After oral arguments on April 1, 2026, most pundits and commentators have concluded it is most unlikely that the Supreme Court of the United States will either uphold Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, or make any ruling that does not confirm how the citizenship clause has been interpreted for over 100 years: that citizenship is automatically and irrevocably conferred on any person born on United States soil, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, with limited exceptions such as offspring from diplomats. Anyone who has listened to the oral arguments, as I have, will be utterly convinced that both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Coney Barrett will side with the three liberal justices: Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson. To borrow a phrase from the late John McLaughlin, it is a metaphysical certitude.

The eventual decision matters for obvious reasons. It is true the Trump Administration only sought to have birthright citizenship nullified going forward. This would make it impossible to deport those who had been granted citizenship as anchor babies before any hypothetical favorable decision. Devon Stack for example argues that because any favorable decision would not allow the deportation of Kash Patel, any favorable decision is therefore meaningless. Such tirades are typical of the sort of all-or-nothing fallacy he has become increasingly susceptible to, just as he has increasingly exhibited a rather childish mentality whereby he insults and dismisses any person or entity which does not agree with him on all matters, all at once, all the time. Contrary to such petulant fits, staving off the flood of anchor babies would stabilize and slow—although admittedly not altogether stop—the demographic crisis that has unfolded since the Hart Celler Act and other implementations of the Great Replacement. A favorable Supreme Court decision would have bought the white populace more time before becoming a minority, as well as provided a feasible, realistic way to stop anchor babies once both a political mandate (such a mandate already exists) as well as the will to implement such policy through the legislative process.

Those who discount any benefit of a favorable Supreme Court decision also overlook an equally important factor: the Supreme Court has been incredibly influential in shaping public opinion, and often does so with many not having read let alone understood landmark Supreme Court decisions. The most immediate example is Obergefell v. Hodges or, more particularly, United States v Windsor, which struck down The Defense of Marriage Act and which the dissent predicted would soon lead the court to “discover” a constitutional right to so-called gay marriage. Before that decision, and before Windsor most particularly, large numbers of the public were opposed to so-called gay marriage. Public opinion flipped practically overnight, on account of Windsor most especially, and did so without most having read let alone understood the decision.

The United States Supreme Court was similarly influential, if not more so, in shaping public opinion on segregation and other matters of the Civil Rights era. At the time, Brown v Board of Education was wildly unpopular, so much so President Eisenhower had to deploy federal troops to implement and enforce that decision. But this outrage dissipated quickly, and the Supreme Court played a pivotal role in transforming public opinion.

While abortion remained controversial after Roe v Wade, abortion was disapproved in much larger numbers before that infamous decision. That decision, although always controversial, was foundational to broad public support for so-called abortion rights. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center is very recent and its ultimate effect on public opinion cannot yet be fully ascertained. However, in the short time period after which this decision was handed down, a greater number of the populace have been convinced that the Constitution is silent on this, and that the matter is best left to the states. Much of the advocacy for so-called abortion rights is both militant and obnoxious, but it also seems to be waning, in no small part because of this decision.

Admittedly, the Supreme Court’s influence on public opinion is not absolute. The Dred Scott decision did not persuade abolitionists to accept slavery in those states that had not abolished the institution. To the contrary, the controversial decision inflamed passions on both sides, catalyzing the number of precursors that would soon lead to The American Civil War, or, as those with Confederate sympathies prefer, The War Between the States. Citizens United, which effectively legalized unlimited campaign contributions by corporate entities and solidified the extension of constitutional rights to corporations, remains wildly unpopular. In this increasingly fragmented and divisive political environment, public outrage is unlikely to lead to any political response, particularly if such a response can only be achieved by constitutional amendment. It is nonetheless the case the Supreme Court has not shaped public opinion on this matter, but has galvanized strong opposition against it.

The seemingly inevitable decision confirming birthright citizenship is unlikely to be one of those instances where public opinion turns against the Court. When—not if—The Supreme Court rules that the 14^th Amendment is properly interpreted to mean that any person born on U.S. soil, absent a very limited number of extraordinary exceptions, is an American citizen, regardless of immigration or citizenship status of the parents, a critical mass of persons will be persuaded to accept this as a constitutional norm by the mere issuance of such a decision. Practically overnight, if not literally so, a large contingent of Americans who were either undecided on the matter or against birthright citizenship will be persuaded that anchor babies are U.S. Citizens simply because the Supreme Court ruled as such. As previously stated, most will come to this conclusion without having read whatever majority opinion is written on this matter. This in turn will significantly denigrate and hamper any effort to build a political coalition against birthright citizenship and other auspices of The Great Replacement. Those who are skeptical of this need look no further than the matter of gay marriage to discern this obvious truth.

Drastic changes to society rarely happen in one fell swoop, but rather happen incrementally. This is exhibited in how corporations have litigated to win the extension of rights that should be limited to actual persons, and it is also demonstrated in the progressive agenda that has been implemented since World War II. A favorable Supreme Court ruling would have been an important step in a similar sort of incrementalism, but to the right. That however has been taken off the table, absent extraordinary circumstances to flip either Roberts or Barrett.

Many on the dissident right aver there is no political solution, but there is likely no other solution either. As stated in “Questioning Democracy in the Land of Unending Economic Disasters,” the United States government is not a lethal instrument per se, but rather is an entity that “wields a number of lethal instruments at its disposal.” There will be no Red Dawn moment, no revolution or revolt, but rather a slow gradual decline, made worse by an ever-worsening demographic decline, as well as an ever-worsening decline in culture, society, and even standard of living. Recent history in South Africa and Rhodesia inform this, as does ancient history. Contrary to popular belief, The Fall of Rome did not happen suddenly, but was a gradual process over centuries. Absent extraordinary circumstances, this is likely the same trajectory that awaits American society. A positive Supreme Court decision was an essential incremental step in staving off the decline, but it has been taken off the table.

It should be noted this effort was always dubious as a legal question. The argument against birthright citizenship of babies born from illegal aliens required an interpretation of the word “jurisdiction” that is far from intuitive. The interpretation simply does not comport with the basic meaning of the word “jurisdiction.”

One anticipates that Roberts, Barrett, and perhaps even Kavanaugh will remind readers that the proper remedy is to amend the Constitution, overlooking the aspects of Realpolitik that reveal this remedy is simply impossible in the current political and cultural environment. Aside from millions of anchor babies infused from south of the border, a cottage citizenship tour industry has flourished in China. The result is there are millions of Chinese nationals who were born in the United States, and thus have United States citizenship, even though they were raised in The People’s Republic of China immediately after birth. A textualist approach favored by the late Antonin Scalia is sensible in most matters that go before The Court, but in some instances any workable jurisprudence must also consider the spirit as well as the letter of the law, particularly when the Amendment in question leaves much to be desired in clarity or draftsmanship.

That the Supreme Court has proven once again unable to protect the public interest and unable to adapt to Realpolitik considerations or weigh the spirit of the law in instances such as these is yet another indictment both of The Supreme Court and, because there are no feasible, realistic remedies to ameliorate this ruinous state of affairs, The Constitution itself. Unfortunately, neither this decision, once it is published, nor the nigh universal consensus as to how the Court will rule will galvanize any meaningful opposition capable of changing the course of this nation. Despite the fetishism with which many regard the Constitution and this form of government, both have, once again, proven to lack any fitness for purpose. Unfortunately, there is neither the consensus nor means to jettison either this document, the legal profession in power, or this form of government.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective recently crossed the 1,000 subscriber threshhold. An expression of gratitude to subscribers and particularly paid subscribers is once again in order. Thank you so very much for helping this publication achieve this early and essential benchmark for long-term success.

However, much more growth is still required for long-term success. For this reason, those readers who enjoy this or other, similar writing are urged once again to subscribe. Free subscriptions are appreciated as they help with increased invisibility, and they of course ensure readers are promptly informed of the latest writings. Paid subscriptions are even more appreciated. Those who can do so without undue burden are urged to pledge their support.

As always, readers are encouraged to signify their approval by pressing on the heart-shaped “like” button and to share with anyone who finds this or other writings insightful or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Author’s note: this short article was written on short notice, as events are still developing. Revisions and corrections are likely. Indeed, there have been important revisions and expansions since this article was originally published due to new information.

As many readers doubtlessly already know, both Rebecca Hargraves, also well known simply as “Blonde” and Cameron MacGregor left The Backlash a few weeks ago. This video stream program was, of course, formed after the acrimonious split between Hargraves and Matt Christiansen, who had for years hosted The Matt and Blonde Show, formerly the Beauty and the Beta, and a call-in show on Wednesdays. Hargraves had wanted to avoid drama, and wanted her departure from The Matt and Blonde Show to be limited to a written announcement. Christiansen objected, demanding Blonde appear on one last stream to explain herself. She rightly refused, a decision which at the time was not supported by many but over time has gained increasing favor.

When the decision was initially announced that she and MacGregor were leaving The Backlash, it seemed Hargraves avoided such acrimony, repeatedly insisting—on multiple occasions—that she and Reilly are still on good terms, citing creative or even political differences. She repeatedly refused to say much more during streams with Devon Stack on their new collaboration, Outlaws. That was until today, March 23, 2026, when Reilly initiated copyright strikes against Blonde’s YouTube channel for hosting of livestreams of that show when she was still part of the program and hosted the show on her YouTube channel. As a prophylactic measure, she has removed all such material from her channel.

As far as anyone knows, Reilly never approached Blonde asking her to remove these streams voluntarily.1 If no such overture was made, one cannot help but infer malicious intent by such actions, given their natural and predictable tendency to place a YouTube channel in danger of permanent deletion. It should also be noted that a copyright strike is hardly evidence of an actual copyright violation, as YouTube and other platforms abide by an indiscriminate and overbroad policy that regularly takes down work well within fair use exceptions.

This begs the question: what events transpired that might precipitate such lowly, despicable behavior by Reilly? The Backlash started well enough, but cracks soon started to appear in its proverbial fissure. Vincent James suddenly departed, and ceased all activity on Twitter, only to appear in recent months. He stated it was for family reasons, but some viewers remain skeptical.

Real fractures ensued soon after. While a close viewing of the show’s entire catalog with Hargraves and MacGregor would almost certainly reveal other key moments, there are three episodes in particular that stand-out as notable moments that explain, at least in part, the actual origins and causes of this split. The first watershed moment occurred in Episode 78, with guests Adam Green and Devon Stack. Put charitably, Reilly did not make a good impression at all when Stack confronted Reilly and his insistence about his particular rigid interpretation of Catholicism. The problem with Christianity and more particularly Catholicism as a universal religion was also brought up.

The critical moment occurred in Episode 90. In that stream, Reilly and Hargraves had a rather heated argument. Blonde was more or less even-keeled and in control. Reilly was visibly agitated. At one point she balked, stating:

I’m not finished and you’re going to sit there and be quiet until I’m done. You need to get your your anger under control here. All right. . . . What we’re having now is growing pains within the movement because we cannot decide if this is an ethnationalist movement or if this is a multi-racial Catholic movement. And that is the issue. That is the heart of the issue. This is why you are crashing out, Dave.

Some might think it unfair to suggest he shouted at her. One could fairly say he raised his voice at her, although that expression always seemed rather silly, since most people speak in a cadence that naturally rises and falls. Reilly made a valid point about not getting voter turnout for the local mayoral election, but otherwise his ranting was utterly ridiculous. At one point he even excoriated Hargraves for daring to criticize Nick Fuentes. Critically, during the super chat portion of a recent stream on Outlaws, she mentioned not being able to criticize Nick Fuentes and the Groyper movement as a factor in this decision. Towards the end of this stream (Episode 90) and after, Hargraves has however offered multiple assurances that their relationship was still amicable and that, unlike with Christiansen, she was still free to say what she wanted to say, when she wanted to say it.

The last stream featuring Hargraves and MacGregor is far less sensational than these two, but a close viewing reveals highly unfavorable body language from Hargraves. Much of her body language was reminiscent of a first date that had gone poorly, in which a young woman, or even a young man, has no romantic or sexual interest with the “date.” Some of the language, including pursing of lips, is even reminiscent of Diane Kruger’s performance in the infamous bar scene from Inglorious Basterds, clearly indicating she knew the jig was up when the British spy gave the Anglo-American hand sign for “three” with the index, middle, and ring fingers, rather than a thumb and index and middle fingers. One of the few comments she did make was a question posed to the guest, in which she described herself as a “lapsed Catholic” before expressing her concern that ethnonationalist in-group preference for white Europeans is incompatible with Catholicism as a religious creed. These and other statements were uttered in the presence of a man so closed-minded, so rigid, and so bound up in religious dogma he vilifies Martin Luther (has the man not read Von den Juden und ihren Lügen?) and who has repeatedly stated contempt and disapproval for pagans, agnostics, or atheists. Describing herself yet again as a “lapsed Catholic” in this man’s presence was certainly a point of contention behind closed doors.

That stream was of course the last appearance by either Hargraves or MacGregor. It should be noted that that episode was a continuation of what could be charitably described as highly specialized content, pertaining to Reilly’s own rigid and unique vision of traditional Catholicism, replete with constant harangues about Vatican II and so on and so forth, ad nauseam ad infinitum. Many of the comments in the YouTube and Rumble comments section were very negative about this peculiar direction Reilly was taking the show. One might rightly deride such fare as devolving ever further into “Dave Reilly’s super tradcath circle jerk power hour, now with more harangues about Vatican II.”

As stated, Hargraves has tried to be tight-lipped about this, while also insisting that she is still amicable towards Reilly. Since he instigated copyright strikes against her channel, and did so in ways in which nothing other than malicious intent can be reasonably inferred, it is highly doubtful she is so amicable now. It is of note that on the inaugural stream of Outlaws, she expressed regret for choosing Reilly, likening this decision with the same mistake she made in partnering with Christiansen, or at the very least continuing that collaboration for as long as she did. At one point, she likened her experience with both Reilly and Christiansen as contending with “massive flaws” that she thought she could deal with, but ultimately could not. In response to a superchat mocking The Backlash as a “place to find out about bitcoin” and a place to hear a “boomer eye doctor from Guatemala,” she responded “yeah, really,” before saying “I made some mistakes, guys, I know, I know.” When asked again for the actual reasons, she replied “creative differences, let’s say that.” Note she did not say just “creative differences,” but included the qualifier “let’s say that” which indicates various omissions. It is noteworthy when asked yet again what exactly happened in yet another superchat inquiring for answers, she stated “I don’t want to get down in the mud, but whatever you’re imagining, based on what you know about us, is what happened.” (approximately 1:56:25). She also mentioned a prohibition against criticizing Nick Fuentes. On the inaugral stream with MacGregor, The Reset, MacGregor said the old show simply became too restrictive in the points of view allowed to be expressed:

[T]he [original]idea of the of the old show was that we would entertain a chorus of voices and, uh, I’ve not moved off that position. I think that we need to hear a variety of opinions. What we don’t need is the opposite. We don’t need to crowd out certain voices. And I think that became problematic in that in that forum. That’s that’s number one.

He further added that “The purpose of this exercise [meaning The Reset] is Rebecca’s idea: to “have a more serious conversation about what the .. . is going on because a lot of crazy is happening.”

As with the acrimonious split with Christiansen, Hargraves latest entanglement reveals real problems with the fledgling opposition to both liberalism and cultural Marxism on one hand and mainstream conservatism on the other. That figures like Reilly have been allowed to appoint themselves as thought leaders necessarily leads to this sort of infighting and dysfunction. That Nick Fuentes has this propensity is of course a key consideration in the theory that he is either black propaganda or an exemplar of the “nut-picking” method of discreditation, as set forth in “A Marked Aversion to Nick Fuentes.” As many readers well know, this author has always attempted to be respectful of our religious brethren, although such respect has often not been extended in kind. Reilly has demonstrated the same vindictiveness so many of his ilk. Indeed, what sort of Christian does he and others who act like him think they are? How “Christian” is it to launch malicious copyright strikes against a former collaborator out of spite?

One interesting wrinkle is a tweet reply wrote by Reilly himself. In that tweet reply, he accuses someone of wrongly taking $4.000.00 from the account Backlash bank account, in contravention of the entity’s bylaws. Because of how language has devolved so utterly, who “they” refers to in this instance is unclear. “They” should never to refer to a single individual, but only to more than one person, i.e. the “third person plural.” Is he alleging Hargraves took funds? Or does “they” in this case properly refer to more than one person? Perhaps it pertains to MacGregor and Hargraves jointly.

Shortly after this article was published, Reilly wrote another tweet reply, featured below. This screed contains a number of serious allegations, some of which are credible, while others seem implausible. Given the negative direction Reilly was taking the show, it seems likely that MacGregor and Hargraves did confront Reilly to try and oust him from Backlash LLC. The differences over content comport with what had transpired on the show. Reilly describes the matter simply as “I wouldn’t criticize Nick Fuentes.” To the contrary, he admonished Hargraves for being critical of him—some would say he shouted. This, combined by statements by Blonde, provide persuasive evidence that Reilly prohibited or strongly discouraged negative or critical comments about Fuentes.

Without having access to the bylaws or any agreement that MacGregor or Hargraves signed, it is impossible to determine whether the attempted “coup” was within the parameters of the corporate agreement. It seems unlikely however that a sophisticated actor such as MacGregor would attempt such a takeover if Reilly is in fact a majority shareholder. Indeed, since the original publication of this essay, Hargraves has indicated in private correspondence that Reilly was not a majority shareholder, or at the very least that neither she nor MacGregor believed he had majority shareholder status. Perhaps MacGregor and Hargraves, confident the show would fail without them, tried to use their pending deparature as leverage. Reilly also indicates in this tweet reply he asked—or more likely directed—Hargraves to remove Backlash content from YouTube channel.

Reilly also accuses Hargraves of insulting Reilly and his religion. First, Reilly often insults other people’s religion, or lack thereof. Time and time again, he has repeatedly expressed disdain and contempt for pagans, agnostics, atheists, and even Protestants. Nor is his disdain for Protestantism limited to the heretical sort found in modern American strains of Protestantism. He has denounced Martin Luther himself. At the very least, Hargraves insulting him in kind is probably just tit-for-tat. This characterization also does not comport with what viewers themselves saw on Episode 90. Hargraves was restrained yet firm. Reilly was emotional, agitated, and belligerent. Finally, that the proposed severance agreement alluded to would have included non-disparagement and non-disclosure agreements is telling. Given the use of the subjunctive “would have,” it seems neither Hargraves nor MacGregor signed them, but that is not entirely clear. Hopefully they did not. Regardless, it demonstrates Reilly has things to hide and is playing hard-ball with his former partners.

It should be noted in the subsequent tweet reply, he alleges MacGregor withdrew $4148.14 from the Backlash corporate account. This indicates he was using “they” improperly for the third person singular—not entirely surprising given how Reilly often speaks and thus thinks like an adolescent girl, constantly stuttering with the use of the word “like” as a filler word, using “literally” as a vague intensifier, so on and so forth. These and other factual allegations are serious allegation and, if the facts alleged are not true, could itself be grounds for a defamation claim. These tweets also demonstrate bad faith on Reilly’s part, indicating he did not issue the copyright strikes wholly for legitimate reasons, but at least in part because of a dispute between his former partners concerning an alleged withdraw from the backlash account.

These and other considerations beg the question as to what the future holds for The Backlash and Reilly in particular. When Blonde appeared briefly on I Hypocrite in the immediate wake of the split, Perry predicted that The Backlash was “toast,” that the effort would not survive. Up until now, this was not entirely clear. Blonde however has a larger following than does Reilly, as does Devon Stack. Most of the Backlash audience was there for Hargraves. Vincent James was also a draw, but he has been removed for quite some time. Those most favorable to Blonde might have still had goodwill for The Backlash and for Reilly personally, particularly in streams with interesting guests. Now that this development has occurred and that people know about it, there is almost certainly far less goodwill for Reilly and what is left of his stream. This of course is compounded by other such petty behavior, including going through all the replies to the tweet featuring the announcement of Hargraves’ and MacGregor’s departure and “hiding” all replies that are critical or supportive of such a decision and blocking all accounts. Indeed, many different accounts on Twitter of varying follower count have reported this. Nothing could be better timed to fostering goodwill from alienated viewers than mass-blocking all accounts that utter any sort of criticism whatsoever. In this way, like so many other decisions that have alienated large contingents of his former audience, this decision to initiate copyright strikes Blonde was not only reprehensible, but incredibly ill-advised as well. One can only imagine that this pattern of poor judgment will continue for as long as he decides to put himself in the spotlight.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective recently crossed the 1,000 subscriber threshhold. An expression of gratitude to subscribers and particularly paid subscribers is once again in order. Thank you so very much for helping this publication achieve this early and essential benchmark for long-term success.

However, much more growth is still required for long-term success. For this reason, those readers who enjoy this or other, similar writing are urged once again to subscribe. Free subscriptions are appreciated as they help with increased invisibility, and they of course ensure readers are promptly informed of the latest writings. Paid subscriptions are even more appreciated. Those who can do so without undue burden are urged to pledge their support.

As always, readers are encouraged to signify their approval by pressing on the heart-shaped “like” button and to share with anyone who finds this or other writings insightful or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Author’s note: as should be clear from this essay, British readers and likely others as well are encouraged to use a VPN to read this and other publications. Because that is an expenditure in what are trying times for many, it should be noted that there are free VPNs avaialble but as with most anything, that free commodity comes at a cost. Very often with free commodities, the user is the product. My intention is to update this essay with a recommnendation for a good, free VPN that does not invoke these concerns. Readers in the know are encouraged to make such recommendations in the comments section below.

Several readers have informed me that The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective is being censored in The United Kingdom. More specifically, in conformance with the Online Safety Act of 2023, readers in the United Kingdom are prevented from reading this humble publication without first providing information that proves that they are 18 or over. The alternative is for readers to use a VPN to circumvent this. This is a troubling development for the future and eventual success of this publication.’

