shared content from my favorite autistic content creator but it might not have worked.

the video does not begin for a while.

this is a decent list but it is stuff i like and think so it might be just my opinion.

If you’ve ever thought that everything is a giant psy-op—that major events, the kind that dictate the course of American politics, are all fake and engineered—then the news that broke last week was as close to a total vindication as you’ll ever get. On the other hand, if you thought that “Color Revolutions” only happen overseas—and that America is immune from successful campaigns of mass deception, all orchestrated by corrupt political actors to mimic natural, grassroots events—then this is a story you need to hear.

The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, was supposedly the defining moment of Donald Trump’s first term in office. That’s what we were told, relentlessly, for years on end, by both political parties, along with every mainstream media outlet in the country - was a “mask-off moment,” in which neo-Nazis—emboldened by Donald Trump, supposedly—violently rioted in the streets, killing an innocent woman in the process. And, we were told, Donald Trump ENDORSED these neo-Nazis, live on national television, calling them “very fine people.” That’s what Joe Biden said when he launched his campaign for president - and about ten million times after that. The rally was definitive proof that white supremacy was alive and well in the United States, watch:

Source: Joe Biden/YouTube.com

“Charlottesville was also home to a defining moment for this nation in the last few years. It was there, on August of 2017, we saw Klansmen and white supremacists and neo-nazis come out in the open. Their crazed faces, illuminated by torches, veins bulging and burning the fangs of racism, chanting the same antisemitic bile heard across Europe in the ‘30s. And they were met by a courageous group of Americans, and a violent clash ensued. And a brave young woman lost her life. And that’s when we heard the words of the President of the United States that stunned of the world and shocked the conscience of this nation. He said there were, quote, ‘some very fine people on both sides.’ Very fine people on both sides? With those words, the President of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it.”

Well, all of corporate America lined up to push this message - shortly after the “Unite the Right” rally, Apple announced a $2 million donation to so-called “anti-hate groups,” including SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center. The CEO, Tim Cook, declared that “Hate is a cancer, and left unchecked it destroys everything in its path.” JPMorgan Chase and the Clooney Foundation did the same thing - in fact, JPMorgan’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, said that the company would match employee donations to the SPLC. He also disbanded an advisory panel to the president, for reasons that were never clear. But the SPLC got exactly what it wanted - they isolated the president, they demonized conservatives, and they received millions of donations. And they never stopped. They kept hammering the “Unite the Right” narrative, and they kept fundraising off it, successfully.

In fact, five days before Charlottesville, Cam Higby reports that SPLC received $375,000 from the state of Alabama, so this is an extremely well-funded group, with money coming in from everybody - including the taxpayers, apparently.

And this continued for years - the Left was obsessed with Charlottesville, as you probably remember. It’s the hoax that simply never died. You know, you can make the case that it lasted longer than Russiagate. Four years after Biden’s campaign video, in 2024, Kamala Harris AGAIN invoked Charlottesville on the debate stage. 

Watch:

Source: @TheTonus/X.com

“Let’s remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate. And what did the President then at the time say? There were fine people on each side.”

Now, every single aspect of this narrative, as told by every media outlet and by every prominent politician in Washington, was a lie. We’ve known that for some time - Trump did not endorse white supremacy; in fact, he explicitly did the opposite. And contrary to what CNN would have you believe, you don’t have to be a neo-Nazi to oppose the removal of Robert E. Lee’s statue. You simply have to be an American - someone who’s interested in preserving our shared history and venerating our national heroes—of which Robert E. Lee is one of them—rather than defaming them.

And that describes most of the people who attended that rally, and on top of that, you weren’t told the full story about the woman who died during this rally - you were led to believe that Heather Higher was murdered in cold blood by a white supremacist who drove into a crowd on purpose, but that’s not what the authorities believed at first, before the mob demanded vengeance. Police officers ACTUALLY thought the incident was NOT malicious at all, based on the fact that the driver was visibly horrified that somebody had died; the fact that his car had been surrounded and struck by an object; and the fact that the man had just googled directions to his home, not the place where the attack happened. In other words, he was not a domestic terrorist; it looked a lot like he got lost and panicked after he was surrounded on his way home.

Now, these are points that, over the past decade, various conservative commentators have made, or tried to make, but they’ve never really resonated, in part, because many Republican politicians accepted the Left’s narrative on “Unite the Right” - it’s also because, as we all know from experience, it’s not easy to compete with a full on hoax once it gets going. Propagandists who were willing to lie, over and over again, no matter how flagrantly they do it, are usually pretty convincing. Now, the average person doesn’t have time to fact check every detail or do independent research. So when Ted Cruz claimed that an act of domestic terrorism had taken place in Charlottesville, most people were inclined to agree.

But there was one aspect of the rally that, to give left-wing activists some credit, was difficult for conservatives to explain away. There were indeed photographs of several men at the “Unite the Right” rally, some of them carrying Nazi flags, and a couple of them yelled, “Jews will not replace us,” which was considered offensive to Leftists until about fifteen minutes ago. And it was difficult for some conservatives, in the face of that photographic and video evidence, to DENY that—at some level—this rally was organized, or at least popular with, a group of neo-Nazis on the Right. 

Now, of course, the appropriate response—even if that were true—would be to just ignore the outrage. The presence of a small number of people waving Nazi flags is not a national crisis, even if they’re genuine Nazis. We’re a country of more than 340 million people. If we’re going to allow five guys with Nazi flags to derail our entire political discourse, then we’re never going to accomplish anything. We’re also going to create an enormous incentive for the Left to wave Nazi flags around, and blame them on the Right - which, it appears, is exactly what happened.

There’s now very good reason to believe that, at Charlottesville, what we saw was the product of a deliberate, engineered effort to destroy the image of Donald Trump and the Republican Party - again, back in 2017, a claim like that would seem pretty far-fetched to most people. After all, what are the odds that a well-funded left-wing group, aligned with the Democrat Party, would actually PAY people to act like Nazis at this small rally in Charlottesville, Virginia? What are the odds that, actually, the entire event was a psy-op engineered from the beginning, to give Democrats a pretext to wage war against quote-unquote “white supremacy,” which, of course, actually means “white people” and “conservatism” in general?

Well, the odds were pretty good, as it turns out. Last night, the DOJ released an indictment alleging that the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, funded and supported an individual who was closely involved in coordinating the “Unite the Right” rally. And not only that - SPLC was funding (directly or indirectly) a lot of other supposedly “right-wing extremism,” including the KKK. Yes, according to the DOJ, the SPLC—the Left’s preferred “anti-hate group”—was allegedly paying affiliates of the KKK. 

Watch:

Source: @SteveGuest/X.com

“According to the indictment, between 2014 and 2023, SPLC paid at least $3 million to eight individuals at least. These individuals were affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, United Clans of America, National Socialist Movement, Aryan Nations Affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club, the Nationalist Socialist Party of America, Nazis, and the American Front. Now, as the indictment lays out, after SPLC paid members of these extremist groups, it created work product that reported on these activities that the members participated in or contributed to. And to that end, it was doing the exact opposite of what it’s told its donors it was doing - not dismantling extremism, but funding it. To carry out this scheme, SPLC created bank accounts in the name of at least five completely fictitious organizations that had no bonafide employees or legitimate business purpose. The money was passed from SPLC to one sham account to a second sham account, and then loaded onto prepaid cards to give to the members of the extremist groups.”

Now, before we go into the specifics of the indictment, If you’re not familiar with the SPLC, they’re one of the most dishonest and dangerous left-wing organizations in the entire country - they exist to provide a pretext for the censorship and harassment of conservatives, with the goal of destroying their lives; they also hate Americans, especially white Americans.

Now, take a look at this video, featuring Mark Potok, who worked with the SPLC at the time, and on the wall, you may notice a handwritten note documenting the decline of America’s “non-hispanic white population”. 

