freedom and reason

Before I get to today’s essay, I must note three recent Supreme Court rulings. I will likely follow up with future essays on some or all of these, but I want to make note of them here.

Agency Independence and Executive Power. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court significantly expanded presidential authority by ruling that the president may remove leaders of most independent federal agencies at will, overturning the 1935 precedent that had protected many regulators from dismissal without cause. The majority concluded that officials exercising executive power must remain accountable to the president, strengthening the Unitary Executive theory. However, the Court preserved the independence of the Federal Reserve, recognizing its unique constitutional and economic role. To clarify, this is not an expansion of presidential authority. I used that framing because that is the way the legacy media frames the matter. It overturns a precedent limiting executive power. This is good news.

Title IX and Transgender Bans. The Court upheld state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit males from participating on female school sports teams. It ruled that these laws do not violate Title IX because the reference to sex in statute permits classifications based on biological truth in athletics. While the justices were divided over the constitutional equal protection analysis, the decision allows states to continue enforcing similar bans and establishes an important precedent for future Title IX disputes involving transgender athletes. The vote was unanimous. This is good news.

Birthright Citizenship. Now for the very bad news. In a 5-1-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship violates the Fourteenth Amendment, reaffirming the longstanding principle that nearly everyone born in the United States is a US citizen regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Constitution does not impose a parental legal-status requirement, preserving more than a century of constitutional interpretation and rejecting the administration’s effort to narrow citizenship by executive action. 

Two conservative judges joined with progressives in betraying the Fourteenth Amendment—the Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. They rewrote the damn thing, scratching out a major clause of an amendment that plainly intended to grant citizenship to freed black slaves. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Justices Roberts and Barrett ignored the italicized clause to rewrite the purpose of the amendment.

This is not only an insult to black Americans and to all those who died freeing their ancestors. This is an insult to all Americans, who by the lights of the Constitution have an inherent collective right to national self-determination. When Democrats get in power and open the America’s gates to the world, they will change the demographic composition of the nation and achieve one-party rule. I have to be grim here: the Republic is effectively over.

Now on to today’s essay.

* * *

One must always consider the source, they say, so let’s talk about the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, established by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in 2021. The dictum is especially true when it comes to the UN, which has been colonized and corrupted by Third Worldism. The three-member panel of “independent experts” on the UN commission ostensibly investigates alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law by all parties to the conflict. The reality is that the UN works from an anti-Western standpoint.

In November 2025, I published an essay, “Trump and the Battle for Western Civilization,” I wrote the following,

“I have lost confidence in the United Nations and the efficacy of international law to defend freedom and human rights. When the United Nations was founded, it was established on Western values of international cooperation and law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights emerged from this framework. But not all member states endorsed it in substance, even if they formally signed onto it. Moreover, Muslim-majority nations developed their own declarations of rights—most notably the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam—which is founded on Sharia rather than the Enlightenment principles that gave rise to democratic republicanism and human rights.

As a result, the UN includes a wide array of states whose commitments to democracy and rights are not aligned with the Western standards that originally shaped the institution. These Western standards are not arbitrary; they are the product of reason in the context of European culture, made possible by the Protestant Reformation and the broader intellectual currents of Christian civilization.

If the UN or its agencies are asked to adjudicate whether Israel is responsible for genocide after the massacre of Jews in Israel on October 7, 2023, the judgment would ostensibly rest on the legal definition of genocide—a Western juridical concept. In practice, however, the judgment rendered would be heavily influenced by the political alignments and value systems of states that do not share the underlying philosophical commitments from which those legal definitions arose. Many of these states are openly hostile to Israel and to the West. Perhaps the UN won’t make this determination. But one has reason to worry it will. (And then what?)”

In its June 2026 report, which highlights that approximately 30 percent of those killed in Gaza were children, the commission has given ammunition to antisemites who frame Israel’s defensive war against Hamas terrorists as a “genocide.” While the commission is mandated to examine conduct by Israel, Palestinian armed groups, and others, its reports have consistently emphasized Israeli actions as the primary focus. This has led Israel, the United States, and several Western governments to accuse the commission of politicization and systemic bias. 

This has everything to do with who is on the commission. As of 2026, the commission is chaired by Srinivasan Muralidhar of India, a former Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judge. The other members are Florence Mumba of Zambia, a judge known for her work on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and Chris Sidoti of Australia, a human rights lawyer and former Australian Human Rights Commissioner. Sidoti in particular is well-known for his obsession with Israel, accusing Israeli authorities of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts amounting to genocide in Gaza. He has called the IDF one of the most criminal armies in the world.

The panelists are appointed by the HRC president, a position currently held by Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro of Indonesia. He is Indonesia’s Permanent Representative in Geneva. Indonesia is firmly pro-Palestinian and has no diplomatic relations with Israel. Suryodipuro is well-versed in the language of left-wing anti-colonialism. His role is framed as procedural, but he appoints members, chairs sessions, and facilitates consensus. His country’s longstanding stance shapes perceptions of the Council’s priorities, particularly its disproportionate attention to Israel under Agenda Item 7 compared to other global conflicts.

The HRC is notorious for including member states with questionable human rights records and for selective enforcement. The commission is well-known for its hostility toward Israel and for undermining the credibility of UN human rights efforts. The report’s “findings” are not worth the paper they’re written on. 

* * *

The commissions findings are wrong because all the assumptions are wrong. The claim that Israel has perpetrated a genocide in Gaza requires the assumption that it is the intention of Israel to eliminate in whole or in part an ethic group. The claim makes no sense since the ethnic group in question, Arab Muslims, live, work, and thrive in Israel. The charge of war crimes and crimes against humanity ignore historical reality.

Take the modern paradigm of genocide: the Judeocide. Germany rounded up Jews in Germany and systematically exterminated them. This situation is the diametric opposite of the Israel-Gaza situation. Arab Muslims are citizens of, participants in, and protected by the Israeli state. Why isn’t Israel rounding up Arab Muslims internal to the state? Where is the genocide?

Germany also rounded up Jews in the countries they occupied. Indeed, a motive in occupying countries was expanding the reach of the genocidal project. To be sure, the primary stated motive for Nazi expansion was to acquire territory (Lebensraum), destroy perceived enemies, and establish German hegemony in Europe. However, once Germany had conquered a territory, the expansion greatly facilitated the implementation and eventual radicalization of the genocidal project against Europe’s Jews.

Conquest brought millions more Jews under Nazi control. Before the war, Germany had about 500,000 Jews. The annexation of Austria, occupation of Czechoslovakia, invasion of Poland, and later the invasion of the Soviet Union placed millions of additional Jews under Nazi rule. Israel is not an expansionist state. There is no Zionist project to conquer Arab territories and exterminate Muslims. And, if the disputed territories ever become part of a greater Israel (which I think they should), Arab Muslims who integrate with the state will become Israeli citizens.

As I have written about before in numerous essays, sharing pictures of the destruction of Gaza’s buildings and dead Arabs to sustain a claim that of Israel is the aggressor must assume that the situation is analogous to that of WWII with Israel representing German belligerence. Here, again, the situation is the diametric opposite of the historical case. The Israeli government is not analogous to the Nazi regime. Zionism is not analogous to National Socialism. Hamas is. The analogue is not only analogous positionally, but also ideologically. Both the Nazis and Hamas worked from genocidal intent.

The upshot is that one cannot oppose Nazism and at the same time support Hamas. Hamas was the elected government in Gaza when its soldiers invaded Israel and massacred thousands of Jewish civilians. Hamas is the aggressor. Hamas’s goal is the elimination of Jews from the river to the sea. Israel is defending itself against an aggressor pursuing the genocide of Jews. Sovereign nation states have an inherit right to defend their peoples. The commission could not be more wrong.

Those condemning Israel and defending Hamas have stood the situation on its head. Siding with Hamas is the moral equivalent of siding with the Nazis in WWII. That the situation has been flipped in so many minds cannot be attributed to a rational disagreement about the cause of the war and its entailments. It is a rationalization. The rationalization is entirely ideological.

If Mexico invaded the United States and killed American citizens, the United States would be completely justified and raining holy hell on Mexico City. Pictures of a devastated Mexico City and dead Hispanics would not be evidence of genocide, but the consequences of Mexico’s aggression against the United States. The Mexican state brought hell to its people. They fucked around and found out. If the US invaded and occupied Mexico in this scenario, it would be entirely justified in doing so. 

There is one reason that the Israel-Gaza war is stood on its head: Jew-hatred. One must assume that Jews have no right to defend themselves from aggression, a double standard that necessarily sees Jews as a lesser or a wicked people. What Hamas did on October 7—and in many other acts of aggression over the years—is justified in the minds of the antisemite: the antisemite believes Israel is bad not merely because of what it did in retaliation; Israel is already judged bad because Jews are presumed evil. Therefore, in the antisemite’s mind, October 7 was justified. When a man takes that position, he becomes the advocate of genocide, since the Hamas project is the extermination of Jews in the region and, if it had its way, everywhere in the world. 

Jews are not only unsafe in Israel, but everywhere they reside if Muslims sharing the genocidal intent are present. And not just Muslims—the non-Muslims who ally with them. This is not Israel’s struggle alone. It’s our struggle. It is a struggle to save Western Civilization. And the source of the threat, aside from an ascendant China, is the Islamic Republic of Iran. This threat must be eliminated.