The UK Online Safety Act 2023 (often referred to as the OSA) is a sweeping piece of legislation, enacted with the purported purpose of protecting children and vulnerable users from harmful online content. While the legislation targets illegal material such as child sexual abuse imagery, terrorism-related content, and non-consensual intimate images, it also conflates pornographic material that is (wrongly) legal for adults to consume with dissident political speech, such as writings featured on this publication. Notably, the act imposes a “duty of care” on platforms—including social media sites, search engines, and user-generated content services like Substack—to assess risks, remove illegal content promptly, and implement measures to prevent minors from accessing what the current government deems as age-inappropriate or “harmful” material. A key enforcement mechanism, fully in effect since mid-2025, requires platforms to use “highly effective” age assurance or verification techniques for content deemed potentially sensitive or adult-oriented. Such content necessarily includes not only so-called hate speech but anything that expresses disapproval or rejection of The Great Replacement or multi-culturalism writ large, better described as multiracialism. Such verification methods include facial age estimation (via live photo or video), credit card checks, photo ID matching against a selfie, mobile network operator verification, or other approved methods. Failure to comply risks massive fines (up to 10% of global revenue) or even criminal penalties, compelling platforms like Substack to err on the side of caution. While the Act’s stated aim is child protection—preventing exposure to pornography, self-harm promotion, eating disorder content, or other harms—it has drawn sharp criticism for enabling broad overreach that chills free expression, particularly dissident or politically incorrect speech, such as the writings offered by yours truly.

As readers are doubtlessly well aware, Keir Starmer’s Britain—to the extent one can still call it Great Britain—is waging a campaign of political censorship and oppression that is above and beyond that of Russia, China, Iran, and other supposedly closed societies. People are being arrested and sentenced to prison terms for expressing displeasure with the Great Replacement, decrying the real, harmful effects of “diversity,” or sharing edgy memes. More recently, true believers are encouraged to report disapproved-of discussions overheard in pubs.

In this context, it is foolhardy for readers to provide the British government proof they are reading publications such as this. Using a VPN, for now, is an easy solution, but in these tough times not all readers are inclined to make such necessary expenditures. Moreover, without being able to read the writings on this or other publications, few would decide to purchase a VPN in order to read such writings without having sampled them before them. Many, perhaps even most, will simply balk and not read this or other writings at all.

This unpleasant and disconcerting development could lead to two possible outcomes. The far more desirable outcome is this publication benefits from a sort of Streisand Effect, making this publication grow more popular than it would otherwise in the same timeframe. That usually happens when censorship or suppression is done poorly. This is not as likely in this instance as there is no news coverage announcing such censorship, as there was for Barbra Streisand’s house or how the BBC stupidly announced it was “censoring” acts like the Sex Pistols or the song “Relax” by Frankie Goes to Hollywood. A more likely scenario is that this development will stunt organic growth in ways that threaten the eventual success of this publication. While screenshots from Substack’s dashboard platform will not be provided, it should be noted that readers in the United Kingdom comprise the second largest audience of this publication, second only to subscribers in the United States. Hopefully most are savvy enough to use a VPN. More disconcerting, such a determination by Substack almost certainly signals a negative effect on how algorithms are used to either promote—or more likely not promote—this publication.

Overcoming this setback will require increased engagement from readers and subscribers. Now, with this most recent development, it is even more imperative for readers to engage and promote this publication in a variety of ways. To those readers who have not already done so, signing up for a free subscription is the single best way to signify support for this publication and remain informed of new posts as they happen. A paid subscription is always appreciated from those who can do so with no undue burden.

Subscribe now

At the time of writing, this publication is at just under a thousand subscribers, at about 50 shy of that milestone. Hopefully, readers can help strike a blow by getting this past the 1k subscriber mark in short order by subscribing (if they have not already done so) and encouraging others to subscribe as well. Above and beyond that, it is also imperative that readers share particular essays they find informative, interesting, or provocative, as well as encourage others to share and subscribe in turn. Essays can be shared via email, on twitter and other social media, on telegram and discord, and on message boards that allow such content. In addition to sharing links directly, many essays include custom made graphics and memes that can be distributed. As always, readers should signify their favor by pressing that “like emoji” at the bottom. Positive or insightful comments are also instrumental in this effort. In all instances, readers and subscribers alike have my sincere gratitude for their interest and support.

I have no delusions that those who advocate for the dispossession and eventual erasure of the British People and its diaspora in the New World as well as European peoples more broadly want to do much more than just silence and censor content like this. These people want both myself and people who read and like this content to be in jail, dispossessed of any and all economic opportunity, or even killed; rest assured that, to a large degree, the feeling is mutual.

This step—namely requiring readers to provide sensitive information for the right to read content like this—seems like merely an incremental one preceding far more grim outcomes and designs. Such observations notwithstanding, it is rather unsettling to have writings of this publication placed in the same general category as hardcore pornography and other material that should be regulated or censored, if only the populist right could achieve a political mandate, take power, and then use that political power to achieve vital policy considerations for the greater good, through state power. I always strive for my writings to be informative, and to be written with a style of prose that is both demanding and rewarding. My writings rarely if ever indulge in vulgarity or epithets, unless to report the use of such epithets, whether from Shiloh Hendrix to Thomas Carlyle’s most infamous essay. I have admittedly indulged in the use of “blackie,” “fuzzy-wuzzy,” and other more antiquated language. Considering what many racial minorities call whites, including “whitey,” it is at the very worst just a case of tit for tat. The use of “troon” and “pooner” to denigrate transgenders, in hopes of creating more stigma which in turns helps steer people from this life ruiniation, is both righteous and commendable.

To demonstrate how subjective and politically motivated these measures are, consider that a publication concerning Jewish interests would probably not invite scrutiny for denouncing interracial or interfaith marriages, and yet essays like “Against Miscegenation” are treated with a singular standard that only applies to whites. The same consideration applies to the almost certain lack of censorship of black nationalist, anti-white, and “anti-colonialist” publications, and so on and so forth. Finally, it is somewhat ironic that this law and such censorship efforts associate writings that seek to save European civilization from utter ruin with those elements in the “culture” that are hastening such ruin. The writings featured on The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective are not harmful to minors, but in fact are beneficial to minors and adults alike, and the suggestion that they are is both insulting and ridiculous, and more than a little comical as well.

Many, most especially those of a more mainstream conservative persuasion, wrongly suppose that actions like this are taken from a point of weakness. Just as they always fixate on censorship efforts that are done poorly and hardly count as censorship at all, including Tipper Gore’s “explicit lyrics” labels or the BBC announcing in news cycles that a song would be “censored.” They always overlook instances in which censorship has worked remarkably well, such as in post-war Germany and elsewhere. Those considerations suggest that the forces of Cultural Marxism and white erasure are poised for success with this effort as well. Despite empty assurances insisting the contrary, the ideological and political enemy is not stupid. They employ these tactics because they work and wield a long-term prospect for eventual success. We must not permit them to succeed. Readers are urged to assist in whatever way they can to render this publication an indispensable tool in that effort.

Share

NOTE: Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Author’s note: this story is developing and unfolding. There may be revisions, additions, or corrections going forward.

As readers are doubtlessly well aware, ICE agents in Minneapolis were involved in a fatal shooting. On Saturday, January 24, 2026, Alex Pretti was shot and killed while tussling with several ICE agents. The incident occurred at the intersection of 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue in the Whittier neighborhood of Minneapolis. Several video recordings have surfaced, as well as some fake AI images and videos. Unlike the shooting of Renee Good, which was clearly justified to any sane, reasonable person, this shooting is, to put it charitably, not so clear. Even among the mainstream conservative set, as well as those of a more dynamic persuasion, there is a strong difference of opinion as to whether this was a “clean shoot” or not. Robert Barnes, as just one example, is adamant that it was an improper, unjustified shooting. John Cerera of Active Self Protection has also stated he does not see a justification for this shooting. Andrew Branca and others however contend that it is a justified shooting when the elements of self-defense are properly applied to the legal analysis. It should be noted that just before the shooting, an officer, ostensibly the one who reached towards Pretti’s backside and removed a firearm during a tussle to the ground, shouted “gun, gun, gun.” Some footage seems to show Pretti reaching for an object immediately before being shot. It was also reported on Tuesday, January 27 that Pretti was involved in a physical altercation with ICE agents the week before, in which he suffered a broken rib. This means the agents likely knew who he was and considered him a heightened threat. Cerera on the other hand notes that Pretti was down on the floor with his face and elbows to the ground and did not present a threat of lethal violence or serious bodily harm immediately before being shot and killed.

As readers are also doubtlessly well aware, this incident has enraged the left and even incensed some of a more mainstream, conservative persuasion. On Monday Evening, January 26, 2026, Tim Walz apparently called President Trump. The news cycle has very much exemplified the “fog of war” phenomenon, with conflicting reports that Trump will either pull ICE out of Minneapolis or simply scale back operations. While there were some conflicting reports on whether Gregory Bovino has been removed from his role as “commander-at-large” of ICE operations in Minneapolis, Bovino has in fact been reassigned to Los Angeles. The Trump Administration announced on Monday it would be sending Tom Homan to oversee this matter. Since then, both Homan and Frey issued statements on Twitter concerning their meeting. As Kevin DeAnna documented on Identity Politics¸ local and state law enforcement declared an unlawful assembly late Monday evening, early Tuesday morning, dispersing and arresting “protestors” and agitators. This suggests Frey, Walz, and others are bowing down to pressure from the Trump Administration to at least some degree.

As for the Pretti shooting controversy itself, consider this blithe and admittedly controversial, perhaps even outrageous assertion. Whether the shooting is in fact justified or not is far less important than this overriding prime directive: the shooting of Pretti must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to be used for political gain by the left. Ideally this involves exonerating the ICE agents involved by any means that are at once necessary and available, but also efficacious. Above all else, including so-called rule of law and other considerations, any negative disposition on this matter must be counterweighted with far more adverse consequences to politicians, influencers, and various moneyed interests that have fostered and encouraged those circumstances which make incidents like this not just likely, but an inevitability. That includes incitement to interfere with federal law enforcement, falsely telling the public that ICE and DHS do not have authority to effectuate arrests or are not even law enforcement (the latter a statement made by Walz during a press conference, among others) or any number of ways that Democrat politicians and others have encouraged and galvanized these so-called protests: protests that, from the start, crossed the line from peacefully assembling to petition the government for redress of grievances to impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement.

Several underlying considerations bolster this seemingly shocking and even, at least to some, offensive assessment. First and foremost, the apprehension and deportation of illegal aliens and more particularly illegal aliens with arrest records and violent criminal history is rendered nigh impossible without support from local and state law enforcement to assist with various matters, including most especially riot and crowd control. Democrat politicians like Jacob Frey, Tim Walz, Gavin Newsom, as well as Maura Healy, governor of Massachusetts who demanded that ICE leave the state have gone well beyond not endorsing federal efforts at enforcing immigration law; they have directed local and state law enforcement and other agencies to refuse to cooperate with any federal effort on these matters. Because of this, protestors are given carte blanche license to engage in a wide range of criminal behavior that would not be tolerated in other, every day contexts, from constant, unremittent whistle blowing (disturbing the peace) or intentional impeding and blocking of traffic, to protests late at night and into the wee, witching hours of the morning with the specific design to deprive guests of sleep while at hotels suspected of lodging ICE agents.

As everyone should be well aware, state and local authorities and politicians alike are subject to the supremacy clause of The Constitution. Sanctuary cities and states, directives to thwart federal efforts to apprehend illegals are in violation of federal laws.1 This has been compounded by direct incitements to interfere with federal law enforcement’s effort to apprehend and deport illegal aliens. These and other crimes—including most especially the Somali daycare fraud scandal and other such scandals—must necessarily take precedence over the shooting of Alex Pretti, or for that matter the incident with Kelsea “Kaden Cantsee” Rummler, the littlest pooner who got her eye shot out as a result of entanglements with DHS, or any other adverse event that arises from these organized efforts to thwart ICE and other apprehension and deportation efforts. Indeed, such considerations must take precedence over the shooting of Pretti and other such incidents by some order of magnitude.

Readers who are uneasy about the death of Pretti should consider that such adverse events are not, by any means, an unintended consequence of democrat and leftist strategy to thwart both ICE and the Trump Administration more broadly. They are not only a predictable but intended consequence of such insidious designs, as intent is always inferred from the predictable and indeed inevitable results that any course of conduct causes and is known to cause. Democrats, leftist ideologues, and other such rabble do not care that Pretti is dead; they only care that such adverse events resulting from their concerted efforts lead to political and ideological gain. As Rahm Emmanuel so famously quipped, “never [let] a serious crisis go to waste.”

By assessing the shooting of Pretti from this perspective, it becomes obvious that responding in any way that Democrats want is a losing strategy. To either curtail or suspend ICE operations in Minneapolis or anywhere else is to reward and embolden leftist efforts to thwart Trump’s deportation efforts. However, if the shooting of Pretti would, in other contexts, warrant an indictment at either the state or federal level, the Trump administration is presented with a terrible conundrum. One option for the Administration is to refuse to assist with the indictment at a state level and refuse to indict on a federal level, perhaps while even invoking the Insurrection Act in response to various actions taken by Walz, Frey and others. This would effectively defy democrats, but it would also make the shooting even more of a controversy, enflaming the passions of the political and ideological opposition as well as some misguided persons of the mainstream conservative set. Indeed, such a bold move would likely alienate “law and order” types that pervade much of the Republican constituency and much of the independent, swing voter sorts as well. However, as stated, indicting the officer or officers involved would embolden the Democrats and their allies, giving ideological enemies precisely what they want.

Another far more dynamic approach—and one that must be embraced irrespective of whether there is ultimately any indictment in connection with this shooting or not—concerns countermeasures and counterstrikes. The most effective way to respond to the Pretti shooting and other adverse events that arise from ICE “protests” is not to resort to a passive defense, but precisely the opposite. The Trump Administration must embrace any countermeasures that are both effective and available in response to any such crises such as this shooting. Invoke the Insurrection Act to crush demonstrations in Minneapolis and elsewhere. Couple this bold initiative with indictments on a wide range of matters, from the Somali daycare fraud scandal (and comparable scandals in California and elsewhere) to actionable incitement against legitimate federal law enforcement action to apprehend and deport illegal aliens. Particularly if combined with a minimally competent propaganda campaign that impresses upon the public the widespread death and suffering attributable to Democrat policy, such a bold counterstroke would effectively deflect attention from various excesses of ICE, whether simply perceived or legitimate. Juxtapose the death of Alex Pretti with the long list of Americans who have been killed or harmed as a result of the free-for-all Democrats have given illegal, third-world hordes. If an indictment of the officer or officers involved proves to be either a political or legal necessity, the Trump Administration must abide by a certain axiom in war and politics: if they take one of ours, we take so many more of theirs. The overriding imperative is that the Democrats and the left must—in all circumstances—be rendered in a worse position after these insidious efforts than they were before. If officers involved from this incident must be indicted, either from legal or political necessity, be sure to indict Walz, Frey, and anyone else so that any damage to Trump’s deportation efforts are eclipsed by much greater damage to the Democrat party.

Those readers of a more mainstream persuasion, or for those who are rendered uneasy either about the video footage of Pretti’s demise or value reassuring platitudes and cliches about the rule of law must further consider the mad delirium of fighting according to Queensberry rules while the other side fights no-holds-barred. This lack of symmetry has of course been a fatal flaw of mainstream conservatism for decades. While such tendencies are admirable in societies past that were not so afflicted with the myriad pathologies of modern times, those who fret about the rule of law should consider what regard democrats and the left really have for such lofty ideals. What mind did leftist swine give to the rule of law in their politically motivated prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse—this despite incontrovertible videographic evidence that not only made proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt impossible, but positively proved his innocence? Certain corners of various social media platforms are comparing the brandishing of firearms by Mark and Patricia McCloskey to this incident. The comparison is made with the explicit assertion that Republicans and those opposed to the left more broadly are hypocritical on the basis that anyone who supports the McCloskey’s right to bear arms must necessarily condemn the shooting of Pretti. Never mind the McCloskys were on their own property as “protestors” trespassed on their property, or that Pretti confronted federal law enforcement while armed and found himself in a physical altercation. This of course is also a key, fundamental distinction between Pretti and Rittenhouse, as the latter gave himself up to authorities, disarming himself with hands in the air. To better discern how leftist swine really regard the law, consider how New York attorney general Letitia James used lawfare to bankrupt VDARE and Peter and Lydia Brimelow. Further consider the obvious disparity between leftist sentiment about Pretti on one hand and the brutal slaying of Ashley Babbitt, to mention nothing of the naked political persecution that motivated and defined the hunting down and subsequent prosecution and conviction of January 6 protestors. And then of course there is the witch hunt of Derek Chauvin himself, who was never granted a trial and should never have been convicted in the first place.

This last example proves beyond all doubt that, for the left, law is simply a means to achieve certain ends. For Democrats and the left more broadly, whether a person should be convicted or not, whether or not a body of laws should be applied one way or precisely the opposite hinges solely and exclusively on considerations of political expediency, with perhaps the single qualifier whether such machinations can be fairly contemplated without being dismissed as utterly preposterous by the unsophisticated masses.

This undoubtedly offends the sensibilities of those of a more mainstream persuasion. In ordinary times and in healthy societies, such compulsions urging the sanctity of the rule of law are not only desirable but necessary. But these are not ordinary times. American society is deeply and irreparably fragmented between two irreconcilable worldviews. Much worse, a sizeable contingent of one faction continues to constrain itself with limitations that the ideological opposition regards with nothing other than opportunism, cynicism, and disdain.

Even this however is an understatement, as is the celebrated and somewhat cliched comparison between Queensbury rules and no-holds-barred fighting. A person who fights “no-holds-barred” generally does not intend to kill his opponent, he just aims to fight dirty, or at least not fight according to the rules his opponent has constrained himself to. Millions of Democrat voters and those who support and engage in these protests want people like this author and readers of this publication dead. They not only want to ICE apprehension efforts to stop, they want to kill and harm ICE agents and those who support them. Social media, especially on TikTok, is rife with such rhetoric, as the twitter accounts for Libs of TikTok and Cassandra MacDonald nee Fairbanks and others have been tirelessly documenting. One pundit cavalierly declared that once Democrats are back in power—assuring that “we will be back in power”—there need to be Nuremberg style trials for ICE agents, Steven Miller, and so many others. Rick Wilson has stated he wants to see Steven Miller and others “dangle.” Elliott Forhan, who is running as a candidate for Attorney General of Ohio, has pledged he will indict, convict, and execute Donald Trump in Ohio state law. This is in the greater context of how many hundreds of thousands if not millions of leftist swine who gloated and celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

To carry on in response with trite notions about the rule of law or to fret that ICE agents “executed an American citizen” is to fail to perceive the existential threat posed by the left while also giving the left precisely what they want. This asymmetric dynamic between the left on one hand and mainstream conservatism on the other hand has been a critical, defining feature of the so-called “culture war” and explains why such feeble opposition to the left keeps losing, with defeat after impending defeat. The only prospect for preventing the left from consolidating power beyond the point of no return is for a critical mass of the conservative constituency to stop with these mad delusions and fanciful preoccupations. This epiphany is essential for any meaningful opposition to the left to have even a remote prospect for success. The alternative—should the left not be stopped from consolidating power—is unfathomably grim.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: the eventual success or failure of this endeavor depends in large part on reader support and collaboration. Readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription in consideration of the time and labor expended to write and publish these texts. Readers who enjoy this essay are also asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Author’s note: this essay concerns a story that is still developing. There will likely be revisions. Certain video footage is likely to be embedded in the body of the essay as well, just as important images may be added.

On January 9, 2026, there were protests in Los Angeles against ICE in relation to the justified shooting of Renee Good, as there have been in Minneapolis and other “blue cities.” At one point, several “protestors” charged DHS agents in riot gear. One person in particular, “Kaden” Rummler charged an agent after another had been apprehended. This occurred as the agent was raising a firearm loaded with a “non-lethal” crowd dispersal round, likely a pepper ball. The round was discharged, striking Rummler in the face. Rummler suffered from profuse bleeding as she—or it—was dragged away in custody.

The projectile fired inflicted fairly substantial injuries. Rummler is expected to be blind in her left eye. Shards of plastic, metal, and glass have been embedded in and around the eye and skull. Some of these particles could not be extracted. Rummler has of course retained an attorney and has made appearances on local news and other outlets. This has been embraced by leftist rabble as another rallying point against ICE, deportations, and The Trump Administration. This is part and parcel of the leftist strategy of sowing the seeds of chaos, upheaval, and destruction and then expressing outrage in the shrillest manner possible that their provocations resulted in such chaos, upheaval, and violence.

As is apparent from Rummler’s facial features, slight stature, sparse, sporadic beard and other features, Rummler is a so-called female-to-male transgender. Such creatures are often derisively referred to as “pooners” in Internet parlance. One wonders to what limited extent such creatures are even human, as their mad transgender nuttery compels them to abrogate their very humanity. For to destroy one’s own sex—and yes one’s gender—is to abnegate the very mammalian essence which defines the human condition.

If assumption of risk means anything in tort law, Rummler should not be able to collect a single dime in recovery. Footage shows Rummler and others charging ICE agents fully decked out in riot gear, after being ordered to disperse. As would be expected, Rummler has set up a GoFundMe. And whereas such campaigns by Kyle Rittenhouse and others were cancelled due to suspicion and charges of criminal activity (Rittenhouse was of course correctly acquitted on all charges), Rummler’s campaign has yet to be suspended and is unlikely to be suspended.

