Category: America Addio!

An autopsy of the right-wing influencer complex where corporate grifters sell you profitable indignation to keep you chasing shadows while the country burns.

From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory

Posted on by Falk Whitaker

TPUSA adviser Paul Valley co-authored the 1980 PSYOP paper From PSYOP to MindWar with Temple of Set founder Michael Aquino.

This file was downloaded from the Internet Archive and is posted here for archival purposes and to note the paper’s authorship.

The 1980 Army PSYOP paper From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory was circulated by Col. Paul Valley, then commander of the 7th PSYOP Group, and drafted with Maj. Michael Aquino, who later founded the Temple of Set. Valley, later a major general, has also served on Turning Point USA’s advisory council.

This file is also available for download in PDF Format

From PSYOP to MindWar_ The Psychology of Victory – by Colonel Paul E. Valley (Commander) – with – Major Michael A. Aquino (PSYOP Research & Analysis Team Leader)Download

From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory

-by-

Colonel Paul E. Valley
Commander

– with –

Major Michael A. Aquino
PSYOP Research & Analysis Team Leader

Headquarters, 7th Psychological Operations Group
United States Army Reserve
Presidio of San Francisco, California

1980

Introduction

by Michael A. Aquino
Lt. Colonel, Military Intelligence, USAR-Ret
November 2003

In the later 1970s, Psychological Operations (PSYOP) doctrine in the U.S. Army had yet to emerge from the disappointment and frustration of the Vietnam War. Thus it was that in 1980 Colonel Paul Valley[1], Commander of the 7th PSYOP Group, asked me, as his Headquarters PSYOP Research & Analysis (FA) Team Leader, to draft a paper that would encourage some futurethought within the PSYOP community. He did not want a Vietnam postmortem, but rather some fresh and innovative ideas concerning PSYOP’s evolution and application.

I prepared an initial draft, which Colonel Valley reviewed and annotated, which resulted in revised drafts and critiques until he was satisfied, and the result of that was this paper: From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory.[2]

Colonel Valley sent copies of it to various governmental offices, agencies, commands, and publications involved or interested in PSYOP. He intended it not as an article for publication, but simply as a “talking paper” to stimulate dialogue. In this it was quite successful, judging by the extensive and lively letters he received concerning it over the next several months.

That should have been the end of MindWar: a minor “staff study” which had done its modest job.

With the arising of the Internet in the 1980s, however, MindWar received an entirely unexpected – and somewhat comic – resurrection. Allusions to it gradually proliferated, with its “sinister” title quickly winning it the most lurid, conspiracy-theory reputation. The rumor mill soon had it transformed into an Orwellian blueprint for Manchurian Candidate mind control and world domination. My own image as an occult personality added fuel to the wildfire: MindWar was now touted by the lunatic fringe as conclusive proof that the Pentagon was awash in Black Magic and Devil-worship.

Now that this absurdly comic opera has at least somewhat subsided, I thought that it might be interesting to make a complete and accurate copy of the paper available, together with an Introduction and some historical-hindsight annotations to place it in reasonable context. After all it did – and perhaps still does – have something worthwhile to say.

Within the U.S. military, PSYOP has habitually been relegated to a back-seat as a “force multiplier”. The principal strategic decisions are made in consideration of traditional political and military interests and goals. Only then is PSYOP invited to the table, to help achieve already-agreed-upon missions more efficiently.

MindWar reverses this sequence. Psychological means for achieving victory – essentially through convincing the enemy that he really wants to bring his national policies into harmony with ours – are fashioned in support of basic political goals. The use of “ordinary” military force (bombs, bullets, etc.) is regarded as a “last resort” in circumstances wherein MindWar by itself fails.

The advantage of MindWar is that it conducts wars in nonlethal, noninjurious, and nondestructive ways. Essentially you overwhelm your enemy with argument. You seize control of all of the means by which his government and populace process information to make up their minds, and you adjust it so that those minds are made up as you desire. Everyone is happy, no one gets hurt or killed, and nothing is destroyed.

Ordinary warfare, on the other hand, is characterized by its lack of reason. The antagonists just maim or kill each other’s people, and steal or destroy each other’s land, until one side is hurt so badly that it gives up [or both sides are hurt so badly that they agree to stop short of victory]. After such a war there is lasting misery, hate, and suffering.

The only loser in MindWar are the war profiteers: companies and corporations which grow fat on orders for helicopters, tanks, guns, munitions, etc. Consequently what President Dwight Eisenhower referred to as the “military/industrial complex” can be counted upon to resist implementation of MindWar as the governing strategic conflict doctrine.

That’s the MindWar prospectus in its most simplified form.

While in the 1980s I had no reason to think that this paper had had any official effect upon U.S. PSYOP doctrine within or beyond the Army, it was with some fascination that I saw specific of its prescriptions applied during the first Gulf War, and recently even more obviously during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In both instances extreme PSYOP was directed both against the object of the attack and upon U.S. domestic public perception and opinion, in 2003 to the extent of “embedding” journalists with military units to inevitably channel their perspectives and perceptions.

The impact of even these minor techniques of MindWar was remarkable. A psychological climate of inexorable U.S. victory was created and sustained in both the United States and Iraq, which accelerated that victory on the ground.

Somewhat less positively, the failure of MindWar in this instance to be guided by only the most rigorous principles of truth and ethics has just as inexorably led to a substantial post-victory evaporation of that euphoric climate. Therein lies the Achilles’ heel of MindWar. Invoking as it does the most intense emotions and commitments of its audiences, it must deliver the goods as they are judged by the target audiences. If the ethical values of those audiences are not respected – if MindWar is used only in the service of ulterior motives and objectives – the resulting “disintoxication” can be socially shattering.

In 1987 I wrote a more extensive research paper for the National Defense University concerning the ethics of PSYOP. Particularly if MindWar is actually to be employed as a feature of U.S. foreign policy, I cannot stress too strongly the need for its subordination to the strictest and most enlightened principles of humanity as discussed in that paper. Psychological Operations: The Ethical Dimension is also available for download at www.xeper.org/maquino

Now let’s take a look at the 1980 MindWar paper itself. In addition to its original footnotes (which generally identify quote-sources), I have added a few new ones to highlight/critique some of its themes. These new footnotes are identified by “[MA2003]” at their beginning.

From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory

LTC John Alexander’s Military Review article in support of “psychotronics” – intelligence and operational employment of ESP – was decidedly provocative.[3] Criticism of research in this area, based as it is on existing frontiers of scientific law, brings to mind the laughter that greeted the Italian scientist Spallanzani in 1794 when he suggested that bats navigate in the dark means of what we now call sonar. “If they see with their ears, then do they hear with their eyes?” went the joke, but I suspect that the U.S. Navy is glad someone took the idea seriously enough to pursue it.[4]

Psychotronic research is in its infancy, but the U.S. Army already possesses an operational weapons systems designed to do what LTC Alexander would like ESP to do – except that this weapons system uses existing communications media. It seeks to map the minds of neutral and enemy individuals and then to change them in accordance with U.S. national interests. It does this on a wide scale, embracing military units, regions, nations, and blocs. In its present form it is called Psychological Operations (PSYOP).

Does PSYOP work, or is it a merely a cosmetic with which field commanders would rather not be bothered?

Had the question been asked in 1970, the answer would have been that PSYOP works very well indeed. In 1967 and 1968 alone, a total of 29,276 armed Viet Cong/NVA (the equivalent of 95 enemy infantry battalions) surrendered to ARVN or MACV forces under the Chieu Hoi amnesty program – the major PSYOP effort in the Vietnam War. At the time MACV estimated that the elimination of that same number of troops in combat would of cost us 6,000 dead.[5]

On the other hand, we lost the war – not because we were out-fought, but because we were out-PSYOPed. Our national will to victory was attacked more effectively than we attacked that of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, and perception of this fact encouraged the enemy to hang on until the United States finally broke and ran for home.

So our PSYOP failed. It failed not because its principles were unsound, but rather because it was outmatched by the PSYOP of the enemy. The Army’s efforts enjoyed some impressive successes, but our own PSYOP did not really change the minds of the enemy populace, nor did it defend the U.S. populace at home against the propaganda of the enemy. Furthermore the enemy’s PSYOP was so strong that it – not bigger armies or better weapons – overcame all of the Cobras and Spookys and ACAVs and B52s we fielded. The lesson is not to ignore our own PSYOP capability, but rather to change it and strengthen it so that it can do precisely that kind of thing to our enemy in the next war. Better hardware is nice, but by itself it will change nothing if we do not win the war for the mind.

The first thing it is necessary to overcome is a view of PSYOP that limits it to routine, predictable, over-obvious, and hence marginally effective “leaflet and loudspeaker” applications. Battlefield devices of this sort have their place, but it should be that of a accessory to the main effort. That main effort cannot begin at the company or division level; it must originate at the national level. It must strengthen our national will to victory and it must attack and ultimately destroy that of our enemy. It both causes and is affected by physical combat, but it is a type of war which is fought on a far more subtle basis as well – in the minds of the national populations involved.

So let us begin with a simple name change. We shall rid ourselves of the self-conscious, almost “embarrassed” concept of “psychological operations”. In its place we shall create MindWar. The term is harsh and fear-inspiring, and so it should be: It is a term of attack and victory – not one of the rationalization and coaxing and conciliation. The enemy may be offended by it; that is quite all right as long as he is defeated by it. A definition is offered:

MindWar is the deliberate, aggressive convincing of
all participants in a war that we will win that war.

It is deliberate in that it is planned, systematic, and comprehensive effort involving all levels of activity from the strategic to the tactical. It is aggressive because opinions and attitudes must be actively changed from those antagonistic to us to those supportive of us if we are to achieve victory. We will not win if we content ourselves with countering opinions and attitudes instilled by enemy governments. We must reach the people before they resolve to support their armies, and we must reach those armies before our combat troops ever see them on battlefields.

Compare this definition with that of psychological warfare as first offered by General William Donovan of the OSS in his World War II-era “Basic Estimate of Psychological Warfare”:

Psychological warfare is the coordination and use of all means, including moral and physical, by which the end is attained – other than those of recognized military operations, but including the psychological exploitation of the result of those recognized military actions – which tend to destroy the will of the enemy to achieve victory and to damage his political or economic capacity to do so; which tend to deprive the enemy of the support, assistance, or sympathy of his allies or associates or of neutrals, or to prevent his acquisition of such support, assistance, or sympathy; or which tend to create, maintain, or increase the will to victory of our own people and allies and to acquire, maintain, or to increase the support, assistance, and sympathy of neutrals.[6]

If the euphemism “psychological operations” resulted from, as one general officer put it in a 1917 letter, “a great need for a synonym which would be used in peacetime that would not shock the sensibilities of a citizen of democracy”, then it may have succeeded domestically.[7] On the other hand it does not seem to have reassured the sensibilities of the Soviets, who in 1980 described the U.S. Army PSYOP as including:

… unpardonable methods of ideological sabotage including not just blackmail, provocation, and terror.[8]

The reluctance with which the Army has accepted even an “antiseptic” PSYOP component is well-documented in Colonel Alfred Paddock’s brilliant treatise on the history of PSYOP establishment. Again and again efforts to forge this weapon into its most effective configuration were frustrated by leaders who could not or should not see that wars are fought and won or lost not on battlefields but in the minds of men. As Colonel Paddock so aptly concludes:

In a real sense, the manner in which psychological and unconventional warfare evolved from 1941 until their union as a formal Army capability in 1952 suggests a theme that runs throughout the history of special warfare: the story of a hesitant and reluctant Army attempting to cope with concepts and organizations of an unconventional nature.[9]

According to the present doctrine, PSYOP is considered an accessory to the main effort of winning battles and wars; the term usually used is “force multiplier”. It is certainly not considered a precondition to command decisions. Thus PSYOP cannot predetermine the political or psychological effectiveness of a given military action. It can only be used to point that action in the best possible colors as it is taken.