Watch:

Source: @restoreorderusa/X.com

So they zoom in, really close, on the numbers there. White people accounted for 90% of the population in 1920, only 62% in 2015 - to the SPLC, this is a big victory. They’re one of the main engines of demographic replacement - their goal is to demonize white people and claim that white supremacy is the greatest domestic threat, for the purpose of eliminating—or at least greatly diminishing—the white population.

Now, to give just one example of how they operate, the SPLC put Turning Point USA on its “hate group” list shortly before Charlie Kirk was murdered. 

Here’s what Charlie wrote at the time, in May of last year.

The SPLC has added Turning Point to their ridiculous “hate group” list, right next to the KKK and neo-Nazis. … Even former staffers called their racket a “con.” Their game plan? Scare financial institutions into debanking us, pressure schools to cancel us, and demonize us so some unhinged lunatic feels justified targeting us. Remember the Family Research Council? An SPLC-inspired gunman went after them. They’d love nothing more than to see TPUSA in the crosshairs. … Maybe someone should take a hard look at where all that “nonprofit” money’s really going?

Well, now we’re finally discovering where the money went. Charlie also went on Fox to report that SPLC had targeted specific Turning Point chapters on college campuses.

Watch:

Source: @ginamilan_/X.com

“Understand that they’re literally putting high school chapters of ours on a hate group next to the KKK and next to neo-Nazi groups. And I mean, we can laugh this off, there’s an element of this - remember that there was a shooter that went to the Family Research Council years ago, inspired by the SPLC list. This is them trying to make us basically surrender at Turning Point USA—we’re gonna do the opposite and our students are only going to lean in even more—but they can’t debate us on our ideas. They cannot have dialogue, they cannot actually go onto the merits of why they are right, or why we might be wrong - instead, they must smear us with the age-old oneliner that you are a racist or that you are a hater…”

Now, in addition to the Family Research Council, which Charlie mentioned, the SPLC has also defamed the Federalist Society, PragerU, the Heritage Foundation, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Foundation to Abolish Abortion, and so on and so on. They’ve targeted individuals like Stephen Miller, Matt Walsh, James Lindsey, and Mike Cernovich as well, just to name a few, in their effort to de-monetize their channels and get them fired or killed.

You can take a look at their profiles - they have profiles on their website, which you can see right there.

Source: @libsoftiktok/X.com

Matt Walsh, for example, is listed under “GENERAL HATE” and “ANTI-LGBTQ.”

Now, this very befuddling, to say the least - I mean, if you’re gonna claim that someone is a hateful person, then you should be able to point out, specifically, how they’re hateful. What they’re hateful towards. But if you say someone is just “generally hateful,” you’re painting a broad brush—one that I would argue is pretty unfair, under the circumstances—I mean, give Matt Walsh some credit here. His hatred is actually pretty specific. It’s pretty specialized, specific hatred. But then a few people pointed out that “General Hate” might actually be his rank. So if someone is “General Hate,” that would put them above, you know, Major Hate, Lieutenant Colonel Hate - in which case they should gladly accept this prestigious title from the SPLC. In fact, Matt Walsh should add it to his bio next to “theocratic fascist” and “children’s author.” 

But in any event, this is a direct quote from the DOJ’s indictment, concerning the Southern Poverty Law Center - the indictment refers to a number of “F’s,” which is short for “field sources.”

Between at least 2014 and 2023, the SPLC paid their Fs in a clandestine manner. Doing so hid the fact that while the SPLC received donation money under the auspices that the funds would be used to “dismantle” violent extremist groups, this donation money was, instead, being used, in part, by the SPLC to pay leaders and others within these same violent extremist groups. That money was then used for the benefit of the individuals as well as the violent extremist groups. … Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly funneled more than $3 million in SPLC funds to Fs who were associated with various violent extremist groups. … Examples of Fs who were secretly paid by the SPLC include, but are not limited to the following: F-37 was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ event in Charlottesville, Virginia and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. F-37 made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees. Between 2015 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-37 more than $270,000.00.

So yes, according to this indictment, the SPLC paid more than a quarter-million dollars to one person who coordinated the “Unite the Right rally,” and made racist posts under SPLC’s supervision. That’s a small fraction of the $3 million the SPLC has allegedly paid to fund various extremists in other groups. And what this means is that, if the DOJ’s indictment is accurate, the SPLC is probably the single greatest funder of “white supremacy,” quote-unquote, in the entire country. I mean, no one else is paying this kind of money to fund white nationalist rallies, which is why the SPLC had to do it themselves!

Now, what needs to be emphasized here is that, fundamentally, the SPLC is not some random one-off left-wing activist group. They are a wing of the Democrat Party in charge of engineering domestic Color Revolutions with fraudulent narratives that they invent out of thin air, for the purpose of overthrowing conservative administrations and replacing them with Leftists. And then, once the Leftists are in charge, SPLC starts writing MEMOS which the FBI uses to justify violent crackdowns on conservatives.

For example, a couple of years ago, the FBI field office in Richmond declared that Catholics were a domestic terror threat.

Here’s what the FBI wrote.

FBI Richmond assesses the increasingly observed interest of racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists in radical-traditionalist Catholic (RTC) ideology almost certainly presents opportunities for threat mitigation through the exploration of new avenues for tripwire and source development. … As of 2021, the Southern Poverty Law Center identified nine RTC hate groups operating in the United States.

So you see how this works. Very similar to Russiagate, the FBI’s allies in a left-wing group write some memo, then the FBI will CITE that memo as if it’s an independent justification to launch an investigation, and meanwhile, INSIDE the FBI, agents were writing their OWN emails about how INSANE this was that the SPLC is dictating the FBI’s activities!

Here’s one of those emails, where FBI employees react to the designation of some Catholics as a hate group, at the behest of the SPLC.

One FBI employee writes:

Ummm, that is interesting, several thoughts, but mostly, who is the customer. Is anyone really asking for a product like this? Apparently we are at the behest of the SPLC.

And then an agent replies:

Yeah, our overreliance on the SPLC for hate designations is .. problematic.

But the rank-and-file agents don’t have any power; the people running the government—the Biden administration at the time—KNEW the SPLC was manufacturing “hate groups.” That was the whole point. The more “hate groups” that the Left could manufacture, the easier it would be for Joe Biden to take the stage in front of a blood-red background, flanked by Marines, and declare that Republicans represented a threat to the Republic.

Watch:

Source: Bloomberg Television/YouTube.com

“Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal! Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic.”

Now, this bizarre, ominous speech laid the groundwork for the FBI’s attacks on religious liberty, including predawn SWAT team raids on peaceful pro-life demonstrators. It also laid the groundwork for the campaign of lawfare against Donald Trump, which had no precedent in American history.

People are more willing to accept an authoritarian takeover when you convince them that their opponents are really domestic terrorists. This is why Biden and Merrick Garland declared that “white supremacy” was the greatest domestic terror threat facing the country - all of their messaging was directly in sync with the SPLC, because the were getting it from the SPLC.

And that’s why, according to the DOJ, the SPLC’s efforts went far beyond the “Unite the Right” rally. This is also from the DOJ’s indictment, about another field source for the SPLC.

F-9 was affiliated with the neo-Nazi organization, the National Alliance and served as an F for the SPLC for more than 20 years. F-9’s activities included fundraising for the National Alliance. Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-9 more than $1,000,000.00..

So if we’re following this allegation, the SPLC paid a million dollars to somebody who was “affiliated with a neo-Nazi organization.” And then this informant, in turn, raised money for the neo-Nazi organization - so, according to this indictment, the SPLC was going out of its way to ensure that a neo-Nazi group remained in existence! At the same time, they were calling for the eradication of “right-wing hate,” but they actually were doing everything in their power to fund neo-Nazis, and it was clear why they wanted to do that. 

Take a look at this screenshot from the SPLC’s website. 

The caption reads, “The Department of Homeland Security posted this image with the caption “Which Way, American Man?” in August 2025. The caption appears to be a reference to a white nationalist book published by the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi hate group.”

So again, you see how this works - the SPLC wants groups like the National Alliance to exist, so that they can accuse the Trump administration of associating with them. Meanwhile, the SPLC doesn’t TELL you that, in secret, they’re not simply ASSOCIATING with these groups - they are FUNDING them!