As Rummler has been confirmed to be a transgender “person” by her aunt, an image of Rummler during her adolescence has been uncovered. The individual was born as Kelsea Rummler. An image of Rummler in her adolescence demonstrates again that the modern left is defined by the maddest delirium, by such fits of insanity so twisted and so bizarre as to defy all credulity. Comparing and contrasting this image of young Kelsea Rummler with Rummler in her current state reveals how destructive both transgender ideology and the modern left are. This individual was once a healthy, normal adolescent girl. After being subjected to this social contagion, Rummler has been reduced to a shell of a human poorly feigning manhood, with a number of “tells” signaling this individual is not a man and can never be a man. In fairness, it should perhaps be conceded this creature is no longer a woman as the term is properly understood, although medical professionals not taken with transgender lunacy would be better able to assess whether this person’s body has passed the point of no return or not. Rummler has divulged a height of 5’1 and weight a little over 100 pounds, highly unusual for a man. A still image shows an agent standing over the creature, even with knees substantially bent. Although that federal agent is not remarkably tall or large for a man, this individual was still visibly taller, even losing about six inches with the knees bent.

Any number of images as well as interview footage of Rummler reveal markedly female features despite the pathetic, unconvincing attempts to transition. The sparse, diminutive mustache that would embarrass most 13-year-old boys is perhaps the most noticeable “tell” of all. This is compounded by the weird “pooner” beard that has grown, ever so sparsely, underneath the chin and cheeks, but in no way resembles the beard of an actual man. The cheeks and jawbone are also characteristic of a woman, as are the smaller pores. One image shows blotches in skin, likely a side effect of the testosterone injections this creature is intaking as part of this pathetic ruse. The video footage reveals a voice not of a man, but of a woman under the effects of testosterone “therapy,” a voice that is crackling, froggy, and uncanny in how unsettling it is.

In many ways, this little pooner is a perfect symbol, a microcosm, of the civilizational and personal ruin that is extolled both by transgender lunacy most particularly and left-wing ideology more broadly. These sinister elements in society have deluded a young woman, Kelsea Rummler, into thinking that she could be a man. A brief perusal of this specimen, as with all transgenders, proves that transgenderism is nothing less than abject insanity. She is of course one of legion.

Leftist swine further contend that any state effort to protect a nation’s border and enforce fairly modest immigration laws is tantamount to “fascism,” a term that has been remarkably ill-defined. These and other portents of the left compel individuals like Kelsea “Kaden, the Pooner” Rummler, Renee “Drive Baby, Drive” Good, and others to impede, obstruct, and clash with ICE and other governmental agencies, often in violent ways. They (or their survivors) and their comrades then express outrage and shock that such altercations end with violence. Rummler’s episode with ICE is particularly damning, because this creature is so small in stature. Even large, imposing men often think twice about mix-ups with police and law enforcement, above all federal law enforcement, particularly when decked out in riot gear. But the little pooner went headlong into the teeth of state violence, as if this creature were invincible, as if this creature, as a biological woman, were not markedly smaller and weaker than the grown men she was tangling with.

This is just one mad delusion among so very many propagated by the left. The notion that a state or civilization cannot and must not protect its borders and that the enforcement of immigration laws is anathema will destroy any civilization that tolerates it. And it will destroy any such civilization in very short order and with absolute, mathematical certitude if such delirium is not resisted, defeated, and vanquished in earnest. These and other considerations demonstrate once again that the left simply must not be countenanced, must not be tolerated. Any free or civilized people simply cannot—and must not—live among such wretched vermin. Any civilized people must find a way to remove such persons from any political power or agency, one way or another.

Share

PLEASE NOTE the eventual success or failure of this endeavor depends in large part on reader support and collaboration. Readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription in consideration of the time and labor expended to write and publish these texts. Readers who enjoy this essay are also asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and to share any essays they find particularly insightful or informative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Author’s note: this essay concerns a story that is still developing. There will likely be revisions. Certain video footage is likely to be embedded in the body of the essay as well, just as important images may be added.

As most if not all readers are doubtlessly well aware, on January 7, 2026, there was a fatal shooting in connection with the ICE investigations and raids that are currently transpiring in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The incident was captured on various angles, including smartphone footage from one of the protestors. As an aside, it is interesting that it is obvious that the woman filming that footage is a white woman of child-bearing age, as immediately apparent from thatwoman’s cadence and manner of speaking. One can also see what appears to be an attractive blonde woman in a dark red hat. These and other instances demonstrate again how women have been indoctrinated and programmed against their own kind, their interests, and civilization.

All of the footage available shows ICE agents detaining the SUV with verbal commands. One agent is at the driver’s door, while another is in front of the vehicle, with others at the ready in the immediate area. The driver pressed the acceleration while the second agent was still in front of the vehicle. He can be seen raising his pistol in anticipation and fires several shots as the vehicle accelerates towards him. Just as that agent in front escapes, the vehicle accelerates rapidly after the driver was struck, crashing into a white vehicle that was parked in the street at about 100 yards ahead. The agent in question was struck by the vehicle, and was taken to hospital before being released. It should also be noted that a number of witness accounts state Good and her lesbian “wife” were obstructing ICE by impeding the roads as a sort of “rolling rollblock.” It was for this reason ICE detained the vehicle.

The deceased is (or was) one Renee Good. Early reports indicate she was married to one Timothy Macklin, a professional comedian who died in 2023. Renee Good has a six year old son with her deceased husband. Since then she has been in a lesbian relationship with Rebecca Good, while also still a mother with that son and two other children. It has also been revealed she had a prior marriage to another man before being maried to Macklin, with whom she had two children that she does not have custody of.

Her Instagram was made private just as her name was released to the public. It is unclear at this time what age those children are and with whom they were conceived. So far very little has been archived from that social media account, although her profile description signals white leftist woman of middle class affluence, replete with the customizable pronouns that are both an affront to sound grammatical principles as well as cold, hard biological reality. More will be revealed about Renee Good in the coming days, weeks, and months, but it is interesting how a widow who had been married to a man for sometime (how much time is not yet known) and then decides she is a lesbian. Just as this indicates, at least for women, that homosexuality or more particularly lesbianism is not a born condition, it also suggests a concerted effort by Good to achieve some sort of ranking in the progressive stack, as so many millions of others do and have done. A “cis white woman’ cannot be a woman of color, but she can be lesbian, or gender fluid, or non-binary, replete with rainbow flags and stupid, customizable pronouns.

There should be little controversy that the ICE agent had both an objective and subjective fear for his life. A motor vehicle is obviously a deadly vehicle in such circumstances, even in Minnesota. These elements together indicate the ICE agent will succeed on grounds of self-defense, a perfect defense for manslaughter and murder charges. And yet many of the left have concluded it was not a justified shooting.

Such delusion is compounded not only by Minnesota politics, but the politicians in charge there. First and foremost, Keith “Blackie” Ellison is still the attorney general of Minnesota. Readers will of course remember his role in the Derek Chauvin fiasco, the powder keg from which the Black Lives Matter and “St. George” riots exploded in 2020, as well as all various other troubles from that time period. Chauvin was denied a fair trial, as his conviction was an all but foregone conclusion. All of his colleagues were tried and convicted as well, as their careers in law enforcement and indeed lives have been ruined. Then there is Mayor Jacob Frey, an effeminate Jew who also played his own particular role in the events of 2020 and beyond.

Tim Walz, despite not running for a third term in the wake of the Somali daycare fraud scandal that tallies untold billions of misappropriated governor funds, has not yet resigned, although often such announcements are a precursor to resignation. They should of course be a precursor to a federal indictment and subsequent conviction with stiff sentencing. Be that as it may, he is still governor of Minnesota, and his press conference later that day, January 7, expressly signaled open defiance of federal authority by way of ICE and the federal enforcement of immigration laws. In that press conference, Walz stated that he has “issued a warning order to prepare the Minnesota National Guard” in response to ICE’s presence and the shooting incident that occurred today. This is not (yet) a deployment of the National Guard to obstruct federal enforcement of immigration laws, but is a precursor to it. This announcement was tempered by qualifying language that seeks to temper the gravity of this decision. One such example is found in this excerpt:

In this warning order, there’s nothing officially been done yet. If I am to activate them as the commander-in-chief of the Minnesota National Guard, I will issue the executive order... In this case, again, it doesn’t necessarily change the mission. They’re there to protect Minnesotans.

Such tempering language was enflamed with his closing remarks that urge defiance of federal authority on this matter.

To Minnesotans... do not take the bait. Do not allow them to deploy federal troops into here. Do not allow them to invoke the Insurrection Act. Do not allow them to declare martial law. Do not allow them to lie about the security and the decency of this state.

He also made a comment certifying that any potential deployment of the National Guard and the Minnesota State patrol is to intervene against federal action, denoted by the loaded term “rogue federal agent.”

And you can be assured whether it’s the state patrol or whether it’s the national guard, their deployment is there to protect Minnesotans from whatever it is. if it’s an act of nature, um if it’s a global pandemic, or in this case, um if it is a rogue federal agent.

Jack Posobiec and other influences and commentators have asserted such rhetoric as well as the comments by Mayor Frey are sedition and grounds for Trump to invoke The Insurrection Act. Whether Trump will do just that of course remains to be seen, just as it remains to be seen whether this shooting will serve as the catalyst for something similar to the unrest and upheaval, the rioting, destruction and lawlessness, in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

What should be clear, what should have been clear to a critical mass of the populace long ago, is that these are not disagreements contemplated in the social contract inherent in a democratic republic. The ability and legitimacy of a state to protect its borders and enforce reasonable immigration laws is not something reasonable minds can disagree on. This goes to first principles, similar to opposition to pedophilia, or human sacrifice, or any other matters on which there simply can be no debate, no room for disagreement. That such matters do go to first principles is demonstrated by how such policies embraced by the left will lead to unimaginable hardship, an unending number social problems (crime, balkanization of society, increased stress and even overwhelming burden on social welfare programs, housing shortage, the list goes on and on). Such mad folly as embraced by the “no borders, no human is illegal” mindset will lead to civilizational ruin, and will do so with absolute, mathematical certainty. For this reason, and many others, those who believe as Renee Good did as well as a large contingent of the population that embrace her politics and ideology must not be allowed to vote, must not be allowed to have political power. This is just as evident as the fact that, once power has been regained and consolidated, the left will remove those who disagree with their civilization-destroying delirium from power. One side will win, and one side will lose. However, the longer those opposed to the left do not discern this fundamental truth, the greater the likelihood the left will ultimately prevail, with unfathomable consequences for those who rightly oppose the maddest delirium of leftist politics and indeed for European civilization and its posterity.

Share

PLEASE NOTE the eventual success or failure of this endeavor depends in large part on reader support and collaboration. Readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription in consideration of the time and labor expended to write and publish these texts. Readers who enjoy this essay are also asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and to share any essays they find particularly insightful or informative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

As most readers are doubtlessly well aware, the first day of the Turning Point Convention on December 18-19, 2025 was a notable event for the way that Erika Kirk and above all Ben Shapiro made spectacles of themselves.

Watching Shapiro in particular was a most unenviable task. Concentrating on his speech is made all the more difficult because of the intrusive but utterly correct utterance from any sensible internal monologue: “how do you do, fellow whites?” That spectacle, replete with a devastating confrontation about the USS Liberty in the question and answer portion, was overshadowed by Tucker Carlson’s speech. Shapiro of course denounced Tucker Carlson for not in turn denouncing Candace Owens and more particularly for daring to have Darryl Cooper aka Martyrmade and above all Nick Fuentes on as guests. Shapiro’s speech seems part of a desperate bid to counteract the discrediting that has occurred over the past few weeks. Time will tell if it reverses that trend, but so far things seem to be turning against the Israeli shill. The very next evening, Steve Bannon skewered both Shapiro and America being beholden to Israeli and Jewish interests, culminating with the declaration that “Ben Shapiro is like a cancer that metastasizes.” Megyn Kelly then lambasted Shapiro in a sit-down with Jack Posobiec, even stating she no longer considers Shapiro a friend.

While Shapiro’s bold provocations and the reaction to it are certainly interesting, comments by Tucker Carlson are likely of far greater interest to this publication and its readers for various reasons, above all because this speech was part and parcel of Carlson’s propensity to hedge controversial comments with statements that negate, qualify, or “backpedal” from these statements, either in the same presentation or in the context of recent statements and presentations. Carlson’s speech is of course in the context of having the guests that Shapiro denounced, as well as the interview with Piers Morgan for which the foppish British twit has been rightly excoriated, including—among many other things—forsaking his nation and its posterity “for a good curry:” a particularly contemptible utterance for many different reasons, not least of which that curry of course originated from Britain and because, as Rowan Atkinson quipped in a famous skit, “now that we [have] the recipes, is there really any reason for them to stay?”

Carlson begins with a stern rebuke of Shapiro’s comments. His reproach of Shapiro’s denunciation of Carlson reads in pertinent part:

I watched [Shapiro’s speech]. I laughed. I laughed. that kind of bitter sardonic laugh that emerges from you and like upside down world arrives when your dog starts doing your taxes and you’re like, “Wait, it’s not supposed to work this way.” To hear calls for. . . DEPLATFORMING AND DENOUNCING PEOPLE AT A CHARLIE KIRK EVENT. . . “WHAT? This is hilarious.” [laughter] Yeah, this is hilarious.

That Carlson laughed at Shapiro (both as he delivered his comments and in the account of his immediate reaction) cannot be emphasized enough. Carlson commented further, urging that Shapiro’s rant was antithetical to what Charlie Kirk himself stood for:

I really thought that the impulse to deplatform people or even to use the word platform as a verb, which it’s not. It’s a noun. Don’t steal my nouns. Deplatform and denounce. Why haven’t you denounced somebody else? The whole. . .. red guard cultural revolution thing that we so hated and feared on the left that we did everything we could to usher in a new time where you could have an actual debate. I mean, this kind of was the whole point of Charlie Kirk’s public life. . . . I think that he died for it. I really believe that.

After this brief foray, Carlson focuses much of his attention mitigating or even disclaiming earlier sentiments in past presentations discussed above and doubtlessly others as well. These comments operate from the basic underlying “universal principle” against “hating” people for how they were born, that “it is immoral to hate people for how they were born.” These comments admonish against “hating everyone in a group.” He stressed that it is immoral to punish a people for crimes individuals in that group did not commit. He even asserts that this is a commandment under the Christian religion and morality: “[Y]ou are prohibited by. . . Christianity from hating people for how they were born because God created them with his spark in his image because they have souls.”

From these other assertions he condemned so-called “Islamophobia” and antisemitism. He did however use these admonitions as a vehicle to condemn prejudice and discrimination against white males, particularly in relation to college admissions practices and even hiring practices in recent years and even over the past several decades. As important as this message is, it is needlessly hampered, neutered even by talk about this supposed universal principle discussed above. Carlson unequivocally denounces (in this speech and elsewhere) in-group preferences for whites, a necessary ethos to protect white, European posterity for the evils he confronted Piers Morgan about as just one example. It is impossible, for example, to rectify and prevent The Great Replacement in Britain and Europe in any meaningful way without measures such as remigration which necessarily entails enacting policy based on group identity.

Carlson of course buttressed such rhetoric by absurd off-the-shelf appeals to civic nationalism. Such appeals include the ridiculous assertion that “Most Americans have more in common” than they do not, a demonstrably false assertion. He also asserted that racially conscious commentary should be denounced because “they are trying to divide the country,” a mindless slogan about as stupid as “The Democrats are the real racists.” None of this should be persuasive to anyone, but the crowd reaction suggests otherwise.

Many of these assertions and contentions require the firmest, most vehement repudiation, even as so much of this counterproductive rhetoric relies heavily on various norms and mores deeply embedded in the American tradition and traditional mainstream conservatism more particularly. To some limited extent, judging individuals as such is fine as far as it goes (not far at all, really). Such musings notwithstanding, to only judge individuals only as individuals without looking at the larger picture from the collective whole is to embrace willful ignorance at its worst. No society can function without making group judgment based on various criteria that define a group. Consider for example age requirements for things like driving, voting, and what not. There are doubtlessly youngsters under 16 who possess the maturity, skill, and even height necessary to drive responsibly and safely, and yet society nonetheless operates on a rule requiring an age of 16 because those youngsters who defy this general rule are outliers. Up until recently, society correctly precluded women from traditional male roles such as combat duty in the military, on-the-beat law enforcement and so on because humanity is a sexually dimorphic species and is so despite certain outliers such as women like Brigitte Nielsen being 6’1 that defy, to some limited extent, general differences between the sexes such as strength and height. There are black individuals who defy certain trends, such as an aggregate, collective IQ gap between one-to-two standard deviations, or who defy the collective racial resentment, even racial hatred that defines much of the black populace, or who are not part of “a racial commitment to crime” that characterizes and defines wild overrepresentation of blacks in crime statistics. The existence of such individuals—who are indeed outliers—does not negate the overall trend that defines a majority of the black population. Nor does it give cause to ignore these overall trends or to refrain from policy considerations based on these trends.

In very real, important ways, Carlson deludes himself and his audience by insisting that we are all just individuals. Innate characteristics that are inherent to any individual, most particularly race, matter a great deal. Differences in race are real—they are not just a social construct—just as race is a core, fundamental component of culture, identity, and any cohesive polity defined by common race, language, and history.

External factors such as cultural milieu, religious upbringing, and myriad others further dispel such naïve notions about individual autonomy. Even a cursory review of history and human nature demonstrates that individuals are profoundly determined and influenced by a variety of external factors, including the time and circumstance one is born into, just as they are influenced by what others do in a variety of ways that one can scarcely fathom. Consider as just one example that people often mimic what others do. This is reflected in various phenomena associated with social contagion, from suicide clusters, to transgender nuttery and bulimia rubbing off on a small group of individuals to others, to how a married couple is far more likely to divorce if other couples in the same social circle have divorced or are considering divorce. There are other phenomena, such as the “mere exposure effect,” which dictates that a critical mass of people will like music, cinema, and other expressions of culture merely due to exposure to these cultural expressions.

Carlson makes an even worse error, conflating in-group preference for hatred and asserting that whites advancing white, European interests on a collective basis—that is, having an in-group preference at all—is tantamount to hating individuals in a different group. Implicit in this statement is the absurd idea that such supposed hatred or what might be better described as animus in the context of very legitimate grievances is hatred for each and every individual in that group. Doubtlessly, more and more whites are harboring animus for other groups, and not without good reason. “Black fatigue” is real, and the phrase (as well as a more virulent variant with one racial epithet in particular) has become a familiar adage in Internet parlance for very good reasons: namely, that whites have legitimate grievances about the black collective, involving wildly disparate black involvement in violent and other forms of crime, the racial resentment if not ancient hatred that a critical mass of blacks harbor against whites, and a whole host of other grievances that render black people as a collective irredeemable and incompatible with white society. The same principle applies to Pakistanis, Indians, and other imposters and their role in the reverse colonization of the British Isles and the columns of black and brown hordes in Germany and Europe at large who have no right to even set foot on the sacred continent, let alone seek “refuge” there. A person can rightly hold very negative views about these and other groups collectively while still acknowledging there are outliers to these groups. That there are outliers to these trends, as there are for almost any phenomenon under the sun, does not negate the requirement for collective action, nor does it negate sensible observations and conclusions about the group as a whole. To save British and European posterity will require remigration and resettlement of all such imposters, or at least the vast majority of them. And this is true even if some of them are otherwise nice and decent people. The number of decent, upstanding black individuals does not negate the overall general trend at hand, easily observed and reinforced through centuries of experience and history, that the multiracial experiment has failed, is doomed to fail, and that there are irreconcilable differences between whites and blacks that cannot be solved except by divorce and separation, preferably on a mutually amicable basis.

These and other such utterances, including how Carlson stupidly deflated his confrontation with Piers Morgan about The Great Replacement with silly, pointless disclaimers that he likes Pakistanis and there are many nice individuals who are part of this or that group, demonstrates once again that figures like Carlson are of limited utility. Although some insist they serve no purpose, writings and presentations such as those by Tucker Carlson can be used to help persuade others on those matters they get right, leaving the work of others to explain how and why this sort of senseless pandering and equivocation is wrong. The principal utility of figures like Carlson is that they have helped normalize formerly scandalous topics like anti-white discrimination, The Great Replacement, and other topics that Carlson himself has emphasized but that were taboo even a couple short years ago. That utility must however be harnessed in a way that is separated and bifurcated from these sorts of cowardly, simplistic, and self-defeating qualifications and other sorts of “back-pedaling.”

This unfortunate propensity to backpedal—in comparison and contrast to more sensible utterances—again demonstrates how essential the vital faculties of reason, discernment and discrimination are. Ultimately, to what extent Tucker Carlson will be a net benefit by interviewing figures like Darryl Cooper or even the somewhat unsavory Nick Fuentes will depend on to what extent the larger audience possesses and utilizes these faculties, or more particularly how writers, streamers, and other thought leaders use these faculties and then apply them in any discussion or analysis about events like these. These faculties, used in concert, allow both the individual and a group to discern that Carlson’s denunciation of evils such as The Great Replacement anti-white discrimination, and even his repudiation of Ben Shapiro’s naked Zionism are laudable, but are of limited utility unless such pointless and counterproductive qualifications such as those discussed above are discarded and repudiated outright. The application of these essential faculties in turn allow both the individual and the white collective to discern that such comments against in-group preference, appeals that we are“all God’s children,” admonitions that people can only be judged as individuals are both preposterous and harmful. This underscores the vital role the new populist right has in highlighting when figures like Tucker Carlson “get it right,” while also undertaking the most vital task of arguing and persuading how and why this backpedaling could not be more erroneous or harmful.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: the eventual success or failure of this endeavor depends in large part on reader support and collaboration. readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription in consideration of the time and labor expended to write and publish these texts. Readers who enjoy this essay are also asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor. It is also important share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

A Poison Pill? A Grotesque, Repulsive Figure Achieves Prominence and Influence

Recent appearances on both Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan have propelled Nick Fuentes into a state of seemingly intractable prominence and influence. Somewhat suspiciously, this has coincided with a surge in coverage in mainstream outlets that is far less vitriolic than one might expect. Many opposed to the left and Jewish power and influence regard this as a most positive development. However, a cursory review of Fuentes’ rhetoric and personal life reveal that this is almost certainly a long-term liability, and may even prove to have devastating repercussions in the short-term as well. Indeed, many details of Nick Fuentes at least suggest the possibility (if not probability) of a black propaganda campaign. If he is not part of such a campaign, he might as well be.