MindWar cannot be so relegated. It is, in fact, the strategy to which tactical warfare must conform if it is to achieve maximum effectiveness. The MindWar scenario must be preeminent in the mind of the commander and must be the principal factor in his every field decision. Otherwise he sacrifices measures which actually contribute to winning the war to measures of immediate, tangible satisfaction. [Consider the rational for “body counts” in Vietnam.]

Accordingly PSYOP “combat support” units as we now know them must become a thing of the past. MindWar teams must offer technical expertise to the commander from the onset of the planning process, and at all levels down to that of the battalion. Such teams cannot be composed – as they are now – of branch-immaterial officers and NCOs who know simply the basics of tactical propaganda operations. They must be composed of full-time experts who strive to translate the strategy of national MindWar into tactical goals maximize the effective winning of the war and minimize loss of life. Such MindWar teams will win commanders respect only if they can deliver on their promises.[10]

What the Army now considers to be the most effective PSYOP – tactical PSYOP – is actually the most limited and primitive effort, due to the difficulties of formulating and delivering messages under battlefield constraints. Such efforts must continue, but they are properly seen as reinforcement of the main MindWar effort. If we do not attack the enemy’s will until he reaches the battlefield, his nation will have strengthened it as best it can. We must attack that will before it is thus locked in place. We must instill in it a predisposition to inevitable defeat.

Strategic MindWar must begin the moment war is considered to be inevitable. It must seek out the attention of the enemy nation through every available medium, and it must strike at the nation’s potential soldiers before they put on their uniforms. It is in their homes and their communities that they are most vulnerable to MindWar. Was the United States defeated in the jungles of Vietnam, or was it defeated in the streets of American cities?

To this end MindWar must be strategic in emphasis, with tactical applications playing a reinforcing, supplementary role. In its strategic context, MindWar must reach out to friends, enemies, and neutrals alike across the globe – neither through primitive “battlefield” leaflets and loudspeakers of PSYOP nor through the weak, imprecise, and narrow effort of psychotronics[11] – but through the media possessed by the United States which have the capabilities to reach virtually all people on the face of the Earth.

These media are, of course, the electronic media – television and radio. State of the art developments in satellite communication, video recording techniques, and laser and optical transmission of broadcasts make possible a penetration of the minds of the world such as would have been inconceivable just a few years ago. Like the sword Excalibur, we have but to reach out and seize this tool; and it can transform the world for us if we have the courage and the integrity to enhance civilization with it. If we do not accept Excalibur, then we relinquish our ability to inspire foreign cultures with our morality. If they then desire moralities unsatisfactory to us, we have no choice but to fight them on a more brutish level.

MindWar must target all participants if it is to be effective. It must not only weaken the enemy; it must strengthen the United States. It strengthens the United States by denying enemy propaganda access to our people, and by explaining and emphasizing to our people the rationale for our national interest in a specific war.

Under existing United States law, PSYOP units may not target American citizens.[12] That prohibition is based upon the presumption that “propaganda” is necessarily a lie or at least a misleading half-truth, and that the government has no right to lie to the people. The Propaganda Ministry of Goebbels must not be a part of the American way of life.

Quite right, and so it must be axiomatic of MindWar that it always speaks the truth. Its power lies in its ability to focus recipients’ attention on the truth of the future as well as that of the present. MindWar thus involves the stated promise of the truth that the United States has resolved to make real if it is not already so.

MindWar is not new. Nations’ greatest – and least costly – victories have resulted from it, both in time of actual combat and in time of threatened combat. Consider the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The physical destruction of those two cities did not destroy Japan’s ability to continue fighting. Rather the psychological shock of the weapons destroyed what remained of Japan’s national will to fight. Surrender followed; a long and costly ground invasion was averted.[13]

MindWar’s effectiveness is a function of its own skillful use of communications media, but no greater error could be made than to confuse MindWar with merely a greater and more unprincipled propaganda effort. “Propaganda” as defined by Harold Lasswell, is:

… the expression of opinions or actions carried out deliberately by individuals or groups with a view to influence the opinions or actions of other individuals or groups for predetermined ends and through psychological manipulations.[14]

Propaganda, when it is recognized as such – and anything produced by a “PSYOP” unit is so recognized – is automatically assumed to be a lie or at least a distortion of the truth. Therefore it works only to the extent that a militarily-pressed enemy is willing to do what we want him to. It does not work because we have convinced him to see the truth as we see it.

If his “Conclusions” chapter to the Army’s exhaustive 1976 case-study of PSYOP techniques, L. John Martin affirms this coldly and bluntly:

What this all boils down to is that if our persuasive communication ends up with a near positive effect, we must attribute it to luck, not science… The effectiveness of propaganda may be even less predictable and controllable than the effectiveness of mere persuasive communication.[15]

Correspondingly propagandists are assumed to be liars and hypocrites, willing to paint anything attractive colors to dupe the gullible. As Jacques Ellul puts it:

The propagandist is not, and cannot be, a “believer”. Moreover he cannot believe in the ideology he must use in his propaganda. He is merely a man at the service of a party, a state, or some other organization, and his task is to insure the efficiency of that organization … If the propagandist has any political conviction he must put it aside in order to be able to use some popular mass ideology. He cannot even share that ideology, for he must use it as an object and manipulate it without the respect that he would have for it if he believed in it. He quickly acquires contempt for these popular images and beliefs…[16]

Unlike PSYOP, MindWar has nothing to do with deception or even with “selected” – and therefore misleading – truth. Rather it states a whole truth that, if it does not now exist, will be forced into existence by the will of the United States. The examples of Kennedy’s ultimatum to Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Hitler’s stance at Munich might be cited.

A MindWar message does not have to fit conditions of abstract credibility as do PSYOP themes; its source makes it credible. As Livy once said:

The terror of the Roman name will be such that the world shall know that, once a Roman army has laid siege to a city, nothing will move it – not the rigors or winter nor the weariness of months and years – that it knows no end but victory and is ready, if a swift and sudden stroke will not serve, to preserve until that victory is achieved.[17]

Unlike Ellul’s cynical propagandist, the MindWar operative must know that he speaks the truth, and he must be personally committed to it. What he says is only a part of MindWar; the rest – and the test of its effectiveness – lies in the conviction he projects to his audience, in the rapport he establishes with it.

And this is nothing that can be easily faked, if in fact it can be faked at all. “Rapport”, which the Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms defines as “unconstrained relations of mutual confidence”, approaches the subliminal; some researchers have suggested that it is itself a subconscious and even perhaps even ESP-based “accent” to an overt exchange of information.

Why does one believe one television newsman more than another, even though both may report the same headlines? The answer is that there is rapport in the former case; and it is a rapport which has been recognized and cultivated by the most successful broadcasters.

We have covered the statement of inevitable truth and the conviction behind that statement; these are qualities of the MindWar operative himself. The recipient of the statement will judge such messages not only by his conscious understanding of them, but also by the mental conditions under which he receives them. The theory behind “brainwashing” was that physical torture and deprivation would weaken the mind’s resistance to suggestion, and this was true to a point. But in the long run brainwashing does not work, because intelligent minds later realize their suggestibility under such conditions and therefore discount impressions and options inculcated accordingly.[18]

For the mind to believe in its own decisions, it must feel that it made those decisions without coercion. Coercive measures used by the operative, consequently, must not be detectable by ordinary means. There is no need to resort to mind-weakening drugs such as those explored by the CIA; in fact the exposure of a single such method would do unacceptable damage to MindWar’s reputation for truth.

Existing PSYOP identifies purely-sociological factors which suggest appropriate idioms for messages. Doctrine in this area is highly developed, and the task is basically one of assembling and maintaining individuals and teams with enough expertise and experience to apply the doctrine effectively. This, however, is only the sociological dimension of target receptiveness measures. There are some purely natural conditions under which minds may become more or less receptive to ideas, and MindWar should take full advantage of such phenomena as atmospheric electromagnetic activity[19], air ionization[20], and extremely low frequency waves[21].

At the root of any decision to institute MindWar in the U.S. defense establishment is a very simple question: Do we wish to win the next war in which we choose to become involved, and do we wish to do so with minimum loss of human life, at minimum expense, and in the least amount of time? If the answer is yes, then MindWar is a necessity. If we wish to trade that kind of victory for more American lives, economic disaster, and negotiated stalemates, then MindWar is inappropriate, and if used superficially will actually contribute to our defeat.

In MindWar there is no substitute for victory.[22]

Notes

[1] Later Major General, USAR.

[2] The term “MindWar” was coined by another PSYOP officer. Colonel Richard Sutter, and myself in 1977. After seeing the recent film Star Wars, we played with a modification of its name as a futuristic replacement for the somewhat bland Army designation “Psychological Operations”. An avowedly science-fictional treatment of MindWar, complete with a caricature of Sutter at its helm, appears in my Star Wars story The Dark Side, available at www.xeper.org/maquino

[3] Alexander, Lieutenant Colonel John B., “The New Mental Battlefield: Beam me up, Spock” in Military Review, Vol LX, No. 12 December 1980.

[4] [MA2003] Alexander (later Colonel) was involved with “parapsychological” ideas and experiments such as ESP and “remote viewing”. These have no connection whatever with either traditional PSYOP or MindWar. Cf. my paper Project Star Gate: $20 Million up in Smoke [and Mirrors] at www.xeper.org/maquino.

[5] “Chieu Hoi: The Winning Ticket”. MACV Command Information Pamphlet 6-69, March 1969.

[6] Roosevelt, Kermit (Ed.) War Report of the OSS. New York: Walker and Company, 1976, Volume I, page 99.

[7] Letter, Major General W.C. Wyman to Major General Lauris Norsted, 22 July 1947, quoted to Paddock, Colonel Alfred H., “Psychological and Unconventional Warfare, 1941-1952: Origins of a ‘Special Warfare’ Capability for the United States Army”. Carlisle Barracks: U.S. Army War College.

[8] Belashchenko, T., “‘Black Propaganda’ from Fort Bragg” in Sovetskiy Voin. Moscow, June 1980, pages 46-47.