I had an exchange the other night with a person concerned that ICE was arresting illegal immigrants, especially children. The person found disturbing the images and videos of immigrants being detained and arrested, and of the detention centers. What crime had they committed?

The answer is straightforward: they committed the crime of illegally entering the United States. Other countries also have immigration laws. And the children? Children are arrested all the time in the United States for violating the criminal law (roughly half a million juvenile arrests per year, based on the latest available national data). We have a thing in America called juvenile justice. They have this thing in many other countries, too (over 190 countries have some form of juvenile justice framework).

What about family separation? Families are separated all the time in America when a family member violates the criminal law. Arrest, detention, prison—all these separate families. About 1.2 million people are incarcerated in US prisons and jails on a given day. Roughly half of them are parents of minor children, affecting an estimated 1.5–2 million children. Over the course of childhood, approximately one in 19 US children experiences parental incarceration. Millions more experience temporary separation due to arrests, pretrial detention, probation conditions, or community supervision. Children don’t go to jail or prison with their criminal parent.

What should we do with illegal immigrant children? Keep them in America when we send their parents back home? Wouldn’t that be family separation? Of course. So we keep the families together and send them all back to where they came from.

The hysteria over the regular enforcement of immigration law dispossesses people of seeing the most obvious things.

Here’s another one of those things: the claim that breaking immigration law is not a criminal offense because it is a misdemeanor. Sometimes. Sometimes it’s a felony. But what if it is only a misdemeanor? Does that make it not criminal?

To clear up any confusion, the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is a matter of severity, not whether they are both criminal offenses. A felony is a more serious crime with harsher penalties. A misdemeanor is a less serious criminal offense. That’s really it. It is an easy exam question. My criminal justice students very rarely get the question wrong.

Felonies include crimes such as murder, robbery, and major drug trafficking. Felonies usually carry sentences of more than one year in prison and may result in substantial fines. In addition to longer sentences, felony convictions often have more significant long-term consequences, such as restrictions on certain civil rights and greater difficulties with employment, housing, and professional licensing.

Misdemeanors are typically punishable by fines, probation, community service, or up to one year in a local jail. Examples of misdemeanors include petty theft, minor assault, drug possession, and vandalism, although these can also be felonies, depending on how the statute is written.

It is a matter of degree, not difference.

Before the immigration hysteria, I think most people understood that misdemeanors are criminal offenses. The power of ideology is impressive. It makes people forget what they always knew. However, I think many people who make this argument have conveniently forgotten the difference in the pursuit of politics. They are, in effect, lying.

Another thing that one hears is that violating immigration law is only a civil offense (civil offenses are not trivial). It depends. But it is also a criminal offense.

For those interested in federal immigration-related criminal statutes, these are primarily found in Title 8 of the United States Code (Aliens and Nationality). There are some scattered throughout Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) and other federal statutes. But searching Title 8 statutes will quickly dispel any notion one has that illegally entering the United States is not a criminal offense. There are too many statutes to list here, but reasonable people will look them up and educate themselves about the criminal law in this area.

It seems a strange argument if one ignores the ideology and politics behind it. Why would anybody want law enforcement to enforce the law except when it pertains to those who illegally enter the country? Why should non-citizens enjoy immunities and privileges that citizens do not enjoy? You really have to hate your country to think this way.

Of course, if you are an anarchist and think that there should be no law at all, then none of this matters. But then your opinion doesn’t matter because you’re a fucking idiot.

The Punisher debuted in 1974 in The Amazing Spider-Man # 129 as an antagonist to Spider-Man. In his initial appearance, Frank Castle is portrayed as a violent vigilante manipulated into targeting Spider-Man. But even from the start, he wasn’t a traditional supervillain. He was written as a brutal, morally conflicted antihero figure. He became popular enough that Marvel repositioned him to star in his own stories.

Frank Castle was created by writer Gerry Conway with artists John Romita and Ross Andru. Conway has described the character as a critique of extreme vigilantism rather than an endorsement of it. While the Punisher’s skull logo has been adopted in some military and law-and-order subcultures, Conway and other creators are generally associated with progressivism. The character was not created as a right-wing symbol, but as a morally problematic antihero meant to raise questions about justice, violence, and the limits of the legal system.

I watched the police interview a few days ago of an interrogation video in which a twisted trans killer calmly confesses to executing both of his parents, blaming it on the mom trying to thwart ongoing gender transition surgery.

Briefly, Mia Bailey slaughtered his mother, Gail, and father, Joseph, and tried to kill his brother (he and his wife escaped out of a window), inside the family home in Washington, Utah, in 2024.

The video is chilling, not just because the man murdered his parents and tried to kill his brother and his wife, but because he appeared to believe these awful deeds were completely justified. Those around him did not affirm his delusion that he is a woman, so they deserved to die.

Most of us know about the mass shootings perpetrated by trans-identifying individuals and their allies. In a high-profile event captured on video, we watched a trans ally murder social influencer Charlie Kirk in front of a large crowd.

How many acts of violence have these deranged individuals committed against their families? Most short of murder, of course. One finds it difficult to understand how parents sleep well at night with monsters like this in their house, but many don’t realize the danger they’re in. Persons with delusions this severe are inherently dangerous.

The motive in cases like this is straightforward. Once a person identifies with what he believes is an oppressed class, when he steps into oppression, he comes to believe he is excused from moral responsibility for his wicked deeds. He redefines his homicidal or violent compulsions as just deserts for those whom he believes are oppressing him. He has allies who see the world through the same twisted conception of justice. They see themselves as warriors for justice. The oppressed man becomes the Punisher.

This is a problem with what passes for the left today. They suffer from the Punisher complex. Trans-identifying individuals and their allies are motivated to perpetrate widespread violence because they’re told that trans people are being erased. One cannot erase what does not exist, but the delusion is so deep with these individuals that they actually call into existence the impossible. Those around the deluded individual affirm his delusion. They condemn others—the enemy—for refusing to do so.

This type of virtue signalling is not merely obnoxious but deadly. The man has a supportive community, which makes his violent thoughts all the more likely to manifest in actual death and destruction. In the Kirk case, an ally did the work for his lover.

I’ve personally had violent desires expressed in my direction. It’s not a good feeling to read that another man wants to punch you in the face for simply refusing to believe the impossible.

This is a mental illness. It is no different in effect from a paranoid schizophrenic murdering his neighbor because he believes in thought broadcasting—the false belief that others can hear his private thoughts—or killing couples on Lover’s Lane because a dog told him to.

I suspect some parents go along with the madness because they do realize their lives are in danger. They fear their own children. So rather than stopping their insurance from being used for so-called gender affirming care (was this what Obama and the Democrats were enabling?), they let the doctors physiologically alter or mutilate the genitalia of their children. They subject their child to what is, in reality, sex-denying harm.

Transactivists enable the violence and other forms of deviance by lovebombing disordered personalities, telling a deranged man that there’s nothing wrong with him. Instead, they tell there’s something evil in those still tethered to reality.

It’s like the parents of a meth addict affirming their son’s addiction and excusing him when he commits violence in a manic rage.

In the case of the trans-identifying individual, it’s not just friends and family that enable harm to self and others. The medical profession is also an enabler. One of their angles is to threaten suicidality on behalf of their client.

Did you know that suicidality goes up after transition medicine? This is yet another lie in the service of gender affirming care. One should never fall for emotional blackmail, but many do. This is the result of pathological empathy.

Doctors tell parents this lie because they have dollar signs in their eyes. A mutilated kid is a lifelong medical patient. They make kids forever clients for profit.

The pathology of misplaced compassion causes parents to hurt those they love. The join with the medical industry to lie about something as obvious as the immutability of gender.

A man cannot be the other gender. His gender is encoded in every cell of his body. He comes with a gender identity. It is in his chromosomes. He is what natural history made him. The moral thing to do is to teach those who suffer from body dysmorphia to learn to love their bodies as they are. A truly compassionate person does not tell a person that they can find happiness by drastically altering their physiology or mutilating their genitals.

People think they are being compassionate by affirming delusions. But, really, they’re being cruel. Love is tough. Truth is hard. A man has to be tough if he truly cares about his children. Yet, this may put his life in danger. This is why there must be a whole-of-society effort to contain the madness.

There is no real debate here. The truth has its own integrity. If we deny it, we lose our’s.

I did some banking yesterday. As I sat and waited to see my banker (joined by an elderly woman who complained to me about the modern age), the video wall told customers about the bank’s close relationship with the LGBTQ+ community. I then noticed the table across the room with the Pride Progress flag and a cup with thematic pens.

My bank’s displays are always quite something. I had, on earlier occasions, remarked upon the four-panel display behind the tellers, which included a photo, taken from the perspective of a person sitting in the backseat, of a black couple returning from snowboarding, putting a plastic sled full of snow into the back of the SUV.

Why would people put a snow-filled sled in their car? That’d be like getting in the car after a day at the beach without washing the sand off your feet. It took another second to understand why: How would I know that the couple had been snowboarding if they had shaken out the snow first?

At any rate, the Pride Progress flag displayed at the bank was notable. The flag symbolizes the inclusive acronym. But the acronym is incoherent, since it attempts to pair gay, lesbian, and bisexual pride with a range of mental and physical disorders, along with a political project, namely Queer, an offshoot of anarchism.

Most customers wouldn’t know that the Pride Progress flag is not the Pride flag. And soon, the Pride Progress flag will be the only flag any of us will know. We will believe that it alone represents Pride. It will replace the Pride flag not only because Pride is scheduled for erasure, but because, if the Pride flag is displayed, the queer community will demand to know why trans people are left out.