For those unaware, black propaganda is the most devious and arguably most sophisticated form of propaganda. A black propaganda campaign discredits ideological opposition, enemy of the state, or other target by propping up a speaker or entity that appears to represent the target of that campaign, but in fact serves to discredit or harm the target in any number of ways.1 To the public at large, the mouthpiece appears to speak on behalf of fascism, communism, or whatever person or entity is targeted by the black propaganda campaign, but the mouthpiece is in fact crafted and choreographed in a way that is ultimately discrediting or damaging, or galvanizes the populace against the target in some other way. This is done while carefully concealing the actual source of the propaganda effort.

Black propaganda is closely associated with another form of discreditation known colloquially as “nutpicking.” “Nutpicking” describes the phenomenon whereby media outlets and sophisticated but subversive content creators will specifically curate representatives of a disfavored ideology or point of view with a specific intent and design to choose persons and groups that will discredit the point of view these entities express or avow. Whether fairly or unfairly, this explains why for a long time David Duke was chosen by mainstream media outlets. Regardless of how persuasive or articulate he may be to those of a more radical persuasion, he was—fairly or unfairly—off-putting and discrediting to a critical mass of the public at large. This also explains why such outlets shy away from figures like Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald2; they know these and other figures will be remarkably persuasive for their dissident views. This same phenomenon explains the sorts who would appear on various tv tabloid daytime talk shows, from Geraldo Rivera, to Jerry Springer, from Ricki Lake to Sally Jessy Raphael. Very often the subjects of such “nutpicking” campaigns were and are discrediting. Other times otherwise articulate and sensible persons are set up by unfair, unscrupulous, and deceptive tactics to make them appear discrediting to the public at large. Interestingly, absent perfect information as to the true nature of such subjects, even the most sophisticated will sometimes be unsure if a subject is part of a black propaganda campaign, or is acting in good faith and pure intentions but has been made the target of this “nutpicking” method of manipulation and propaganda.3

Whether Fuentes is in fact part of a black propaganda campaign or is simply the latest exemplar of this nutpicking method of manipulation and deception is impossible to determine, both at this time and most likely into the future. Even so, the number of liabilities that Fuentes suffers from are staggering and should be of grave concern to any sensible person. Incredulously, far too few are regarding this matter with the caution or trepidation these and other considerations warrant.

Despite the fervent temperament of his many supporters, Nick Fuentes, particularly given his recent rise to prominence, does indeed invoke these very problems associated with both black propaganda campaigns and this “nutpicking” method. The general consensus of his appearance on Piers Morgan is that legacy media lauds Morgan’s performance as a devastating expose of Fuentes’ racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, so on and so forth: some of this may be sincere, but much of it fits the mold of the lying press, die Lügenpresse. Much of right-wing social media takes the opposite view, that Fuentes made an ass of Piers Morgan. That is largely true, but Fuentes nonetheless revealed many of the liabilities and flaws that render him both undesirable and a long-term and possibly even short-term risk as well. As just one example, Fuentes embarrassed Morgan in response to the stupid argument that school shootings somehow discredit charges about the wild overrepresentation of black perpetrators in violent crime. Fuentes' retort asking in disbelief whether Morgan actually does not understand “per capita” or is “just playing dumb” was similarly devastating. Fuentes also remained steadfast in the face of the ridiculous clip by Daniel Finkelstein cawing about “me mum and pa,” a moment which has since made “Danny the Fink” an object of ridicule on Twitter and other venues. Fuentes is to be lauded for insisting that emotional manipulation regarding the Holocaust does not work on him or his generation. It is nonetheless lamentable and a very bad harbinger that he has become the most renowned mouthpiece on these and other matters.

Certain moments in the interview require an examination of the overall context of Fuentes’ personal life. A particularly salient portion of the interview concerns Fuentes’ lack of romantic success and his celibacy, a matter on which he oscillated, stating it is voluntary at one moment in observation of his Catholic faith, while later admitting he was an “incel.”4 The manner in which Morgan attacked Fuentes has also been the subject of ridicule and criticism, as the foppish British twit confronted and insulted the firebrand because he “never got laid;” the salient portion of the transcript reads as follows:

Morgan: I mean, I know I’m the boomer. I know I’m the boomer here, but actually, you’re a 27 year-old dinosaur, aren’t you? Aren’t you, Nick Fuentes? All women. All women are annoying. All women grow old. They all get fat. Says the guy. Have you ever had sex?

Fuentes: No. Absolutely not.

Morgan: Wow. Says the guy who’s never got laid. Wow.

Fuentes: That’s the thing, though. You boomers, it’s always…

Morgan: Are you an expert in women given you never got laid?

Fuentes: Yeah, we’re going back to the stone age. You’re absolutely correct

To see and hear a 60 year-old man carry on in this manner, replete with the dated boomer expression “getting laid” is quite the spectacle, as it was one of those highlights for which Piers has been excoriated. Consider however the seemingly blithe assertion that this moment made both men look grotesque, irredeemable even.

“Incel” has of course become a go-to insult, most especially for women to ridicule and chastise men, very often men they know nothing about. Men of a particularly effeminate disposition, such as so-called “male feminists” and others of similar ilk, are also using the term with increasing frequency. Very often this term is thrown around in a way that reveals a staggering ignorance about the true dynamics of female sexual attraction. It is a lazy, off-the-shelf insult, similar to speculations about small penis size that a particularly vapid sort of woman as well as a certain sort of man blurt out as a mindless exhortation.

These qualifications notwithstanding, being a virgin at 27 is not a desirable state of affairs. It is a tried-and-true trope to make men an object of ridicule, a phenomenon exhibited throughout many portents of American popular culture (and classical literature as well). As just one example, virginity into young adulthood was one of the most common jokes aimed at the character Bud Bundy in the irreverent but somewhat intelligent Fox sit-com Married with Children: this among myriad other examples. As stated, Fuentes initially cited his Catholic faith. This is in tension with a later admission that he sees himself as an incel, noting that both “chads” and “incels” are in agreement concerning the appalling state of modern women and perhaps even the innate condition of womanhood universally.

This matter of course requires an examination and admonition of inflexible Christian morality, and Catholic prudery more precisely. As has been stated several times by this author, the reactionary right must embrace a balance between wanton sexual profligacy and hyper promiscuity on one hand and rigid, stodgy sexual prudery on the other. Hook-up culture, several iterations of the “slut generation,” which have in fact cascaded with increasing severity since the boomer generation, are to be condemned forcefully and unequivocally. Unworkable prudery is not the answer either, however.

The Christian ideal prohibiting sex before marriage is laudable to a small, limited degree, but requires a society and set of norms where young adults marry much younger than is currently the practice in the modern world: after high school or at the very least towards the end of the college years at the absolute latest. Society however is presently far removed from these norms. Lauding the Christian prohibition against sex before marriage with no consideration of or adaptation to these mitigating factors is thus foolhardy, just as it will repel far more people than it will attract. In relation to the sort of young men who are apt to support Nick Fuentes, known in Internet parlance as “groypers,” such rhetoric is less than helpful, particularly as there is no emphasis, to this author’s knowledge, to seek relationships when young men need to do so and at least aspire to defy the societal trend that delays marriage into the late 20s and throughout the 30s and beyond.

Such advice harms young men in other ways. Lack of sexual intimacy and romantic interludes guarantees personal neuroticism and engenders bitterness, frustration, and loneliness. More importantly, it renders future prospects of relationships and even marriage far more difficult than it would otherwise be. This vital consideration is revealed through a proper understanding of female sexual attraction, and the vital role social proof—also known as preselection—plays in female sexual desire and romantic interest. Men of course desire beautiful, attractive women, but beautiful, attractive women do not desire handsome men nearly as much as they desire men who are desired (or perceived to be desired) by other attractive, high-status women. Entertaining the maddest folly of prolonged, indefinite celibacy into one’s twenties and thirties is the kiss of death for most prospects of romantic interest and even marriage for precisely this reason. One can scarcely think of a greater liability to repel most women than this sort of intentional self-sabotage. In direct contravention to Fuentes’ boasting about being a 27-year-old virgin, a young man should develop romantic interests during those crucial adolescent years and young adulthood at the very least to obtain that social proof and to develop experience interacting with and courting interest from women. Once that window of opportunity is missed, women perceive—often intuitively—this lack of experience and the prospects for romantic success are compounded greatly in difficulty, often to a degree that can never be recovered from.

The will to sex, for lack of a better term, is part of the life force. Society must again achieve a state of affairs where young white men and women desire each other—sexually and romantically—with designs for certain carnal delights, while also tempered by a societal and individual emphasis on long-term, committed relationships, with an eye to marriage and child-rearing. Fuentes and the groyper movement are—to a very large degree—antithetical to this crucial directive, not just by propping up a celibate “weirdo” as a frontman, but in other ways that exacerbate the divide between the sexes.

Just before this moment in the interview, there was an even more telling admonition by Morgan in which he questioned whether Fuentes was gay. This was done as a lead-up to Fuentes’ alleged misogyny and declared celibacy (voluntary or involuntary). The relevant portion of the transcript reads as follows:

Just to clear up one of the many theories about you. I have no idea what the answer is and you haven’t got an answer. But are you actually attracted to women?

At an initial level this seems most directly related to the question of Fuentes’s celibacy and lack of romantic experience or success with women. Note however the phrase “many theories about.” This alludes to a greater context of—if not scandals—liabilities and embarrassments about Fuentes that have been documented in certain, undisclosed corners of the Internet. These matters further impugn Fuentes and implore caution that he is at best a long-term liability to any meaningful opposition to the left. First and foremost among these scandals is that Fuentes was caught having a browser window featuring tranny catboy pornography. This was followed by another incident in 2024 where a gay pornographic stream came on one venue, but not others, lending some credence to the hacking theory in that particular instance. He has also been associated with a particularly odious twink known as “Catboy Kami.” Consider also embarrassing rants like this video, insisting that gay sex is (somehow) not really sex. Another scandal of note concerns Fuentes being linked to a discord server in 2018 that included a “Catbois” channel featuring sexualized animations of underage boys. This vile genre is known as shotacon.

Apologists and defenders of Fuentes have rationalized these and other scandals in various ways. Some insist the window tab with catboy tranny pornography in 2022 was due to some sophisticated hacking. Particularly in relation to the 2022 incident, such rationalizations should be utterly unpersuasive to most readers. For his part, Morgan could have redeemed himself to some limited degree if he brought up these and other matters, but such unpleasant topics doubtlessly offend his politically correct sensibilities. After all, the man who forsakes his posterity and phenotype with glee for a good curry would never want to be accused of homophobia or intolerance of such sexual deviancy.

The Black Propaganda Theory

These and other liabilities should fill anyone opposed to the left with alarm and consternation. Far too few however heed such calls. At the outset, persuading others of the validity of such concerns requires some sort of explanation how Fuentes could possibly be part of a black propaganda campaign or, alternatively, the “nutpicking” method of discreditation described above. Why would the ruling class prop up a figure like Fuentes, particularly as his efforts have been so successful in rallying core opposition to liberal orthodoxy among a critical mass of young men?

There are certainly problems with the black propaganda theory5, and readers should not necessarily be persuaded by these theories, at least not conclusively. Consider however one plausible theory that, if not entirely probable, is at least plausible and sensible. Despite being backed by unimaginably wealthy and powerful interests, woke ideology has, for the moment, faltered in much of the public consciousness. Public opinion has, at least for the time being, turned against much of the transgender menace, although conservative opposition was meek and ineffectual, rendering a process that took a decade when it should have been over very quickly. Public opinion has also largely turned against the Black Lives Matter movement, just as a critical mass of whites are yielding to what many amusingly refer to as “black fatigue,” although often with a different, much more evocative epithet.

If the backlash against leftist woke ideology is an inevitable certainty, as the pendulum always swings back and forth in modern, liberal democracies, those powerful interests beholden to such ideology would be well advised to contain such backlash, isolate it in a controlled, confined space with fatal flaws already built into its very framework. This theory discerns Fuentes as a prophylactic measure to prevent effective opposition from gaining prominence, one without so many flaws and embarrassing liabilities. More importantly, the tremendous flaws built into Fuentes’ personage allow for controlled demolition to undercut and neutralize the backlash against leftist orthodoxy once these and other liabilities come to a head, as they inevitably will.

The Fuentes phenomenon serves other purposes as well. As Lipton Matthews has articulated, Fuentes is “the perfect villain for liberal audiences—too unserious to threaten power, yet outrageous enough to fuel outrage clicks.” In this way, “the dissident right loses credibility” with Fuentes’ rise, as does any opposition to the left more generally. Consider for example Kevin MacDonald’s criticism of Fuentes’ simplistic denunciation of the Jews as a group. MacDonald writes the following regarding Fuentes’ statements on Tucker Carlson’s podcast:

Tucker seems to be implying that we should only talk about the Jews as individuals, never as a group — “the Jews,” implying that by referring to the Jews, Fuentes is putting all Jews in the same basket. This is the wrong way to think about it. Of course, one can’t put all Jews in the same basket, implying that all are on the same page on anything. Who says that?? You can’t think of Stephen Miller like you think of Jonathan Greenblatt.

And yet Fuentes makes these and other errors with his simplistic dogma. MacDonald elaborates further on the intellectual approach that must be articulated both to understand the Jewish Question intelligently and to articulate the matter in a way that will be both persuasive and working from a sound intellectual basis. That sound intellectual approach requires an acknowledgment and embrace of a “middle ground that acknowledges that Jews should be judged as individuals, but that it also makes sense to talk about Jewish power as the consequence of the activism of particular Jews acting in particular influential groups.” MacDonald elaborates further:

The question that must be asked is: How much power do groups of activist Jews have, where is Jewish power directed, and which Jews are behind that power? The ADL and the Israel Lobby, along with the massively organized Jewish community are creations of the mainstream Jewish community.

This is just one example where Fuentes’ arguments and rhetoric seem to have implosion built in by design, crafted with weak points built into the framework, a consideration which bolsters the designed-for-controlled-demolition theory. Beyond that, this and similarly crude and intellectually lazy rhetoric likely galvanizes and rallies leftist elements to a much greater extent than the amount of support he garners.

Just as Fuentes lacks intellectual depth, which Matthews, MacDonald, and others have documented at length, he further fractures and balkanizes the opposition to the left with his antics while causing harm in other ways as well. His rhetoric further propels young women to the left, a demographic the right needs and that European civilization and its diaspora need for demographic and societal recovery and to restore equilibrium in the sexual marketplace. This is all the more damning in view of the P.J. O’Rourke “hot chick theory” of politics, which dictates that, particularly in American society, the success of any political, cultural, or ideological movement requires some contingent of attractive young women in its ranks.6 This is compounded by some order of magnitude with his propensity to routinely attack any contingent that does not fall lockstep into the “Tradcath” mold: a remarkably small and rigid enclave that can provide no basis for widespread opposition to the democrats and the left. A disruptive, trollish figure who sows discord and acrimony among a tenuous coalition is a veritable godsend for those interests that want to see such opposition fail.

For now, this is just a theory as to why the ruling class would prop up Nick Fuentes either as a black propaganda campaign or, alternatively, as part of the “nutpicking” method of discreditation. It should be noted in passing his involvement in both Charlottesville and January 6 curiously has not entailed the sort of dire consequences many others, even most others have faced. Andrew Anglin has noted his association with Chuck Johnson, who Anglin asserts is an informant with the FBI or other federal agency. Whether he is ever in fact proven to be part of such a black propaganda campaign is somewhat tangential. Above all else, the staggering liabilities and flaws recounted above (and many others besides) should properly be seen with grave consternation and concern precisely because these flaws and liabilities seem made-to-order for both black propaganda and “nutpicking.” This in turn reveals a crucial blind spot among many opposed to the left that fails to discern these liabilities or how such a grotesque figure is seen by others who are not already convinced of the limited number of sensible positions he purports to advance. If he is not part of a black propaganda campaign, he nonetheless has many if not all of the harmful effects of such a campaign. These and other considerations implore the necessity to find true thought leaders capable of supplanting him before he permanently and irreparably discredits and harms burgeoning opposition to the left.

Share

IMPORTANT: given the controversial nature of this essay and the particular zeal and at times obnoxious manner with which many supporters of Nick Fuentes conduct themselves, readers of this essay in particular are urged to familiarize themselves with this publication’s somewhat more stringent comment policy, if they have not already done so. Trolling, abusive commentary, and other such antics will not be tolerated, nor will screeds that indicate that the person either did not read the essay or did so with little care. Finally, if a response by this author or others has been entered to any dissent, get off the merry-go-round. See rule five.

PLEASE ALSO NOTE: the eventual success or failure of this endeavor depends in large part on reader support and collaboration. readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription in consideration of the time and labor expended to write and publish these texts. Readers who enjoy this essay are also asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor. It is also important share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Author’s note: this story is developing. Accordingly, revisions and expansions to this piece are likely.

Another racial incident invoking cancel culture has arisen, with many similarities reminiscent of the Shiloh Hendrix matter. Just as in the Hendrix matter, the instigators were Somalis. Rather than Minnesota, this occurred in a suburb of Green Bay, Wisconsin, called Ashwaubenon. As with the Hendrix matter, the video starts midway during some altercation, leaving out key context as to what ultimately instigated the incident in question. The instigators allege that Wilsey insulted the woman’s hijab, but critical readers should be doubtful.

The 29 second clip shows a Cinnabon employee, soon identified as Crystal Wilsey, calling the instigators “n*ggers” as she then confirms “I am racist.” Insults and provocations are exchanged on both sides, with the Somalian man chiding Wilsey by stating in less-than-optimal English “you are fired from this place, mother fucker.” Before that, his female companion taunts her stating in even worse English “you ruin your life by the way.” In response, Wilsey exclaims “suck it” while brandishing two middle fingers. It stands to reason this was a sort of resignation by the most incendiary, outrageous gesture possible.

Leftist rabble have of course expressed the usual demonstrative outrage, demanding she be fired from a dead-end food service job, which Cinnabon promptly obliged. There is coverage in at least one local news outlet, and the matter is featured in the “recommended” tab of Twitter for this account holder.

Can reasonable minds object to vulgar, rude behavior, especially those working in the service industry? Of course. It is also the case that a brief perusal of Wilsey’s social media accounts paints the picture of someone fairly rough around the edges. None of this should matter though.

Wilsey is not being chastised or denounced for being rude or even profane to customers; that happens everyday in America, and has for some time, very often without any repercussions whatsoever. As in all instances, this is about race and more particularly that Wilsey is a disenfranchised white person and her instigators are blacks, Somalis even. More crucially, this matter is really about how the left has been allowed to set the terms of discourse and to dictate what is acceptable, and what is unacceptable and what is deviant. That state of affairs has arisen because mainstream conservatism is so feckless, so ineffectual. As before, the left is learning they are no longer contending with garden-variety, pushover conservatism, but something much more potent, much more dynamic, and not so defined by cowardice.

In precisely the same manner as the Shiloh Hendrix matter, it is clear any effective opposition to the left must not permit them to carry on with these tactics. It is for this reason that Tom Hennessy has started a GiveSendGo campaign, which Lilly Gaddis and others have promoted. As before, the purpose of contributing to or supporting this campaign is not to endorse rude or even profane behavior, it is to disincentivize this ritual of the leftist witch hunt of personal destruction of those they deem unsavory or objectionable. Since leftist pigs have not learned the lesson from the Shiloh Hendrix affair, Wilsey must be rewarded in such a way to neutralize and eclipse this witch hunt. And that strategy must continue until it is widely perceived by a critical mass of leftist pigs that this is a likely if not probable outcome for any such Internet lynch mob going forward.

This supersedes any reservation about Wilsey’s lack of bedside manner or other personal flaws. This is particularly so given the way these Somali individuals gloat about “ruining your life.” Foreign and indeed racial imposters who really have no right to be here and especially have no right to set foot on the sacred continent of Europe, continue to strut around, looking for opportunities to destroy anyone who dares insult them, and acting in all manner of ways inconsistent with being a guest and outsider in another’s country. A Somali advocacy group even gloated that “Anti-Somali rhetoric will cost you.” This is likely a parody account, but the tweet in question closely mirrors the rhetoric and attitude of these interlopers. The dissident, populist right understands why it is imperative that such shocking hubris be counteracted by all means necessary, effective, and available. This demonstrates once again how dynamic the hard, populist right is, and how it shows so much promise to succeed in the wake of conservatism’s abject failure.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: the eventual success or failure of this endeavor depends in large part on reader support and collaboration. readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription in consideration of the time and labor expended to write and publish these texts. Readers who enjoy this essay are also asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor. It is also important share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

In the middle of November, 2025, the United States Coast Guard published a new set of regulations concerning harassment and disparate treatment of so-called protected classes. The regulations were set to take effect early next year. The Washington Post took notice of these new regulations and the revisions and changes they would implement, and instigated much controversy surrounding the discarding of language classifying the Confederate banner, swastika, and a noose as “hate symbols.” Rather than labelling these and other expressions as “hate symbols,” the new regulations classified these as “potentially divisive symbols.” The left was apoplectic. It did not matter that the regulations dictated that commanding officers “shall investigate” such instances and direct their removal if they adversely affect unit moral and cohesion. Few took notice of the very high standard required for an offending display not to be subject to removal or discipline, namely when the display “exists for an unquestionably legitimate purpose.” Displays that are an incidental component of any a particular medium or are for “education or historical purposes are cited as instances of “an unquestionably legitimate purpose.” Nor did a clarifying statement by the Coast Guard matter. The next day, the Coast Guard issued a new directive that again classified the swastika and other symbols as “hate symbols.”