[9] Paddock, op. cit., page 258.

[10] [MA2003] In 1980 neither PSYOP nor Special Forces were career branches in the Army. Rather they were “branch-immaterial”, meaning that assignments to them were relatively brief and at the long-term risk of promotion within one’s basic branch. Later SF would become both an officer and an enlisted branch, and PSYOP would gain an enlisted branch, but PSYOP does not yet have an officer career branch.

[11] [MA2003] “Psychotronics” was a term applied to concepts such as ESP and “remote viewing” by some government agencies in the 1970s-80s, possibly to make them sound more “scientific”.

[12] [MA2003] This law was established after World War II, purportedly both out of distaste for the extreme domestic propaganda of the fascist powers and because of misgivings about American domestic propaganda, particularly during World War I. At the time of this paper (1980), the law was so strict that, for example, printing presses of Army PSYOP units were prohibited from being used to run off posters for local military recruiting stations.

[13] [MA2003] Nevertheless Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not very good examples of MindWar, because – despite their psychological impact – they involved the killing and injuring of a great many people. MindWar is perfect when no one is physically harmed.

[14] Lasswell, Harold D. in Ellul, Jacques, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Random House, 1965, pages xi-xii.

[15] Martin, L. John, “Effectiveness of International Propaganda” in Department of the Army Pamphlet 525-7-2 The Art and Science of Psychological Operations: Case Studies of Military Application, Volume Two. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research, 1976, page 1020.

[16] Ellul, Jacques, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Random House, 1965, pages 196-197.

[17] Keller, Werner, The Etruscans. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, page 262.

[18] Cf. John Marks, The Search for the “Manchurian Candidate”. New York: Times Books, 1979.

[19] Atmospheric electromagnetic (EM) activity: The Human body communicates internally by EM and electrochemical impulses. The EM field displayed in Kirlian photographs, the effectiveness of acupuncture, and the body’s physical responses to various types of EM radiation (X-rays, infrared radiation, visible light spectra, etc.) are all examples of human sensitivity to EM forces and fields. Atmospheric EM activity is regularly altered by such phenomena as sunspot eruptions and gravitational stresses which distort the Earth’s magnetic field. Under varying external EM conditions, humans are more or less disposed to the consideration of new ideas. MindWar should be timed accordingly. Per Dr. L.J. Ravitz:

Electromagnetic field constructs add fuel to the assumption unifying living matter harmoniously with the operations of nature, the expression of an electromagnetic field no less than non-living systems; and that as points on spectrums, these two entities may at last take their positions in the organization of the universe in a way both explicable and rational… A tenable theory has been provided for emergence of the nervous system, developing not from functional demands, but instead deriving as a result of dynamic forces imposed on cell groups by the total field pattern. Living matter on has a definition of state based on relativity field physics, through which it has been possible to detect a measurable property of total state functions. (Ravitz, State-Function, Including Hypnotic States” in Journal of American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1970.)

[20] Ionization of the air: An abundance of negative condensation nuclei (“air ions”) in ingested air enhances alertness and exhilaration, while an excess of positive ions enhances drowsiness and depression. Calculation of the ionic balance of a target audience’s atmospheric environment will be correspondingly useful. Again this is a naturally-occurring condition – caused by such varying agents as solar ultraviolet light, lightning, and rapidly-moving water – rather than one which most be artificially created. (Detonation of nuclear weapons, however, will alter atmospheric ionization levels.) Cf. Soyke, Fred and Edmonds, Alan, The Ion Effect. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1977.

[21] Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) waves: ELF waves up to 100 Hz are once more naturally occurring, but they can also be produced artificially (such as for the Navy’s Project Sanguine for submarine communication). ELF-waves are not normally noticed by the unaided senses, yet their resonant effect upon the human body has been connected to both physiological disorders and emotional distortion. Infrasound vibration (up to 20 Hz) can subliminally influence brain activity to align itself to delta, theta, alpha, or beta wave patterns, inclining an audience toward everything from alertness to passivity. Infrasound could be used tactically, as ELF-waves endure for great distances; and it could be used in conjunction with media broadcasts as well. See Playfair, Guy L. and Hill, Scott, The Cycles of Heaven. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1978, pages 130-140.

[22] [MA2003] After General of the Army Douglas Mac Arthur’s famous aphorism: “In war there is no substitute for victory.”

A Tale of Two Grifts: Keffles vs. TheQuartering

Posted on by Falk Whitaker

Watch any trending livestream long enough and you will notice that conflict keeps eyes on screens better than any policy breakdown ever could. A careful explanation of a housing bill will not hold a room for ninety seconds but an accusation will hold it for an hour plus. Attention is counted, sold, and paid out, so conflict and outrage are converted into billable inventory, and the advertisements ride the wave.

None of this requires a conspiracy, only incentives. Nobody has to be told what performs, because the numbers say it publicly and in real time, and anyone with a webcam can read them. The machine is crude enough that a drunk could run it.

The most reliable input is grievance. A grievance arrives pre-loaded with a villain, a deadline, and a reason for the audience to stay, and it resists correction: disputing it costs more than making it, and the dispute arrives days late to a smaller room. Injury, staged correctly, is cheaper to produce than expertise and pays better.

In this article, we will break down victimhood as a business model, using two of Victimhood Inc.’s most notorious entrepreneurs: Jeremy Hambly (TheQuartering) and Lucas “Clara” Sorrenti (Keffals). They agree on almost nothing, which is the point of this case study: strip away the politics and the same steps run underneath both operations.

The Five-Step Method

Victimhood Inc. is built on a a five-step procedure. Any operator in the attention economy can learn it, and the peculiar thing about the two figures examined here is that they learned it independently of each other, on opposite sides of of the political aisle, and arrived at the identical mechanism.

Step 1: Chum the waters. 

Before the injury, there is the provocation that makes it possible. The operator stirs the pot on purpose, names an enemy, aims a stream at a controversial figure, launches a coordinated campaign, or simply leaves the door open. The enemy is baited, the hive is kicked, and the response is then presented as an unforeseeable attack. This is the step that separates the wounded from the wounded-by-design, and it is the step almost everyone discusses least, because the operator has every economic reason to pretend it didn’t happen.

Step 2: Endure the crisis

Now that the trap is set, you wait for someone to spring it. It could be a ban, a wave of harassment, a supplier who cuts ties, or a rival who lands a sharp remark. The wound doesn’t have to be deep; it simply needs to be readable. It needs an antagonist with a face and a name.

Step 3: Apply partisan framing

The injury is handed to an audience already primed to read the world as a war. The person who hurt you is not merely a person who hurt you—they are your side’s enemy, and they acted precisely because you are what you are. The antagonist is recruited as a member of the other camp.

Step 4: ?????

The wounded figure settles into the posture of the innocent. This is the cheapest and most essential asset. From this posture, any criticism becomes persecution, any setback becomes proof, any question becomes bait.

Step 5: Profit

The audience is asked to convert sympathy into a transaction. Patreon tiers. Coffee bundles. “Founders” inventory. The register varies—solidarity on one side, resistance on the other—but the arithmetic is the same: the wound is the inventory, and it must be turned over.

None of this requires that the injury be fake. It requires only that the injury be usable. Both figures under examination were, at moments, genuinely wronged. The model doesn’t rest on whether the wound is real. It rests on whether the wound can be reopened on schedule.

Keffles the Anarcho-Communist Transexual Fart Dominatrix & The Great Retard War of 2022

In March 2022, Lucas “Clara” Sorrenti could be found giggling to himself in his goon chamber as he made a name out of treating “ratioing” as sport on Twitter, months before Elon Musk bought the platform and renamed it X. The Keffles ratio method was simple: quote-tweet an easy target, direct the sycophantic handmaidens who make up his audience to the post, and watch his lame ass one liners like “Trans Rights are Human rights” receive more engagement in the replies than the original post. His targets were often mainstream names, in order to maximize his reach: Lauren Southern, Ben Shapiro, and a couple of other usual passengers in Conservative Inc.’s clown car. 

Then came Destiny. Destiny has spent years declaring his love and support for trans folx, so why does Lucas hate him? Because Destiny said transexuals should disclose their status to their partners before sleeping with them. Sorrenti admits he doesn’t disclose his transexual status. That admission, if taken at face value, describes the conduct of a serial sexual assailant. 

Stealthing is the act of depriving a sexual partner of the information they need to consent. It applies to condoms, and it applies to disclosure. Destiny criticized transexuals who sleep with people without disclosing their transexual status while Lucas admits to engaging in sexual assault proudly, and openly. Ironically, he also accused Destiny of rape by heterosexual stealthing (removing the condom during sex without consent) before walking the accusation back.

Later on, Lucas picked a fight with Destiny over trans-identified male athletes playing in women’s sports, and on March 23, 2022, Twitch suspended Destiny for “hateful conduct.” Sorrenti immediately bragged about his direct hand in the ban: “he picked a fight with me. he got banned. i won.” Within days of those tweets, in which he gloated over deplatforming a peer, a Kiwi Farms thread on Sorrenti opened. Lucas would later call that thread the “original sin” and the “reason a rifle ended up in her doorway.” But the sequence still begins with Sorrenti kicking the online beehive and teabagging wrecked honeycombs.

The Great Retard War of 2022

PICTURED: Joshua Connor Moon, Owner & Operator of the Kiwi Farms

The industrial version of this method was #DropKiwiFarms. This was not a subtweet but a wide-scale deplatforming campaign supported by large industry names salivating at the idea of deplatforming the Kiwi Farms for any reason. Cloudflare, DDOS Protection services, and other top layer infrastructure necessary for both forum and basic web hosting. Keffles named Joshua Moon, the operator of the Kiwi Farms, as well as Tim Pool, Libs of TikTok and many others as enemies.

On August 5, 2022, Sorrenti was swatted in London, Ontario. Someone sent emails to city councillors impersonating him (using both his online persona “Clara” and his birth name). The messages claimed he had killed his mother, possessed an illegal firearm, and planned to go to City Hall to shoot every “cisgender” person (a Marxist, Queer-Academia label for people who decline to adopt fictional gender identities or participate the queer lifestyle). Police treated the threats as credible, obtained a search warrant, and sent the Canadian equivalent of a SWAT team to storm Keffals’ cum-crusted goon temple. London Police Chief Steve Williams publicly confirmed it was a deliberate third-party swatting attempt and opened a criminal investigation.

CAPTION: Still From “Trans woman, Twitch streamer Keffals doxxed, arrested by London, Ont. police at gunpoint”

Transexuals everywhere rallied around Keffals, building him a press kit and coaching him until he could cry on command for a media that still looked kindly on transexuals, back before the “trans kids” movement went mainstream. GLAAD was running day-long media trainings for trans advocates as early as 2016, teaching “effective communication tools” and “how to do media interviews with journalists” , and the broader movement had already mastered the art of the sympathetic sit-down: Bruce Jenner’s 2015 Diane Sawyer interview was widely praised as a masterclass in media preparation, with commentators noting it was “no accident” that he “allowed himself to be vulnerable, shedding a few tears”.