“I support the gay, lesbian, and bisexual community.” “Yeah? Well, what about trans people?” I have actually had this conversation.

Well, what about them?

The point of the Pride Progress flag is to make people reflexively conflate two entirely different things: homosexuality and gender identity, the first having to do with romantic attraction, the second with kinks, mental illness, and the politics of transgression.

I avoided the recent Pride celebration in Green Bay because it was festooned with Pride Progress flags. I also worried about harassment had I attended, given my reputation as a notorious transphobe. I am not imagining this, since I have been the subject of harassment by trans activists.

But more troubling than harassment is that the conflation of these things allows queer activists to frame psychological and psychiatric treatment of mental illness as “conversion therapy,” as if it’s the same as treating homosexuality as a mental illness. This not only allows the industry to valorize gender affirming care, but it also hides the fact that puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital surgery to produce simulated sexual identities are the most obvious forms of conversion therapy in modern medicine. Gender affirming care is actually the medical practice of denying gender. It is a regression to alchemy.

While we wait for the Supreme Court to finish its term (I am especially anxious about the pending birthright citizenship decision), a ruling issued a few months ago is worth noting. The Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Chiles v. Salazar on March 31, 2026.

Following the decision, the Colorado General Assembly passed an updated, viewpoint-neutral law on May 7, 2026, to align its youth protection policies with the Court’s strict speech standards.

Before the Court’s ruling, Colorado and more than twenty other states restricted therapists from trying to change the gender identity of clients under eighteen. Colorado banned what the trans lobby terms “conversion therapy,” thereby attempting to deceive the public into believing that an intervention that treats gender dysphoria as a psychological disorder rather than affirming the concept of gender identity is similar to an intervention that attempts to change sexual orientation.

But gender affirming care is conversion sui generis. Conversion is defined as the process of changing or causing something to change from one form to another. In the case of gender affirming care, the process attempts to change a man into a woman, or vice versa. Conversion therapy in the case of sexual orientation is an attempt to change a gay man or a lesbian into a heterosexual. In this instance, the attempt is to modify a natural disposition with respect to sexual attraction. In the case of gender affirming care, the attempt is to modify a natural body.

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, filed suit in 2022 over Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with Chiles, rejecting a Colorado law that prohibited mental health professionals from denying the construct of gender identity. The Supreme Court’s reasoning was that the law, as applied to talk therapy, represented an “egregious assault” on the First Amendment.

“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the eight justices in agreement. “But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

The lone dissenter was the justice who could not tell Senator Marsha Blackburn during her confirmation hearings what a woman was. “The Constitution does not pose a barrier to reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments just because substandard care comes via speech instead of a scalpel,” Justice Ketanji Jackson Brown argued. The decision, according to her wisdom, “risks grave harm to Americans’ health and well-being.”

Is it not incongruous for a justice who does not (strategically, to be sure) know what a woman is to pontificate on what constitutes substandard care? What’s harmful in this case is gender affirming care, not a therapist helping a confused child, one with no medical condition, feel comfortable with his body.

The person who feels they’re not what they are, that their self-image is distorted, or their identity is trapped in a body, suffers from a range of disorders, e.g., borderline disorder. One feature of this particular disorder is self-mutilation, such as cutting oneself. The sufferer does this to regulate emotional pain (which is why the underlying cause is often identified as emotional dysregulation), relieve feelings of emptiness or numbness, express distress that feels hard to put into words, or regain a sense of control or reality.

I raise the matter of borderline personality disorder because Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and gender dysphoria (GD) often appear together, with studies finding a higher prevalence of BPD traits among transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) populations, often linked to elevated gender minority stress, trauma, or identity confusion. BPD is one of the most common personality disorders found in so-called gender-diverse populations. Studies find that the prevalence of personality disorders in patients with gender dysphoria is as high as 80 percent. Indeed, some research suggests BPD-related identity disturbance overlaps with GD, that is, that GD is not a distinct condition. 

When psychiatry constructs a diagnosis, as in the case of gender identity, it calls into existence a reality. When it normalizes the reality it conjures, some will feel they have finally found a stable identity and demand that others affirm it. “I never knew what was wrong,” the thought process goes. “Now I know: I was trapped in the wrong body. I have always been trans.” The individual revises her biography in light of the revelation, blames others for not recognizing her true self all along, and then claims that this is the source of the trauma she experiences. Not only does she now know what she “really” is, but she has somebody to blame for it. And it’s the wrong person.

Typically, a teenage girl (three-quarters of borderline cases are female) who, with the help of her therapist or an online community, “discovers” that she is actually trans, blames her parents and those around them who should have known what was going on, or worse, for denying their real identity because they didn’t want a trans child. This imagined experience leads to family dissolution, the act of going “no contact,” or similar ruptures. Everything in their life is interpreted through the new frame of trans identity. She believes she has found her authentic self. But for how long?

What underpins borderline disorder and other disorders of a similar nature is an unstable identity, the feeling that one’s identity is not aligned with what she sees in the mirror or how other people respond to her. The disorder often comes with body dysmorphia, that is, a perceived distortion of the body.

One sees this in anorexia nervosa and other similar conditions. Unlike anorexia, however, which no doctor would treat using weight-loss drugs or bariatric surgery, properly reserved for those who suffer actual obesity, doctors treat a distorted gender identity using puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries such as phalloplasty.

One can expect pushback when putting the matter like this. Many sociologists will paradoxically argue that treating gender identity as a disorder “medicalizes” the problem. Psychiatry agrees, which is why it dropped GID from the DSM and identified the phenomenon of GD to put in its stead, defining the problem not as misperception of one’s gender, but as the distressed experiences at the perceived incongruence between the subjective sense of gender and the actual gender of the patient.

Extending the logic of this rationalization, referencing the DSM about borderline or other Cluster B personality disorders, delusional thinking, and so forth, would constitute medicalizing, specifically psychiatrizing, the “authentic self.” This is the influence of postmodernist thinking, specifically queer theory, in which psychiatric categories concerning gender are expressions of gender oppression—as if nature itself were an oppressor.

Those who know me—and certainly students who sit through my sociology classes—know that I am a fierce critic of medicalization. One would not be wrong to identify me as anti-psychiatry. I’m a fan of Erving Goffman (Asylums), Thomas Szasz (The Myth of Mental Illness, The Manufacture of Madness), Ivan Illich (Medical Nemesis), and Michel Foucault (Madness and Civilization). I find their arguments compelling. At the same time, I do recognize mental illness. I’ve seen too much of it to believe it’s merely a definition of a situation. This is why I oppose the administration of puberty blockers and hormones and genital surgery—we ought not be subjecting those with mental disorders to the ordeal of overly medicalized bodies.

Even the most ardent critic of psychiatry wouldn’t deny that there are conditions that have a medical basis. These conditions are not constructed by the diagnosis; rather, the diagnosis is determined by a process of abduction from the observation of symptoms. Nobody would deny that schizophrenia is an organic brain disorder, or that bipolar disorder likely has some biological basis.

Any number of other disorders could fit with this understanding. Body dysmorphia itself may result from the brain wrongly mapping the body, at first in an obscure way, then in a specific way once the experience is given a name. If these phenomena are determined to have a physiological basis, then they are properly medicalized. The question then is: what is the appropriate line of care?

The idea that a doctor would surgically alter bodies or give puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to address the process via the wrong sort of medicalization. It treats an emotional, mental, or personality disorder not only as if it has an organic basis like those other conditions, but as a medical problem that may be treated hormonally or surgically.

Such an intervention would not be ruled out in the case of a teenage boy with gynecomastia, which is the abnormal enlargement of glandular breast tissue in males caused by a hormone imbalance. Intervention in this case is actually gender affirming care, since males normally do not grow breasts. But in the case of gender identity, such interventions constitute gender denying care. They are not treating aberrations but distorting normal bodies. An endocrinologist prescribing leuprolide acetate (Lupron) to a young girl with precocious puberty is not the same as prescribing this drug to a young girl who does not want to experience a phase in the normal development process.

Instead of pursuing psychotherapy to teach an individual how to negotiate the incongruence experienced, as any ethical doctor or therapist would for a distorted body image or dissociative disorder, the doctor working from gender identity is opting for radical medical intervention.

Is trans identification always the result of a psychiatric disorder defined in this way? No. It can be other things. Much of the transgender phenomenon is explained by the problem of social contagion. It’s a fad or a fashion. For others, it’s a fetish or a kink, falling under a different psychiatric classification, namely, a paraphilia, an atypical sexual behavior, or sexual deviation. For those who are genuinely suffering from distress over their bodies, it is a delusion or distorted perception. But in all these cases, the individual is not really the other gender. What they think they are, or what they would like to be, or how they would like others to regard them, does not align with reality.

What has confused the person suffering from GD is this: a definition has been constructed by authorities and, by authority, what is defined is made to seem real. The identity is defined into existence by the words used to describe it—a thing that doesn’t exist. That is a definition of a situation. Sure, an underlying disorder may exist, but the idea of a “brain” or a “soul” trapped in the wrong body is an impossibility.

This is what is known in science as reification, that is, treating a concept or an inventory of attributes or characteristics as if it were a real thing, a thing independent of the mind. But it is ever only conceptual, at best intersubjective, and what it claims to describe does not exist apart from the mind that believes it.