Leftist hysterics regarding such matters should be of no surprise. Nor should there be any surprise that The Washington Post article specifically mentioned modern Germany’s censorship laws which effectively ban the swastika. The salient portion of the article reads as follows:

In Germany, public display of certain Nazi emblems, such as the swastika, is illegal and can be punished with a fine or imprisonment of up to three years. Exceptions are made if the symbols are used for educational, artistic, scientific or journalistic purposes.

Given that the article is about The United States Coast Guard and not about die Marine or even a military organization in Europe or even the United States Army and Air Force which lamentably possess bases and installations in Germany, the reference to Germany’s onerous censorship laws seems out of place. That is until readers discern that such reference is made with unmistakable approval. These laws were mentioned in the article as a proposition. The mention and description of these laws in a piece that has nothing to do with Germany or European censorship in the shadow of American hegemony serves the greater purpose of normalizing such laws to the American public, or at the very least the left-of-center and leftist readership that still reads The Washington Post. That elements in the left increasingly cite these and other laws requires a brief survey and examination of these laws, and their practical effect on everyday life not just in Germany, as some may foolishly suppose, but in The United States and indeed much of the modern world as well.

The law in question is found in Section 86 and 86a of the Strafgesetzbuch (The Federal Criminal Code). This law bans the public display of the swastika and other symbols. The pertinent portions of the criminal code in question impose criminal liability on any person or organization that ”domestically distributes or publicly uses” any symbol or expression identified in Section 86 or who “produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad.” Subsection (2) of §86 is perhaps the most unsettling, as it allows the Bundesrepublik to not only ban or censor historical symbols, but any “means of propaganda” by any organization it condemns as verboten. The pertinent language in subjection (2) extends such banning to any “an organization, which has been banned. . . because it is directed against the constitutional order or against the idea of international understanding, or as to which it has been determined. . . that it is a substitute organization of such a banned organization.”

While the origins, causes, and consequences of World War II differ from what has been taught in history class on both sides of the Atlantic, the regime in question certainly had its moral excesses. Given that the Allies and Soviets won and Germany lost, it is really no surprise that these and other provisions have been installed in the German puppet state. The Allies and Soviets are the good guys not out of any moral superiority but because they won and the Germans, sadly, lost. Such considerations notwithstanding, even those of a more radical persuasion would, with few, limited exceptions, regard the display of such symbols, the swastika in particular, to be counterproductive and even somewhat distasteful. These and other considerations render, at first blush, Section 86a to be less exceptional or disconcerting than it actually is in both theory and practice.

This law does far more than prohibit crude, Skinhead 1.0 types from marching in demonstrations with such banners and symbols. As set forth above, the law allows the German government to ban any “means of propaganda” it regards hostile to “democracy.” Despite allowing for exceptions in instances that “promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current or historical events or similar purposes,” the law has led to truly asinine results. Many of these results are however both intentioned and desired by the left.

It is because of this law and because video game developers do not want to be caught up in nettlesome legal battles in the German puppet state that practically all video games set in World War II do not have historically accurate flags and symbols. This is true even though German authorities have determined such symbols are allowed under the law, although subject to individual review. The range of games that have been so censored runs the gamut from the Close Combat series decades ago, to the Hearts of Iron series, most notably Hearts of Iron IV, to even the niche U-boat video game simply and unimaginatively titled “UBOAT,” a personal favorite of late. For the past several years since Steam became the major distributor of video games, this is remedied by way of a game’s workshop page, where players can download modifications, or “mods” in Internet parlance, that install historically accurate flags and other graphic components. Many of these modifications are provided with disclaimers that such offerings are not to be interpreted as an endorsement of any kind of “extreme ideology,” while others include an explicit denouncement of national socialist ideology and The Third Reich in particular. Before Steam was established, the effort to modify such games could be difficult and time consuming, requiring the player to download third party graphic modifications and install them manually, and do so in ways that do not interfere with the game’s checksum. Consider further that because Steam is based in the United States, any inroads the left makes on such matters increases the likelihood, possibly even the inevitability, that such modifications will one day be removed on these workshop pages at some point in the future. This could happen sooner rather than later.

This law has also had a dramatic effect in other hobbies and interests, one of them being fine scale military modelling. The Czech model manufacturer Eduard has released a line of model aircraft kits in 1:32 and 1:48 scale. Notably, decal sheets for these kits feature the swastika on the lower right edge of the decal sheet, above which is a dotted line. This is done so that kits sold and exported to Germany (and now other countries as well) can have this portion of the decal sheet removed. One novel innovation is for decal sheets to split the swastika in half, obliging the modeler to apply the decals in two steps. Applying decals can be a delicate, at times difficult process even without such complications. Aligning two halves of the “hacked cross” so that the lines are aligned in perfectly diagonal angles can be fraught with even greater difficulty. Other kit manufacturers simply omit such offending symbols altogether, requiring the modeler to obtain after-market decal sets or other accessories.

These laws have similarly affected model shows in Europe as well. A critical wrinkle in this law is that it is not illegal to build or own a fine-scale military model with offending symbols, although German citizens and expatriates living there can face fines and other sanctions for trying to import decals sets and the like. Customs officials in Germany will confiscate offending decal sheets and other after-market products upon inspection.

As most readers are probably well aware, historical subjects affected by this absurd law and its everyday effect in practice range from a wide spectrum of equipment and hardware. The most immediate subject affected by these regulations are models depicting the aircraft fielded by the Luftwaffe, which featured a swastika on the tail. Kriegsmarine ships flew the Reichsgriegsflagge as the swastika was also prominently displayed on the decks of the KMS Bismarck, KMS Prinz Eugen, and other capital ships. Panzers and other armored fighting vehicles were less apt to feature the swastika or other forbidden symbols, although they did by way of air recognition panels displayed on the back of the turret when the Luftwaffe had air supremacy. The 5^th SS Panzer Division “Wiking” did have a circular swastika as its unit emblem. The famous DAK symbol consisting of a palm tree and swastika is another example of AFV modelling being adversely affected by this law.

The range of subject matters of the German Armed Forces in World War II is thus not limited to a small number of subjects. As stated, while it is not illegal to build or own such models, it is however illegal to display them in public. This means for example a 1:350, museum quality build of The Bismarck is legal until someone opens the blinds and it is visible from outside. This same distinction explains why artefacts of the Third Reich are available for sale in antique shops and the like either with symbols dutifully covered up or in backrooms with no windows that are only accessible upon request and permission.

Moreover, a modeler who wishes to enter a scale model in a contest or model show must either cover up such offending symbols or only enter models that do not feature such symbols. Placing tape, a trimmed post-it note, or modeler’s putty on the surface of a model can mar the paint finish or even damage and destroy the markings. Ensigns such as the Reichskriegsflagge at 1:350 scale or even 1:72 scale for models of Type VII U-boats are typically rendered by placing decals on thin metal foil. Such renditions are remarkably delicate and do not lend themselves to post-it notes and other measures to cover offending symbols.

Of far greater detriment to the hobby, it is illegal to sell or export model kits and accessories with offending symbols in Germany, this even though historically accurate models should fit into the exception for “historic purposes.” Such items should also be exempt because a model can hardly be considered a “means of propaganda.” Such reasonable objections notwithstanding, the effect and practice of this law means much more than restricting display models of Luftwaffe planes and other subjects such as the Bismarck or Prinz Eugen in his home or other private setting, provided the display is not visible to the public. This after all presupposes he can even obtain details and other accoutrements in the first place. It also means that it is exceedingly difficult to execute such a build because the decals and other aftermarket accessories are restricted from import and sale in Germany.

Perhaps the most absurd episode of this law relates to the music of Death in June. As has been written about before, two Death in June albums are currently restricted in Germany: Brown Book and Roseclouds of Holocaust. In 2006, German authorities became aware of both the album Roseclouds of Holocaust and its title track, as well as the title track to Brown Book. The song “Brown Book” and on the 1991 CD compilation Cathedral of Tears features a choral rendition of The Horst Wessel Anthem. While the song may fool those who do not speak German or do not speak it with any degree of proficiency or even competency, Death in June frontman Douglas P.—real name Douglas Pearce—and others sing the anthem with a heavy Anglo accent, with many potatoes in his mouth, as Germans like to say in deriding Anglo and especially Anglo-American accents of those who speak the language with less than native-level fluency. “Brown Book” is also set at a much lower tempo than the actual Horst Wessel Anthem, something that would simply not have been tolerated by authorities at the time and would be frowned upon my many Hitler idolators today. Finally, “Brown Book” also features sound samples of dialogue from an obscure made for West-German-TV movie Die Welt in jenem Sommer (The World That Summer).” The female voice heard is the Jewish grandmother of a Hitler Youth in the movie who is torn between the fondness he has for the youth organization and finding out that his grandmother is Jewish. The spoken dialogue excerpted, set forth and analyzed in an upcoming essay “A Life Charmed Black: An Introduction and Retrospective of Death in June” compares the women’s impending doom to a young girl stranded on a river in war time, hopping from one ice float to another, until they melt and disappear and she drowns regardless. No actual Nazi, whatever that term is supposed to mean, or Hitler idolator would ever juxtapose the official anthem of the National Socialist party with such dialogue. Even so, such considerations were not enough to prevent German authorities from restricting this song and the entire album. Similar considerations apply to Roseclouds of Holocaust, the lyrics to which are nebulous, even non-sensical in part. Nothing in the lyrics certainly rises to the level of what could be fairly called a “means of propaganda.”

Playing video games as the Germans or building and displaying models depicting the hardware and weaponry of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS can arise from political or ideological leanings, but more often it does not. The same applies to the music of Death in June. Those opposed to Nazi ideology just as those who wholly buy into Siegerjustiz taught in schools should still oppose these laws for that very reason—because they create a society in which individuals cannot play World War II themed video games with historically correct flags, symbols, and other markings or build historically accurate models, just as they stupidly restrict renditions of The Horst Wessel anthem that are obviously subversive and disparaging to the anthem’s ideology in ways that would never have been tolerated by the regime in question.

Such considerations explain why the Coast Guard revised the regulations in question, reclassifying such symbols from being categorical “hate symbols” to “potentially divisive.” If either an enlisted man or officer is reading a book cover with the swastika, say for example vintage editions of Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer or the ridiculously slanted bit of allied propaganda The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shrier, would that be construed as a hate symbol requiring removal and discipline? What if a sailor, while not able to pursue fine scale military modelling while on duty, wants to read up on research of a pending model project and so has books on the specifications of The Focke Wulf 190 or the KMS Bismarck, replete with colorplates including naughty symbols?

Despite how they blather on about “nuance” as part of their markedly shallow NPC script, leftist elements, particularly those in mainstream journalism, do not want any such leeway or nuance. Although many may scoff at such hysterics by the left, this strategy demonstrates a superior understanding of both power and of the importance of setting the rules and parameters in discourse, in setting and defining what is deviant and acceptable in society. That superior understanding of both power and the process of normalizing and stigmatizing approved and disapproved behavior and expressions further explains why leftists erupt in such hysterics in relation to other displays of historic symbols, such as someone wearing an SS uniform of the period for Halloween. It also informs the concerted effort, sustained over years and even decades, for sports franchises like The Washington Redskins and The Cleveland Indians to abandon their teams’ names, just as it was monumental error to let these change their names without much greater protest and even boycott.

Legal sanctions are an enhanced, more robust form of social sanction, similar to how legal prohibitions against prostitution, gambling, and other vices stigmatized those who partook in such vices—a crucial consideration which informs against the folly of decriminalizing prostitution, gambling, and illicit drugs. This also explains why it was such a critical misstep for the Coast Guard to buckle a day later. It was imperative for the Coast Guard to have responded by submitting examples like the book cover to Shrier’s famous volume on The Third Reich, or even Dukes of Hazard paraphernalia showing Catherine Bach on top of the car “The General Lee” or other examples featuring the swastika or other symbols that even leftist swine would have to concede do not constitute hate symbols in these particular contexts, even if the left wants to ban swastikas and other symbols even from expressions and elements that unequivocally denounce or repudiate—without equivocation, subtlety, or nuance—both National Socialist ideology and The Third Reich in history.

As the Shiloh Hendrix controversy demonstrates, this requires counter measures of some sort, but it is precisely those very counter measures so sorely needed that mainstream conservatism or even MAGA is unable to provide. That certainly does not mean those opposed to the left should start marching with Nazi ensigns, or the Reichskriegsflagge, or even sport tattoos or clothing with such symbols. But it does mean that those opposed to the left should refuse to buckle to blanket proscriptions. An individual who wishes to play Hearts of Iron IV, UBOAT (the game) or other video games should make every effort to install modifications to play them with historically correct symbols. And such persons should post screenshots of game play featuring these symbols. If such screenshots are prohibited on a particular venue, as they are on the official Paradox game forum, post them in ways in which the symbols are conspicuously censored but in ways that register unmistakable protest and even ridicule. This pertains both to those decried as “Nazi sympathizers,” i.e. really those who have a critical although heretical understanding of the true origins, causes, and consequences of The Second World War, as well as more mainstream sorts who still believe the good guys won but regard such hysterics with consternation. Those who enjoy fine-scale military modelling and who have developed the skills to pursue the hobby with decent results should similarly build models of Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine and other subjects with historically accurate symbols, and more importantly display them without apology or hesitation. Even someone who loathes Dukes of Hazard as dumb-dumb mindrot from the television should be more disposed to acquiring and displaying memorabilia that feature the confederate banner on The General Lee for precisely the same purpose: tip the ball, disrupt the frequency, prevent the left from dictating the terms of discourse and the rules of engagement.

If the moral panic of the left further stigmatizes such symbols and the ideas they represent, any pushback negates such stigma to at least some notable degree. As explicated above, the left understands power, and understands the importance of normalizing assorted vices while stigmatizing and censoring what the left opposes. The only winning play is to defy and repudiate such restrictions to the furthest extent possible while still maintaining “good optics,” with some of the past-times and hobbies mentioned above being excellent examples. It is a colossal mistake however to buckle under and placate their demands, as such victories bring American society closer to the sorts of ridiculous restrictions that currently exist in occupied Germany but affect the lives of tens of millions in countless ways even now. In this way, the Coast Guard had a critical opportunity to disrupt the frequency promulgated by the left, and failed to seize on the opportunity in the usual, disappointing fashion. So long as the left is allowed to continue to define the terms of discourse and rules of engagement, and so long as the left decides what is appropriate and what is deviant in culture and society, the left will continue to enjoy an unabated path to dominance and power.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription. Readers who enjoy this essay are asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Readers of this publication and the public at large should be made aware that there seems to be a disconcerting trend in how Twitter—or as Elon Musk and others prefer, X—enforces and moderates its rules, or more particularly in relation to how it contends with posts or replies that have been reported for violating its rules. Two reply tweets by this author were recently reported or “detected by our systems” and erroneously found to be in violation of Twitter’s rules against so-called “hateful conduct.” That policy, as stipulated in the email notification informing account holders of a violations and elsewhere, reads as follows:

[An account holder] may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.

Critically, an earlier reply tweet with the same “together” meme was found to be in violation. However, the first instance was successfully appealed, as revealed in the screenshots below. That same meme was later posted in response to I Hypocrite’s call-in-show after yours truly had called in to denounce Erika Kirk’s nonsensical rhetoric about Christian forgiveness and her supposed decision to forgive Tyler Robinson, who has of course been arrested, detained, and charged as the suspect behind her late husband’s murder and assassination. On Thursday, October 9, 2025, this was found to have been in violation. Critically, a violation was found AND UPHELD, even though the exact same meme was found on appeal not to violate Twitter’s policies.

Last week another tweet reply was also found to be in violation, with two original memes by this author.

Whether the caption “Truth is not only racist, truth is racism itself,” “Shut up, black,” or both are violations is unclear. It is understood that more offensive racial epithets will lead to violations, but this suggests that any opinion that rejects conventional orthodoxies surrounding the multiracial delusion are vulnerable to reporting and censorship. This is particularly so given that blocked accounts are no longer prevented from viewing—and reporting—a person’s tweets or tweet replies, removing blocking of ideological enemies and others who wish a person harm as a prophylactic measure.

This author is not the only one to have been subjected to this sudden shift in moderation policy. Right-wing glamour puss and provocateur extraordinaire Blonde, aka Rebecca Hargraves, was also found to have been in violation. Her tweet was fairly inoffensive, innocuous even.

It is of note that her tweet expressed criticism and disdain for right-wing “grifters” who are beholden to Jewish and Israeli interests.

These and other similar actions are in direct and flagrant contravention of Elon Musk’s stated promise to reject heavy-handed censorship on this all important social media platform. That the same meme could be found not to be in violation and then later erroneously upheld as a violation in a different, subsequent tweet reply begets uncertainty among users as to what can be safely posted without fear of account suspension (temporary or permanent). Because the standards are so uncertain, this fosters self-censorship to ensure tweets and replies will not be vulnerable to such actions. It was that very self-censorship, what is known as a chilling effect in First Amendment jurisprudence, that made the Vijaye Gadde era of Twitter so tyrannical and dreadful.

Unfortunately, my twitter account is not yet big enough to get the sort of attention that could prompt corrective attention by Twitter executives or even Elon Musk himself. Hopefully, these and other accounts of abusive and inconsistent moderation and rule-enforcement will soon draw attention from personalities with larger followings so that these sorts of actions stop going forward. That process begins with the reading audience and the necessity of sharing and disseminating this article and other, similar accounts of abusive, erroneous, or inconsistent moderation as much as possible. In the meantime, the “together meme” will have the Star of David pixelated. It is reassuring to know that Judaism is subject to the same collective criticism and rebuke as other organized religions, just as atheism and agnosticism are, just as Islam is, and above all Christianity. Or that a race realist can derisively refer to blacks as “blackies” without fear of selective censorship, just as white-hating blacks are known to call us “whiteys.”

Share

PLEASE NOTE: readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription. Readers who enjoy this essay are asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Author’s note: the timely nature of this story, which is still unfolding, may warrant further revisions.

Details surrounding the upbringing of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in custody for the assassination of Charlie Kirk are still somewhat murky. It has been established, however, that his parents, Matt and Amber, were mainstream conservatives, MAGA if you will, and were practicing Mormons. Amber posted prolifically on her Facebook page bragging about her son’s achievements and milestones. More details will likely come forward in the coming days, weeks, and months, but readers can rest assured the peculiar case of Tyler Robinson is yet another case study on the omnipotence of cultural milieu and proof further that family and religion can only go so far. It is no more possible to insulate or shield one’s self, his family, or his children from the elements in the culture than it is to not breathe the air that surrounds us all.

As readers are doubtlessly well aware, Matt Robinson owned a construction firm. The father was contacted by his brother, Tyler’s uncle, noting that the young man looked a lot like the suspect. The father confronted the son, he confessed and stated he would rather commit suicide than be apprehended. The father had the son talk to a Mormon pastor who had some affiliation with law enforcement. A U.S. Marshall was contacted, and Tyler was apprehended and is in custody.

All indications are the Robinsons did everything right, or at least almost everything right; however, as stated, details are murky and still forthcoming. They were involved in the lives of their sons, especially Tyler if his mother’s Facebook activity is any indication. They raised their children with their religious and social values. Doug Andersen, a spokesperson for the church, told the New York Times that Tyler had become a member of the church “at a young age.” And yet, in spite of this, Tyler diverged sharply from his upbringing. On Friday, September 12, 2025, a classmate was reported as stating that, unlike his family, “Tyler was “pretty left on everything” and “the only member of his family that was “really leftist,” whereas “the rest of his family was very hard Republican.” The classmate indicated that at about 15-16, Tyler Robinson “became more vehement in his political beliefs.” This has since been edited out of “updated versions” of The Times article. Critical readers will discern that this classmate likely shared Tyler’s hard-left views and most likely recanted them in a poor effort to contain the damage this will do the left. The Wall Street Journal reports that it is clear that Tyler “lived much of life on internet,” even noting that “By age 15” his Halloween internet costume referenced a popular internet meme. There are other indications Tyler was quite active on Discord, including that he confessed to the crime on a private discord server.

As Tyler only attended college for a semester before dropping out and going to a technical school, the tired cliché that it is a mistake to allow one’s kids to attend college does not apply. He had already been radicalized far earlier. These and other considerations reveal how hollow mainstream conservative talking points about relying only on family and religion really are. Culture is inescapable. No matter how involved parents are, no matter how hard they try to “do the right thing,” they cannot remove their children from the elements in culture. This is most particularly true in adolescence and young adulthood. This in turn further bolsters this author’s conviction that if something is not done about the culture, the left will win, certainly in the long term, and quite possibly in the near short-term as well. It was always the most absurd folly to imagine that each and every family unit could wrap their children in proverbial bubble-wrap and audit every subversive or undesirable expression in the culture. If a son or daughter becomes enamored with rap music or some other loathsome element in the Unkultur in adolescence, push-back from parents is just as likely to cause youngsters to defy their parents and rebel that much harder. The same goes with race-mixing, Antifa politics, and, as recent developments show in this case, even transgender lunacy.

On Saturday, there was a bombshell of a development in this news story, revealing this case does implicate the menace of transgender lunacy. Tyler cohabited and was likely intimate with a so-called transgender person, Lance Twiggs, although they shared a three-bedroom apartment with three other men. One neighbor told journalists the individual in question has made the intention to “transition to a woman.” Ostensibly this means castration and mutilation of his penis to form a so-called neo-vagina. That Tyler was intimate and cohabited with a transgender does raise significant questions about the parents’ involvement in Tyler’s life. Did they know Tyler was intimate with a troon? Or did he think he was just one of four other roommates? Why would they not balk at the idea of five men living in a three-bedroom apartment?