This incident was immediately and primarily attributed to Kiwi Farms and the various influencers from Conservative, Inc. whom Lucas named as enemies. The swatting launched the high-visibility #DropKiwiFarms campaign, which generated mainstream media coverage and positioned Sorrenti as a central martyr figure for the cause. 

Concurrently, Lucas launched a GoFundMe framed around “urgent safety needs” such as moving, replacing equipment seized by police (shopping spree, girlfriend!) and building a “legal fund”. It raised over $100,000 CAD. The narrative of a pitiful, victimized transexual activist under existential threat proved extremely effective at converting attention into cash.

PICTURED: Keffles’s feminine Gamer Hump

The initial goal was specific: move overseas for “safety” (pursue a “lesbian” relationship with another transexual in Ireland), recoup losses from seized devices, and build a legal fund. After the initial target was met, the page was updated to say all further donations went “directly to my legal fund which I will be using to seek justice.”

Total raised: approximately $101,353 CAD.

A significant portion was used to pay a full year of rent upfront on a new apartment, estimated around $28,000. This was not listed as a primary use on the fundraising page. Money went toward travel, new streaming and professional studio equipment, furniture, clothes, helping friends with gear, and personal security consultations.

Private messages later surfaced in which Sorrenti expressed anxiety about how quickly the fund depleted and noted spending on “travel and replacing furniture and helping my friends out and buying new streaming gear and clothes,” adding that if people found out “I am definitely getting cancelled.”

The high-profile legal action against the London Police Service that was repeatedly referenced as the core justification did not materialize at the scale or in the form donors were led to expect. A Human Rights Tribunal process was mentioned, but it did not deliver the public reckoning or body-cam policy changes framed as the goal.

Timeline overlap with later public discussion of substance issues fueled additional questions about whether any portion of the emergency funds supported personal struggles rather than the stated safety and legal purposes.

Donors were sold an urgent, narrowly defined emergency: safety plus a legal war chest. A large share of the money funded Lucas’s hypersexual queer lifestyle. When questions arose, scrutiny was often framed as bad-faith attacks rather than accountability.

The #DropKiwiFarms campaign succeeded in its immediate goal when Cloudflare dropped the site. This was widely celebrated by Sorrenti’s audience and other pro-censorship advocacy groups as a victory for “safety and accountability”. The Kiwi Farms remained online, however, subsisting on a Tor node and then resurfacing on the clear net again, more resilient than ever. #DropKiwiFarms had failed. In the end, Joshua Connor Moon rose from the ashes of his own forum, the phoenix of the Retard Wars of 2022, crowned not by anyone in particular, but by the simple fact that his forum was still online. 

The promised high-profile legal reckoning against the London Police Service never materialized at the scale or in the form donors were led to expect. A Human Rights Tribunal process was floated into the air like a shiny object and then simply dissolved into the dark. Lucas filed the complaint on April 10, 2023, seeking $75,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect plus $50,000 for loss of income and other damages, along with demands for body cameras and mandatory human rights training for officers .

In February 2023, after publicly discussing a drug addiction dating back to the GoFundMe period, Lucas faced backlash as the grift collapsed. By May 2024, TYT had issued a correction titled “Keffals Is a Fraud,” following an in-depth investigation SomeOrdinaryGamers (Mutahar) investigation. 

The same month, the case remained unresolved, with critics alleging that the “legal case” with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario was “dead” and that Keffals had been “lying about its status to avoid questions related to the money”. The only public record of the proceeding is a 2024 confidentiality decision addressing a third-party access request—an order redacting Sorrenti’s home address, telephone number, and email from the adjudicative records, rather than any ruling on the merits of the discrimination claim itself (CanLII, Sorrenti v. London Police Services Board, 2024 HRTO 924). No public reckoning. No body-cam policy changes. The curtain fell on an empty stage.

He attempted a few more grifts, but like his penis after the Thai chop-shop sex change, the business had been liquidated, the assets were gone, and the remaining inventory was purely decorative. Keffals and his censorship advocacy work were memory-holed within a deluge of inconvenient truths that plague the transexual movement as a whole.

Jeremy Hambly (TheQuartering), Senior Vice President of Culture War Grifting, Conservative Inc.

Jeremy Hambly, the Quartering, chums in plain sight. After allegedly getting on the phone with his YouTube representative and having the Kino Casino clips channel taken down, his hypocrisy has been on full display. The audience he claims to champion has noticed. His own fans are turning on him, and his censorious behavior has been on blast ever since the clips channel got yeeted back in April 2026. A man whose entire brand was “I cover the controversy” now finds the controversy pointed at him, and he has no coverage for that. Which is a problem, because he wants the threat. He needs it. And a man who has been repeatedly located, doxxed, and dragged through the internet’s ugliest corners does not forget how it happens. He remembers. He just doesn’t care. 

PICTURED: PPP & Andy Warski, Owner and Proprietors of The Kino Casino

So what does he do? Step one of the old playbook: chum. He walks his property like it’s a plant tour, doling out landmarks the way a frustrated real-estate agent shows off a listing. Fence line. Tree line. The way the drive curves. Enough geography, mapped out in casual beats, that any stranger with a search bar and a grudge could find the building by lunch. It is not just the bragging of a man who feels safe, but the staging of one who needs to feel victimized. He talks about his marriage, about friends in the house, about being a man under siege in his own home. He frames his wife as a protected class: untouchable, sacred, off-limits, right up until the moment he needs her, at which point she is back to being the prop again, the human shield with a name and a face, hauled out to prove the man has something to lose. 

Every stream is another pass over the same coordinates. Every mention of the wife, the house, the friends, the yard is another line item in an inventory he pretends is intimacy but that is the whole trick of it: he packages reconnaissance as rustic domesticity, and the audience mistakes a man reading his own address book aloud for a man opening his life.

But here is what the playbook always gets wrong, and what Jeremy Hambly has never once learned in ten years of doing this: you cannot run the Victimhood Inc. cycle forever on a supply of wounds that keep coming from the same hand. That is why the fans turned. It was never really about the boys at the Kino Casino. It was about watching a man who spent his career selling outrage finally get measured by his own ruler.

VIDEO: Jeremy showed up 40 minutes late to TimCast, smelling like alcohol, got the show cancelled, then called Tim “very unprofessional.” He said he doesn’t need to be on time “because I’m a professional.”

So watch the rest of this Jeremy saga, because it will unfold in the order it always does. There will be an incident. There will be a villain, named within the hour, probably “blue-haired feminists” again, because Jeremy is too scared to call any of his detractors out by name. There will be the trembling monologue about the safety of his family (Heather, four dogs, and the bull), with links to his digital tip jars posted underneath. It will be very moving. It will also be very monetized.

Every grievance gets a partisan coat of paint, every setback a villain, every silence a conspiracy of his enemies. He tells people he’s going out. Casino. Bingo. The backyard. It’s location disclosure dressed as small talk, and then it’s doctrine: the mundanity is the cover, the itinerary is the hook. A man who has already been mapped, still dropping pins, still narrating the layout for anybody who cares to listen. He is not careless. He is performing carelessness, because the martyr needs an audience and the audience needs a map. Some men build a bunker. Jeremy built a content calendar.

He does not hide from the trolls. He invites them to try to ruin the business. Ruin the coffee business. Flag the YouTube channel. Come to the door. When someone does come, he tweets that they came. When a clip channel makes the marriage a circus, he answers on the main account, which is how you make sure the circus sells tickets.

CAPTION: Casual Ralphamale Win

He taunts them by name and category and states the transaction outright: “Every time they do something stupid, I just turn it into more sales.” “I’m monetizing them.” “This video is bait for those idiots who are just helping me monetize this channel.”

He taunts them by name and category and states the transaction outright: “Every time they do something stupid, I just turn it into more sales.” “I’m monetizing them.” “This video is bait for those idiots who are just helping me monetize this channel.”

Don’t Cha Wish Your Culture War Rant Got You Canceled Like Me?

Oh, we about to get it just a little hot and sweaty in this motherfucker

The mechanism is identical: injury, betrayer, innocence, weapon, ask. The only difference is packaging, and ideology supplies it. Two influencers on opposite sides of a political war, sincerely opposed to one another, each discovered independently that a wound framed as persecution and sold as solidarity or resistance is the most reliable inventory in the attention economy. You don’t slaughter the goose. You just keep collecting the eggs and calling it a movement.

There is a pleasure in exhibiting the wound, and it is not a pleasant one. The humiliated figure restages the humiliation, and the restaging is the product. The audience receives it, the figure receives the payment, and each gets a version of the same satisfaction: witnessing, and being witnessed, at the site of the damage. The compulsion is shared and the arrangement is mutual, which is why it never resolves. It’s a feedback loop with a payout, two mirrors facing each other and calling it a business.

Don’t Cha Wish Your Victim Complex Had Tiers Like Me?

And beneath all of it lies Thanatos: the drive toward the wound, toward a state in which the self is no longer required to do anything but be wounded. This is not a literal wish to die. It is the pull to re-signify the self as the object of the wound, because the wound is the only thing that produces payment and the only thing that produces an audience. The identity is built from the reopened wound, and to close the wound is to dissolve the identity. So the wound stays open. The camera stays rolling. The footage is already in the can. The thumbnail is already made.

Don’t Cha Wish Your Grift Was Hot Like Me? Don’t Cha?

Why Sodomy Will Not Save the West: The Homosexuality of Women Hate

Posted on by Falk Whitaker

Thanks to Lindsay Clancy, we once again get front-row seats as Conservative, Inc. defaults to its most predictable death rattle: transforming itself into a perpetual motion machine of pure reactive fury. Mass sexual frustration has seized the White male population, leaving online commentators to funnel their collective impotence into relentless, blanket hostility toward women of the West.

But how did we get here? Let’s rewind the tape to that one Charlie Kirk/Turning Point USA campus raid, the one that launched Nicholas J. Fuentes and his Groypers into the fever dream of dissident-right infamy.

There, amidst the shouting and the shoving, a follower of the hispanic homosexual feline posed a question that keeps bubbling up from the conservative underbelly far more often than anyone in polite company cares to admit: “How is anal sex going to save the West?”

What is the strategic objective of driving an ideological wedge between men and women? 

The answer is rooted in Judeo-Capitalism, as most things seem to be these days. Consider the machinery beneath the spectacle – the systematic proliferation of debauchery among the goyim by an elite class leveraging the digital panopticon to monetize moral decay. The strategy is twofold: lower the barrier to instant gratification while simultaneously sabotaging the natural magnetism between the sexes. Flood the culture with pornography. Normalize every vice. Watch the birthrate crater and the households splinter. Men and women, estranged from each other, chasing digital dopamine while the family unit dissolves into irrelevance. No households. No children. No future.

White global population in 1900: 36%. White global population in 2018: 16%. White global population 2025: 7%-10%. White global population 2060: 3%. White global population beyond 2100: less than 1%.