A common justification for gender affirming care is that it will ameliorate symptoms and, therefore, it is an act of compassion. Whatever the individual is suffering from, he is suffering; the intervention helps him manage the suffering. If it works, then the intervention is justified.

This is the source of the language surrounding the phenomenon, that of affirmation and kindness. But affirmation here means validating something a person believes without reason, a perception without evidence. This is not kindness. It’s analogous to telling a person who has cancer that they don’t because knowing one has cancer causes distress. In every other case, that’s not an appropriate thing for a doctor to do. So why this one?

There are other reasons. The person wants to legitimize an identity they believe they are. In this case, it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between the person who truly suffers from gender dysphoria and the person who wants to become the thing they desire. Either way, they want to be this thing, so they need everybody to affirm that they are this thing, and if affirmation is not forthcoming, they experience distress. They believe all their problems will be solved by transitioning, and their certainty of this precludes reason. They need affirmation because they have doubts that they really are the thing. They’re asking everybody to participate in a deception. This expectation is unkind to everyone around them—and society at large.

Another reason is that it generates billions of dollars in revenue for big corporations. The motive of doctors—we should say the medical industry, because it forces doctors to accept this. It’s not an act of compassionate care, but rather a practice that advances the financial interests of powerful medical corporations. These corporations work with psychiatrists, endocrinologists, and others to change definitions to suit their avarice. The disorder is redefined, and the new definition is upheld to advance material interests at the expense of the suffering person. That makes this an instance of institutional malpractice, and we should call it out.

When people ask me why I care about this issue so much, it’s for the same reason I care about corporate crime and medical malpractice, especially when it’s institutionalized. As a criminologist, I research and lecture on these topics all the time. It would be ideological for me to resist making this argument simply because it is politically unpopular. I’ve spent so much time on it because this is a particularly egregious example. This is the greatest medical scandal in my lifetime.

The fact that natural history has produced conscious and social animals doesn’t mean there is an ethereal realm where gender identities wander about untethered from biology. On the contrary, it should dispel such a notion. A mammal is either one or the other gender. A mammal cannot change gender, nor can it be both genders at once (unless it is a true chimera).

Here’s how those who subscribe to gender identity doctrine can know they’re wrong—or at least know that they subscribe to a neoreligion:

When a claim is made about gender, it can either be an empirical claim or an appeal to faith. If it is empirical, then testing the claim involves reference to chromosomes, gametes, and reproductive anatomy. If an article of faith, then by definition, there is no objective way to know or determine its validity. One may hold such a belief, but it’s not a scientific or true fact.

The demand for “affirmation” proves that gender identity doctrine is a neoreligion. If the claim that a man can be a woman were true, it could be demonstrated empirically. But since it cannot, those making the claim demand affirmation of the claim’s truth. “Transwomen are women. Say it! Use the pronouns!” (O’Brien to Winston, “How many fingers am I holding up?”)

The reality is that “gender affirming care” is gender denying harm, since it alters the body to represent a faith-based claim about the self that is contrary to the facts of one’s gender. Gender denying care is a type of conversion therapy. It is deceitful because it claims to make the impossible possible.

The trans body is a simulated gender identity. It can never be the thing it claims to be. True identity is what a thing really is, the thing-itself, and its truth is not determined subjectively or by affirmation or rituals, but by reference to empirical reality. Everything else is an appeal to faith. And faith here is not a stand-in for what we cannot know. A man remains an adult male human, regardless of what he believes about or does to his body.

Time Magazine reported in June 2017 that the National Park Service had to drain and clean the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool after discovering that a parasite in the water killed eighty ducklings. Necropsies on the poor little things conducted by the US Geological Survey’s National Wildlife Health Center found that a parasite growing in snails living in the pool had been killing the ducklings since May of that year. Why did President Trump allow snails to invade the reflecting pool?

The 2017 Time Magazine story has faded from the memory of the handful of people who happened across the short article at the time. I never knew about it. I stumbled upon it looking for something else (I will get to that in a moment). Now, with the 250th Anniversary of the Republic rapidly approaching, algae has become a problem at the reflecting pool, and finally, the media is paying attention.

Why Trump’s killing of ducklings at the reflecting pool was not on a continual “Breaking News” loop is the only mystery I discuss in this essay. Of course, Trump didn’t kill ducklings. The parasite is common to snails. Snails are common in water. Swimmers have long suffered itchy skin from swimming in bodies of water where the snails are present. I framed the episode at the start to bring to the fore the absurdity of the media frenzy over algae at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool after Trump renovated the attraction in preparation for America’s 250th anniversary.

Algae have also been a problem at the reflecting pool. The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool controversy is indeed absurd, but, sadly, predictable.

Obama’s renovation of the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool was far more costly ($44 million in today’s dollars) and was soon plagued by algae. There were no scrolling “Breaking News” alerts about Obama’s “green reflecting pool.” I did locate a story about the algae in a Google search, but there was no hint of a scandal. Perhaps it was a slow news day. As with the death of eighty ducklings, the reporter simply noted the presence of algae in a short article.

Today, Obama’s presidential library, a work of brutalist architecture, is the toast of the town. What one may gather from the open house is that the public is supposed to pine for the good old days when Americans were sleepwalking through life. Just look at the photos of Obama’s perfect family. No scandals, we’ve been told.

That’s not what I remember. I distinctly remember Obama’s 2011 drone killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen in Yemen. A year earlier, Obama joked during the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner that, if the Jonas Brothers got near his daughters, he had “two words” for them: “predator drones—you will never see it coming.” Abdulrahman never saw it coming.

Then there was the 2011 torture murder of Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi. Remember when–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reacted in her notorious cackle to the news of Gaddafi’s murder with, “We came, we saw, he died”?

The MSM cannot be bothered to report that the Obama Presidential Center was built on Jackson Park, altering historic public space, or that subcontractors are owed money (Trump is dogged for stiffing subcontractors).

I thought we would never hear the end of the temporary UFC structure on the South Lawn of the White House. Obama’s monstrosity is a glorious, permanent reminder of the days of a scandal-free presidency.

In addition to the algae, the blue paint coating the bottom of the reflecting pool is peeling. President Trump blames vandalism. The algae and peeling paint come with the chemical etching of “8647”—a sign to kill the president—on the Washington Monument grounds (West Lawn area). That nefarious forces were behind the peeling is plausible. More than plausible, actually, considering that there are vandals with tools at the pool, hauling up pieces of it. Law enforcement is investigating, there are many witnesses, and several arrests have been made.

A prebunking campaign circulated a hoax that Antifa dumped aggressive Georgia algae in the pool to sabotage the Trump Presidency. This framed Trump’s claim of vandalism.

If all this feels orchestrated, don’t be too quick to dismiss that feeling. However, sabotage by left-wing activists is hardly necessary when the corporate media stands ready to turn everything Trump does into a scandal.

I don’t recall whether the reflecting pool was green the last time I traveled to Washington, DC. That was when George W. Bush was president. There were more concerning developments at the time, like the Second Persian Gulf War and the entrenchment of the Surveillance State. I was more interested in the monuments and American history. My visits to the Pentagon and the Vietnam Memorial were remarkable. I will never forget the vigilant owl in the courtyard of the home of the War Department. Algae at the reflecting pool would not have stuck me as remarkable.

Speaking of the War Department, how about some reporting on transnational corporate power and the degradation of military readiness by outsourcing industrial production to the Chinese Communist Party under previous administrations? Americans might be interested in hearing about that and other developments important to their lives.

I am confident that they would be interested in this (not unrelated matter): On her last day in office at the Office of National Intelligence, Director Tulsi Gabbard shared documentation confirming what I already knew: that COVID-19 was fabricated in the Wuhan bioweapons lab under the direction of Anthony Fauci. The Biden administration sought to conceal this by granting Fauci a preemptive pardon, framing the matter of protecting those Trump would pursue as part of his “Retribution Tour.” (Biden justified pardoning his family using this frame.)

I have only seen short news briefs or wire-service summaries about Gabbard’s revelation wrapped in muted language: “Gabbard alleges…,” “Documents purport to show…,” “No independent verification…,” etc. There is no viral narrative about the revelation, even though, alongside Trump pressuring the state of Israel to stop defending itself from Iranian proxies in south Lebanon, Gabbard’s revelation is the biggest news story of the day.

As I documented in my last essay on this platform, delegitimizing Israel is useful to the Establishment. Exposing Fauci’s involvement in producing a bioweapon that shut down the world and led to Biden being installed as president is not.

What should be breaking news occurs at the same time the legacy media and social media accounts have organized the viral media campaign about an algae bloom at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, even though algae have plagued the pool since it was completed in 1924, more than a hundred years ago. The narrative persists. It remains among the top stories in the Google news aggregator this morning.

The ODNI revelation is news. The COVID-19 pandemic affected everybody’s lives. People were told to stay in their homes, stay away from others, avoid crowds (except those rioting over the long-debunked myth of “systemic racism” in lethal civilian-police encounters), not travel (my wife could not be with her dying mother in Sweden), and wear cloth masks over their faces. They were, moreover, shamed for not submitting to an experimental mRNA shot—and worse, employees were fired. Those who objected were censored and deplatformed. Doctors lost their privileges and reputations for refusing to valorize the Pandemic narrative.