Presuppose for the sake of argument that his parents knew about Lance Twiggs. Even if they did know and objected, the choices available to parents provide no assurances that they could persuade their son not to make these life choices. One option is to simply cut him off altogether. Their religious beliefs probably rendered such a “nuclear option” undesirable, coupled with the hope that there is always a chance to turn things around. On the other hand, expressing stern opposition or even attempts to “prohibit” their son from cohabiting or being intimate with Twiggs would likely intensify his resolve and bolster his affections. Another strategy is for the parents to patiently bide their time, waiting for a moment where Tyler is susceptible to their objections and then persuade him of the errors of his folly.

In many ways, cohabitation and intimacy with a transgender has some parallels with opposition to race-mixing, although transgender nuttery thankfully has not been rendered mainstream the way both homosexuality and race-mixing are. Among ANTIFA mutants like Tyler who have been radicalized on Reddit, Discord, and the like, there is no such distinction in their twisted minds. One should always be most hesitant to refer to American popular culture, better described as American Unkultur. However, a story line from season three of The Sopranos comes to mind, namely how Tony deals with his daughter Meadow’s fledgling love interest, Noah, a mongrel of black Jewish background. Tony engages in overtly aggressive intimidation, and it just drives her to him more. After a panic attack, the matriarch of the Sopranos, Carmela, warns him that his methods are just “driving her into his arms.” The dialogue reads as follows:

Carmela: If you didn't instigate things

Tony: I instigate?

Carmela: He's just a new friend,

Tony: you didn't see the way they were looking at each other:

Carmela: You want her to be with him, just keep it up. Keep playing the race card, you're gonna drive her right into his arms.

Tony: Not if I cut off those fucking arms.

Carmela: Stop it! Let me deal with it, if anybody's gonna deal with it. Make things worse with your bullshit, I'm gonna be really pissed.

This plot point is demonstrative of how little control parents have. There is a consensus in mainstream culture, particularly among the youth, that dating and fucking blacks (and mongrels) is cool and hip, racism is bad, and their daughter is of course susceptible to this. Such matters of course have only worsened since this season was first aired over twenty years ago. As the narrative of the season unfolds, the parents’ disapproval has little effect. Noah in fact deflowers Meadow, and they are intimate for some time. Her affection for Noah even renders her estranged from her father for quite a while as well, through Christmas break of her freshman year. The romance eventually peters out, but not due to her parent’s stern disapproval, at least not to any appreciable degree.

Readers can object that The Sopranos is fiction. This is true of course. But fiction, most especially literature but other interesting, insightful story-telling should not be so readily discounted. The purpose of literature and in the modern world other forms of story-telling such as worthy cinema and very select television is to impart the readers and viewers with extraordinary life experiences that impart wisdom, insight into human psychology, as well as, in higher forms of literature and story-telling, expound on the most important and sacred values. This should not be interpreted as lauding The Sopranos as a modern equivalent to Greek tragedy, or Goethe, or Shakespeare.1 Nor should reference to this element in plot suggest endorsement of the fictional Soprano family unit, which was a dysfunctional family to put it mildly. This narrative however does coincide with real life experience, and actual dynamics of the dilemmas parents face when an adolescent or adult child rebels and makes very bad choices, seemingly for no other reason than to defy parents and family. The Internet is replete with stories of white daughters denouncing their families and most especially their fathers for disapproving of a black boyfriend. A central component of the transgender hivemind is to cut ties with family members who disapprove or pushback in any way.

As stated earlier, there is strong evidence indicating that Tyler started to diverge from his family at 15, and that he was corrupted by elements in the culture, in this instance leftist elements in Internet culture, Discord and Reddit specifically. Exposure to such elements help explain why young men like Tyler would choose a so-called transgender person as a romantic or sexual interest. As articulated in both “Leaping into Delusion, Death, and Personal Destruction” and “A Call for Uncompromising Intolerance,” transgender lunacy is an affront not just to human sexuality, but the mammalian essence:

Very simply put, straight men and lesbian or bisexual women want actual women, with a woman’s body and biology, including female pheromones, women’s breasts, woman’s hips, as well as a fully functioning vagina and uterus. The simple juxtaposition of a vintage Penthouse centerfold, or any image of an attractive nude woman with any image of a troon, especially one depicting what is between that individual’s legs demonstrates this is irrefutably so.

Similar considerations apply to so-called female to male transgenders, or “pooners,” as they are known in internet parlance. Whether endowed with the vagina that God or the universe gave them, or a “rot dog,” the same considerations apply. Gay men and heterosexual women alike desire other men—not women pretending to be men, but men—endowed with an actual functioning penis, the broader shoulders, generally greater height and denser skeletal frame of a man, not women who have mutilated themselves with mastectomies, sparse beards that beget acne and ingrown hairs because the facial pores in women’s skin are not designed for facial hair, and a “bonus hole” or rot dog between their legs, among so many other grotesque horrors too numerous to enumerate fully.

Somehow, the transgender mind-virus overrides and distorts the most basic fundamentals of human sexual desire. Was Tyler just a homosexual, but expressed with his cohabitation of a transgender furry twink? Or, if Twiggs was in fact set on any battery of “gender affirming” surgeries, did Tyler have a prurient interest in the disgusting abomination that is the “stinkditch?”

None of this occurs naturally in normal human sexuality, especially during adolescence and young adulthood. Rather it is programmed into the minds of youth, distorting and warping human sexual desire into the abhorrent monstrosities that are transgender lunacy. A persuasive theory to this author at least relates to the process of mapping and imprinting during the critical years of childhood and adolescence. Consider this author’s earliest memory of romantic and, for lack of a better term, sexual desire, namely seeing Deborah Harry at age six in the first grade. Others in my generation doubtlessly took notice of Catherine Bach as Daisy Duke and other sex symbols of the era. For those who were afflicted with the jarringly stupid sitcom Three’s Company during formative years of either childhood or adolescence, Priscilla Barnes is likely another.

This in turn reveals just how insidious things like Drag Queen Story Hour, bringing children to so-called gay pride parades and what not are. Those children are being imprinted, the mapping that occurred with seeing Deborah Harry with this author at age six is likely occurring in more or less the same manner at these venues, at least to some limited extent. Of course, the Robinsons were the sorts who vehemently opposed such outrages as Drag Queen Story Hour or leftist pig parents taking their children to so-called pride parades and other events. And yet Tyler was exposed to similar influences. It follows that young Tyler Robinson was marinating in the troon, furry subculture of the darker corners of Discord and the like, and these and other such elements warped his sexuality in such drastic ways. In this author’s mind, there is no other plausible explanation.

It is clear—beyond dispute, even—Tyler’s many troubles go back to early to mid adolescence, no later than 15 by one account, and can be traced to undesirable elements in leftist Internet culture. This raises, yet again, this fundamental question: what are parents to do? Some wrong-headed, mainstream conservative types suggest that home-schooling is the answer. Not everyone can do that, and in any case that is a remarkable burden to impose on parents. It also further cedes education, mainstream life further to the left. Others suggest that parents must be expected to simply deny all Internet access to children and minors alike, not just before adolescence but throughout middle and even high school as well. They might as well suggest chaining a teenage daughter up in the basement as a prophylactic measure to ensure that she does not take a liking to rap music and other negrocentric and profane, vulgar elements in the culture that promote race-mixing, boast African supremacist tendencies and denigrates whites while fueling anti-white animus. None of these suggestions, either those posited in earnest or in jest, are at all reasonable. Eventually a youngster will learn what the baseline is for his peers. Many will come to resent their parents, and not without good reason.

The extraordinary measures parents must take to shield youth from these insidious elements is truly extreme and wholly impractical. In Irreversible Damage, Abigail Shrier recounts how one well-to-do single mother (doubtlessly some man-hating, “boss bitch” type very much in the mold of Murphy Brown or even Lydia Rodarte-Quayle) contended with her daughter going the way of the pooner, pooner being slang for female-to-male transgender. The mother lived in California, if this author recalls correctly, and she shipped her troubled teen daughter to a horse ranch in Montana at significant cost, removing her from all her friends who were reinforcing the transgender nuttery, as well as the Internet. The update provided by Shrier at the end of the book indicates that the daughter remained on the ranch for the rest of her high school career. The gender dysphoria subsided, and she came to accept if not embrace herself as she is born, namely a young woman.

Not only is this a most drastic remedy, it is a remedy that is only available to the privileged few. Nor is it the case that Mormon communities in Utah, and other such enclaves in red states, offer sufficient insulation and protection from these elements in the culture. Indeed, Lance Twiggs himself came from a conservative Christian family as well. For so many elements in mainstream conservatism as well as those of a more radical persuasion to set the bar of parenting at that level is absurd. In Internet parlance, it would be chided as “difficulty mode impossible.”

Understanding the nature of these maladies leads to only one conclusion. Something must be done about the culture, even though the right does not yet have the political or practical power to do so. To pretend otherwise is simply self-defeating folly. Until something is done about the culture as well as the institution of education not just in the United States but in Europe as well, untold legions of young people will go the way of Tyler Robinson and his deluded, transgender furry companion. And a critical mass of them will do so despite parents doing what little they can to prevent them.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription. Readers who enjoy this essay are asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

As everyone is doubtlessly all too well aware, conservative speaker Charlie Kirk was assassinated yesterday while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. The name of the event was “American Comeback Tour," organized by Turning Point USA. He was pronounced dead soon after the shooting. There is ample footage of his shooting, and it is not for the faint of heart.

Those of a hard-right persuasion often derided Kirk, for either being a “grifter,” or being too moderate on a wide range of issues. He was famously excoriated some years ago for propping up a black homosexual at one of his “Turning Point” events. Over the years, however, he developed a bit more of an edge. To his credit he did acknowledge the Great Replacement was real, and even came to denounce so-called gay marriage. He also rightly insisted that the democrats engaged in widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. Despite a modest shift to the right, he was nonetheless fairly inclusive.

Whatever misgivings or disagreements one may have, he nonetheless exemplified basic human decency, and his instincts and tendencies on most (but not all) issues were fairly well calibrated. He leaves a loving wife, Erika, a former beauty contestant and devout Christian, and a young son and daughter.

Perhaps the single most defining characteristic of Charlie Kirk is that he believed in democratic norms and believed in engaging with the other side. The Internet is replete with examples of him engaging with hard leftists, particularly of the sort of student who has been brainwashed and deluded by a steady diet of indoctrination and programming. This is demonstrative of his basic optimism about humanity and his basic human decency.

For this basic decency, for this optimism, he was branded a “Nazi,” “a fascist,” “a right-wing extremist.” And yesterday at least one person killed him for it. Certain corners of the Internet are awash with leftist swine celebrating his death. The twitter accounts (@)redditlies and (@)libsoftiktok1 have been tirelessly documenting this. There are many others.

The murder and assassination of Charlie Kirk will not be without meaning. Far from it. Millions—nay, tens of millions—of people are moved, and they are angry. Perhaps the greatest meaning from this tragedy will be to demonstrate that he was wrong about democratic norms, wrong about the very idea that there can be any sort of civil exchange or dialogue with these people, or that they can be reasoned with. Virginia state assemblyman Nick Freitas stated the matter succinctly.

But we aren't "one people" are we? The truth is we haven't been for some time now, and there is really no point in pretending anymore, if there ever was. We are two very different peoples. We may occupy the same piece of geography, but that is where the similarities seem to abruptly end. . . . It’s not a civil dispute among fellow countrymen. It’s a war between diametrically opposed worldviews which cannot peacefully coexist with one another. One side will win, and one side will lose.

Freitas elaborates further:

I don’t want to “stand in solidarity” with the other side of the aisle. I want to defeat you. I want to defeat the godless ideology that kills babies in the womb, sterilizes confused children, turns our cities into cesspools of degeneracy and lawlessness…and that murdered Charlie Kirk.

As stated earlier, there is a certain irony that the left denounced Kirk with such pejoratives as “Nazi” and “far-right extremist.” He was a mainstream, establishment conservative who believed in democratic norms, who believed the civic norms characteristic of the Reagan era or the 1950s still applied. The truth is these “people” have no idea what “far-right” is, they have no idea what right-wing authoritarianism is, or those stern and drastic measures capable of removing them from the political sphere altogether. Now, however, there is a greater chance they will find out, first hand, and that right good. His assassination and death may disabuse a critical mass of mainstream conservatives and even moderate “swing voters” of that particular sort of naïveté that convinced people like Charlie Kirk that we could talk this through, that we could resolve our differences peacefully and democratically.

Despite whatever greater ramifications and consequences that may ultimately flow from this, it is, most fundamentally, a tragic event and, simply stated, the cold-blooded murder of a decent and kind-hearted man, husband, and father. Unfortunately, given the horrible and irredeemable elements in our midst, he was not the first and certainly will not be the last.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription. Readers who enjoy this essay are asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Author’s note: the timely nature of this story, which is still unfolding, may warrant further revisions. Addendum dated September 7, 2025: there have been small revisions concerning claims identifying the woman that were or likely to be mistaken identity. Additionally, new footage demonstrates the ball was not ripped out of her hands.

Just when it seems that the tiresome and unoriginal moniker “Karen” has finally died out, it comes back stronger than ever. At the time of this writing, “Karen” is trending number one on Twitter. The trending item concerns a tussle over a homerun ball at a baseball game between the Philadelphia Phillies and the Florida Marlins (the game was played in Miami, despite a seeming majority of Phillies fans). Harrison Bader hit a home run into the stands, with the camera showing a middle-aged woman and at least one other fan beside leaning down to retrieve the ball immediately after. A middle-aged man, probably a little younger, is seen running to get the ball, which he succeeds in doing. The man goes back to his seat (at least one full section away) to give to his son. The woman follows him, accosts him, and demands return of the ball, which he soon acquiesces to.

This has become one of those stories on the Internet characterized by mob outrage, replete with demands to identify the woman, get her fired, ruin her life, and so on. Such propensities originated from the left, and to this day are more characteristic of the left, but a brief perusal of postings on Twitter reveal that much of the outrage stems from those of right of center and MAGA leanings. When this short essay was first drafted, the woman had still not been identified, but there have since been unconfirmed reports the woman is named Leslie-Ann Kravitz, who works as administrator in the Hammonton, New Jersey, school district. Other reports, which were initially regarded as credible, identified her as one Cheryl Richardson-Wagner, but this was proven to be a case of mistaken identity. Others claim the woman is named Dee Phillips.

The incident itself should be of little to no concern to anyone. The Florida Marlins baseball club had a chirpy young woman give the boy a fan prize package, seen in the video above. The boy and his father later met with Bader to receive a signed bat after the game. The woman’s behavior seems low (there is nigh universal consensus on that). It should be stressed however there is a real possibility the man ripped the ball out of her clutches. At the time this essay was posted, there was no way of knowing one way or another; both fans standing just below the woman and the father as well as the lower row of seats completely obstruct the view of the ball as both the woman and the man attempt to procure it. Additional video footage indicates this was not the case. It is of note that another video has surfaced showing her pacing towards the man as someone behind her shouts “You asshole.” The term “asshole” is largely a gendered term, which is not usually uttered to or about a female, in the same way that “bitch,” “cunt,” and other profane insults are gender specific for women. It follows that one bystander sitting behind where the ball landed objected principally to the father’s behavior, or so one would surmise from the use of that specific, gender-specific insult.

What should be of much greater concern is the ubiquitous, unremittent use of the term “Karen.” This concern stems from both literary (in the proper sense of the word) and ideological considerations. As explained in “Crimes in Discourse and Language: ,” using the word “Karen” as an insult could not be any more vague, meaningless, or unoriginal. In this particular instance, a word that might come to mind to best describe her manner and presentiments would be “harridan.” “Hag” might do as well given her dressing down in run-down jeans and a Phillies sweatshirt, but her appearance does not quite perfectly convey that unkept quality usually associated with that noun. Adjectives that seem to describe this particular specimen would include “overbearing,” “pushy,” “assertive,” and even “supercilious.” Some have likened her to Cruella De Vil, but in addition to the aversion to any allusion to Disney fare that stems from general revulsion to American Unkultur, the Disney villain in question dressed with impeccable style, replete with expensive furs and the like, a far cry from jeans and a sweatshirt donning a baseball team’s logo and lettering.

More importantly, as also articulated in “Crimes in Discourse and Language: A Hit List of the Worst Offenses in Modern Usage,” Karen, used as an insult, as it has been for seven years or more, is a racially charged pejorative. It is effectively a racial slur. This is apparent given that “Karen” is a uniquely white woman’s name, not unlike Courtney, Heather, Megan (or any of the number of varied spellings), or the small constellation of names including Lori, Laurie, Laura, and Laurel. As an aside, Karen is a perfectly nice name and it is most regrettable that this name has been rendered seemingly irredeemable, unless counteracted with concerted efforts to redeem the name.

One linguistics-oriented essay documents that the term gained widespread popularity in 2018, noting that “Karen was used across internet platforms to call out middle aged white women who use their white privilege in order to get their way in society.” The term “white privilege” alone conclusively demonstrates the ideological slant of this term. This piece further explains that “Karen continued to grow in popularity,” as the term soon became a moniker for “all middle-aged white women who take on the role of victim in order to be prioritized in society over minority populations.” This loathsome but still informative piece on The Atlantic confirms the racial underpinnings of the term, grappling with how it draws from two different traditions of “anti-racism and sexism.” Anti-racism of course really just means anti-white. Noting that a “Karen” is “the kind of woman who asks to speak to the manager,” the screed notes that “The target of Karen’s entitled anger is typically presumed to be a racial minority or a working-class person. . ..” This is decried as “using her white femininity to present herself as a victim, when she is really the aggressor.” There are seemingly unending essays and accounts documenting how this pejorative is uniquely and overtly anti-white.

And yet, in relation to this particular fiasco, many of those blurting out “Karen,” like so many mindless automatons, are either right-of-center or MAGA. Reproduced for the benefit of the reader is a small sample of such tiresome, banal exhortations. In this mix there have even been comparisons to Elizabeth Warren. Alas, even the usually “based” (but never “based” enough) Ben Garrison dropped the anti-white pejorative in reference to this otherwise inconsequential kerfuffle. And he has done so at least twice.

As explained in “A Close Examination of "That's Racist" and Other Invectives,” one must always be vigilant for how ideological nomenclature, buzzwords, and slogans have seeped into the mainframe of our collective consciousness. Allowing such incursions with no effort to counteract them ensures a short-circuiting of sorts both ideologically and intellectually. Mainstream conservatives who prostrate themselves by denouncing anti-white behaviors and actions as “racist” have lost from the start by incorporating such ideological and rhetorical jargon into their very way of thinking. Such incorporation of such leftist, anti-racist—ie anti-white—jargon includes all of the underlying assumptions underlying so-called anti-racism, namely that race is just skin deep, that the onerous machinations of the so-called civil rights era are an unmitigated good, so on and so forth.

Further consider a most unrealistic hypothetical whereby a critical mass of black individuals started freely using “Shaniqua” and other stereotypically black names for black women to denounce or chastise typically undesirable, boorish, and even criminal behavior that is all too characteristic of what right-winger Paul Kersey aptly describes as the black undertow. Blacks, collectively at least, have shown no such propensity for self-assessment or an ability to criticize or even sanction undesirable behavior exhibited by so many of their racial brethren. The capacity for whites to do so would be laudable, except that such self-assessment is so thoroughly marinated in the trappings of pathological altruism.

Using the term “Karen” is not only lazy, non-descriptive, and really quite stupid. Much more importantly, the use of the term internalizes and reinforces the anti-white animus that is central to its new, perverted meaning. To the extent the pejorative descends directly from black vernacular derisively referring to slave-owning white women as “Miss Ann,” the anti-white animus could not be more pronounced or worrisome. That in turn reveals an additional consideration; those who use the term are speaking and writing like blacks, both in terms of a striking want of eloquence as well as a seething disdain and contempt for white people and white women in particular. That consideration alone should serve as the sternest admonition deterring its future use. Alas, the ubiquity and popularity of the term will not be so easily quelled. But quelled it must be.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription. Readers who enjoy this essay are asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Author’s note and disclaimer: certain portions of this essay are exceptional for pronounced anti-American sentiment. This author is grateful for and appreciative of those more mainstream readers who likely disagree or balk at such a perspective. No personal offense is intended, and it is hoped rather than unsubscribing or some other negative reaction, differences of opinion on such matters can be appreciated, in order to achieve better understanding among those who share a general dissatisfaction with the current state of culture and civilization.

                                                                         ◊

On Monday, August 25, 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order to prosecute those who burn or desecrate the American Flag. Despite assertions that such actions fit under the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment, much of this executive order is flagrantly unconstitutional. The matter was decided in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). Although that decision was 5-4, it is a veritable certitude that neither Chief Justice Roberts nor Justice Coney Barrett would ever join the other conservative judges to overturn the landmark decision on this matter. Those familiar with the propensities of Kavanaugh, Alito, Gorsuch, or even Thomas should also doubt whether even they would support overturning this decision.

The Trump Administration cites the fighting words exception to the First Amendment. Although that exception has not been explicitly deemed invalid, it is even more meaningless than the obscenity doctrine. After all, at least the obscenity doctrine can still allow for prohibition for so-called animal crush videos. See aftermath of United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), which struck down a law prohibiting sale of dog fighting videos, even though dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states.1 The aftermath was a revision of the law targeting only so-called animal crush videos. Precisely because this has almost no chance of prompting the Supreme Court to overturn Texas v. Johnson, it is befuddling as to why Trump would expend political capital on something that has no chance of succeeding, either in the short-term or long-term should this even get to the Supreme Court by certiorari petition.