As a cute little added bonus, the same machine that profits from Western decay also bankrolls the Israeli genocide machine in the Middle East. The pornography funds the bombs, while the resulting sexual alienation provides the perfect distraction to carry out slaughter without domestic consequence. It is a perfectly calibrated closed loop, and the goyim and their weak, useless sperm are merely the raw material fueling the furnace.

The transgender pipeline, actively recruiting the young and the vulnerable, guiding confused adolescents toward irreversible choices before their brains have finished developing. These are not separate battles. They are auxiliary prongs of the same offensive, deployed in concert to achieve a single objective. Plant the seeds early. Dysgenic behavior, carefully cultivated and normalized, takes root in the developing mind long before maturity offers any defense. The family unit, that stubborn biological reality, is subverted, fragmented, rendered obsolete. And the birth rates among the native population collapse, a rapid, irreversible decline that its Zionists architects track with cold satisfaction.

This is pure demographic warfare, conducted on every front with chilling precision. The foreign populations flood across the borders, weaponized as instruments of displacement, engineered to rewrite the ethnic composition of the West in a single generation. The Israel lobby, that well-oiled machine, bleeds the national treasury dry, funneling billions to a foreign state while our own infrastructure crumbles and our own citizens go without. Two fronts, same offensive, coordinated and deliberate. And it leads to the most damning question of all, the one that haunts every conversation, every debate, every desperate attempt to chart a path forward. What the fuck is OUR end game? Where is the counteroffensive? Where is the strategy? Where is the will to survive people?

So, Western Man, how IS Sodomy going to save the West?

The conservative ecosystem, for a moment in the late 2010’s a coherent front, now lies fractured and bleeding over the very questions that should unite it. Sexual politics. Cultural decadence. Biological reality. The traditionalist critique of the sexual revolution and its modern mutations remains foundational, undeniable, essential. But something has curdled in the machinery. The rhetoric has degenerated, slipping from principled critique into something far uglier. An online grievance industry has emerged, a content-hungry machine that feeds on resentment and produces outrage on demand. The legal system, portrayed as a weapon against men. Modern dating dynamics, reframed as a war of attrition. Cultural shifts, accelerating toward the abyss and blamed on a single demographic. All of it, every legitimate complaint, every valid observation, is funneled into a generalized, simmering resentment against women. The movement that began with a critique of decadence has become decadent itself. The traditionalists have abandoned tradition for scapegoating.

Carl Johnson Esq. was cooking with those tweets tbh

Observe the scrotes in their natural habitat. Furious, impotent, desperate for answers, and completely incapable of finding them. Watch them struggle, watch them flail, watch them point fingers at women, at feminism, at the dating market, at everything except themselves. The collapse of the household is not primarily an organic rebellion by women. That narrative is convenient, satisfying, and completely wrong. The collapse of the household is structural, engineered, and deliberate. A century of ideological engineering, applied with chilling consistency across every cultural front. Economic shifts, carefully structured to privilege the individual over the family, to replace interdependence with isolation. Traditional authority structures, systematically eroded by liberal governance that understood the mathematics of civilizational decline. This is the reality that the grievance industry refuses to confront.

But the tragedy does not end with the engineering. Watch the response of the men who claim to defend tradition. Reflexive hostility. Performative outrage. Scapegoating and resentment rather than constructive leadership. They drive women away from the traditional spheres that once offered meaning, stability, and purpose. And in doing so, they guarantee that Judeo-Marxist political movements remain the only alternative offered. The left does not have to win hearts and minds. The scrotes do the work for them, driving women into the arms of the very forces that engineered the collapse in the first place. The machinery turns. The scrotes rage. And the architects watch with cold satisfaction.
Historical societies understood something that has been systematically erased. Men and women are different. Different behavioral tendencies. Different vulnerabilities to institutional pressures. Traditional sociology and classical theology, dismissed as outdated, recognized the architecture of survival. Because women are biologically and socially oriented toward consensus, caregiving, and social cohesion, they are often more susceptible to the dominant institutional signals of the era. In an environment where media, education, and corporate culture aggressively promote progressive social doctrines, social contagion spreads rapidly through peer networks and educational institutions which have primarily become dominated by women.

However, the historical response to this susceptibility was never indiscriminate hostility; it was the establishment of firm, benevolent, and patriarchal structures within the household and the community. Order requires leadership and when male leadership abdicates its responsibility (or replaces authority with online resentment) it leaves the domestic sphere entirely unprotected against hostile cultural influences.

Treating the relationship between men and women as a zero-sum conflict is a quintessential modern, liberal delusion. Judeo-Marxism frames the family as a battlefield of class struggle, casting the husband as the oppressive bourgeois and the wife as the exploited proletariat. When the self-proclaimed dissident right adopts this exact dialectic, they aren’t subverting the system; they are merely laundering Judeo-Marxist social engineering through a new, more toxic filter. The practical consequences of this dynamic are evident in several distinct ways.

First, it accelerates the erosion of the household. The household, already fractured, crumbles further under the weight of engineered chaos. A civilization cannot survive without children. Children cannot be properly raised without stable, enduring marriages. These are not cultural preferences. These are biological imperatives. But the subculture that has risen from the wreckage offers nothing but resentment. By nurturing a deep-seated resentment toward potential wives and the very institution of the family that could preserve them, these men render household formation impossible, ensuring the cycle of rot continues until our civilizational decline becomes truly irreversible.

Second, it intensifies ideological polarization. Demonize women for absorbing the default views of elite institutions. They are products of the machinery, conditioned by the universities, the media, the corporate apparatus. But the traditionalist response is not understanding. It is condemnation. Hostility. Demonization. And the women watch, they learn, they adapt. They no longer see traditionalist men as protectors and providers. They see hostile actors, enemies in waiting. And in that climate of perceived threat, they flee to the only refuge available. Progressive political alliances, progressive narratives, progressive promises of safety. The traditionalists, drunk on their own grievances, the traditionalists play their assigned part as uncut, industrial-strength pussy repellent and the women don’t argue, they just leave the building.

The restoration of society depends on the restoration of the patriarchal family unit. The path forward requires a rejection of two dead ends: Feminist egalitarianism, which reduces the family to a collection of autonomous individuals and Reactionary woman hate, which reduces women to scapegoats. True authority, the authority that actually sustains civilizations, is protective. Sacrificial. Stabilizing. It is not a license for domination but a responsibility. Men who wish to see their culture preserved must focus on practical means to build the conditions that make traditional life viable. This extends to cultural competence, which requires understanding the ideological landscape well enough to guide a household through it, rather than simply reacting to headlines and digital outrage.

Look, I get it. Women fucking suck. They are often narcissistic, fickle, and seem allergic to accountability, but let us look at why nature equipped them with these traits. A woman not broken by a fatherless upbringing, raped or psychologically rotted from within by modern academia is hardwired to strive towards being attractive to their male peers. Let’s take a closer look at everything you claim to loathe. The vanity. The obsession with image. The constant hunger for attention. You frame it as moral decay, cultural collapse, evidence of civilizational decline. But watch through a different lens and you will see nature’s marketing campaign in full swing. We are primates, dressed in designer clothes and digital filters. And the female, whether she knows it or not, is hell-bent on improving the product. Enhancing the packaging. Maximizing the appeal. All for one purpose. Landing a man worthy of bearing children. The very traits that trigger your resentment are the evolutionary mechanisms that make her a woman.

So when you find yourselves spending your nights in your crusty little goon temple, furiously typing Substack articles about how women are the root of all rot eating away the civilized world, take a moment to look in the mirror. You are part of the problem. Let’s be real. You are just a guy who has decided that men are more interesting than women. That is the hidden variable in every equation, the unspoken premise of every rant. It is time to come out of the closet. Time to be honest with yourself about why you are really writing that article about repealing the 19th amendment. It has nothing to do with saving the west and everything to do with your subconscious desire for a big ol’ stinky dick up right up the pooper.

The Inherent Homosexuality of Women Hate

Let’s address the irony that sits at the absolute center of modern women hatred, gleaming like a disco ball at a gay wedding. The Incel circles. The red pill forums. The digital monasteries where young men have voluntarily excised women from their cognitive landscape entirely. They have built a world without the female principle. They have curated a digital ecosystem devoid of feminine energy. And here is the brutal, hilarious truth: for a group of guys who claim to be the last vanguard of biological reality and traditional order, the warriors of evolutionary truth, the defenders of heterosexual imperative, their entire daily existence is functional, digital homosexuality. They wake up to men. They listen to men. They work out to men. They critique the vascularity of men. They analyze the head shapes of men. They rank the cheekbones of men. They go to sleep thinking about men.

They have built a life that revolves entirely around the male gaze, the male voice, and the male form. They are the most successful homosexual community on the internet, and they have never been more oblivious to it.

Observe the average online woman hater in his natural habitat. The alarm sounds. The earbuds go in. And immediately, the voices of other men are phallically pumped directly into his cerebral cortex. Three hours of podcast content, typically men in their late twenties, none of whom have touched a woman in recent memory, all debating the mysterious labyrinth of female psychology. If women do happen to wander onto the set, they are inevitably some flavor of glorified cam-girl, possessing all the personality and self-worth of a discarded fidget spinner. Don’t expect to see a woman with her soul intact or her wits about her; those types are far too busy living actual, productive lives to participate in this charade. The whole production is just a closed-loop system of pure, unadulterated male speculation, complete with a revolving door of plastic eye-candy whose only job is to nod at the host while he explains the complex geopolitical significance of his latest online beef. It is the ultimate digital sausage fest, masquerading as a high-level summit on the future of the species.

The “Western Man” arrives at the gym, a cathedral of iron and vanity. He does not look at women. They are spiritual distractions, temptresses, obstacles on the path to enlightenment. Instead, he spends sixty minutes meticulously critiquing the physiques of other men. The vascularity. The shoulder-to-waist ratios. The quadriceps separation. His gaze lingers. His judgment is severe. His notebook is full.

He returns to his apartment. The social media application is opened. The ritual enters its final phase. Four hours of head shape analysis. Facial aesthetics. Testosterone estimation. He stares at the faces of other men. The jawlines. The brow ridges. The zygomatic arches. He catalogs them with the cold precision of a taxidermist. He has opinions about their chins. Strong opinions. Absolute opinions. He has never been more passionate about anything. The cheekbone projection is adequate. The mandibular definition is suboptimal. The nasal bridge is acceptable. He makes mental notes. He makes spreadsheets. He makes judgments that would make a eugenicist blush. This is not a hobby. This is a discipline. This is the only thing that makes sense in a world of chaos and women. He is not looking at men. He is assessing specimens. And he has never been happier.

This is the routine. This is the movement. This is the man who will save Western civilization. He has not thought about a vagina for the last twenty-four hours. Not once. Not even as a theoretical abstraction. The thought has not crossed his mind. It has not registered. It has not penetrated. He is far too consumed by the zygomatic arches of other men to spare a single neuron for the reproductive anatomy of the opposite sex. He is pure. He is focused. He is the vanguard. He has achieved a state of total cognitive chastity that would make a Trappist monk blush. He has transcended biology. He has ascended beyond desire. He is the last defender of tradition, and he has not so much as imagined a woman in an entire day. This is not repression. This is clarity. This is discipline. This is the path forward. He is the most committed heterosexual in human history, and he has never been more certain of anything in his life.