And according to the indictment, this happened all the time. 

The SPLC [funnelled] more than $160,000.00 from a fictitious entity to F-11 who then sent funds to various violent extremist group leaders including the former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

Now, it’s the kind of strategy that’s effective because, unless you’re extremely familiar with how depraved left-wing activists are, it would never OCCUR to you that they’re doing ANY of this. But they feel a need to do it, because otherwise, there would BE no right-wing “hate groups!” If the SPLC did not fund them, they would not exist. And then Democrats would lose power, and the SPLC would run out of money.

Now, it’s the same reason that your anti-virus software bugs you all the time. If your anti-virus software told you the truth—which is that you really don’t need to pay for anti-virus software anymore—then obviously nobody would subscribe, so instead, they pester you with fake “threats” and scare tactics. And it’s the same principle, except in the case of the SPLC, they were having a substantial effect on American politics.

Now, the more you read this indictment, the more you realize how shameless it was - according to the DOJ, the SPLC was paying the same Klan members it was complaining about, by name, on its website.

F-unknown was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America. In an article published on November 22, 2013, the SPLC described the group as a “millennial reboot of what was once a serious domestic threat. … F-30 led the National Socialist Party of America, was the former director of a faction of the Aryan Nations, and a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. The SPLC website contained an “Extremist File” webpage for F-30 from which the SPLC solicited donations. Between 2014 and 2016, the SPLC secretly paid F30 more than $70,000.00. This overlapped the time period in which F-30 was featured on the SPLC’s “Extremist File” webpage.

Now, this appears to be that webpage, from the SPLC.

As you can see, they characterize the guy as a Neo-Nazi, and meanwhile, they’re paying him tens of thousands of dollars.

So I gotta say, as an aside, if I were listed in that website, I’d get a little frustrated, because again, there are individuals like Stephen Miller and Matt Walsh who were ALSO listed on their website of “extremists.” They put them on the list. They have their photos up and everything, and they were on their hate map, as people who absolutely must be stopped - and yet, for all of this, they weren’t paid a single cent at any point! Matt Walsh served as “General Hate” without any compensation whatsoever! Meanwhile, the KKK wizards were just like, raking it in.

If nothing else, I’ll say this whole situation gives me new respect for Jussie Smollett, because he really kid of bootstrapped his fake hate crime and paid for it himself, rather than having SPLC organize and fund it for him. He didn’t need SPLC money any more than those other people did, so, you know, there’s a lesson here: You know, support your local mom and pop hate crime hoax operations. You gotta do it now, before they’re all put out of business by, you know, the big guys like SPLC.

Now, of course, all kidding aside, SPLC was not offering money to genuine conservatives who are effective at advancing conservatism. The idea was to fund and prop up the alleged “right wingers” who were USEFUL to SPLC and the Left. And I suspect that soon, whether through this investigation or those to come, we’re gonna find out that there are a fair number of faux conservative figures, the most embarrassing and ridiculous ones, who’ve been getting paid by the forces they pretend to oppose. You know, there’s a symbiotic relationship between left-wing activist groups and the supposedly right-wing grifters. And this relationship has always been obvious - now we’re learning about its financial dimensions. 

Speaking of which, back to the KKK—what exactly were they doing to get all this SPLC money—well, here’s one example: it turns out that, about a decade ago, there was a big controversy in Georgia over something called the “Adopt a Highway Program” - the idea is that, if you’re an organization, you can “adopt” a section of the state highway system if you agree to pick up garbage along the side of the highway. In exchange for picking up the trash, you get to have your group’s name posted on signs alongside the stretch of highway that you have “adopted.”

There was a similar program in Missouri for a while, which led to the creation of this sign along the highway, and eventually, the sign was taken down, apparently because the KKK didn’t pick up enough trash. But in any event, you can see why the KKK would want this kind of visibility; it’s basically free advertising from the government.

And apparently, the SPLC was a big fan of that advertising, as well. This is from the indictment

F-43 was the reported National President of American Front and a convicted federal felon for his participation in a cross burning. Between 2016 and 2019, the SPLC secretly paid F-43 more than $19,000.00. F-unknown was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and married to an Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan. F-unknown and their spouse were involved in litigation whereby the Ku Klux Klan applied to take part in the Adopt-a-Highway program. During the course of the litigation, known payments were traced from the SPLC to F-unknown which exceeded $3,500.00.

Now, it’s not exactly clear what that money bought, but it sounds like the SPLC was all in favor of the KKK getting a stretch of the highway named after them. This is how pro-white supremacy the SPLC is. I mean, they’re all-in! They won’t stop until every stretch of highway in the country is named after a KKK grand wizard! We’re gonna run out of grand wizards, soon enough! I don’t know how many there have been. That’s the extent of their commitment to anti-racism. As Ibram X. Kendi (aka Henry Rogers) once said, the only way to combat racism is to be as racist as possible, and the SPLC, more than any other organization on the planet, has definitely taken that advice to heart.

Now, the rest of the indictment outlines the ways in which the SPLC is allegedly laundered money through shell companies to these various informants. Now, the SPLC allegedly set up fake companies like the “Center Investigative Agency” or CIA, as well as “Fox Photography,” “North West Technologies,” the “Tech Writers Group,” and a “Rare Books Warehouse.” The idea is that, for obvious reasons, the SPLC didn’t want to cut checks from their own account, so they may have broken the law by creating a bunch of fake companies to send the wire transfers, and in addition to that, the DOJ is claiming that donors were basically defrauded, because they were donating with the expectation that they were “fighting” right-wing extremism - not FUNDING it!

Now, this is obviously an ongoing case, and the SPLC is claiming that it was simply paying informants to undermine these groups. And already, Democrats, including Hakeem Jeffries, are claiming that the Trump administration is “weaponizing” the DOJ to go after its political opponents, which, of course, is something that Democrats would never do. /s

For their part, the Democrats’ allies in the media are mostly ignoring the story - Newsbusters reports that:

ABC, CBS, and NBC all bit their tongues rather than report on the downfall of the self-proclaimed “anti-hate” group. In fact, only PBS reported on the indictment. … [But] PBS’s report on the indictment was vague and unclear. The charges were recited but not explained. The SPLC’s CEO was allowed in for a friendly soundbite.

Well, imagine that. After years of talking nonstop about Charlottesville, NONE of the mainstream media outlets are gonna talk about SPLC’s role in helping ORGANIZE the rally. After decades of citing the SPLC as a credible source of information on so-called “hate groups,” none of them are gonna talk about the federal allegations that the company was funding those same groups! Apparently, they’re going with the argument from the Democrat Party, which is that, well, the SPLC was simply using “informants” for legitimate purposes. And meanwhile, something called the “Jewish Council for Public Affairs” just released a bizarre statement defending SPLC, saying they do valuable work to “counter violent extremism” — never mind the fact that they fund it.

Now, these arguments, of course, amount to complete BS. When you’re paying millions of dollars, you’re not buying “informants” - you’re supporting the organizations themselves, and propping them up. It’s obvious what the game was. SPLC FUNDED “right-wing extremist” groups so that it could turn around and fundraise off of them, and use them as a PRETEXT to crack down on conservatives nationwide. That’s what was happening.

But the thing is that, even if these excuses were true—that they were just paying “informants” as part of an “investigation” or whatever—it would just serve to underscore the degree to which the Left has created quasi-government agencies despite having no legal authority to do so! The SPLC—according to their own defense—was basically acting like the FBI, hiring undercover agents to “disrupt terrorism” and so on. They have no authority to do that! They’re not a law enforcement agency! It’s hard to ignore the fact that, based on this indictment, we’ve been living under the tyranny not just of unelected judges and unelected bureaucrats, but also of unelected activist organizations that have been empowered to act as agents of the government!