An algae bloom at the reflecting pool is not news. Photosynthetic microorganisms, such as cyanobacteria (often called blue-green algae), have existed for at least 2.5–3.5 billion years. Eukaryotic algae (the organisms most people think of as algae) have been around for at least one billion years and probably longer. Few things are as common to the experience as algae in standing pools of water.

As I noted above, there was no prominent MSM coverage of the algae bloom that followed Barack Obama’s renovation of the reflecting pool. That is because algae blooms in the reflecting pool are commonplace. It’s why I don’t remember algae when I visited Washington, DC, more than two decades ago. Here’s the point: Obama is an Establishment operative. Donald Trump isn’t.

* * *

Reporters are present at the reflecting pool covering the algae bloom, yet the vandalism commands very little of their attention. It’s not because they cannot be bothered with it. It’s because they’re there for algae and peeling paint and placing the responsibility for these developments squarely on Trump’s shoulders. I know about it because right-wing accounts on X are covering the vandalism, and there are police records of detentions and arrests. Vandals are being charged with crimes. The vandals are damned lucky they don’t live in North Korea.

Remember the burning police cars and precincts behind reporters covering the George Floyd riots described as “mostly peaceful”? Remember Lieutenant Frank Drebin standing in front of an exploding fireworks factory in the comedy Naked Gun, telling onlookers, “Nothing to see here”?

The George Floyd riots would be comical if not for the dozens of people murdered by “protestors.” As for the reports of violence that did break through, Chris Cuomo, then with CNN, demanded, “Please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.” Never mind that the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” (emphasis mine).

The MSM is not news. It is Establishment propaganda. If you cannot see this, then your eyes are wide shut. The business of the MSM today—indeed for the last decade—is to delegitimize Donald Trump because Trump is not an establishment figure. He is an outsider whose policies disrupt globalization and the progressive agenda. Fauci was an operative of the Establishment. Any revelations about his involvement in the manufacture of a lethal virus that affected our lives must be marginalized.

There’s more to the Wuhan story that the MSM is not reporting. In October, 2014, the Obama White House announced a “pause” on funding for gain-of-function research. Experiments that potentially increase the transmissibility or virulence of certain pathogens were deemed too dangerous to conduct in the United States.

But the weaponization of viruses did not stop. Gain-of-function experiments were moved to China under the direction of Fauci and a network of interested parties. It was in China, at the bioweapons lab in Wuhan, overseen by the Chinese military, that COVID-19 was manufactured. It “escaped” from the lab just in time for Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign.

A coincidence? The hysteria over the overdose death of George Floyd, fueled by the Democratic Party and the MSM, was organized just in time for Trump’s 2020 reelection. Was that a coincidence, too? How many “coincidences” does a person need to detect a pattern?

You are not to think about any of that. If you talk about it, you risk being labeled a “conspiracy theorist.” You are to focus on an algae bloom and peeling paint at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Pay no attention to vandals. And don’t forget the ducks and their babies.

Some have suggested that chlorine might address the algae problem. But Chlorine is harmful to ducks. I can see that. Chlorine stings my eyes and makes me see halos around everything. Why do we use this chemical in our pools if it is so harmful to animals? Why do we let children swim in chlorinated pools?

In addition to algae, Chlorine also keeps ducks out of pools (but not those snails). Do we really want ducks swimming in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool? Ducks are indeed cute, but there are several ponds and wetlands in Washington, DC, where ducks can safely swim and preen. The ponds are public, so if people want to see ducks, they can. Those are much better places for our web-footed friends to deposit their slippery turds. At least when I go for a walk on the trail at the river near my home, I know to step over them. It’s part of the deal. More objectionable is charging and hissing geese.

But I digress. To get back on point, to those who have not yet been awakened by the obvious, how much longer are you going to walk zombie-like through the world with your eyes wide shut?

* * *

Update: When I published this satire about Trump killing ducks at the reflecting pool in 2017, I didn’t expect that the Washington Post would actually publish a story about a couple of dead ducks amid the Great Algae Invasion of 2026. But here it is, including necropsies.

That Time Magazine was concerned enough about eighty ducklings killed by parasites to run a story on it in 2017 was weird enough. I’d expect that from a local paper in a small town. But Trump was president, so a national publication ran the story.

How many dead ducks have they found in Washington, DC, over the years? How would we know? Aside from 2017, has there been much reporting on this? Did any ducks die under Obama?

Trump should poke the media by suggesting that vandals killed the ducks. The vandals made the ducks eat the blue paint. Given everything that has transpired, it’s plausible.

I awakened this morning to find that the Islamic state has announced that it is closing the Straits of Hormuz once again. Even though Israel was not a party to the Islamabad MoU, Tehran cites continuing hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in the south of Lebanon as the reason Iran is not honoring its side of the agreement.

At the direction of Tehran, the Trump administration is pressuring Israel to quit its operations in Lebanon. Israel is a sovereign nation-state. It has the right to defend itself against foreign aggression. Ultimately, Iran is behind the aggression. Why should Israel honor an MoU that does not guarantee its security? Why is Iran dictating US foreign policy? Why has Trump made a pawn of Israel? (So much for the theory that Israel runs US foreign policy.)

Thursday afternoon on this platform, I published Trump’s Very Bad Deal With Iran and the Troubling Rise of Islamophilia Among Younger Conservatives. At first blush, the parts of that essay may strike readers as two rather distinct essays. I wish that were the case. They appear together because they describe parts of a whole.

Understanding why the Trump administration would appease Iran to the detriment of Israel, developments on the home front need attending to. The Midterms are approaching. If anger over the cost of living causes Trump to lose the Republican majority, then his second-term agenda will be ground to a halt. Gas prices are part of it. But there’s more to it than that. Trump’s base is fracturing over the Middle East.

The neocons are imperfect allies, to be sure, but on Iran, their criticism of the Islamabad MoU is essentially correct. I don’t like finding myself in agreement with a man like Robert Kagan. Kagan argues that the war outcome and subsequent diplomacy reflect a US strategic defeat and erosion of American leverage. His view is that the agreement locks in unfavorable realities rather than reversing them.

My disagreement with Trump over Iran hails from a different standpoint, but neocons are not always wrong, and they can arrive at the right conclusion even if their objectives differ from mine. In this case, the neocons are right.

The vocal rejection of Trump over the Iran war by the “Blue Hat” America First crowd—my term for right-wing isolationists inclined to challenge and constrain Donald Trump’s foreign policy—cannot have gone unnoticed by the President. Tucker Carlson, Candice Owens, and their ilk and crowd were instrumental in helping Trump return to the White House. The MAGA hurricane had gathered strength amid lawfare and the disastrous Biden years. The hurricane is blowing itself out.

The Blue Hat’s highly public break with the movement’s mainstream over Iran rests on the claim that Trump has abandoned the America First principles that once defined his appeal. It must be particularly galling to Trump to hear the isolationists accuse him of aligning himself with the very neoconservatives he long denounced.

The far-right mind works from the theory of Jewish manipulation of American institutions. To obscure their antisemitism, Jews are accused of using the charge of antisemitism to silence those who expose the cabal. Readers have heard the complaint: “Jews always wrap criticisms of Israel in the charge of antisemitism. But we are criticizing Israeli behavior and Zionist racism!” But is this not itself an expression of antisemitism? It boils down to this: Jews run the world and accuse those who notice of Jew-hatred. The distillate reeks of antisemitism.

He’s doing the rationalization thing. Sad. Had high hopes for him. pic.twitter.com/GNmJAuuLEI

— Andrew Austin (@andrewwaustin) June 20, 2026

It appears this mentality has some purchase among administration officials. Vice President J.D. Vance made the distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism in that tortured way in a recent interview with The Blaze. But the double standard applied to Israel is a hallmark of antisemitism. Every country has the right to respond to foreign aggression. Israel is being assailed from every front. Yet they are told to behave differently from every other country. Treating Israel differently implies that Jews are the aggressors in the region. It is not opposition to a Jewish state in the Middle East that lobs missiles into Israel, but Jewish aggression in the region that demands a response. If Israel were to quit Lebanon, the conflict would end. How did that work out in Gaza?

🚨 WOW! JD Vance is DIRECTLY calling out Israeli cabinet members for their personal attacks on President Trump

"Donald J. Trump is the ONLY head of state in the ENTIRE WORLD who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time, and he happens to be the head of state… pic.twitter.com/0H9yGH8ubL

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 18, 2026

At a White House news conference Thursday, Vance delivered a blunt message to the Israeli government, urging it to support President Trump’s agreement with Iran. “I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world,” he said of the Jewish nation. Israel, he continued, “needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in.” This is rhetoric that isolates Israel and shirks America’s responsibility to stand with the only country in the region that shares our values—at least the values true patriots still stand by.

The Islamabad IOU has not just concerned Israel. The Gulf states are troubled, as well. Iran is their enemy, too. Why would the Trump administration make Israel’s operations in Lebanon part of the Iran MOU? Israel isn’t a party to the agreement. They’re a sovereign nation-state. Compelling Israel to quit Lebanon strengthens Hezbollah.

Then there’s that damned ceasefire in Gaza. Trump’s pressure on Israel allows Hamas time to regroup. Surely the administration knows this. They know this, too: both Hezbollah and Hamas are proxies for Iran’s war forever against Israel. Iran’s aggression imperils the entire region. Are Israel and the Gulf States not our allies?