At no point in this twelve-hour cycle does a female voice enter his life. No female perspective. No female presence. His emotional spectrum is mediated by men. His status is determined by men. His grievances are validated by men. The approval he craves is male. The enemies he fights are male. The aesthetic standards he worships are male. All of it. Every particle. He has built a world without women and called it heterosexual resistance. He has never been more certain of anything.

He has not thought about a vagina for the last twenty-four hours. Not once. Not even as a theoretical abstraction.

This rot has been festering deep within the American Right for decades. From Mark Foley to war hawks like Lindsey Graham, the archetype remains identical. The performative conservative man who prefers the sterile, high-status company of male elites to the messy, essential reality of a traditional home. He chooses power, institutional validation and the approval of other men but he recoils from the domestic struggle that actually preserves a civilization. He occupies his life with abstract talk of empire and hierarchy but remains pathologically detached from the foundational work of raising children or sustaining a wife. He has never so much as lived with a woman. He has never so much as raised a child. He has substituted the club of male senators for the embrace of a family.

You see it every night, on the right, left and in political bodies across the world: reptilian politicians who worship the hollow architecture of the state and flinch at the household. They view the chaos of a family not as a legacy, but as an inconvenience to their curated and artificial lives. They project an image of iron-willed strength while refusing the one act that produces it, which is the creation and protection of a family. Ultimately, their obsession with male-only institutions and their alienation from the feminine reveal a diagnosis rather than an insult. They are men who have built their entire worldview around a facade of traditionalism they are personally incapable of living. They are the most oblivious figures in the capital, forever certain of their own posture, yet forever fundamentally wrong about what it actually means to be a man of a nation.

From Mark Foley to war hawks like Lindsey Graham, the archetype remains identical. The performative conservative man who prefers the sterile, high-status company of male elites to the messy, essential reality of a traditional home.

She is not your Mommy.

If you are not a psychopathic homosexual, then you are just one of those sad ass dudes… The ones who spend their lives looking for a woman to be a soft place to land. A cushion. A pillow. A warm, receptive surface to absorb all that emotional debris left over from being raised by an emotionally unavailable single mother. If you think this might be you, pay attention to the way you speak of the role of women in your life as a whole, because the way you talk about them is not a commentary on them but a confession about you. She becomes a mere extra in your own resentment-fueled soap opera. She is nothing more than a convenient plot device in a narrative you have scripted entirely for your own ego. Unfortunately, not every woman is your mother.

Unfortunately, not every woman is like your mother.

Stop performing the theater of basic etiquette as if it were an achievement, because a woman of substance is looking for a leader and protector, not a child seeking a surrogate mother to reward his mimicry of manhood. You are not entitled to a helpmeet while you remain a stunted, bitter recluse. Stop waiting for a woman to fix your internal collapse because she’s not coming. Start building the frame that makes it easier for her to find you. Build the substance. Women are expected to do this every day. Makeup. Outfit. Biggest fucking smile. Answer phones. Greet customers. Eat shit for eight hours behind a desk and for fucks sake, at least men have the privilege and satisfaction of doing real work. Women are always performing. The men are building… but then there is you, complaining. Resenting. Shitting down their neck online for being as sick of the world as you are for all the same reasons. At least nobody is telling you to smile while you eat shit.

The grievance industry and its algorithmic amplifiers have done their work well, turning men and women into permanent adversaries instead of natural complements. This conflict is entirely manufactured, engineered to drive the sexes apart, crater the birth rate, and dissolve the natural bonds of society. Men retreating into digital spaces to nurse resentments, fixating exclusively on other men while fleeing their God-given duties to women and children, is not strength. It is a sterile, inward-looking evasion that accepts the very demographic suicide the architects of this decline intended.

Under the weight of modern social engineering, men and women share the exact same struggles and the same fundamental enemies. Reversing this managed decline requires more than policy tweaks or cultural complaints. It demands an end to the posturing, the performative outrage, and the stale habit of blaming the other side for everything. Men and women have to abandon the imported scripts of bitterness that tell them they are natural enemies, and they have to reject the false paradigm of sex warfare altogether. That paradigm serves no one except those who profit from division and fragmentation. The real work is unglamorous and patient: setting aside grievances, recognizing shared interests, and rebuilding what has been deliberately broken. It starts not with grand gestures but with ordinary people choosing cooperation over conflict, and that choice, repeated across enough households, is what actually changes things.

Meta’s Unlicensed Dopamine Lab

Posted on by Falk Whitaker

On Wednesday, August 26th, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced an unprecedented $17 billion settlement with Meta. The State of California positioned itself to pocket the staggering sum from a settlement with Meta over its kids’ safety features.  The deal forces Meta to implement sweeping changes for its underage users, such as limiting minors to two hours of daily use, blocking access from midnight to 6 a.m., and banning “beauty filters,” among other safety features. California alone is poised to receive between $1.5 billion and $2.1 billion. 

Attorney General Bonta announced that they had “secured a settlement with Meta that will make social media less dangerous for our kids and make a world of difference for children and their families.” On the surface, this looks like a victory: a massive corporation will finally be held accountable for the widespread psychological damage it had indirectly caused America’s youth. But let’s pause the victory lap for a moment and look at this through a different, more uncomfortable lens. What exactly are we celebrating? A massive financial penalty against a tech giant, or a massive institutional absolution of personal responsibility? 

The settlement embedded mandatory age assurance protocols directly into Meta’s platform. Under these new terms, Meta must deploy an age‑verification system with a false‑positive rate no higher than 3% for users aged 13‑15 and 10% for those 16‑17; new accounts whose age remains unverified after 14 days are automatically treated as teen accounts regardless of the age stated. The company must also incorporate “Age Signals from Google and Apple Operating Systems and App Stores” into its framework (Section II.A.5). An independent auditor, selected jointly by Meta and a committee of states, will monitor compliance for a full decade.  

Digital rights groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, issued a same-day critique of the Meta settlement. EFF said the deal “enshrines Meta’s harmful surveillance into law,” harming anonymity and increasing breach and government-request risk. That is the usual EFF result on the fights that matter, nothing more than a post or an amicus brief shot off into the digital ether. 

Not that the EFF is particularly eager to defend those who fall outside its donors’ or members’ ideological comfort zone. Consider 2021: the White House, CDC, Surgeon General, and FBI pressured Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to suppress or remove vaccine-skeptical content. Users lost reach, with some having their accounts banned entirely. That January, Apple and Google booted Parler from their app stores, and AWS pulled its hosting, effectively killing the platform. 

The EFF wasn’t silent in the abstract; it posted that Amazon’s move “should be of concern” as an escalation of speech control down the infrastructure stack. Years later, in its Murthy brief, it pondered how to distinguish government advice from coercion, leaving room for official “persuasion.” But what it did not do was represent Parler—nor did it attempt to restore the site to a host. The accounts stayed down. Parler went dark.

Another instance came in 2021 with the #DropKiwiFarms campaign. Whatever one thinks of Kiwi Farms’ content, it was arguably the only space where prospective gender-transitioners could find unfiltered, firsthand accounts of experimental treatments (archived in the “Stinkditch” category under the thread “SRS and GRS Surgeons and Associated Horrors – The Medical Community of Experimental Surgeons, the Secret Community of Home Butchers,” an active forum thread still updated daily with fresh accounts of complications and botched procedures) and the complications doctors often downplayed. Several detransitioners have since cited Kiwi Farms as a crucial source of information in their personal journeys. The site also played a role in documenting and exposing members of niche animal-abuse fetish communities to law enforcement across multiple countries, including Baby Monkey Torture networks such as Baby Monkey Hate, 0chan.life, Million Tears, EvilUnveiled, VidLii and  a cluster of so-called “popufurs” within the furry community who were found participating in Telegram channels depicting systematic abuse of animals, from German Shepherds to roadside deer carcasses. Yet when the #DropKiwiFarms campaign gained steam, the EFF took the accusations at face value and declined to comment or defend the platform. The reason appears straightforward: too many of its members and donors identified as transexuals, and defending the site would have been ideologically inconvenient.

Selective engagement, Zero Meaningful Results

The EFF will shit out a quotable blog post or an amicus brief, but it will never put an attorney on the docket for the right-wing influencers and platform administrators who lost accounts, app-store listings, or networking infrastructure between 2020 and 2022. To this day, Kiwi Farms struggles to remain online, while the animal-welfare work its users have done receives almost no acknowledgment from the very organizations that claim to defend free expression.

A Mother’s Choice 

But set the legal arguments aside for a moment, and consider the archetype at the heart of this lawsuit: the single mother who buys her fourteen-year-old daughter an iPhone for her birthday or Christmas. At first, she is overjoyed to see her daughter enjoy the new device but a year or two passes, and the mother notices a change. Her daughter grows quiet, reclusive, detached from the physical world. She stops eating dinner with the family. She stops seeing her friends. Any attempt to reach out is met with apathy or hostility. The mother watches in silence as her child implodes in real time with no one to blame but the glowing rectangle in her daughter’s hands.

Now, the mother has a choice. The hard choice is to intervene physically. It involves confiscating the device, downgrading to a “dumb phone” (an alternative for adults looking to unplug as well is the Light Phone), setting up parental controls (using the myriad of services offered to them by their carrier plans, on the Google App Store via Google Family Link, and through Meta’s Family Center) and enduring the tantrums and social backlash that come with being the “bad guy.” You know, the uncomfortable aspects of parenting that you agree to when you choose to shit out a kid?

Instead, the easier path is chosen and the problem is outsourced. The mother gets a referral to some mediocre virtual therapist through her middle-of-the-road employer-provided healthcare plan. This also includes appointments to see a psychiatrist, who eagerly sprinkles a handful of psychiatric medications into her daughter’s daily routine. Before she knows it, the problem is no longer behavioral, but clinical; a disease that must be treated with medical intervention, not a habit that must be broken with parental assistance. 

And when that daughter finally takes it upon herself to paint the walls in a fresh coat of brain matter, her mother is left with a guilt too heavy to bear. But rather than sit with that guilt, she looks for a scapegoat. She finds Instagram, the algorithm, and the “evil” tech company at the heart of it all. 

The Luxury Yacht of Institutional Absolution 

A lawsuit is a life raft for parents drowning in a sea of their own guilt, and when a state attorney general joins the fray, that raft becomes a luxury yacht. Institutional backing validates the grievance, recasting a personal failure as a systemic injustice. Suddenly the narrative is no longer about a mother who failed to monitor the Wi-Fi she paid for, the phone plan she controlled, or the app store filled with free parental controls. Instead, a coalition of states argues that Meta “intentionally hooked kids on its platforms” and the story becomes corporate greed versus the public good. 

But let us be brutally honest: 

Instagram did not buy the phone. 

The algorithm did not hand the phone to the child. 