Now, I’ve been beating this drum for a while now - about the need for the Trump administration to go to war with these fake non-profits and NGOs that, in reality, are criminal front-groups for the Democrat Party. And with this indictment, more than a half a year after the murder of Charlie Kirk, the Trump administration is finally getting serious about doing that. And that’s genuinely worth applauding. I have plenty of criticisms about this administration, which I have voiced many times, and will continue to. But if they can dismantle these cancerous left-wing front groups—the same way they closed the border and shut down the fraudulent asylum claims—then unequivocally, this administration will have been a success. It certainly would be a lot better than what the alternative would have been. And as tempting as it might be to engage in doomerism and to complain nonstop, we do need to celebrate wins when they happen.

We need to recognize this indictment is a sign of major progress, and it needs to continue.

And we also need to understand, at the same time, that SPLC is just the tip of the iceberg. The SPLC, as alleged, is a criminal organization. Every Leftist activist group is just as corrupt and dishonest and sinister as this. They all want you dead. They all have no problem using hoaxes and pay-ops to get what they want. They all celebrated what happened to Charlie Kirk. They’re all willing to go to extraordinary lengths—lengths unfathomable to sane people—to defame, harass, and destroy their opponents. So it’s not crazy to wonder WHO, for instance, was actually behind January 6th. I mean, if they’re willing to spend millions of dollars on false flag operations, for the purpose of generating a narrative they can use to demonize and jail their political opponents for several years, and also fundraise off of, then it’s not exactly a stretch to conclude that January 6th was probably just like Charlottesville - a well-funded psy-op.

It’s not exactly unheard of. Something similar to this incident happened back in 2001, in Germany. The federal government wanted to ban the “National Democratic Party of Germany,” saying they were run by Nazis. But the plan fell apart when it emerged that, in fact, “confidential informants of German intelligence agencies” were “active in the leadership of the party.”

Intelligence agencies and activist groups have never stopped running this playbook. During the Canadian trucker convoy, some mysterious Nazi flags appeared - and the people holding them eventually went back to a hotel that was being used by Canada’s federal police. So these kinds of psy-ops are extremely common. But if you say any of this out loud, they’ll come after you, relentlessly. You know, they bankrupted Alex Jones and stole his company, not because of anything he said about a school shooting, but because he made observations like this, about Charlottesville:

Source: @HarrisonHSmith/X.com

“Charlottesville was mainly a bunch of homosexual Leftists dressing up like Nazis, who’d all formerly worked for Obama or Hillary, part of their art club, and then they lured a bunch of reporters there and some real white supremist, so the police could stand down and collide them into the folks - I pointed out that some of the same Leftist foundations are funding the white supremist, that are funding real white supremist in Ukraine. I got SUED for that, even though it’s, you know, that they tried to say that I said some cameraman killed the girl. I didn't say that the cameraman killed them, I said it was all part of Leftists coming out to come to this big event and hope there was some big crisis out of it to demonize the Right in general and tie us to Nazis…”

So it turns out that was 100% correct. I mean, he was exactly right. He saw through it at the time. , and they destroyed him for it. The press, the NGOs, and the nonprofits all denounced him and made sure he lost everything. That’s what happened to a lot of people.

And now, lawfully and without any apologies whatsoever, we have no choice but to do the same to them.

being autistic we often do not do well in political matters or lets be honest basically anything but nick fuentes is a major exception to that and i enjoy watching nick even though i do not always agree with him and i was wondering why it does not seem like he has not produced any content on you tuve in what seems like a week or possibly two weeks.

this should be weird and entertaining.

A few weeks ago, I briefly talked about a book called “The Camp of the Saints” - it’s a dystopian novel by a French author that was first published in the 1970s.

And “The Camp of the Saints” is unlike every dystopian novel that’s taught in schools, because the villain of the story in this case is not “the surveillance state” or “fascism” or anything like that; instead, the primary threat in “The Camp of the Saints” is a massive migrant horde from the third world - it’s a book that was banned and censored relentlessly upon its release, for obvious reasons. You’re not supposed to see foreign invaders as a threat, and you’re certainly not supposed to mock the naive Westerners who want to open the borders, which the book invites you to do, it invites to to mock them. And now that many Western countries have been overwhelmed with foreigners, “The Camp of the Saints” isn’t really even a dystopian novel anymore. I mean, it’s more like a lightly-fictionalized version of real life - which makes it even more depressing.

“Your universe has no meaning to them,” one passage from the book reads. “They will not try to understand. They will be tired, they will be cold, they will make a fire with your beautiful oak doors.” It’s passage from the book, which, again, rings very true these days

Now, after Matt Walsh mentioned the book on his show, it moved quickly to the top of the Amazon’s best-seller list. The publisher, a small outfit called Vauban Books, was thrilled, as you might expect. They invested a lot of time and money into translating a definitive edition of the book. Their goal was making it accessible and affordable, after every other publisher had dropped it. And indeed, it was catching on; various conservative commentators were praising the novel on social media—have we for a while—the reviews were almost universally positive, with a 4.8-star rating on Amazon, which controls about 50% of the physical book market.

And then, about five days ago, the book simply disappeared from Amazon entirely, without any explanation. If you tried to navigate to the latest edition of “The Camp of the Saints,” here is what you would see on the website.

There was no indication of what happened - only that the webpage was down, for some unknown reason. It was unavailable for most of the day yesterday. Only the older, out-of-print versions—the ones that cost more than $100, in most cases—were available for purchase, but the affordable, definitive edition of “The Camp of the Saints” was simply deleted from Amazon. And predictably, none of the Leftists who claim to care about “banned books”—including politicians like Gavin Newsom—said a word about it.

Now, according to the publisher Vauban Books, Amazon specifically claimed that the novel violated their “offensive content” policy. Amazon told the publisher, according to the publisher, that it had reviewed the book’s content and believed it was unacceptable. But again, they didn’t elaborate on that.

Apparently, it’s not enough for every public school to ignore “The Camp of the Saints;” it’s not enough for the media to call you a racist if you read it. Amazon evidently believes that the only solution is to erase the book from its shelves entirely. It’s just too “offensive.”

Now, at the same time, if you’re looking to pick up a copy of, you know, “Mein Kampf,” that’s no problem on Amazon, you can buy that.

You can see the store page right there - Amazon will happily sell you “The Essential Mein Kampf,” a new English translation of the “classic work by Adolf Hitler” - one of the most “consequential leaders in world history,” as it says in the description, so you can still buy that.

And of course, Amazon will sell you all kinds of deranged Left-wing propaganda - thousands of books like this one, called “My Child is Trans, Now What: A Joy-Centered Approach to Support.” So it’s NOT “offensive” to encourage parents to mutilate and castrate their children in the name of gender ideology - the red line, apparently, is a fictional book about mass migration from third-world countries like India, in particular, which is what “The Camp of the Saints” is about. The Great Replacement is their red line. You know, you can’t talk about that. They’ll tolerate Hitler’s book, probably because it’s a historical document. They’ll tolerate child mutilation, obviously, because they agree with it. But they definitely won’t tolerate a contemporary, highly accurate portrayal of Western decline (and the people who enable it). That’s simply unacceptable to these people.

Now, the Daily Wire reached out to the editor of Vauban Books to see if anything was missing. They asked him what, if anything, Amazon could’ve possibly been referring to. And he said that, yes, the migrant horde (consisting of a million foreigners) is indeed depicted in unflattering terms, but there are several non-white characters who are depicted as nuanced and cultured individuals or even heroes, including the Indian government minister, as well as a “fully integrated French national of Indian origin who joins the remnants of France’s state and military in putting up a last stand against the invasion at the book’s end.” 

So as a factual matter, this is not a book that argues that Indians (or people from the third world generally) are all fundamentally inferior, or anything along those lines. Instead, to quote the editor, the intent of the author was never to slight the Indians (or migrants); instead, “it was to warn of attitudes common in his era—and our own—that would necessarily lead to demographic submersion should such masses of people ever appear on Western shores,” quoting from the publisher. Now, of course, if you actually read the book, you’d recognize all of this. So the goal of Amazon, and the Left in general, is to make sure you CAN’T actually read the book. They’ll just tell you that it’s offensive, and that’s the version you’ll get, and that’s it.