And what about Russia? I have long been a critic of those who claim that Trump colludes with Putin to weaken the rules-based international order. Moreover, I am sympathetic to Russia’s motive for the Ukrainian action (see History and Sides-Taking in the Russo-Ukrainian War; Pushing Through the Panic and Propaganda in a World at War). But Russia is not a friend, and the MoU benefits Russia in several ways.

The Islamabad MoU benefits Russia mainly through military cooperation and sanctions evasion. Iran supplies Russia with drones, the new face of modern warfare. Defensive cooperation fuels the Ukraine war. Both countries work to bypass Western sanctions by developing alternative trade and financial channels.

To be sure, the relationship between Iran and Russia is pragmatic rather than a formal alliance (the world beyond the West doesn’t work in exactly the same way). Nonetheless, strategically, Iran gives Russia greater leverage in the Middle East. By not merely allowing the Islamic Regime of Iran to escape annihilation but to enjoy hundreds of billions of dollars in development funds, and tying the agreement to weakening Israeli efforts to secure safety for its people, Trump has greatly strengthened Russia’s hand in the region.

Given NATO support for Ukraine, European leaders’ celebration of the MoU might seem a bit of a mystery. However, it should be noted that China also benefits from a strengthened Iran, and that’s good for the globalization project. More than a reliable energy source for China, ties with Iran expand China’s influence in the Middle East, support initiatives like the Belt and Road, and give it greater geopolitical leverage in the region. Here, again, the partnership is pragmatic rather than a formal military alliance.

I had considered that, behind the preemptive attack on Iran’s military apparatus, and possibly regime change in that country, Trump was disrupting the de facto China-Russia alliance (see Beyond Regime Change: Iran, the Rise of China, and the Trump Doctrine). The two countries cooperate closely in several areas, albeit without the binding mutual-defense commitments that define a formal alliance. The MoU strengthens that relationship. To what end?

Europeans applauded the MoU at the G7. Perhaps Europe pursues two objectives at once: containing Russia by bogging that nation down in a forever war with Ukraine (Ukraine be damned), while strengthening China by preserving its path to the Middle East. Could this be, at least in part, because it delegitimizes the Trump populist-nationalist vision of a restored Europe? (See Donald Trump’s Grand Vision: Make Western Civilization Great Again.) Has the President abandoned the doctrine? Was he ever dedicated to it?

The President is a sensitive man. Too sensitive. He likes the crowd. The loud rejection of Trump over the Iran war by the Blue Hats cannot have escaped his attention. Their dramatic exit from the movement’s mainstream hinges on their characterization of Trump as having abandoned America First. It must sting the President that the isolationists accuse him of breaking bread with the neoconservatives. The Blue Hats must be overjoyed at neocon consternation over the MoU.

In leaving MAGA, Russiophilia became prominent in the far right’s rhetoric, as I document in The Dark Heart of Antisemitism: Separating the Haters from the Critics. and The Woke Reich and the Enemy Within (although, while it struck me at the time as rhetorically clever, I am not sure “woke” is the best word to describe this tendency). But more than Russiophilia, Islamophilia has also emerged on the far right. This development is driven by antisemitism.

This development cannot please Europeans. They have a problem on their hands: nationalism. Nationalism is the biggest obstacle to globalism and its stepping stone: regionalization. Populism threatens the transnationalist project because it is a manifestation of patriotism. It appears, however, that Europeans elites are realizing that, while they cannot stop the rise of populism across the EU by branding the right as “fascist” and “racist,” they may be able to co-opt it, at least rhetorically, by throwing bones to ziophobes.

The EU has, moreover, moved to tighten immigration controls. On March 26, 2026, the European Parliament voted on a major part of the EU’s migration reform known as the Return Regulation, which is part of the broader Migration and Asylum Pact. The vote speeds up deportations of people without a legal right to stay in the EU, allows longer detention periods in some cases, creates or permits so-called “return hubs” or detention/processing centers outside the EU, and expands cooperation with non-EU countries for returns and removals.

These are fallback positions. The positions of the European elite are not really a mystery. Such developments require elites to finesse the situation. If anti-Israel sentiment animates the opposition, then give the ziophobes a false sense of affinity while decrying antisemitism. “We hear you, comrades.”

For elites, antisemitism is strategic. For antisemites, it is heartfelt. Co-optation won’t work. Ziophobia is core to far-right ideology. A visible elite is not nearly as attractive as a cabalistic one. Epstein’s Island was a Jewish plot. 9-11 was a Jewish plot. AIPAC commands our elections. And so on. It’s a mindset. And a reflex. Antisemitism lies at the core of MAGA exit.

For the balance of this essay, I want to focus on developments on the domestic side, since these function to strengthen the transnationalist project. It seems a paradox. But the problem here is not intent, but effect. The Blue Hats are not eager agents of globalization. Antisemitism functions as a means to this end, nonetheless.

As much as I would like to believe that the Blue Hats are a fringe phenomenon, they are a problem that nationalists cannot ignore. These are not our allies. They are useful idiots working at cross-purposes with the project to restore nationalism. The rise of Russiophilia and Islamophilia on the American right, if it sways Trump, weakens his doctrine and strengthens the globalization project.

* * *

On June 2, Glenn Beck published “The Russian influence operations targeting Candace Owens and you,” an analysis penned by Ryan Mauro, a counter-extremist and national security expert. Beck followed this the next day with his own commentary on the matter.

I do not follow Beck’s content, but these pieces caught my attention because, the day before Mauro’s analysis appeared, I published an essay about the problem Mauro identifies, introducing readers to the Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin and his Fourth Political Theory (see The Left-Far Right Convergence and Notes on the Fourth Political Theory). Mauro’s article deepens our understanding of the movement Dugin represents. I am not the only one who has seen the peril of the Fourth Political Theory. Readers need to see it, too.

Candace Owens taking a "suspicious trip to Russia" is NOT the real story. It's only proof that Russia and Alexander Dugin's massive propaganda operation is working.

Dugin is right about what is happening to the West. It is evil. But that's the trap. His "solution" would destroy… pic.twitter.com/1s9wE3ooeg

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) June 4, 2026

Read Mauro’s analysis, by all means. But I’ll summarize it here. Mauro argues that Russia is executing what may be one of the most effective foreign malign influence operations in modern history, blending rebranded Tsarist Orthodox Christianity, Russian nationalism, and conspiracy narratives to undermine the West, particularly the United States and Christianity itself. The problem was never Trump’s subservience to Putin. Yet, today, he is backing into Russian machinations to destabilize the West.

The effort is rooted in Soviet-era strategies to revive communism by fusing it with Orthodox theology and nationalism. I leave that history to Mauro and others. What is important for the moment is understanding that the nexus of the Russian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, state-backed outlets like the Strategic Culture Foundation, and ideologues such as Alexander Dugin. Those who once identified themselves as Trump’s strongest allies domestically are a principal target of the nexus.

The operation promotes a messianic vision of Russia as a “holy” defender of traditional values, framing the West as satanic and positioning Moscow’s influence as a spiritual imperative. This has attracted the far right in America, especially those subscribing to right-wing sides of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. We hear it not only in ziophobia but in anti-Protestant rhetoric (see What Jesus Told the Pharisees and the Jewish Roots of Christianity).

The ideology Mauro is describing mirrors Islamism in key ways: a drive for civilizational unification (the “Russian World” is akin to the Ummah), justification of “holy war,” promises of spiritual redemption for fighters, blasphemy protections, and strategic alliances with Islamist actors against shared Western enemies. It is not merely a mirror image but a de facto alliance. These tendencies have converged to produce a geopolitical force. Increasingly, it is more cross-fertilization than convergence.

According to Mauro, Dugin, and others, work to reconcile Christian and Islamic eschatologies to sustain this partnership through an envisioned apocalyptic battle. The practical strategy, drawn from the Russian philosopher’s writings, focuses on exploiting Western divisions—isolationism, moral decay, racial and social conflicts, and separatism—to weaken the US from within, laundering narratives through non-Russian voices and influencers. Protestantism is the root of the Enlightenment and liberalism; the Reformation is condemned. This is where Candice Owens, Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentez, and others come in.

For Maduro and Beck, Candace Owens’ undisclosed activities and appearance at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum serve as a concrete example of how this influence reaches American audiences. Her engagements align with networks tied to Russian intelligence, propaganda figures, and the Russian Orthodox ecosystem, amid a pattern of amplification by state media like RT and earlier cultivation by Russia-linked operatives.

Mauro frames this not as an isolated incident but as evidence of a broader cognitive warfare campaign that uses anti-Western rhetoric, conspiracy themes, and the rhetoric of “family values” to draw conservatives and Christians toward a false choice: prioritizing a declining and immoral West or embracing an authoritarian, Moscow-centered “rescue” of faith and tradition. The desire for Christian theism aligns with the Islamic project of a global order founded on Sharia.

To be sure, the West is in decline. Its moral fabric is tattered and torn. But Protestantism, the Enlightenment, and liberalism are not the culprits. What lies behind the decline are globalization and progressivism. These are the forces denationalizing the West. The Blue Hats are working for these forces.

I’m not suggesting that Russiophilia is in the service of globalization by delegitimizing the Trump presidency. The Blue Hats are committed ideologues. They seek to undermine Trump for their own perverse reasons. Nonetheless, the tendency effectively weakens MAGA and derails the very project those who have abandoned Trump ostensibly support: strengthening the nation-state against the transnational project.