Neither was it Meta’s nor the Zuck himself’s responsibility to the monthly bill. 

The parent did. 

The most tragic part of this saga is the simplicity of the solution. One word could have prevented all the grief, lawsuits, and billion-dollar payouts: “No.” 

“No, you cannot have an iPhone at 14.” 

“No, you cannot have the Wi-Fi password.” 

“No, you cannot be on Instagram until you prove you can handle it.” 

These are not radical parenting techniques; they are ancient. My mother never hesitated to confiscate a laptop or a Game Boy when the situation called for it. Then again, she possessed more backbone than most parents today, not merely because she happens to be a bit of a hard-ass, but because she understood that being a good mother sometimes required playing the villain in her child’s eyes, all for the sake of long-term well-being. Raised by such a mother, I find it difficult to comprehend why, in the year of our Lord 2026, uttering a simple “no” to a child has become too heavy a cross to bear. I may not be a parent myself, but with all due respect: some of you really need to grow a spine already, for fuck sake!

Rather than bear that cross, these parents turned to lawyers. Wielding the guilt of thousands of other negligent parents as leverage, they are helping California extract billions from Silicon Valley before the state’s own hostile legislature drives the companies out first. California stands to take $1.5 billion to $2.1 billion from the Meta settlement over the next ten years, if (when) the court approves the deal. The governor and the legislature will divvy it up. Whether that money ultimately funds mental health services or digital literacy programs remains an open question; more likely, it will dissolve into the salaries and pensions of the state workers who keep the bureaucratic machinery turning. What it will not do is undo the years of isolation, nor buy back the time a parent spent watching a child deteriorate while failing to intervene at the most basic level. 

The settlement itself reveals the logic of the arrangement. Under its terms, Meta must put minors on a two-hour daily cap across Facebook and Instagram, lock them out from midnight to 6 a.m., and mute notifications during school hours. These are digital training wheels, and they come off the moment a parent allows it. The caps are defaults, not mandates, and easily overridden. Rather than removing the parent from the equation, the settlement simply automates the very “no” that a parent could have issued from the start. 

Meta has already advertised the remaining hole. In an open letter announcing the deal, the company urged TikTok and YouTube to adopt the same rules, “because we know that when teens are restricted on one app, they simply move to another.”  

So, congratulations, California. Gavin Newsom, you shit-eating mongoloid, you did it! You won billions. Nobody is calling it justice, though. 

The settlement requires Meta to equip their apps with parental controls that are both optional, and removable at a parent’s discretion. On the surface, the introduction of age checks and default curfews reads as decisive intervention from the system, a clear signal that platforms are taking child safety seriously. But these measures are less a solution than a gift left at the doorstep, wrapped in rhetoric and labeled “for the children.” Inside the package lies a far more intrusive apparatus: layered age-assurance protocols, identity verification systems, and a thickening dossier on who belongs online.  

Once accepted, however, this gift cannot be returned; the checkpoint does not leave with the cameras or the closing statements. It lingers, outlasting the press cycle, and embedding itself into the infrastructure of access. For all its sophistication, this technological raft remains a poor substitute for the older, cheaper, and far more effective tool: a present adult in the household with the balls to endure a few years of teenage resentment.

The Seven Buttery Sins of Melonie Mac

Posted on by Falk Whitaker

Melonie Mac has been on camera since 2010, which makes her an outlier in a field that eats women alive before they hit forty. She entered through Ubisoft’s Frag Dolls programme, spent a decade hosting for gaming brands and television, and has spent the last six years repackaging that career as Christian right-wing commentary. 

In this article, we will examine Melonie Mac’s career through the very framework she has spent six years wielding against others. Matthew warns that with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you, which is a warning she has spent six years demonstrating she does not believe applies to her. 

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.”    

Matthew 7:1-2

I Pride 

Classically the first and gravest of the sins, defined as an inordinate estimation of one’s own significance, and distinguished from vanity by its object: vanity wants to be admired; pride is already satisfied. 

For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. 

Galatians 6:3

On Febryary 7, 2022, Melonie Mac uploaded a thirty-two minute video titled “Why I No Longer Host for GameStop TV” to launch a second channel, intended to keep her political content separate from her gaming audience. Roughly two minutes of that video contain the actual explanation: her contract was expiring, GameStop was restructuring its in-store retail network, and the entire host roster was being let go. She was told the decision had nothing to do with her, and she states that clearly twice. The remaining twenty-three minutes are a catalogue of people who tried and failed to get her fired; each attempt recounted in detail and each, by her own admission, producing no result whatsoever. The video contains no outright lies, but it is structured to imply a story the facts do not support. The version of her biography that now circulates in comment sections and aggregator posts holds that she was cancelled off GameStop TV, a claim she has never quite made and has never corrected. That is not an oversight. The gap between what she knows and what she allows to stand is where her victimhood narrative lives, and she needs that narrative to sustain the insecurity that fuels her attacks on everyone else. 

That same pattern repeats itself whenever she is asked about her faith. In a March 2024 interview, she described being raised Christian, drifting away gradually by setting practices aside one at a time, and then feeling called back sometime around early 2020, with industry hostility following shortly afterward. In that same interview, she also confirmed that people bombarded GameStop trying to get her fired and that GameStop did not take them seriously. That is the second time she has given the facts that undercut her own story. She keeps telling the truth about what happened while still claiming she was persecuted, because the persecution narrative works better for her. It gets attention. It keeps her audience loyal. It makes her look like someone willing to suffer for what she believes. The truth is that she was not fired, her contract just ended, and the attempts to cancel her went nowhere. 

In the 2022 video, she estimates that ninety-five percent of the response to the summer 2021 backlash was positive and says that every attempt to cancel her has actually grown her follower count. She calls this persecution, but it functions exactly like a marketing strategy. She has been describing this dynamic accurately for years without seeming to realize what she is saying. To recognize it would mean admitting that the outrage she trades on is what keeps her career alive. 

In April 2026, she posted a numbered list of her beliefs: love of Jesus, support for Trump, alliance with Israel, hatred of Islam, prohibition of pornography, and the demonic character of homosexuality. She closed by inviting readers to suggest more unpopular opinions and declared that she would not apologize for what she believes. Every item on that list is a majority position within her audience. She presented a set of views she is rewarded for saying as if they were views she is punished for saying, and the post pulled in sixty-three thousand impressions. 

That same performance extends to her religious identity. In an Instagram video, she states that women should not serve as pastors and characterizes her own religious output as evangelizing rather than preaching, on the implicit grounds that evangelism is conversation between individuals while preaching carries institutional authority. But she maintains a follower count larger than the lifetime attendance of most church buildings. She hosts a weekly scheduled devotional meeting on Discord with a moderation team and a chat where fans can petition her personally for intercessory prayer. That is a congregation, regardless of what she chooses to call it (More on the discord later). 

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” 

1 Timothy 2:11-12

II Greed 

Defined not as the possession of wealth but as the disordered pursuit of it, and specifically as the willingness to subordinate other goods to that pursuit. 

“He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house.”

Proverbs 15:27 

Melonie Mac left a bank teller position in Arkansas for a Cadette slot in Ubisoft’s Frag Dolls programme, an initiative that existed to place women on the floor at gaming events to demonstrate titles to a predominantly male customer base. Her first assignment was PAX East 2010 demoing Splinter Cell: Conviction. Anti-progressive commentary is worth more delivered by a woman than by a man for the same structural reason that Ubisoft wanted women demoing shooters: the message travels further and is harder to dismiss when the messenger is not the expected one. The customer base did not change when she changed careers. She simply found a more lucrative way to address the same demographic, trading the role of demonstrator for the role of provocateur while keeping the essential dynamic intact. 

By her own account, she was raised in the faith, drifted from it, and returned around 2020, which places the return before the GameStop contract ended and before political material became her primary output. An October 2020 Instagram post showing her in a “Love Like Jesus” sweatshirt sits at the leading edge of that return, at a point when it was costing her more than it earned. She has stated that she made more money before going public with her faith and that sponsors withdrew afterward. It is one of the few points in her career where she took a financial loss for a stated principle, and it is worth noting as such. 

She also began selling personalized video messages through the ShoutOut platform, promoted across her own channels. 

Paid personal greetings are a recognizable revenue source for performers whose primary audience has contracted to the point where the remaining members are worth more individually than collectively. That is a structural observation, not an insult, and it describes the economics of most of the conservative commentary market at present. The move to personalized content is a retreat to a smaller, more devoted base, and it reflects a recognition that broad appeal is no longer her primary asset. 

The Book of Jeremy 

Her professional relationship with Jeremy Hambly dates to his coverage of her Lara Croft controversy around 2019, which is how a substantial portion of her current audience first encountered her. She names that coverage in the 2022 video as the origin of their friendship. Hambly built his channel by farming engagement from culture war material, and when her own output began generating comparable traffic, he brought her onto his programme. There is no version of her current income that does not route through him, and she has never distanced herself from him through several years in which doing so was available and occasionally advantageous. The dependence is not lost on her, and it likely fuels some of the insecurity that drives her attacks on others. She knows she occupies a space that was opened for her rather than one she built herself. 

In December 2025, she appeared as a credited special guest at the Turning Point event in Phoenix, on a podcast panel hosted by Hambly. This is where the trajectory becomes clear. She went from hosting GameStop’s in-store television network, broadcast to thousands of screens across the country, to a side stage in a Phoenix convention center, surrounded by conservative boomers who have no idea what to do with an emo gamer with Laura Croft tattooed across both of her arms. 

She was billed as a special guest at Turning Point, the conservative movement’s largest annual gathering, but she and Hambly were parked at the far end of the hall, right next to the “Gays Against Groomers” booth. The irony writes itself: a woman who built her online career on attacking homosexuals and performing moral outrage now finds herself literally adjacent to a booth dedicated to the same cause, both of them shoved to the periphery of an event that does not quite know what to do with either of them. She went from broadcasting to thousands on a national retail network to sitting on a niche podcast panel in the back of a convention hall, surrounded by people who have no idea who she is and no reason to find out. 

III Lust 

Understood traditionally as disordered desire, and in the older formulations as much about the arrangement of desire between people as about the act itself. 

“Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”  

Matthew 5:28

Between roughly 2015 and 2018, she operated squarely within the visual grammar of the female streaming era: pink hair, direct-to-camera eye contact, and the aesthetic that defined the market at the time. She was early enough to help establish that look rather than just copy it. The same dynamic that once pulled viewers in through visual appeal now pulls them in through moral performance. The pink hair is gone, the political costume has changed, but the commodity being exchanged is identical: attention, validation, and a carefully maintained proximity to male desire. Melonie Mac has always traded on male attention. The only difference now is that she has found a way to dress it up as principle. The audience is the same, the transaction is the same, but the packaging now comes with a Bible verse. 

Melonie Mac operates a Discord server whose membership has adopted a collective diminutive for itself, the “Melomaniacs”, and which holds a scheduled devotional meeting each Tuesday. 