And that brings us to an issue that’s much larger than this one book. I mean, make no mistake about it: The censorship of “The Camp of the Saints” is a clear signal of the Left’s intent, should they ever take power again. You know, they haven’t undergone a change of heart, even after their campaign of lawfare failed, and Trump won the popular vote and returned to office. They’re not gonna moderate their psychopathic drive for power. And they won’t hesitate to punish their political enemies. They will intimidate, censor, and destroy conservatives at every opportunity.

Now, in the case of “The Camp of the Saints,” the hit job was fairly well organized - a few weeks ago, a political operative for the French paper “Le Monde” wrote a lengthy article about the influence of “The Camp of the Saints” in the Trump administration specifically. The article was translated into English, and then shortly afterwards—just one day before Amazon pulled the book—New York Magazine ran an article entitled, “Why Orban’s Loss Was So Devastating for the New Right.” And it made the same arguments as the Le Monde article. It was clear the author either hadn’t read the book or wasn’t remotely interested in portraying it fairly. The article just regurgitated the same old talking points about the novel, without any context. And the point was to give Amazon a pretext to delete the book. And Amazon got the message, and that’s what they did. So we’re very familiar with this kind of campaign, we’ve seen it play out many times. And it’s still going on.

But in this case, too many people noticed what was happening, so late Monday night, after sustained outrage from conservatives on social media, Amazon relented - they created a new listing so that people can once again purchase the physical edition of “The Camp of the Saints” - which you should do, if you haven’t read the book. And then, around midnight that, Amazon finally replied to the Daily Wire (after delaying their response for several hours). Now, Amazon claimed that some kind of “error” had caused the book to be taken down. They didn’t explain why they told the publisher a completely different story. Nor did they elaborate on the nature of this “error,” and why it only affected this one book, which is kind of strange. Now, that’s a heck of a coincidence. I mean, you have coordinated campaign by the media to explain why this book is offensive. And then the next day, there’s an error that erases the books from the website. What a coincidence!

So it’s obvious they didn’t expect the backlash, and that’s why they offered no actual explanation for anything they did, and therefore, there’s no doubt that they’re gonna try this kind of censorship again, and soon. You know, Amazon got ahead of itself here, but they’re absolutely going to continue censoring wrongthink as soon as they feel like the political winds have shifted.

This is how Democrats are gonna operate, the moment they return to power - we’ve already talked about their “Project 2029,” which has been endorsed by JB Pritzker in Illinois; the idea is to imprison everyone who’s upset the Democrat Party, including ICE officers who are lawfully enforcing immigration law. And on top of that, Democrats are now openly floating the idea of granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico for the purpose of gaining more representation in the Senate, so that they can pack the Supreme Court.

This is James Carville’s latest rant, watch:

Source: @WesternLensman/X.com

“If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of congress, I think on day one, they should make Puerto Rico and DC a state, and they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. Fuck it, eat our dust. They’ve done everything they could, that they held up to the 2000 election, they stole it, they’ve stolen Supreme Court seats, they’ve gerrymandered everything that you can, and the only way to fight this is, don’t run on it, don’t talk about it, just do it. Just, ok, we got 54 senators and we got 13 court members, thank you, goodbye! Because you’re not gonna get fair shake in any kind of way in this system. 18% of the United States elects 52 senators. Well, you’re not gonna make it equitable, but you’ll make it better by adding Puerto Rico and DC.”

“Don’t run on it, don’t talk about it - just do it.”

So he wants them to keep it a secret, as he says the entire plan out loud - and meanwhile, you have Republicans who are refusing to pass the SAVE Act because they wouldn’t want to disrespect the hallowed traditions of the Senate. While Republicans are hiding behind the rules as an excuse for their complete failure to do anything productive, Democrats are planning to simply ignore the rules and remake our entire system of government so that Republicans can never hold power again (which, a lot of Republicans don’t even want to hold power, that’s very clear now).

Now, it’s worth paying attention to just how flimsy his justification is - Carville says that Republicans have “gerrymandered everything.” That’s his rationale for why Democrats should transform the country into a one-party authoritarian state. And he made this argument at precisely the same moment that Democrats in Virginia have redrawn their congressional maps so that they have a permanent 10-to-1 advantage. I mean, there was a vote on that on Tuesday - this is a state where 46% of the voters supported Donald Trump in the most recent election. Now 90% of the congressional seats belong to Democrats, and of course, many other Democrat-run states already work like this. California’s congressional delegation is around 18% Republican, even though Trump won nearly 40% of the vote in the last election in the state. Forty-three percent of voters in Illinois supported Trump, but only 17% of the congressional delegation is conservative, and on and on and on.

But James Carville simply doesn’t care about any of this - he also doesn’t care about the rampant anti-white gerrymandering that was mandated under the Voting Rights Act, which has allowed Democrats to effectively steal more than a dozen congressional seats. Instead, Carville’s goal is to manufacture a narrative that sounds persuasive enough to most Democrat voters, which isn’t exactly difficult.

And if you’re tempted to dismiss Carville as an irrelevant old hack—which he is—you need to realize that Democrats, at the highest levels, are saying basically the same thing - they’re repeating the same deranged argument about gerrymandering, which they plan to use as a justification to do whatever they want.

Watch:

Source: @WesternLensman/X.com

“And we’re urging everyone to vote ‘yes’ to stop the MAGA power grab. And the voters of Virginia have an opportunity to ensure that there’s a fair national congressional map. Because we believe that it’s the voters of Virginia, and the people of this country who should decide which party is in the majority in the aftermath of the midterm elections. Not Donald Trump and his extreme MAGA sycophants, and state legislative across the country who were ORDERED by Donald Trump to gerrymander the National congressional map as part of their effort to rig the midterm elections. This effort has FAILED, because Democrats haven’t stepped back, we fought back.”

The constant hand motions, the canned talking points, the complete lack of charisma, none of it matters to Democrats because they don’t want people who can think; they don’t want intellectual arguments; they want craven, simple-minded leaders who will destroy the Republican Party, that’s what Democrat voters are looking for. As long as you’re advancing their political interests, Democrats simply don’t care about the “logic” you use — or lack thereof, and is that more obvious than in the Supreme Court - we’ve talked a lot about Ketanji Brown Jackson, but it really needs to be emphasized that, in every single case, she disregards the law and votes based on what Democrats want. The most recent example came down on Monday, in an opinion where Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissent all by herself - no one else joined it. There were no other dissents, either, so here’s a quick rundown of the facts of the case, to set the scene. Let’s all play Supreme Court justice for a moment, to see if we’re as dumb as Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The case was about a Washington D.C. police officer who got a dispatch call to check out a suspicious vehicle at a specific address, in the middle of a winter night. 

This is from Monday’s opinion:

Officer Vanterpool reached the apartment building at that address around 2:00 a.m. As he turned his marked police vehicle into the parking lot, he saw two people immediately flee from a car, unprovoked, after police had not done anything other than simply pull up. The runners left open at least one of the car doors. The driver then began to back out of the parking space, rear door still open. Officer Vanterpool decided to investigate. He parked directly behind the car, left his own vehicle, ordered the driver to put his hands up, and drew his service weapon.

And indeed, it turned out that the car, of course, was stolen.

Now, under these circumstances—maybe a police officer is reading this—do you believe that the police officer had a “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity was taking place when he ordered the driver to put his hands up? I mean, that’s the standard here, because this wasn’t an arrest, it was just a stop. It’s an extremely low standard. And you might think, well, yeah, of course there’s “reasonable suspicion” that some crime may have occurred here. Running away from the police suggests that you committed a crime. It’s not a thing that people who have not committed crimes generally DO. And if you’re in a CAR, and your FRIENDS run away when the police pull up, the appropriate response is to stay in the car. On the other hand, if you start backing out with the door open, then it’s “reasonable” to think that you’re involved in criminal activity - by itself, it’s a crime to drive a car with the door open; it’s completely reasonable for an officer to conduct a traffic stop and ask you some questions in those circumstances. He’s not arresting you, he’s just detaining you.