The Blue Hats may simply be stupid (that they still think after everything that has transpired that Jews run the world indeed suggests stupidity). It is, moreover, obvious that they are social influencers cultivating an audience. However, stupidity and grifting are not mutually exclusive. That the influencers are affecting things is obvious. They are not a fringe element. And it appears they’re getting to Trump.

Action confirms sentiment. If the Blue Hats weren’t antisemites, they would have thrown their support behind a preemptive war in Iran and used their influence to encourage their followers to see higher gas prices as a necessary burden in achieving a safer future for the West and freedom for Persians, a noble people who deserve the civilization of their ancestors.

The Blue Hats would have had to suffer the neoconservatives, but standing shoulder to shoulder with the perpetrators of the Second Gulf War entails no permanent alliance. One can still oppose PNAC’s invasion of Iraq while supporting preemptive war—and even regime change—in Iran. Iraq and Iran are not analogues. The Ba’athist regime in Iraq posed no existential threat to Israel and the West. Iran is an entirely different story, especially since the Islamic Republic comes with strategic alliances with Russia and China.

But the blue hats are disordered by Jew-hatred. It is that ancient hatred that aligns them with Islam and ultimately the transnationalist project. They will never grasp the reality that they betray their own cause of national restoration. They cannot because, deep down, they oppose the Protestant foundations of the American Republic. They derive their ethics not from Nature’s God, but rather from a desire for the divine command of a patriarchal God, a deity manifest in the hierarchical structuring of life that leaves little room for individual liberty.

Ironically, the churches they attend mimic the highly ritualized and priest-dictated religious experience that marks the old monarchal Judaism, an atavistic system Jews long ago transcended. At the same time, they reject the practical culture characteristic of Jews that Protestantism elevates. They mean to come not only for Jews, but for Protestants, as well, and that entails coming after the very constitutional order upon which the American Republic rests.

The Blue Hats are fascists. They didn’t have to be. But it is what they have become. To the extent that this crowd holds any sway over Trump, they taint his presidency. To the extent that Trump allows them to shape his policies, he undermines himself—and the nation.

* * *

Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. erred in allowing affirmative action for diversity goals in the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. I recognize that he compromised to get that decision (his was the controlling decision). But given that diversity adds no value, it should not have been allowed. The Court has since remedied the Bakke error in several ways, but in the meantime, the nation suffered for far too long. Powell’s decision sanctioned the rise of DEI, which remains determined to shape the future of millions—Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding. Bakke shaped the environment that corrupted higher education.

Powell got this part right, however: a university can neither use racial preferences to remedy societal discrimination (presuming this is a meaningful concept) nor provide compensation for historical wrongs. Privileging groups viewed as victims of societal discrimination, he argued, does not justify disadvantaging individuals who were not responsible for those harms. Seems obvious enough, but at the time, discriminating against whites in the present was deemed an appropriate remedy for past discrimination.

The importance of abolishing such a controlling principle cannot be exaggerated. To tell a white kid that he has to meet a higher standard than a black kid, or that he has to give up his place in line for a black kid who is not as accomplished or talented as he is, punishes the white kid for something someone else did. Affirmative action is like arresting a random black man for homicide because a black man somewhere murdered somebody. That is race-based discrimination, a practice antithetical to the colorblind principle at the heart of the Constitution.

As I have explained in several essays (see, e.g., Justice Harlan’s Color-Blind Constitution and the Abolition of Racial Gerrymandering; Our Colorblind Constitution: What Justice Harlan Can Teach Justice Jackson About Equality and Fairness; The Constitution is Colorblind—So Why Do Democrats Insist that the Country is White Supremacist?), equal treatment and individual justice are foundational to a free society. Treating individuals as if they are personifications of an abstract group is regressive (isn’t it weird that people calling themselves progressives advance regressive law, policy, and process).

Collective punishment is tribal. Modernity transcends such primitive thinking—at the very least, it shouldn’t codify it into law and policy. Affirmative Action should never have happened. Racial gerrymandering should never have been allowed. These practices are un-American. The Executive should compel all institutions to end all diversity programming based on suspect categories today. The only justification for treating individuals in terms of groups should be reserved for natural categories, such as age, gender, or disability, since treating individuals differentiated by biology or accident creates inequality. On grounds of class, ethnicity, or race, it is inherently discriminatory and unjust.

Despite doing something, Powell did not do enough. Perhaps in the moment, this was all he could do. But this is always the problem with compromising principles for expediency: it leads to half-measures that often compound problems in need of solving. Powell gave the tribalists time to institutionalize the doctrine of identitarianism to the detriment of millions of deserving Americans over time. And now we have to blast it out of our institutions, while facing accusations of racism for doing the right thing.

True, the 300 billion dollars in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding is not coming from US taxpayers. Democrats and the media are lying through their teeth about that. But, ultimately, it’s a distinction without a difference. The problem is the 300 billion itself. Iran will use the 300 billion to restart their nuclear weapons program. The Islamic Republic is evil. It cannot be trusted.

Trump’s deal is a bad one. It doesn’t help that he signed the Iran MOU at the Palace of Versailles, where, on June 28, 1919, German representatives signed the treaty with the Allied powers formally ending World War I.

The Islamic Republic should get nothing. It’s bad enough that Trump is leaving the regime in place. For forty-seven years, we’ve put up with clerical fascism in Iran. I wanted my sons to live in a post-Islamic Republic world. It should not fall to Israel to confront Iran and its proxies—Hamas and Hezbollah. We had an opportunity to change the course of history. Trump walked away from it.

I like Trump, but he has made a monumental mistake. If the MOU were a stable ceasefire that opened the Straits of Hormuz to get Republicans past the Midterms, that would be one thing, but wrapping negotiations in a Security Council guarantee that handcuffs the US in future action tells me that it isn’t merely an electoral strategy. I am disappointed in the President.

The stock market is booming. The price of oil is dropping. Every county in northeast Wisconsin is back under $3.95 per gallon on average. Prices in Green Bay are down around 67 cents a gallon from a month ago. I’d much rather have higher gas prices than see the Islamic Republic of Iran survive.

Trump is too sensitive to criticism. Doing the right thing sometimes comes with hardship. I don’t accept his rationalization about heading off depression and all the rest of it.

I am also disappointed in my fellow Americans. So many of them wanted Trump to end hostilities with the Islamic Republic. What happened to the patriotism that saw us through WWII? Can we not count on the younger generations to fight for our Republic? It’s their Republic, too.

* * *

Much of the sentiment against preemptive war in Iran is driven by a shift in attitudes towards Israel among younger conservatives, who are increasingly questioning the decades-old status quo of the US-Israel relationship, arguing that unconditional support for Israel (a false premise) contradicts America First foreign policy principles. 

Recent surveys, including data from Pew Research and the IMEU Policy Project, indicate that as much as 57 percent of young Republicans hold an unfavorable view of Israel.

Younger conservatives sound like progressive leftists. https://t.co/vLWIK02ZDB

— Andrew Austin (@andrewwaustin) June 17, 2026

As I have shown in several articles on this platform, changing attitudes towards Israel among younger conservatives are not so much about America First (any true America First paradigm would mind international threats) but are much more rooted in a resurgent antisemitism, the same ancient hatred animating the progressive left.

Rampant ziophobia comes with growing support for Islamism. Increasingly, younger conservatives are seeing an alliance between Christians and Muslims against the Jews. Bizarrely, they resort to progressive left arguments that Muslims are flocking to the West because the West is assaulting the Middle East.

That’s not why the Muslims are invading the West. They’re invading the West to make it Islamic. Younger conservatives are increasingly adopting the postmodernist standpoint of postcolonial theory, and they appear unaware of it. Moreover, they are oblivious to the fact that the transnational corporate elite is behind it. The Red-Green Alliance and its backers are enjoying the rise of a third column in America.

It’s truly frightening that younger conservatives would shift to Islamophilia. Antisemitism famously brought the Muslims and the Nazis together. The growing affinity between younger conservatives today and Islamization is a bad sign. It signals that the far right in America is developing fascist sympathies. These sympathies are already present in the Red-Green Alliance. Will the right become what they are already accused of being?

Jew-hatred is the glue that holds this monstrosity together. The idea that the Jews are a greater threat to the West than Muslims reveals a profound idiocy among younger conservatives that they cannot dismiss by asking why Boomers support Israel.

Boomers support Israel because they grasp the danger Islam poses to the world. Boomers have the wisdom of awareness and experience. Forty-seven years is a long time.

President Trump recently appointed Bill Pulte, currently the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to serve as the acting Director of National Intelligence, following Tulsi Gabbard’s resignation to care for her ailing husband.

The appointment has the Washington Establishment out of its mind. The Deep State is terrified by what Pulte will find at ODNI—because they know what’s there.

Tulsi Gabbard recently confirmed the existence of biolabs in Ukraine that the Deep State denied.

Today, I’m releasing never before seen intelligence revealing new evidence of past US government funding for more than 120 biolabs in over 30 countries, including Ukraine.

In support of President Trump‘s Executive Order to end federal funding of dangerous gain of function… pic.twitter.com/RkPHnAbka9

— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) June 12, 2026

Remember when, during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Victoria Nuland, then Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs in the Biden Regime, and wife of Robert Kagan, cofounder of the neocon Project for a New American Century (PNAC) that designed Bush and Cheney’s foreign policy, was asked by Senator Marco Rubio whether Ukraine had biological or chemical weapons?