These concerns notwithstanding, certain language of the Executive Order warrants closer examination. Section 2 (b) of the order directs the Attorney General and other governmental agencies and entities to focus on instances of “American Flag desecration” when they otherwise “violate an applicable State or local law. . ..” Examples cited that would fall under this subsection include “open burning restrictions, disorderly conduct laws, or destruction of property laws.” In such instances, the Order directs that “the agency shall refer the matter to the appropriate State or local authority for potential action.” Subsection (2) (c) further dictates “To the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, the Attorney General shall vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the American Flag, and may pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions in this area.” This seems largely redundant in view of the preceding subsection, with the added directive to look for ways to either invalidate (utterly impossible) or limit the scope of Texas v. Johnson and the body of related jurisprudence. Subsection (2) (d) of the order directs the Attorney General and other agencies to pursue the denial, prohibition, termination, or revocation of “visas, residence permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits, or seek removal from the United States, pursuant to Federal law. . ..”

Many if not all of these subsections are vulnerable to constitutional attack, namely doctrines concerning unconstitutional conditions and viewpoint-driven governmental action. It is of note such doctrines have not been successfully invoked in relation to so-called hate speech laws, or legal sanctions relating to desecrating or defacing LGBTQ Yuck murals and flags. Moreover, these subsections do not mitigate this blithe assertion stated earlier in the order:

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s rulings on First Amendment protections, the Court has never held that American Flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to “fighting words” is constitutionally protected. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 408-10 (1989).

There is zero chance that flag-burning could be rendered exempt from First Amendment protection under either “fighting words” doctrine or as an incitement to imminent lawless action via any contemplated overturning or limitation of Texas v. Johnson.

Switching from legal analysis to an appraisal from a more ideological lens, this author is most conflicted on this matter. As some “influencers” have noted, the left have been able to impose hefty criminal sanctions for desecrating pride flags and other symbols embraced by the left. Stiff penalties have been meted out for those who place skid marks on pride flag street murals. Another man received 15 years for burning an LGBTQ-Yuck flag. A better strategy would be for the Justice Department or non-profit legal advocacy groups to contest these sentences laws as being content-based or viewpoint driven criminal sanctions.

Moreover, readers and personal contacts alike know that I am hardly a patriot. I harbor deep resentment, disdain, and even hatred for much of what this country stands for. Such indictments of this country run across a wide variety of issues, pertaining to both history, current events, as well as society and culture. Central among these grievances is how this country wrongly entered World War I. The gross injustices and even terrors that resulted from the Versailles Diktat were a direct cause of the rise of Adolf Hitler and the outbreak of World War II. Nor am I convinced the United States were the good guys in the Second World War. The United States, deliberately bombing German civilian targets and colluding with Stalin, who killed many millions more than Hitler ever did, and did so before the latter even came to power. These and other considerations demonstrate that, at the very least, Nazi Germany, despite its flaws and own criminal wrong-doing is very much the lesser of all evils, but that point, unlike Woodrow Wilson’s war mongering, is a matter that reasonable minds can disagree on.

Appeals to patriotic fervor notwithstanding, The United States is the nexus of modernity and all its unspeakable ugliness: McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, vulgar, obscene, negrocentric rap music, coupled with overtly gyno-centric pop music of a different sort, from Madonna, to Britney Spears, to Katy Perry, to Doja Kat, this among an inexhaustible legion. Once great urban centers have been reduced to the denizens of the black undertow as well as mestizo interlopers. Those whites who can afford to do so flee to suburban hellscapes that all look like one another. Moreover, American society has also become a facilitator of every conceivable vice, as pornography has proliferated with no meaningful opposition. As a result, it has quickly become not just mainstream but banal. Illicit drugs are tolerated more and more, with a trajectory towards carte blanche legalization.

It is a supreme irony how many mainstream conservative Americans are still so fiercely patriotic, either not understanding or more likely consciously disregarding what this country has done for over a century and indeed what it has done to them directly. Beyond the matters of culture and history outlined above, how anyone who has a loved one who was killed or more likely injured while serving in the military fighting unwinnable “forever wars,” largely at the behest of Israeli and Jewish interests, is mystifying.

More particularly, there is a most noteworthy trend among many in the mainstream conservative set who instinctively despise liberalism, particularly of the supposed European variety, and yet fail to see that what they despise is a direct and immediate result of the American hegemony they are so chauvinistic about. They despise what they see in Europe, Germany most particularly but also the United Kingdom. And yet in protest to what that they instinctively revile, they indulge in such propensities for American chauvinism, failing to discern or understand that Germany in particular has become this way at the direction of her conquerors, above all The United States. The German constitution, das Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, while not dictated word-for-word by fiat, was drafted under military occupation, with advice, consent, and direct supervision of the three allied occupying powers, but really under the auspices of the United States first and foremost and Great Britain to some lesser extent. The war-guilt complex, the decades of indoctrination infused in the minds of “good,” modern west Germans is a direct and inevitable result from the installation of a reformed education system and from messages sent by cultural centers of power in post-war Germany at the direction of the Allied powers as well as the seemingly inexorable, unrelenting importation of American Unkultur in Germany and all of Europe, facilitated and propagated by the military occupation of Germany. Such considerations never occur to certain sorts of mainstream conservatives, including one who replied to this author with this jaw-droppingly stupid meme:

The European Union is a product and result of American hegemony in Europe, and is part of an effort to make Europe much more like the United States, just as the ever-increasing propensity for English language advertising and English language popular music. Even worse, such tendencies do not seem focused on aversion to the European Union in the guise of Euroscepticism or the like, but is simply a naked expression of the sort of aversion to European culture and society writ large that is part and parcel of most expressions of American chauvinism.

Despite such strong aversion to and resentment of this country, I always try to be respectful of well-meaning Americans who seem to have some decent instincts on most things. That is a principal consideration as to why I would probably never burn an American flag in practice, even though that flag burns in my heart and mind, and not in a romantic way or with endearment. It also explains while attending sporting events or other such venues, I respectfully stand at the national anthem, although I do not place my hand on my heart and certainly do not sing along.

Such digressions notwithstanding, this executive order is foolhardy, with no chance of leading Texas v. Johnson to be overturned. Political capital is not unlimited, particularly for a President who, while having sizeable majority in electoral votes, squeaked by with a couple mere percentage points in the popular vote and remains deeply unpopular with about half of the country. Even among his conservative base, affinity for First Amendment values will likely render this executive order unpopular with a significant portion of mainstream conservatism. This decision also diverts focus, and also political capital, from the effort to get the Supreme Court to overturn birthright citizenship for babies born from illegal aliens, a matter of far greater importance than flag-burning. That was already a very tall order, so to speak, and will now be rendered that much more difficult.

Such considerations notwithstanding, readers are left with this parting thought. Would those in the Trump Administration and their most ardent supporters seek to impose criminal sanctions for watching and enjoying the music video of “Kill Surf City” by The Jesus and Mary Chain? It begins by showing William Reid, on the cross, pulling out a revolver, in silhouette, as the American flag is then shown shot to bits. Perhaps such offerings by the likes of “The Chain” are a good litmus test to distinguish mainstream conservatives from those of a more edgy, radical, right-wing populist persuasion.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription. Readers who enjoy this essay are asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

PLEASE ALSO NOTE: readers of this essay are particularly encouraged to familiarize themselves with this publication’s somewhat more stringent comment policy. It is understandable and expected that there will be disagreements about this author’s less than patriotic views. Be respectful. Vitrolic attacks, strawman arguments, and the like will not be tolerated.

Readers of this publication, and those who have made my personal acquaintance or friendship know I am no fan of Coca-Cola, as I regularly make references to a certain line in “Death of the West” by Death in June. Those familiar with my writings and me personally know I loathe fast-food in particular. Were it possible, most of it should be banned. Indeed, fast-food giants like McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and the like must be banned in Germany, Europe and the United Kingdom as most portents of American Unkultur that have been infused into European society and civilization: banned in the interests of public health and restoring cultural hygiene against amerikanische Seelenlosigkeit.1 Concerning Coca-Cola specifically, the stuff just tastes awful—although original formulas using real cane sugar in Europe, Mexico, and the like tastes somewhat better. Coca-Cola has of course been made with high fructose corn syrup since the mid 1980s, after the New Coke fiasco, in fact.

With these preambles and disclaimers in mind, readers should be made aware that Coca-Cola, while never making such dispensations for the greater good of society or the public welfare, has produced a special edition of two liter plastic bottles made not with high fructose corn syrup, but sucrose, i.e. cane sugar The gigantic soda and beverage concern is selling this special edition—marked by a yellow cap—to cater to the sort of extraordinary—and extraordinarily ridiculous—dietary restrictions demanded by Judaic kosher laws. Specifically, kosher law prohibits the consumption of corn eight days before Passover. Rather than abstain from the stuff for eight days—any sensible person should permanently abstain from Coca-Cola and other sugary soft drinks, as this author has largely abstained from Coca-Cola since adolescence—Jewish interests have obliged Coca-Cola to produce and sell what should be available to the general public at all times. And, of course, Coca-Cola has accommodated them.

This reveals much about our society, and the sorts of powerful interests with seemingly inexhaustible corporate money and influence that shape that society. As stated, neither Coca-Cola nor other food and beverage concerns will voluntarily switch from high fructose corn syrup in an interest for public health and to promote the public good2—not if it means they make a little less money. But they will shamelessly pander to a certain insular blood cult in our midst, because it is Jews and Jewish interests that count. As argued in “Exorcising the False God of Religious Tolerance,” no special dispensation should ever be made for bizarre, idiotic, harmful, or even alien religious beliefs and practices. Consuming corn—or more particularly high fructose corn syrup—through the year except this eight-day period is such a bizarre, moronic practice, and it is even more bizarre that this and other food and beverage concerns should modify a product for such a small period of time, for less than two percent of the population. Because Coca-Cola is hardly a staple food item (like milk, eggs or chicken, or beef, for example), the pandering seems particularly absurd. If consumption of high fructose corn syrup is acceptable for society at large—point of fact, it is not—so it should be acceptable for any religious minority in our midst, for better or, in actuality, for worse. Those that do not wish to partake are not forced to do so.

This story has become somewhat viral. Consumers who enjoy Coca-Cola but are correctly reviled by high fructose corn syrup have learned of this, are spreading the word, stocking up the soft drink made with real cane sugar, instead of buying Coca-Cola bottled in Mexico at exorbitant prices. In fairness, it should be cautioned that mainstream conservative sorts who fetishize unbridled, corporate capitalism and the “free market” could potentially be proven right in this one particular instance. Perhaps this story will convince Coca-Cola and other food and beverage concerns to make the switch voluntarily. Readers however should not hold their breath, as this seems most unlikely.

In the absence of such an unlikely turn of events, this story proves again several central contentions asserted time and again by this author. Among them, for whatever good capitalism does, it only does so if it is constrained and channeled by certain externalities in the interest of the public good and the welfare of society (welfare in its original sense, as properly understood). This includes effective, common-sense regulations and market restrictions, such as the European Union’s sensible and necessary restrictions on the high-fructose corn syrup monster, which are tantamount to a ban with very few limited exceptions. Another important constraint is the social cohesion and community that naturally flourishes in a homogeneous society, bound together by common blood, ancestry, language, and centuries old culture, which in turn leads commercial enterprise derived from these nations to act more often in the national interest. Finally, as argued recently, religious freedom and tolerance need to be jettisoned. This pertains to the legal proscription against state power restricting the exercise of certain religions, as well as absurd, harmful, or undesirable religious beliefs and practices. But just as importantly, it pertains to “religious freedom” as a societal norm and value.

It is an absolute scandal and disgrace that a giant food and beverage concern like Coca-Cola with transcendent levels of power, wealth, and influence—and indeed a prominent avatar of American Unkultur itself—would flagrantly ignore the public welfare and greater good by failing to voluntarily switching from high fructose corn syrup to cane sugar, but gladly panders and prostrates to Jewish interests. Coca-Cola panders and prostrates itself in the service of an absurd religious practice that should be mocked and ridiculed. It is nothing less than the latest shame and disgrace of American society and what is very loosely described as American society and culture. The more enlightened fail to see any society or culture, at all.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: Readers who appreciate the insight and perspective set forth in writing like this are urged to consider offering a paid subscription or even a founding member subscription, provided such expenditures are not unduly burdensome. Readers who enjoyed this article and found it informative and insightful are also encouraged to signify their favor for this and other writings by clicking on the “like emoji,” as well as sharing this and other articles to those who would find this and other essays and articles interesting, insightful, or provocative. The like emoji or lack thereof is a greater factor than it should be that readers unfamiliar with an author or publication use to decide whether to read any particular piece or not.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) (@)astheravencalls.com. Remove the parentheses, which were inserted to avoid conflict with Substack’s own handle system.

IMPORTANT: obnoxious Jews and Hitler idolators on another essay have compelled the promulgation of an official COMMENT POLICY.

An extraordinary spectacle occurred at the White House on Friday, February 28, 2025, when Zelensky came to the oval office in conjunction with cease fire talks that President Trump is (or was) trying to facilitate between the two warring nations. Zelensky came in his paramilitary garb as has been his trademark. One reporter chided the Ukrainian President, asking him why he cannot wear a suit. And then the real fireworks happened when Vice President Vance confronted Zelensky on a number of matters, including not expressing gratitude on this particular occasion, and admonishing him that the United States was trying to save his country from ruin. The most salient portion of the exchange can be found in this video.

Subscribe now

The exchange between Trump and Zelensky became heated, with Trump admonishing Zelensky for “gambling with millions of lives” and “gambling with World War III.” He further told the visiting head of state that he “does not hold any cards” without the United States. The meeting abruptly ended, and reports have confirmed that Zelensky was summarily dismissed from the White House. Trump issued this statement, indicating the Ukrainian leader is not ready for peace and that he can come back only when he is ready to negotiate.

The usual assembly of cretins, from neo-cons like Bill Kristol and Cheney to hard-core leftist lunatics are apoplectic.

Reasonable minds can agree or disagree on Russia’s decision to go to war against Ukraine. This author submits that Russia has very legitimate grievances, including decades of NATO expansion, as well legitimate territorial claims in Southeast Ukraine along the Crimea, which has a super-majority of Russian people, to say nothing of the border change that occurred between Russian and Ukraine during their tenure as Soviet States in the USSR for rather arbitrary reasons.

To whatever extent reasonable minds can agree or disagree on the Russian Ukrainian War, it is nonetheless apparent that most of the Ukraine flag emoji sort fail this set of criteria demonstrating whether a person has a minimum level of knowledge to speak on this matter intelligently. When war-mad Ukrainian flag emoji sorts are presented with this litmus test, the response has almost invariably been some variation of accusations of being a Russian or Putin bot, or a simple reiteration of what was already stated, namely that “aggressive war” is categorically wrong, even though the United States has done similar actions, but with countries to which it has no color of territorial claims or that are well outside the United States sphere of influence.

In the unlikely scenario that readers are unfamiliar with the commentary of John Mearsheimer on this matter, some if his notable presentations are provided via hyperlink. US Foreign policy and the polices of its assemblage of puppet vassal states in the European Union have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in a proxy war with the nation that led to the downfall of both Napolean’s Le Grande Armee and Hitler’s deutsche Wehrmacht (and Waffen SS). And while that nation has been in decline since the Velvet Revolution, that nation, quite obviously, wields nuclear weapons capable of destroying the planet, not just for humanity but most all life on the planet. The outrage of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars to fund a proxy war that cannot be won and that has greatly enhanced the risk of an exchange of nuclear arms (either limited or full on Armageddon) is only exacerbated by the kickbacks, money laundering, the unaccounted for funds that have gone missing, and the certainty that many of these arms provided to Ukraine have or will wind-up on the International black market for weaponry and arms and the accordant risk of those arms winding up in terrorist organizations.

Although often expressing such grievances in an offensive and foolish manner, many on the dissident right have some legitimate complaints about Trump, most particularly his Zionist and Judeophilia tendencies. To the extent Trump is bringing the United States and the world away from the precipice of oblivion is such a positive development it can scarcely be quantified by words. While precise figures are shrouded in secrecy and the fog of war, hundreds of thousands have died on both sides. Hopefully, by exercising leverage in this way, Trump will ultimately compel this coke-ridden lunatic to accept peace terms to end the conflict that has driven war-mad lunatics demonize the Russian people in a way not seen since how Germans have been vilified in both world wars. Indeed, it seems impeachment proceedings have been intiated against the Ukrainian head of state.

Share

Leftists, with increasing frequency, utter statements or admissions that reveal how evil and destructive their ideas really are.  This is most readily exhibited in relation to the Great Replacement, in which leftist swine oscillate between denying or dismissing this as a “conspiracy theory” and admitting that it is happening, and it is a good thing.  That tendency of course also pertains to how the left sexualizes minors, as demonstrated by deluded parents taking small children to so-called pride events, drag-queen story hour, and so on. A contemptible screed titled “It’s Family Sex Scene Night” was recently published on an off-shoot of The New York magazine, known as “The Cut,” is the latest exemplar of this disconcerting trend.  The substantive content of this piece deserves far more attention than it has so far received.

Several disconcerting trends are extrapolated from the content of this essay.  First, as most everyone is already aware, young teens and even preteens are watching, or rather consuming, hardcore pornography. Parents, at least of the sort to read or even be featured in a rag like New York magazine are aware of it.  Rather than take affirmative steps to remove access these minors have to such content, as best one can given current circumstances as they presently exist, some parents, many of them likely single or divorced mothers, are trying to introduce other sexual content to minors as an alternative to hardcore pornography.  Much of this content ranges from R to possibly even NC-17 content that might not be objectionable for mature teens in a different context—these parents are not watching an R-rated or even unrated movie with a son or daughter who is a sophomore in high school in an incidental manner, such was watching an R-rated comedy from start to finish[1], but rather are cherry-picking sexually charged, perhaps even sexually explicit scenes for their own particularly sordid reasons.  But, at least in some instances, some parents are either curating actual pornographic content for minors in a manner that, at least theoretically, is subject to criminal charges, or are at least contemplating doing so. Worse yet, this is an idea that the author, Anya Kamenetz, at least tacitly condones by declaring that more and more so-called “experts” and parents alike think this is not only acceptable but a good idea.

The article recounts how women in a “Los Angeles mom circle” addressed the question “How do I explain to my 13 year-old son how sex actually happens?”  Claiming that she managed to “steer her [13 year-old] son away from porn,” a claim some would be skeptical of, the mother wanted to address his interest in “how people go from, like, kissing to actually putting a penis in a vagina.” (emphasis added).  Rather than consider that a thirteen year-old—a youngster either in 7^th or 8^th grade— is too young for anything beyond maybe a first kiss, the response by “mom circle” leader Joanna Schroeder—there is more about her, discussed below—was to exclaim “There’s so much sexy content out there,” which in turn led to a compilation of an “NSFW playlist.”  This passage warrants presentation to readers in full, unredacted:

Schroeder says the whole time they were looking up smut on behalf of a 13-year-old boy, she and her mom friend were asking each other, “Is this weird? Are we being weird?” But, it turns out, their idea wasn’t even original. Sex educators I spoke with say parents today need to provide counterprogramming for their kids because the mainstream porn that teens stumble on, in addition to being full of racist stereotypes and short on body diversity, is now dominated by violent BDSM. And teenagers are mimicking what they see.

First, these leftist pigs must be corrected about racist stereotypes and a lack of “body diversity,” both of which are unmitigated goods to the public welfare; truth is racist, and what are called traditional beauty standards are nothing other than simply having standards.  It is remarkable indeed that leftist swine do not decry young teens and preteens being exposed to pornography, but instead regard “racist stereotypes” and lack of “body diversity” as the true moral pariahs that must be expunged from the public consciousness.  That “sex educators”—and, one suspects those who work in the psychology and counseling racket writ large—endorse parents to “provide counter programming” to pornography rather than do what one can to prevent such access at all should stand as a devastating, irrefutable indictment that permanently discredits that racket for all time.

Indeed, there is no indication or suggestion that the proper response is, as best one can, prevent minors from having access to pornographic content in the first place.  The article explicitly states that this problem occurs with very young teens and even preteens throughout the piece.  In one example, Kamenetz asserts that things like spanking or calling a woman a “slut or whore during sex” are things regularly exposed to minors, so much so that “to a 12-or-14 year-old, it’s not edgy, it’s just how you have sex.” The essay also recounts how Vanessa Kroll Bennett, author of This Is So Awkward, watched risqué scenes of Bridgerton with her thirteen year-old daughter, discussing a scene where a character loses her virginity, with the mother asking “What didn’t he find?,” to which the daughter replied “her clitoris,” demonstrating that “this was not their first conversation on the topic.” For those unaware, Bridgerton, referenced multiple times throughout this appalling text, is an inane series on Netflix that perpetrates race-swapping in regency England to pander to leftist sensibilities about representation, multiculturalism, and diversity, replete with a black Queen of England.

The essay also reports how a single mother, of Arabic background, attempted to buy her sons, 12 and 16, accounts for a feminist friendly porn site called “Make Love Not Porn,” founded by Cindy Gallop, a deracinated, miscegenated harridan, a Mischling of Anglo-Chinese ancestry who, despite being in her sixties, enjoys “sleeping with younger men, which she generally prefers,” even though they tend to favor sexual acts and behaviors that are “clearly derived from hardcore porn.” Most shockingly, the article recounts, without so much as blinking a proverbial eye, that parents exposing minors to pornographic content, even if content they somehow regard as less objectionable or not objectionable, at all is occurring as a repeatable, sociological phenomenon, so much so one professional, “Rayne,” stated least five times during her career, boys’ parents have reached out to say they had caught their sons with distasteful porn, before asking her:

 “Is there any porn that is more appropriate for teenagers? Perhaps featuring teenage performers?
“  Rayne points out what they are actually for, noting, No, you can’t show your son child pornography.’”