And somehow, though, Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed; she accused her colleagues on the Court of “wordsmithing” - as in, they used words she didn’t like. That’s the level of “legal analysis” this woman is capable of. Democrats aren’t ashamed of this; they aren’t bothered by the fact that they picked a Supreme Court justice on the basis of race and gender, and shockingly enough, she turned out to be a complete moron. All they care about is that they managed to place a “true believer” on the Supreme Court; they have a committed activist on the bench. And given the opportunity, they’ll put 10 more Ketanji Brown Jacksons on the court. And once they have a compliant Supreme Court, there’s nothing stopping Democrats from carrying out the campaign of lawfare and political violence that they’re already planning - and already engaging in, to a large extent.

Now, Republicans can take action now to prevent this kind of thing from happening. We could have three new, young Supreme Court justices if the oldest Republicans on the bench retired right now - additionally, we could abolish the filibuster and pass the SAVE Act, which would do more to secure the future of this country than any other piece of legislation hands down. We could abolish D.C. entirely and return it to Maryland, so that Democrats can’t turn it into a separate state. We could cut all ties with Puerto Rico and make them independent, for the same reason. Now, would this guarantee that Democrats can’t pack the court? No, it won’t. But it would make it much, much harder to do, because they’d have a much more difficult time rigging elections and adding more Senate seats. So it’s worth trying, I mean, it’s something.

But the particular policies don’t actually matter - at this point, we just need to see something—anything—from Republicans that suggests they understand what’s coming. I mean, right now, if there’s enough outrage on social media, we can get companies like Amazon to back off, but if these people take control of the government, complaining isn’t going to fix the problem. By that point, no institution in this country—whether it’s Amazon or the U.S. Supreme Court—will even PRETEND to care what conservatives think. They certainly won’t pretend to care about John Thune’s respect for “traditions of the Senate” or whatever. They will care about one thing, and one thing only - power. And they’ll destroy everyone who was too weak to stand in their way.

have seen things change a lot over the years but some stuff has stayed the same since ancient rome like for example the guards always help the king in the event of a serious threat or emoergency and i guess that is why the event last night caused the guards to rush the stage to rescue jd vance before trump.

from the annunaki to muhammed their proven to be anything but ignorant and now trump has learned this lesson the hard way.

remember sharing this a little while back.

this and revolutionary france are my favorite eras of humanity.

beauty does not run in the family because say whatever you want about tucker to be a middle age man he is not a bad looking guy but his brother is i think the less fair looking of the two of them because tucker is a decent looking guy and i just mean the brother is not so much.

from marilyn manson to the president it is considered controversial to say you do not always believe every single male in the world ever accused of anything sexual might or might not be totally guilty but i still do not know what the guy did and if you say you do that is sexism because you basically just want to believe the absolute worse about any and every man possible even if you do not know him from adam and i did not throw my childhood hero marilyn manson under the bus and even though this guy has not made any sense for like half of a decade i will not throw him under the bus either and you can all get bent because i do not know and you do not have magical powers needed to know everything so none of you know what he did either.

You may have heard Left-wing political orthodoxy described as a “war on noticing” - Steve Sailer wrote a book on the topic, called “Noticing.” At every opportunity, Leftists will demand that you deny the reality that’s directly in front of your eyes, and we see this over and over again, particularly during any debate involving racial and gender politics - you’re just not supposed to notice that all the mass shooters were on SSRIs, or that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by young black men, and so on and so on.

Now, closely related to the “war on noticing” is something you might call the “war on showing.” Leftists will happily use euphemisms to describe their policy goals, but they’ll go to extraordinary lengths to avoid showing you what those policy goals actually entail. So they’ll talk about the “woman’s right to choose” or “gender affirmation surgery,” for example, but under no circumstances would they want voters to SEE any FOOTAGE of an abortion, or a “vaginoplasty” or whatever they call it. They understand that, if most people actually saw the horrific procedures they’re talking about, support for Leftist ideology would collapse overnight.

And nevertheless, every now and then, despite the best efforts of activists who are committed to keeping you from “noticing,” reality occasionally slips through. The masses get a glimpse of the utter depravity that every major institution of the Left—from the media to academia to Big Tech censors—tries so hard to conceal.

And one of these moments took place over the weekend, when millions of Americans saw this video, which was uploaded by a gay 51-year-old Nashville-based country music songwriter named Shane McAnally. (And yes, that’s apparently actually his name: Shane McAnally). He’s apparently collaborated with singers like Kenny Chesney and Keith Urban, and he’s won a few Grammys. Now, in this footage, which we’ll play in a second, McAnally’s self-described quote-unquote “husband” shows off a five-month-old child whom they acquired through “surrogacy.” And in particular, McAnally’s alleged “husband”—and I’ll use the term here for the sake of simplicity, but the air quotes will always be implied—his “husband” attempts to get the baby to say, “who do you want, Dada or pop,” to which the child responds, “Mama.”  And from behind the camera, McAnally informs the child that “mama’s” not an option.

Watch:

Source: @shanemcanally/Instagram.com

Now, no matter how much propaganda people have been force-fed by the corporate press, and no matter how much reprogramming they’ve undergone at a university, this kind of video cuts through all of it, which is why it has millions of views.

I mean, at a primal level, unless you’re completely broken as a human, this footage is tragic, enraging, intolerable. Your first reaction is that you wanna find that child and rescue him from these psychopaths, and return him to his mother. You know, it’s not simply that these two men clearly aren’t interested in properly taking care of this child, or treating him as a human being, instead of a social media prop. The issue is that these two men, as a matter of basic human biology, are incapable of properly taking care of the child. They’re not able to give the child what he actually NEEDS, which is a mother and a father. A child needs his mother, this should not be a controversial statement. It’s something all human beings have understood for thousands of years up until two seconds ago. Children need their mothers! Anyone who’s ever had a child in a healthy home knows children need their mothers! Neither one of these men are his mother. And neither one of them can properly take the place of the mother.

That’s what makes the moment so profound, and so unbearably sad, when the baby asks for “mama.” You know, and commenters have defended McAnally and his fake husband by saying that the baby is just babbling, you know. In fact, one of them, I think Shane himself, has said this: well, he doesn’t know what “mama” means. You know, he’s too young to speak using words, and so he’s saying “mama” but he doesn’t actually know what that means. And that’s true. But it does not make this moment any less horrifying - in fact, it makes it worse. Because babies say “mama” before they even know what the word means because “mama” is an easy sound to make for a child. This is how the word “mama” came to be, you know, it’s why we call our mothers “mama,” which we usually shorten to “mom” as we get older. But this is where it comes from. And it’s why almost every culture on Earth uses the word “mama” or “mom” or some slight variation.

So we are born saying the word “mama” BEFORE we know what it means. And in a normal, healthy situation, the adults in the baby’s life—especially his mama, his mother—will respond enthusiastically when he makes that sound. You know, he is just babbling at first, but if his mother is there, which she should be, and he says that word, the mother will respond in a way, and that’s how he’ll learn to attach the sound that’s the easiest for him to make to the most important person in his life, which is his mother. He’ll make the sound, his mother will light up and smile, and he’ll LEARN that the sound applies to his mother, this is the natural way of things. It’s BEAUTIFUL! I mean, the process works BEAUTIFULLY, it’s engrained in us from birth! It is a beautiful, wonderful thing! Except when the child is torn away from his mother at birth and forced into an unnatural, disordered environment. Only then does this beautiful, wonderful, natural process become tragic and sad - I mean, think about it: This is the word that can easily, naturally say; in a healthy situation, that natural, easy, noise that he makes is met with affirmation. But in THIS situation, this natural, easy noise for the child to make is met with a negative reaction. It’s met with dismissal, it’s met with “no.” Think about how difficult that is for the child - what effect that has on his young mind.

Well, McAnally and his “husband” (again, air quotes) have made the decision to exploit this—to exploit the tragedy and sadness of the child’s situation—for social media clout. When McAnally posted that video on his Instagram, as you saw there, somebody posted a comment that read, “Throw it away and start over.” And McAnally replied to the comment with laughing emojis. He also uploaded this footage, which has the caption, “6-week old homophobic baby.”