Nuland replied that Ukraine operates biological research facilities and said she was concerned that Russian forces could attempt to seize control of them. That answer served a dual purpose: a limited hangout reframed as disinformation.

The existence of biolabs was one of the reasons Putin invaded Ukraine. Putin saw what happened at Wuhan. Rubio put the question to Nuland less than two weeks after the Russia invasion.

Was Gabbard prepared to confirm election rigging before her husband’s cancer diagnosis drew her away from her duties at ODNI? Gabbard was in Fulton County, Georgia, because the suspicion that the 2020 election involved espionage by foreign powers is reasonable.

The Deep State needs Jay Clayton, current United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, whom President Trump recently nominated to oversee ODNI, to keep a terrible truth secret—that our elections are engineered. This is why the Senate rushed his nomination. Nothing else makes sense. Trump smartly pulled back the reins.

Trump needs to give Pulte time to see the classified files and report back to the American people about what he found there.

But Pulte does not have the experience and security clearance to assume that role. Nobody questions that Pulte has experience. Moreover, no individual has national security clearance until they get it. The argument that Pulte doesn’t have security clearance is self-evidently fallacious.

Do we even know the status and extent of Jay Clayton’s security clearance? It doesn’t matter. Senators need Clayton at the ODNI to prevent Pulte from assuming that office. The Senators, who do have security clearance, don’t want Pulte to have access to secrets because they know what those secrets tell.

Is John Brennan still running the intelligence apparatus? It seems so.

Remember the open letter released on October 19, 2020, signed by fifty-one former intelligence officials, stating that the release of emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation? Now Brennan is all over the corporate media, decrying Pulte’s appointment.

We certainly know the first question Mark Warner, the Senator from the corrupt state of Virginia, which just passed a law to award Virginia’s 13 electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, not the candidate who wins Virginia itself, will ask Clayton whether the 2020 election was legitimate. We know because he tells us. He is adamant that the Senate must prevent Pulte from assuming command of ODNI. That tells us that an overriding concern is that Pulte will confirm the steal and God knows what else.

The Establishment is treating Trump as if his office is subordinate to the Senate and the current occupant of the White House is a mere custodian. They hate Trump because they hate the people. But the Republic is for the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, the Chief Executive, and the Chief Magistrate. Moreover, the Vice-President is the President of the Senate. The President and the Vice-President should throw down. The Founders wisely gave the Executive Branch awesome power. Use it.

There are signs that Trump is finally moving in that direction. He has declared that there will be no confirmation hearing for Jay Clayton until John Thune pushes the Save Act through the Senate.

Good start. Do this next: The Senate dares to hold FISA over Trump’s head. Trump should hold FISA over the Senate’s head. The Senate wants it so bad, let them fight for it. For these Senators, the Deep State is everything. This is the Swamp Trump promised to drain.

That Democrats are out in front defending the Deep State tells us everything we need to know about the Party. That some Republicans are integrated with the Establishment is confirmed by this frenzy.

This was why electing Donald Trump was so vital to the future of the Republic. Who owns this country? The intelligence services and the transnational elite? Or the people? Trump has the opportunity of a lifetime to return the Republic to the people. With the Midterms rapidly approaching, if Democrats take the House, they will straitjacket Trump. The President needs to act decisively, and he needs to act now.

The Senate is thwarting Trump’s nominees and won’t allow recess appointments. They won’t allow Trump and his allies in Congress to clean up our elections. Trump made 2024 too big to rig. But this was an exceptional case. Now they want to rush Clayton’s nomination to prevent Pulte from taking the helm at ODNI. If people can’t smell a rat, the infestation will continue. The people have tolerated the rats for far too long.

For many, our 250th anniversary is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to celebrate America’s declaration that a free society is not governed by a king but by a government that affirms the rights of man given to him by the Creator and the Laws of Nature. This was the promise of the Revolution, and decent people should keep their promises. And, despite a long and winding path, we have kept them. An anniversary is a moment to reflect on such things.

Sunday Night was UFC Freedom 250 on the South Lawn, one of many events commemorating the Founding. It was yet another reminder that the original No Kings movement featured brave men in combat, whether on the battlefield or in The Octagon. I anticipated the event with an essay at the end of May, Manly Arts at the White House, providing readers with a historical note about President Teddy Roosevelt and his love for boxing and Jiu-Jitsu. Amid the hysteria over the pending Trump birthday event, triggered by the erection of the Claw, I thought it useful to provide context. Boxing is one of America’s great pastimes.

Trump honored this tradition with a celebration of excellence and masculinity. Justin Gaethje won the main event by handing Ilia Topuria his first UFC defeat to claim the undisputed lightweight championship. After receiving a frightful beating, Topuria retired on his stool, hiding his battered face from the camera. Trump also honored America’s soldiers and first responders. The walks, Gaethje’s starting his from the Oval Office after staring for a while at a copy of the Declaration of Independence, flanked by these mighty public servants, punctuated the spirit of 1776.

But Americans were to not spend a moment thinking about the greatness of their nation. Instead, they were to be filled with ressentiment. How dare jets fly over Washington, DC, when the public is paying higher prices for the sake of ZOG’s Greater Israel project! Many social media accounts were upset because tens of millions of dollars were being spent on gladiatorial sports when that money should be spent instead on “free” health care and a bunch of other “free” stuff. (For the record, the event was, for the most part, privately funded. And the stuff being bitched for is never free.)

I was fortunate to be alive in 1976 when we celebrated our 200th anniversary as a country. I was fourteen years of age. For a young person, it was a significant moment to pause and reflect on our greatness. I had no idea then how much money the government spent commemorating the Bicentennial. I now know that it was a massive, multi-year public program involving federal, state, and local funding. The federal government alone spent on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars in 1970s dollars, with total nationwide Bicentennial-related spending (public and private) reaching into the billions. In today’s dollars, the costs of the 1976 celebrations were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15-20 billion dollars.

To address another complaint from the progressive crowd, this was at a time when the inflation and unemployment rates were much higher than they are today. Inflation in 1976 was roughly 5–6 percent. Unemployment was around 7–8 percent. Today, both figures are just over 4 percent. To be sure, there was criticism then—about cost, fairness, and priorities—but it was eclipsed by widespread public enthusiasm. The Bicentennial was not seen as a scandal or fiscal failure; by and large, it was well received by Americans proud of their country. I still have some bicentennial coins. Unlike his predecessor, Richard Nixon, who had resigned from office less than two years earlier, the president at the time, Gerald Ford, was hardly a figure who provoked vitriol.

Perhaps those complaining about the costs of last night’s event are ignorant of this. Or perhaps they had forgotten. The media wasn’t going to remind them. Not with Donald Trump as president. If a Democrat were president, we’d be grandly celebrating the 250th anniversary, only not with motorcycles and prize fights, but with rainbows and unicorns. We wouldn’t see men in combat sports in displays of masculinity with Old Glory waving at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but autogynephilic men with fake tits out twerking on the South Lawn in front of a White House festooned in Pride Progress colors.

I was with my two sons Sunday evening when I plopped down the nine bucks to see the event on Paramount+. However much they appreciated it (I know one of them did), I was proud to share this moment with them. I wore one of my many USA T-shirts. The motorcycles jumping from ramps, the jets screaming overhead during the National Anthem, the bloody spectacle of Mixed Martial Arts—it was exciting. I thought of Evel Knievel at Ceasar’s Palace, the SR-71 Blackbird, and the Thrilla in Manila. Americana and the delights of the working class. One had to work hard to not appreciate it.

Meanwhile, progressives were in a frenzy on social media, madly posting about tackiness and white trash, expressions of elitism from those who think themselves an aristocracy while decrying billionaires and kings. Flanked by the construction site for the Grand Ballroom, the Claw made the White House grounds a trailer park.

I confess: I monitored the moral panic in real time, pleased to see so many snobs triggered. Yet another accurate prediction. But an easy one. How could they not work so hard? I even intervened to taunt a few of them about what a strange place it must be to not want to feel good about America. For days, people had been twisting themselves into knots trying to rationalize their dislike for the country and gathering energy for outrage. Why not just say it straightforwardly? Why try to portray seething over American greatness as patriotism itself?

To cap off an evening of patriotic obnoxiousness, with Trump and his extended family in The Octagon standing alongside the victorious Gaethje, who had just profusely honored the troops and first responders, the event let fly a truly massive fireworks display at 2:00 AM. I delighted in imagining the outrage of DC residents who had spent their evening grumbling about the damage to the South Lawn and the destruction of the East Wing. “Oh my God, they let MMA fights march to the Octacon from the Oval Office! They defiled our sacred White House.” Looks like they plopped down their nine bucks, too.

You’d think that the excesses of Andrew Jackson—a Democrat!—would have tugged at their hearts. Alas, they probably never learned that when Jackson took office in 1829, he invited the public to an open house-style inauguration celebration at the White House. Thousands of ordinary citizens were allowed inside. Crowds rampaged through the mansion. Furniture and curtains were damaged. Food and drinks were spilled everywhere. Reports had Jackson escaping through a window to avoid the chaos. Now that was a party!

One of my sons has always expressed nostalgia for a time he could not live through—the 1970s, the zenith of American culture. Art. Music. Fashion. Crumb. Led Zeppelin. Hip huggers and halter tops. He got a taste of that spirit last night. All for measly nine bucks. You can’t watch a retreaded DEI-coopted movie or cheer on one of your favorite bands for that price.