Another so-called expert interviewed earlier in this piece, Christopher Pepper, “a sexual-health educator in the Bay Area” and co-author behind Schroeder’s coming book on these matters, offered this warning:

“Any adult showing sexually explicit materials to young people has some legal liability.” He reminds parents of this when similar requests come his way, underscoring that age-appropriate mainstream TV and movies are the way to go.

That this has to be stated at all, even with not nearly with enough severity, could not be more revealing. Far more outrageous—the author offers tacit approval of the idea that teens and preteens should be exposed to  the “right kind” of pornographic material according to leftist ideological considerations from a ranger of matters including obtaining ongoing, express consent, body positivity, and whatever else. Note this passage, which, offered without even the semblance of rebuttal or refutation, can only be interpreted as tacit if not outright approval:

Mainstream series and films don’t show everything, of course. And in cases when teenagers are already watching violent porn, some educators and parents are convinced they need more explicit substitutes to kick out or counteract the other messages they’re picking up.

In response to the admonitions offered by Pepper and “Rayne” that exposing minors to pornographic content is illegal, to say nothing of depraved, immoral and wrong, the author informs readers that “some sex educators think differently” on this topic, lending credibility to the proposition of curating porn for minors by way of an appeal to authority. It is in this context that the author then discusses, with overt approval, Gallup’s porn site, and how this Gallup has been approached by a number of parents who are at least considering providing porn to their minor children:

Although the site, like all porn, is legally restricted to people 18 and over, Gallop showed me messages from parents over the years who wanted to buy gift subscriptions for their teenagers as an alternative to what they were already watching.

Then there is this damning admission by Andrea Lee, who has partnered with Gallup, the Mischling, an admission without reprobation or criticism by Kamenetz.

She has recommended the site to high-school teachers she works with and to teens and their parents.

In legal parlance, this is what is known as a “statement against interest,” or it would be in any sane, decent society, let alone a society that enforces laws already in effect. The essay even alludes to this sort of grooming in relation to an eight-year old child. In response for a “teen friendly” smut site she is going to call the “Make Love Not Porn Academy,” Gallup made this damning admission:

“I have a friend whose 8-year-old son wanted to learn about sex in a child-appropriate way, so he sweetly, innocently googled ‘sex for children,’” she says. “You can imagine what came back. He was utterly traumatized.”

Whatever questions small children may have about sex, about men and women, whatever machinations Gallup and those in her sordid entourage have in mind with the “Make Love not Porn Academy” are totally and completely inappropriate, to put it mildly.  Note a further damning admission, namely that while this “Academy,” geared entirely for those under 18, which will aggregate vetted sex-education resources — videos, articles, books — from sources like Amaze.org, Scarleteen, and Bish, a U.K. site. That damning admission is this:  “All the content will be PG-13, for now.”(emphasis added). Why is there a qualifier “for now?” It offers no more solace than when Julius assured white South Africans that he was “not calling for the slaughter for white people, for now.”

To better understand what all of this means, one must, as always, consider who—and what—these people are.  The name Joanna Schroeder may sound vaguely familiar to some readers.  This is because she enjoyed some infamy in 2019 while discussing how intervened in what she regarded as the indoctrination of her sons by the so-called alt-right.  Her infamy, which some readers may vaguely, recalled, began with this twitter thread.

She was then the subject of pieces by National Public Radio, and even had an opinion piece published in the New York Times as a guest columnist. In it, she recounts she almost lost control of her car while driving because one of her teenage sons mocked a leftist for being “triggered.”  Note this excerpt, taken from her op-ed piece:

The first sign was a seemingly innocuous word, used lightheartedly: “triggered.”

As my 11- and 14-year-old sons and their friends talked and bantered — phones in hand, as always — in the back seat of the car, one of them shouted it in response to a meme, and they all laughed uproariously.

I almost lost control of the car. That’s because I know that word — often used to mock people who are hurt or offended by racism as overly sensitive — is a calling card of the alt-right, which the Anti-Defamation League defines as “a segment of the white supremacist movement consisting of a loose network of racists and anti-Semites who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of politics that embrace implicit or explicit racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy.” People associated with this group are known for trolling those who disagree with them, and calling critics “triggered” is a favorite tactic.

In this podcast, with almost no views, she can be seen trotting out all the leftist orthodoxy about gender ideology, correcting her son who asked in disbelief how there could be more than two genders.

Schroeder in particular, but most—nay, all—of the figures interviewed or discussed in this piece prove that dispossession of whites, the agenda of Cultural Marxist are unified by the plethora of harms they impose on Europe and the West, from the evils of multiculturalism to overt sexualization of minors by their own parents.  These sorts of tirades against the so-called “alt-right’ go hand in hand with the sort of depraved mind that thinks any of this acceptable—let alone desirable—behavior.   They are the very enemy of and poison to the European soul, racially, culturally, morally. Of course, the author of this screed, Anya Kamenetz, is Jewish, as is Vanessa Kroll Bennett. Cindy Gallop has already been described, a miscegenated abomination, a deracinated but wealthy figure who is just one avatar of any number, a Kalergi plan poster girl, proving Britain was on the wrong side in both world wars, a woman in her 60s who engages in promiscuous sex with younger men.  This grotesque figure is just the latest avatar of modern Britain in the aftermath of World War II. As one disaffected British veteran decried, realizing only two late they fought on the wrong side; “it’s a pity Hitler didn’t get here,” one disillusioned veteran laments in The Unkown Warriors, anthology of letters written by British veterans and what they think of modern Britain.

Any person endowed with even with the barest semblance of a classical education is further taken aback by the notion that these people are somehow cultural elites, even in this decadent, depraved society.  The very notion of a “mom circle” in a cultural center such as New York or Los Angeles is indelibly linked, at leas— in the mind  any sane, enlightened individual—with undeserved wealth, power, and privilege, to say nothing of book deals or writing the sorts of screeds authored by persons like Schroeder or Kamenetz in the likes of either the New York Times or New York magazine. This contemptible affront, aside from condoning, in some way, that teens and even preteens “need more explicit substitutes to kick out or counteract the other messages they’re picking up” from pornography on the internet, reveals that liberal pretentions of cultural and intellectual sophistication are a myth. This essay is in the context of leftist goblins constantly making referencing to Star Wars or what is derisively referred to as “cape shit” in Internet parlance—in other words, it is in the context, as everything is, in the lamentable cultural milieu that envelops us all.  Some leftist influencers even liken Marvel movies to be the American Iliad.  Liberals like to insist they are better educated. Most undoubtedly have academic credentials, as do many on the right.  Schroeder herself dropped out of college—twice—before majoring in gender studies at UCLA. Kamenetz graduated from Yale as Kroll Bennett graduated from Wellesley College, the latter being the daughter of Jules Kroll of Kroll Inc and who is worth at least two billion dollars.  Kamenetz also comes from a comparably privileged Jewish family, although perhaps not quite on par with Kroll family. Such details are more than just suggestive that wealth and nepotism, rather than native born talents, are the defining factors behind their book deals and undeserved prominence. This begs the question; are these the sorts of lofty academic credentials worthy of the intelligentsia, the cultured elite?

Given how academic credentials perhaps do not have as much sway as in decades past, it should be no surprise that these contemptible philistines preoccupy themselves with abject dreck like Bridgerton, which was constantly mentioned in the article in relation to three different parties, Schroeder and her cohort in that “mom circle,” Kroll Bennett, the privileged daughter of a billionaire Jew who talks to her daughter about male whether fictional characters findt he clitoris or not, and the author and her husband. Both the author and those interviewed take a Netflix series that perpetrated a race swap in regency England as a serious work of fiction, as if it were on par with great literary works by the great masters like Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Thomas Hardy, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, let alone those rare exceptions in American television worthy of serious discussion, such as Breaking Bad, or even masterpieces of cinema from Bladerunner, to Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and Casino, to, if one really wants a good period piece, Amadeus, except, of course, that Amadeus depicts historical European settings as actually European.

More observant readers who choose to read this piece will note how often those interviewed use the word “like” as a filler word, Schroeder and her cohort in that mom circle in particular.  As confirmed by simply using the “CTRL F” function with the term “Rayne” in the body of the text, there is even a terrible gaffe in this piece, in which the author references a professional named “Rayne,” who is ostensibly some sort of counseling professional who cautioned multiple clients against exposing their teens to pornographic content, without an introductory sentence or clause informing readers who “Rayne” is (is that a first or last name?), or what this person does.  Some might decry this as a petty criticism, but it begs the question how people make a living churning out this drivel, not to mention what proofreading or editing standards these publications have. Kamenetz’s writing is shit.

One hesitates to call these cretins our “cultural elite,” but there does not seem to be a better term. Such abject philistinism, masquerading as cultural or intellectual sophistication, transcends mere propping up dreck like Bridgerton as a serious work of fiction, but actively facilitates and even condones the further moral corruption of minors who happen to be in their care, which in turn influences and shapes greater cultural norms, which affects us all.  As stated before, none of these people question why teens and even preteens are being exposed to pornography, let alone consider any effective measures in preventing such exposure. A proper remedy would, of course, be to ban pornography or at least restrict access to persons 18 or over, a seemingly impossible endeavor once the proverbial genie was let out of the bottle in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The persons and behaviors recounted in this abomination of an article are, of course, the result of defining deviancy down.  Pornography has not just become commonplace to the point of banality; it has become, apparently, utterly mainstream and socially acceptable.  That has been an ongoing process since the 70s, which was then accelerated first in the mid to late 90s into the naughts, as most all social restraints then collapsed in earnest in the 2010s.  In the 90s there were more than whispers[2] of “boss girl” type single or divorced mothers buying adolescent daughters vibrators and dildoes as a birthday present, sweet sixteen or before. Not recently but in the late 90s, yours truly has seen with his own eyes young women walking around grocery stores with a bag clearly marked with the name of a certain sex toy shop—one in particular was female friendly, owned by a lesbian and a third wave feminist. Twenty years ago passersby were afflicted by bus stop advertisements for Sex and The City, with a caption asking reader’s what Charlotte’s new rabbit is; answers A and D were a “a pet” and D a direct allusion to a rabbit vibrator, as the author has forgotten the precise nature of answers “B” and “C.” Then there is Haliey Welch who has been desperately clinging to fleeting fame for describing to two black men how she performs oral sex, giving it that “Hawk Tuah,” an x-rated variation of that classic Simpsons episode where Bart is briefly famous for uttering “I didn’t do it” after clumsily toppling the set of a sketch on Krusty the Clown. Not at all an isolated incident, that sort of lewd, lascivious behavior has been a cultural norm for many years, as evinced, as just one example out of so very many,  a middle-aged white woman recently mimicked performing oral sex on the “fan cam” at a Denver Nuggets game, which one would think some at least, would think should be a family friendly setting. Indeed, the woman mimics performing oral sex in a group setting on different men as indicated by gestures from the left and then the right hands.

Another glaring problem with this whole sordid charade is how these cretins fail to understand the fundamental distinction a mother and father play in parenting, and that both sons and daughters need a mother and father with distinct gender roles intact.[3] Consider how unsavory, to put it mildly, it would be for a father to even consider providing his daughter sexual content, or providing such a daughter masturbatory aids which, anecdotally at least, is something liberated, modern women of the “boss girl, coastal elite” type have been doing since the 90s. The actions of the “mom circle” and those of similar ilk is no less sketchy—this despite the fact that men and women are different, as evinced by how fundamentally different it is for women like Amanda Seyfried or Lindsay Lohan to flash their genitalia, compared to any man doing such a thing, and how that sort of indecent exposure would be dealt with in a very different way.  To the extent adolescent boys, like those raised Schroeder, have questions about the birds and the bees, they should be addressed by the father, as mothers should fill that role with daughters, without, perhaps, prolonged discussion about clitoris stimulation with a thirteen year-old. Society needs to return to distinct roles for mothers and fathers precisely because men and women are different.

Talking about the “birds and the bees” is a notoriously delicate manner, but however one approaches it, almost everything in this article should shock the conscience.  The only reason it does not is because this sort of thing has become so commonplace that all of us have built a tolerance to all of this abject degeneracy to some varying degree. Like being exposed gradually to increased dosage of poison over time, deviancy is defined ever further downward. That is not to suggest this essay should be construed as an endorsement to unyielding prudery. The prohibition or discouragement of sex before marriage is laudable, but really is not practical in a society in which few marry out of high school or even young adulthood.  Parents and society need to arrive at a balance that eschews both unwieldy prudery and abject profligacy.  At a bare minimum, parents should not be showing their thirteen-year-old sons and daughters “sexy clips,” let alone curating pornographic content, or even salacious, NSFW work content, for them to consume, regardless of whether it comes from something like Pornhub or whatever is fielded by that Mischling monstrosity with all her feminist delusions.  Something drastic, of course, needs to be done about pornography on the Internet, if only to prevent minors from getting access. At the most abstract and philosophical level, however there must be an epiphany that these people, so wrongly regarded as “thought leaders” in a moribund and decadent society, are the enemy, the very anathema to values thousands of years of old as well as to our very future the future of our posterity. Both imperatives almost certainly require a jettisoning of both democratic norms and even the democratic form of government.

[1] This point is of course debatable. When is it is appropriate for a teen to watch films like Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Risky Business¸ or even a hard-to-watch, disturbing film like Requiem of a Dream?  This author will not offer a definitive answer, but it seems obvious there is a difference between watching film or television with sexual content from start to finish as opposed to cherry picking salacious scenes for that purpose, which Schroeder explicitly admits to.  

[2] The author remembers, after all these years, a certain printed interview recounting this happening on a certain scale that was reproduced over time. The article cannot be located, and in any case the regional nature of this publication would be compromising.

[3] Kamenetz and Kroll Bennett are married, as Schroeder seems to be, although that has not been confirmed by this author. The father of Schroeder’s boys seems missing in action, and the husband in the two Jewish families do not seem to take a leading role whatsoever.

In many ways, the defeat of Kamala Harris, more particularly the Kamala-Walz campaign, demonstrates the real-life application of addition by subtraction, with many just as elated by what Trump’s historic comeback victory subtracts or removes as what his victory may add or bring. The myriad images of Kamala Harris cackling and clapping her hands are an excellent avatar or symbol of addition by subtraction in action, as the United States and the world was spared four years of that level of inanity. Removing the prospect of Harris nominating replacements for either Clarence Thomas, 78, or Samuel Alito, 74 in the Supreme Court is far more pressing, but not nearly talked about enough.  That running mate of hers, Tim Walz, has also, for the time being, been relegated back to the local spotlight as governor of Minnesota, so that only those in Minnesota have to be reminded of him, and what he stands for, on a daily basis. It is terrible that a man like that is in a position of power in Minnesota, or that many white Minnesotans, many of whom are of Nordic and German ancestry, are so indoctrinated to elect, let alone tolerate, someone so pernicious as Tim Walz, who was, at the very least, complicit in the Black Lives Matter riots which first kicked off in Minneapolis. The issue of Tim Walz, or really rather the couple of Tim and Gwen Walz, has been brought into renewed focus with this bizarre clip from an appearance she made in the wake of the Trump’s presidential victory over Harris-Walz.

Much has been written about Gwen, including how she opened the windows to get a whiff of people’s businesses, property, and livelihoods burning during the St George riots. Her bizarre mannerisms, let alone the substantive content of such utterances, are quite suggestive of mental illness.  Going beyond that, however, Gwen is yet another avatar of how large numbers of white women have been weaponized against their own people and civilization, not just now but through several generations. That process started, in earnest, with the boomer generation, with their pot-smoking, abject promiscuity, and all-around hippie bullshit. Gwen is not a boomer however. Born in 1966, she graduated in either the class of 1983 or 84, in other words she is a Gen Xer, although on the very periphery of what most regard as Generation X. Much if not all of her persona lacks that rebellious or cynical air that typifies many Generation Xers. Indeed, much about her is a sort of demented perversion of what once was middle America. Her given name—Gwen—evokes the quintessence of white womanhood in a way few other names do, even evoking romantic sentiments of Medieval England (it is in fact originally a Welsh name). She comes from a Lutheran background. Before becoming first lady of Minnesota, she was an English teacher and later school administrator. Later, she was part of an effort to help recruit and train East Africa migrants to be teachers.  In this way, she is further proof as to the state of education, particularly English and the language arts.  Reasonably trim for her age, her gestalt evokes something maternal and wifely, a nice suburban white woman, that English teacher who won multiple “teacher of the year awards” or the innocuous, sickly sweet and wholly disingenuous middle-aged white lady who volunteers at church.  There is also more than a tinge of “Minnesota nice” in many of her mannerisms, as if she is a living caricature that could have been taken whole cloth from the script of the classic film Fargo. Consider this seemingly innocuous video of her baking cookies, with many throwbacks to the June Cleaver archetype that once pervaded middle class American life.

Given how the leftist policies she and those of her ilk support all but destroy the family unit and pit the sexes against each other, it is quite remarkable that she, and those like her, would have the gall to tap into such sentiments, replete with talking about her grandmother while meandering about in a lavish kitchen that increasingly few can afford; one supposes it was filmed in the governor’s mansion in St. Paul, Minnesota.

But behind that veneer is madness, crazed delirium, as seen in the “open windows” moment or the short clip alluded to in the beginning of this essay. This twisted perversion of the archetypal American housewife is somewhat reminiscent of an obscure B movie, Mother’s Day (2010), in which Rebecca de Mornay plays a sick and twisted matriarch of a family of deranged killers, a character only known as “Mother.”  The demented matriarch, played with aplomb by De Mornay, carries herself with many of the same bourgeois sensibilities and mannerisms epitomized by Gwen Walz, signified most immediately by conservative dress fitting a housewife or church lady, , juxtaposed by abject psychopathy and sadism revealed throughout the film. In one scene, she reverts from such psychopathy to admonishing one of the captives for not serving ice cream with that certain trick that “makes a nice, round scoop; the kid’s love that!”

Of course, as is always the case, and has been and will be a consistent theme throughout this author’s writing, very little is particular to Gwen Walz, née Whipple as an individual. The pathologies she represents are part of larger, sociological and cultural trends. She represents a strong contingent in one generation of white women among successive generations that have been weaponized against their own people and civilization. This weaponization is the inevitable result of the cultural milieu and society that has been allowed to flourish through the decades. That she was an English teacher—in Nebraska, no less— is hardly surprising, but should fill everyone who cares about literature, language, and culture with absolute consternation.  The process of ndoctrinating succeeding generations continues, seemingly unabated.  That process will continue until a critical mass of radicals see and discern the problem of Gwen Walz as a sociological, cultural phenomenon, and devise and implement strategies that deal with these existential threats with according severity.

As this piece is being written, much of the Internet is in a state of absolute furor over New York State euthanizing a pet squirrel and racoon, owned by a man in Elmira named Mark Longo and his wife. Their names were “Peanut” and “Fred,” respectively. Interestingly, there seems to be much more focus on Peanut, with far less mention of his racoon counterpart. Peanut, the squirrel, was a tiktok star with over one million subscribers. The outrage is palpable, with “Peanut” trending third on twitter as of this afternoon, Saturday, November 2, 2024.

This fiasco seems like a classic case of the conflict between the letter of the law and the spirt of the law. Racoons and squirrels are not typically pets.  Racoons, although adorable, can be pests in densely populated areas.  New York city, in particular, is known to euthanize any racoons they trap, as they are found in city parks or other areas.  Animal rights activists and others concerned with the well-being of animals object that these creatures could probably be trapped and released in places where they would not pose a hazard. Instead, city and state governments just euthanize them because no live rabies tests are available for racoons. This is done even though there are behavior sets that indicate the likelihood of rabies, the absence of which suggest such a creature does not have rabies. Neither New York City or New York state or other county or municipal counties bother with such niceties, they just euthanize across the board.

Concerning the matter of “Peanut” and “Fred’ specifically, this needed to be handled a different way, particularly as Longo owned Peanut for seven and half years and Fred for a long time as well. Instead of weighing such facts, slavish adherence to the letter rather than the spirit of the law prevented New York officials from any such thing. Even if state officials were to refuse to make an exception to the laws that supposedly mandate this course of action and simply turn a blind eye, Longo could have been given an opportunity to find a place, ostensibly out of state, where Fred and Peanut could live.

Conservative, right-of-center, and even radical right commentators are using this anecdote to repudiate the twisted priorities of politicians in New York. This outrage was perhaps best expressed in this parody of Donald Trump, a fake statement expressing outrage over this.

New York state will facilitate the illegal alien crisis by putting the invaders up in what used to be posh hotels, will do nothing to stem the crisis of shop-lifting and other petty crime since the “Defund the Police,” “Black Lives Matter,” and other far left ideas gained currency with the George Floyd fiasco in 2020.  They will not do anything about rising violent crime, particularly in the subways.  But they will send a swat team to detain Longo and his girlfriend and forcibly euthanize a harmless squirrel and racoon.

Some of the reactions, which get it mostly right, This government does hate traditional Americans. Bur this is not the “reality of government” categorically, but the reality of this government. Instead of eschewing state power categorically, perhaps those opposed to the left need to reconsider the type of government we have.

Many conservative types, forever misguided, draw some mistaken lessons, namely that because this government in New York is imposing this sort of anarcho-tyranny, that all government, categorically, is this oppressive and onerous. Authoritarian states such as seen in Singapore (or regimes such as those wielded Francisco France, Augusto Pinochet) and others.  The state in abstract is not the problem, but those in power in places like New York, California, and the federal government are. A more enlightened perspective is not to disdain all state power categorically, but desire the seizure and application of state power by interests more benign to our greater good, although far more malignant to those who seek to destroy Europe and the West.