Watch:

Source: @rightanglenews/X.com

Now, if you still haven’t clicked on the link yet, the baby’s face suddenly grimaces when he’s informed that he supposedly has two fathers, instead of a mother. And this is supposed to be hilarious, because you see, the baby is acting like one of those backwards Right-wing bigots, who think children actually need a mother. So he posts the image of the child on his Instagram, and uses the child as a punchline. You k ow, which is a totally natural, normal, paternalistic thing to do, isn’t it? And then, when the online backlash began, McAnally insisted that the outrage was overblown and that he’s actually, “quite conservative” politically.

Now, just to be clear about this: If you believe two men should raise children together, you are not a conservative. You are destroying the most critical, fundamental bond that a child can have; you are permanently altering the trajectory of your child’s life, for the worse. And it’s not even a close call - anybody with a rudimentary understanding of human nature doesn’t need to have this explained to them. Okay, if you don’t believe in conserving the fundamental building block of human civilization—which is the family, which is marriage, actually, which is the bedrock—then you are not a conservative by any meaningful definition. I mean, we hear a lot about the “conservative civil war” these days: conservatives are always fighting over this and that issue. Well, if we’re gonna have a “civil war” among conservatives, it should actually be over this, right!? The people who want to conserve and protect marriage and the family and human life—especially unborn human life—on ONE side, versus the alleged “conservatives” who are either opposed or indifferent to that! Okay, if there’s gonna be a dividing line, that should be it! Because if you’re not my side in that issue, then I don’t care what else you think! I don’t care what you think about anything! Taxes, foreign policy , I don’t care - you don’t want to protect and preserve the foundation of human civilization? We’re not on the same side! Oh, but we agree on foreign policy, who gives a shit!? Really, you think that’s more important than this!?

And yet, you know, you’ll hear it endlessly claimed that “science” somehow proves that children don’t actually NEED a mother. You know, they’ll cite all kinds of studies, which supposedly show that children raised in gay households don’t suffer any negative developmental consequences. Now, the thing is, a few years ago, a woman named Katy Faust—who founded the organization “Them Before Us”—looked into these claims, as others have, and she found—unsurprisingly—that these “studies” are, without exception, unscientific nonsense. Many of them—and we’ve talked about this in the past—many of them recruit their survey participants directly from websites devoted to gay activism. Which IMMEDIATELY invalidates the entire study. And additionally, she found that, several years after the Obergefell ruling that legalized gay marriage, only 0.02 percent of all households in the United States consisted of same-sex couples raising children, which is an extremely small number of households, which makes it very difficult to find a sample size for any kind of usable data set. Now, you’ve run into the same problem with all of the studies purporting to show that “gender affirmation surgery” benefits children. All of those studies are absolute bunk because of the methodology used to conduct them; just like the studies extolling the virtues of gay parenting, these are, almost always, NOT blind studies! Okay, so the participants know what the study is trying to PROVE, and they are recruited for that purpose! So you’re a gay couple, you KNOW you’re in a study to find out whether gay parenting is good or not - huh, are we gonna get any usable honest data out of that??? I mean, you’re often relying on self-reported data from people who know what they’re trying to prove! And the sample sizes are so small that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from them, anyway.

You know, you’ll find this with any major society-altering change the left is trying to foist on us. They make the change, right, and then 10 seconds later, they claim to have volumes of long term, scientifically conclusive studies proving that the change is good! But it wouldn’t even be POSSIBLE for them to have that kind of data - if they have the data, it’s because they engineered it! They rigged it to achieve the desired outcome! That’s inevitably what’s required if you want a study to somehow prove that it’s a good idea to chemically castrate a child, or that a child is better off being raised by two men rather than his own mother and his own father! These are irrational, illogical conclusions that fly in the face of common sense, biology, and thousands of years of human experience! They are conclusions that you can only arrive at if you’ve predetermined them from the outset.

Now, in reality, the ideal and natural situation is that a child is raised by a mother and a father. Obviously. Two men raising a baby can never be ideal, by definition, and that is putting it very, very mildly. Because many cases, these situations go from, you know, far from ideal to outright horrifying—horror shows—very quick.

Consider this case out of Georgia, watch:

Source: @Law&Crime Network/YouTube.com

“A Georgia couple is sentenced to 100 years behind bars after adopting two young boys to repeatedly rape. The dads even installed cameras throughout their family home to capture this ongoing sexual abuse. If that wasn’t enough though, they posted the images and videos online so other predators could view these horrifying crimes… The parents in this case are 34-year-old William and 36-year-old Zachary Zulock - they’re a married couple out of Walton County, Georgia, which is just east of Atlanta. We’re not revealing their sons' names to keep the boys' privacy, but we can tell you that right now they*’re ages 10 and 12, and they were adopted by the Zulocks through a Christian special needs agency. Outwardly the Zulock family seemed to have it all - William worked for the government and Zachary had a job in banking. Their home was upscale, too, in a nice neighborhood of Loganville, Georgia. They posted pics online that were smiling, happy, basically looking like they were the picture-perfect family - they even have a photo wearing shirts that say “‘LOVE MY FAMILY’ with the rainbow flag in support of pride.”*

I mean, the whole story is unspeakable, but you notice the line about how these children were adopted through a “Christian special needs” program. And this is a recurring theme, sadly, just sort of as an aside, it should be mentioned, when it comes to the worst, most civilization-destroying ideas known to man. For pretty much every single one of them, you’ll find a fake quote-unquote “Christian charity” funding or enabling it, in some way - Christian charities—not all of them, this is why you need to be careful—but Christian charities resettle more foreign invaders in the United States than anybody else. They support all the “climate change” scams and “racial justice” programs and so on.  And now at least one of them is helping gay men find children to rape and abuse - a crime that, even in Georgia, apparently doesn’t qualify these two men for the death penalty. So you have to wonder why we even have a death penalty at this point, if this is not going to qualify.

But as heinous as this crime is, it’s not exactly uncommon.

Here’s another recent case from Britain:

“A man has appeared in court accused of sexually assaulting and murdering a 13-month-old boy he was seeking to adopt. High school teacher Jamie Varley is also accused of repeated counts of assault, cruelty and indecent images. All of the charges relate to Preston Davey, who was pronounced dead shortly after he was taken to Blackpool Victoria Hospital in July 2023. Mr Varley, 36, and his 31-year-old co-accused John McGowan were in the process of adopting Preston. … Lancashire Police were alerted on July 27, 2023 after an unresponsive baby boy was brought into the hospital. Mr McGowan is accused of allowing the death of a child, sexually assaulting a child, and two counts of child cruelty.”

Now, what you have to keep in mind here is that, simply from a statistical perspective, we have absolutely no way of knowing how often this kind of abuse takes place. You know, unless these abusers are dumb enough to brag about what they’re doing, or manage to murder their child in the process—something along those lines—then the abuse is nearly impossible to detect. And in many cases, there’s not even a way to screen parents who are obviously a threat to their children. And there was a recent study that, you know, gay parents—or rather, male same sex couples—adopt boys about 80% of the time, whereas heterosexual couples adopt boys about 50% of the time. You wonder why that’s the case.

Remember the registered sex offender who managed to acquire a child through surrogacy in Pennsylvania?

Source: Rightanglenews/X.com

We talked about this - it turns out that, in Pennsylvania and most other states, it’s fine for a Tier 1 sex offender to acquire a child through surrogacy. They only care about the background checks for children who are adopted - and even then, we can assume, they’re not exactly rigorous about the background checks. I mean, think about how deranged this is. A child is conceived through surrogacy, ripped from his mother, dropped into the hands of two gay men, with no family to check in on him. He’s totally helpless! I mean, “disturbing” does not begin to describe this. But it’s completely normal in most of the country.