During these meetings, members request that she pray for their deliverance from lust, and she does so on livestream. The resulting arrangement is one in which men confess sexual compulsion to a woman with a decade of history as an object of exactly that compulsion and receive her attention in return. This server exists because it serves a need that is not spiritual but emotional and economic. The men confessing their sins to Melonie Mac are not seeking absolution so much as they are seeking access to her, repackaged as piety. In other words, Melonie Mac is the high priestess of a “guilt-free” gooning chamber, presiding over a dwindling congregation of dents who still pay her mortgage. 

Marriage did not alter the arrangement. She wed Johnny Junkers in May 2026, and the server continued its weekly rhythm. On May 14, she posted that her husband had instructed her to reduce her social media use and that she had submitted as a good wife, a performance of domesticity that her audience received warmly. 

The envy that drives her attacks on other women finds its mirror here. She condemns them for commanding male attention while quietly running a private economy of that very attention. The hypocrisy is staggering – she rails against OnlyFans models and adult performers for monetizing male desire, then turns around and builds a system that does exactly the same thing, just with a different label. 

Melonie Mac has constructed a mechanism that ensures a steady stream of male validation, marriage notwithstanding. She has spent years condemning other women for monetizing male attention, yet she has built her entire post-gaming career on doing exactly that, just with a Bible verse attached. She attacks OnlyFans models for commodifying desire while running a Discord server where men confess their lust to her and she prays for their deliverance, a setup that keeps those same men coming back week after week. She rails against pornography while positioning herself as the object of a gaze she has never stopped courting. 

IV Envy 

The resentment of another’s good, and in the scholastic accounts specifically the desire that the other should be diminished rather than that oneself should be raised. 

“Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou doest the same things.”  

Romans 2:1

She described a character wearing a leotard as softcore pornography, which a large portion of her own audience immediately identified as inconsistent with her defense of Stellar Blade and with her long-running objection to the removal of Lara Croft’s sex appeal. Pressed on the inconsistency, she doubled down, arguing that revealing costume design is pornographic in kind, that pornography should be banned, and that its consumers are degenerates. Melonie Mac’s position on scantily clad female character designs is structurally identical to the argument Anita Sarkeesian made a decade earlier with the moral vocabulary exchanged. 

In March 2026, when commenting on why women react so defensively to anti-pornography arguments, she said it was because they need constant validation to drown out their shame. That is a rich assessment of other women coming from someone whose own career has run on male validation for the last sixteen years. The impulse is telling. She looks at women who command attention on their own terms, and rather than figure out how to compete, she demands the whole stage be torn down. That is envy masquerading as moral clarity, and it reveals an insecurity she cannot hide: she cannot stand to see other women succeed in an economy she is no longer winning. 

The subjects of her judgment skew heavily female: modesty, pornography, OnlyFans, other women in the right-wing influencer economy, other female figures she accuses of insufficient conviction. This pattern reflects a woman who measures her own worth against other women and finds herself wanting, so she seeks to reduce them to her level rather than rise to theirs. 

Recently, she has taken to accusing other women on the right of grifting in an attempt to position herself as more sincere than others within a movement she only joined recently and occupies marginally. Here too, the accusation is not a standard of principle but a weapon of envy. She cannot claim the authority of longevity or the credibility of earned influence, so she attacks the credibility of those who have both. Her insecurity is laid bare in every charge of insincerity. Melonie Mac is trying to carve out a space in a movement that has never fully accepted her, and she will tear down any Mar-a-Lago-faced blond-haired, blue-eyed bimbo who reminds her of that fact. 

V Gluttony 

The overconsumption of what is not needed, and in Aquinas’s treatment a sin defined less by quantity than by the disordering of appetite toward the wrong objects. 

“Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame.” 

Philippians 3:19 

She films herself biting into a stick of butter after delivering some awkward, gratingly unfunny millennial quip that lands with all the grace of a brick, and she seems to genuinely believe this is charming. A woman in her early forties doing a bit about “what’s wrong with society” while dressed like a teenager who raided a Hot Topic clearance rack from 2012, with a stick of dairy fat wedged between her teeth, is not comedy. It is a cry for attention dressed up as a bit. 

The delivery is flat, the humor is forced, and the whole performance reeks of someone who has not been told no in years. She is not being transgressive or edgy; she is being embarrassing, and the only thing more painful than watching it is realizing she thinks it is working. The butter is not a punchline. It is a prop for a woman who has run out of ideas and is now eating dairy on camera because she cannot think of anything else to do. 

So, why is Melonie Mac eating sticks of butter? The carnivore diet entered the influencer sphere between roughly 2018 and 2022 through fitness and podcast channels with no particular political alignment. Seed oil discourse and the broader nutritional movement that became MAHA arrived later, and they came through an explicitly political pipeline. If her adoption dates to 2024 or after, she arrived at the diet through the political channel rather than the dietary one. That means the diet is not a nutritional choice but a costume, and the same test applies to every other position she has adopted since 2021. 

The butter content is, as far as I can determine, the only occasion in which a figure from the mainstream right has publicly acknowledged that she exists. 

That is probably why she persists with this ridiculous diet to this day. It is not about health. It is about visibility, and she will eat a stick of dairy fat on camera if that is what it takes to get someone to notice her. 

VI Wrath 

Not anger as such, which the tradition permits, but anger cultivated and maintained, and in the older treatments specifically anger that has become habitual rather than responsive. 

“As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, so is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?” 

Proverbs 26:18-19 

On March 19, 2026, she responded to a Pride account’s post about bathroom signage by replying that the subject should “stop being a faggot.” 

Here, on July 14, she can be seen replying to a LifeNews poll about gay men and surrogacy, posting that “no child wants two faggot fathers.” 

On March 31, Melonie responded to an unrelated post about a basketball player’s marital difficulties, claiming that society has gone insane when people are ostracized for declining to celebrate anal sex between men. 

On April 10, 2026, she posted a cockroach GIF captioned “Muslims on this app.” Muslims, like the LGBTQ community, are known to network and amplify attacks on their community, churning up even more engagement for both parties. The provocation is deliberate and calculated. 

On March 13, she posted a screenshot of a violent and sexual death threat she had received, captioned “Wow liberals are so nice.” That post reached three hundred and forty thousand impressions. If Melonie Mac were truly afraid for her life or believed the threat was credible, she would stop baiting communities known for their volatility into engaging with her content. The threats are not a deterrent; they are, in effect, a performance metric. 

None of the views Melonie Mac espouses are transgressive in any direction that carries genuine risk. Same-sex marriage has not been a live political question in the United States for over a decade. Her posts do not argue against a prevailing consensus, nor are they intended to. They are recognition signals to an audience that already agrees, or in her own words, “cheap clicks.” The content is not built to persuade or inform. It is built to provoke, to perform, and to profit from the very outrage it pretends to disdain. 

VII Sloth 

In the original acedia, not laziness but a spiritual listlessness, an unwillingness to undertake the effort that one’s own commitments require. 

“A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.”

Proverbs 18:2 

Working for GameStop and Ubisoft required travel, scripts, live delivery, event schedules, and sustained professional neutrality across years. By the account of everyone involved, including GameStop, whose team she names as her favorite of anyone she has worked for, she was good at it. The job also required declining to say things she wanted to say, which she did for years out of an obligation she describes as owed to her employer. Her present work requires none of that discipline or effort. A quote-tweet costs nothing, and a trending position can be adopted in a moment’s notice. 

When addressing the Groyper phenomenon, Melonie Mac displayed limited familiarity with the Israel and Gaza conflict she was invoking as context, and that clip circulated specifically for that reason. But the real issue is not that she got details wrong; it is that she could not be bothered to do basic research on a group that has been publicly documented for years. Nick Fuentes and the Groyper movement have a long, easily accessible record of online activity, yet Melonie substituted that available evidence with a baseless conspiracy theory about Muslim infiltration. The goal was never to understand the movement. The goal was to generate engagement, and a lazy, sensational claim serves that purpose far more efficiently than informed analysis. 

Since the early stages of the 2026 Iran conflict, accusations of “Islamic propaganda” and “anti-Semitism” have become two of the laziest rhetorical crutches in conservative discourse. They are not arguments in any substantive sense; they are conversation-enders. The former serves to delegitimize a movement by association, while the latter imposes a reputational cost on anyone who dares to engage further, effectively chilling dissent through implication rather than evidence. 

Melonie Mac, for her part, has made a habit of parroting these tropes online, frequently framing criticism of Israel or Zionism as externally funded agitation. In her worldview, any political phenomenon she dislikes is, by default, inorganic and bankrolled by shadowy interests, a position that requires zero domain-specific knowledge and can be applied to literally any movement or idea with equal ease. That universality is precisely what makes it so useful for the volume of content she produces. It is, in fact, the closest thing to a coherent political framework she has articulated in six years of full-time commentary, and that is the most damning observation of all. 

Where the Worm Dieth Not 

A woman who spent a decade mastering a professional public image within the gaming industry now spends her days firing off juvenile insults at advocacy accounts, multiple times a week. Her tone has not mellowed; it has deteriorated, because the nastier stuff gets more traction, and there is no incentive to pull back. 

At AmericaFest in December 2025, she was a billed guest, but she ended up on a side-stage podcast panel in a room full of people whose movement has spent years mocking anyone who looks like her. She sells personalized video messages now, which is what happens when your audience shrinks to the point where individual fans are worth more than the crowd. Her income flows through a man who tanked his own career by engaging with online trolls who mocked him for drunkenly pissing in his basement, shitting his pants inside a Walmart, and filming women and children at a Renaissance fair, an offence for which he was later banned. Melonie Mac has taken to accusing other conservatives of being frauds, the only card left to play when you have no institutional weight, no real following, and nothing to offer except a willingness to say the ugliest thing in the room. 

The most telling detail is what is missing. Nothing she has made in the last two years shows she still cares about video games. The person who showed up at Ubisoft in 2010 is gone. Whatever excitement she had back then has been replaced by content, just another product in a machine that runs on outrage. 

There is no way out of this. Everything feeds the cycle. Growth proves she is right. Shrinkage proves she is persecuted. Criticism becomes fuel. The same system that gives her validation also keeps her from admitting she is wrong, because that would mean losing the only attention she has left. 

Sources

@MelonieMac on X https://x.com/MelonieMac 

@MelonieMac on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/meloniemac/ 

Melonie Mac Go Boom (YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/meloniemacgoboom 

Melonie Mac gaming channel (YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/meloniemac 

Bible Time With Melonie Mac (YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/@BibleTimeWithMelonieMac 

Butter Maniac (YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/butter.maniac Now “Melonie Macros”

@MelonieMac on Kick https://kick.com/meloniemac 

@MelonieMac on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/meloniemac 

@MelonieMac on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/meloniemac 

@MelonieMac on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@meloniemac 

@MelonieMac on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/meloniemac/ 

@MelonieMac on Linktree https://linktr.ee/meloniemac 

@MelonieMac on SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/meloniemac 

@MelonieMac on Tumblr, inactive https://meloniemac.tumblr.com/