer. But equally important, it reverses the near-monopoly of British archives exercised by American institutions (especially the University of Texas at Austin), and makes the collection of le Carré accessible in the country in which it was so carefully created.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s UK edition.