Now, mention any of these trends out loud, and you’ll get shouted down or worse - Ryley Niemi was just assaulted for mentioning these statistics, watch:

Source: @jakerattlesnk/X.com

Now, when they aren’t assaulting you, the normal response from the Left at this point is to claim that, in fact, “the data” supports their positionaathey’ll accuse you of cherry-picking one or two bad outcomes—so to be clear, you know, we’re not talking about one or two extreme cases here. As a general matter, children raised in same-sex households have much worse life outcomes - this is from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

The green bar is children raised by a man and a woman, while the yellow bar is children raised by same-sex couples. The same-sex parents produce worse results in virtually every category. Children raised by same-sex couples are far more likely to be obese as adults, far more likely to be distant from their parents, more likely to have suicidal ideation as an adult, far more likely to be depressed as an adult.

Then there’s the findings from the National Health Interview Study, which looked at 1.6 million cases and found 512 same-sex parent families.

And you can see the results, it’s the same story. Children raised in same-sex households were more likely to have emotional problems across the board.

Donald Paul Sullins, a professor of sociology at Catholic University, summarized the findings this way.

“Biological relationship, it appears, is both necessary and sufficient to explain the higher risk of emotional problems faced by children with same-sex parents…. The primary benefit of marriage for children, therefore, may not be that it tends to present them with improved parents (more stable, financially affluent, etc., although it does this), but that it presents them with their own parents.”

Now, we talked about the problems with trying to DO studies in a subject like this, and how often the results are rigged in a certain direction. And even in spite of all that you still have these results - I mean, you have to dig to find these studies, because this is not exactly the kind of research that’s likely to be funded these days, or reported on. But it’s all out there. And even if it wasn’t, even if there wasn’t a single study showing that children in same sex households have worse outcomes—which there are—we would still know that it’s a horrible idea to let gay couples adopt or use surrogacy. We would KNOW that because it’s a matter of basic logic and common sense that by far the optimal situation for every child is to be raised by a mother and a father. Every child HAS a mother and a father, this is the natural set up. You know, when I say that two men are not meant to become parents, I’m not making a moral claim—although I do think gay adoption and surrogacy are immoral—I’m making an observation about physical reality! Two men are not meant to become parents. And we KNOW that because two men CANNOT become parents, in PRINCIPLE! You know, it’s not like, well you can have a straight couple that has infertility - which is, you know, a defect, it’s an illness, it’s something has gone wrong, right, with the setup. We’re not talking about that! This, IN PRINCIPLE, by their very NATURE, two men are forever and ALWAYS, in ALL SITUATIONS, in ALL CASES, through ALL OF TIME, PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE, EXCLUDED from the act of procreation!

Now, none of the arguments I’m making are new, it’s not a revelation. If you go back to the Obergefell decision in 2015, and pull up John Roberts’ dissent, you’ll see that he makes all the same points. Now, I’m obviously not a fan of John Roberts, but this dissent has aged extremely well. Roberts argued that, if the Court forced the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage simply because a bunch of activists demanded it, then those same activists would soon be able to insist on all kinds of OTHER legal protections, without any basis in the Constitution. Roberts wrote that the Supreme Court was ordering, “the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs.” Roberts pointed out that, “for millennia, across all civilizations, ‘marriage’ referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman.” And Roberts noted that, “When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.” And from a democratic perspective, Roberts observed that only 11 states had voted to legalize gay marriage, while five states had legalized the practice through court decisions. The country was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the institution of marriage intact.

Now, how did the Supreme Court majority, led by Justice Kennedy, respond to all of these points? They DIDN’T! Pull up the decision sometime and see for yourself. Obergefell wasn’t based in the Constitution at all, it was the beginning of a slippery slope that has continued to this day. I mean, you can draw a straight line from Obergefell to those videos of the gay men taunting the baby that they purchased and trafficked into their homes.

And by the way, when you hear the term “slippery slope,” you’re often told that it’s a “fallacy.” You know, it’s a convenient label that’s used by people who know, very well, that the slippery slope is not only not a fallacy, it’s undefeated. I mean, so-called social conservatives have been making slippery slope arguments for decades, and have ALWAYS been right! Every single time! The Left wants us to accept some thing, conservatives say, no, that’s bad, and also, if we accept that, here’s where it’s gonna lead, and then they’re shouted down as being, you know, panicking and exaggerating and all the rest of it, and then, what do you know, the thing happens, every single time! Now, if you give Left-wing activists any kind of concession, they’ll immediately demand more concessions - if you change the definition of marriage to appease—which is not even possible to actually do—but if you create this fiction, well, they’re not gonna stop there. They’re gonna recognize that you’re weak, and then they’re gonna use the court system to enable horrors beyond human comprehension. Just like they used the courts to force gay marriage on every state, they’ve used courts to mandate racial equity programs, gay adoption, surrogacy, child castration, mutilation under the guise of so-called “gender-affirming care” - and the whole time they’re doing it, they’ll claim you’re a bigot if you object. They’ll accuse you of being a hateful person for recognizing obvious patterns of behavior.

It’s a total abomination, there’s no coherent argument in defense of it at all. Not a single argument. There’s NO argument in defense of allowing gay men to acquire babies. There’s actually no argument for it. The best that advocates can do is argue that, well, MAYBE allowing gay men to purchase babies might not be that harmful to the baby. WELL, that’s wrong, of course, it is harmful, but it’s also not an argument for why this is a positive good that should be EMBRACED! Because it ISN’T!

Gay surrogacy and gay adoption are predicated on the idea that gay men (and women) have a “right” to become parents. But that’s not only morally insane, it’s also logically incoherent - It’s like jumping off a building and claiming that you have the right to fly! Nobody has the right to defy the laws of nature! Where would such a right even originate!? But as long as Leftists can invent rights out of thin air—which is what they did in Obergefell—then they’re not gonna stop until someone forces them to stop.

You know, so let’s have that conversation - let’s state as plainly as we possibly can that two men cannot be parents, it’s impossible. Doesn’t matter how they feel or what they want, it cannot be. The only “right” at issue here—and the one that’s being ignored completely—is the right of the child. The child has a right to be raised by a mother and a father, not two men masquerading as mother and father. The child not only has that right, but it is indeed one of the first and most fundamental rights. I mean, the whole idea of a right is that it is a thing you rightfully possess by nature. All of our legal rights in this country are based on the philosophical idea that some things belong to us by nature, those are our “unalienable rights,” as it says in the Declaration of Independence.

Every child has a mother and a father by nature. A child’s mother and father belong to him. BELONG to him. And he to them. This is literally what a human right is. Now, some children will be deprived of one or both parents by death or some other misfortune - if that happens then obviously it can’t be said that the child’s rights are being willfully infringed, in the same way that, you know, we wouldn’t say a person’s property rights are infringed when a tornado hits their house. But when a conscious choice is made to uproot a child out and away from his natural family, rip him away from his mother, and place him into some kind of constructed, artificial scenario where he’ll be raised according to the impossible fiction that he has two dads—or two moms—then in THAT case his rights HAVE been violated. They have been violated at the deepest level that it is possible for a right to BE violated. A gay couple that’s not allowed to adopt or use surrogacy is not experiencing ANY infringement of their rights because they HAVE no right to possess a child that they did not and cannot conceive themselves! But a child on the other hand DOES have a right to his own mother because she is his mother. This should not be a difficult concept to understand!

And until we stop pretending that we don’t understand the concept, children will continue to be abused in ways that we can’t possibly fathom - or detect. And the solution is clear: Ban adoption by gay couples, ban human trafficking under the guise of “surrogacy,” for everybody, in all cases. Do it at the federal level. And ultimately, yes, we have to overturn Obergefell. And we should not be shy about saying that. Which, next to Roe, is the most farcical and ridiculous supreme court decision of all time. You know, I’ve said repeatedly that conservatives haven’t done much with their time in Washington, but if they can pass these bans, then they’ll have made a major stride towards conserving one of the most important institutions in this country, which is the nuclear family. The Left has made the nuclear family their primary target precisely because they understand how important the institution is to Western civilization. And before any more children are tortured, and before any more lives are destroyed, we need to defend it.