For me this is another example of, “One side pushed to hard, and now the pendulum is swinging back the other way.”

Feminists have gone so far to emasculate men, that they are now seen [by men] as an existential threat.

Feminism has become embedded into nearly all parts of American culture.

The Feminization of Story Telling

Stories, at least traditionally, were always a means of learning. People told stories over generations, because it was how people passed knowledge from one generation to the next.

These stories often involved women, who by no fault of their own, got themselves into bad situations. It was at this point that a man would come to save her. A knight, or someone virtuous would rescue her (the idea being -- it is virtuous to save women) and then everything would work out in the end.

This process has been hijacked by those who wish to portray a new kind of story. Not one where women need to be protected -- but one where the women do the protecting.

This inversion is instinctively rejected by males. Well, by most males. See, this is not the way that things work in real life. These kinds of ideals can’t be unwound -- because they’re not social constructs -- they are the way that humans (on a civilizational scale) have survived for as long as we can tell.

Feminists have taken it upon themselves to change the perception of reality. Men aren’t supposed to protect women, in fact most men are portrayed in stories today as being idiots. Many people have written about this, Eric Rogers is one that comes to mind.

That’s precisely what’s been done, over several decades, to the cultural image of the virtuous man, to the image of a hero. This wasn’t aesthetic drift. It wasn’t just a change in taste or storytelling. It was a systematic and deliberate suppression of something that would otherwise tell the truth. We didn’t merely lose the image of an admirable man from our media, it was actively replaced with a distortion designed to make the original unrecognizable.

As with any movement, it grew subtly over time. The first signs were hard to pick up on, but during the ‘80s and ‘90s, the dominant image of the man in American popular culture became the bumbling husband: Homer Simpson, Ray Barone, Al Bundy. Men who might not have been villains, but they lacked almost any redeemable qualities. Importantly, these characters were seen as relatable, “normal guys.” Heroes were still on the big screen, like Kurt Russel and Mel Gibson, but the hero was starting to be seen as a fantasy, while the slob was the truth.

The idea is for the male figure in Western media is to be a loser, and not worthy of the woman. This serves many purposes, but here are two that immediately come to mind.

1. It keeps the male/female divide intact. It does this by keeping men on the defensive (as they are conceptualized as fools and incompetent). Not a good starting point.

2. Women are more likely to see foreign men as competent. This is because most foreign films don’t portray men as fools. Netflix is a prime example of this. If you’ve ever watched any of the foreign stories that are dubbed in English, the men are portrayed as regular men. They are not portrayed as fools.

This is ironic, because the same people who are pushing the “Western Men Are Idiots” narrative -- are the same people inviting violent third world men into Western countries. And we all know where that leads. 🙄

Men Are Terrible And They Will Hurt You

As with most ideologies, nearly everything “feminist” operates from a simple binary baseline.

Feminists filter the actions of men -- through a filter resembling this: Men are angry, spiteful, power hungry, and aggressive -- at all times. In fact, when men are not being aggressive, they’re scheming, there must be a game afoot. Things are never as they seem, don’t trust your senses.

Feminism does not account for gray areas. It can’t, because that might allow for honest observations. You can’t have honest observations -- of a binary enemy. They’re bad -- that’s it -- end of discussion.

Feminism makes me think of a role-reversed version of the rap song "Bitches Ain't Shit." Feminism operates on that level of complexity.

Jenn And The Unveiling of Crazy

Around 10 years back, I still had a personal Facebook account that I would look at every once in a while when I was bored. This was right around the time when Trump was elected the first time.

There were a few people on there that I would talk to from time to time. People I went to high school with, I graduated in 1998, so it was 18 years prior that I was in school with any of those people, or people that I used to work with.

I was scrolling through my feed when I saw a message from a girl I went to high school with. In that 18-year span she had become a teacher.

She posted something to the effect of, “Now that Trump has been elected, I’m worried that rapes are going to increase all over the country!” I thought that she was joking. NO -- she was 100% serious!

I went to her Facebook page and poked around, there was all this bizarre leftist stuff. There was a picture of her classroom door, covered in a giant piece of paper that said, “We love our Brown kids, Black kids, Asian kids…” Every ethnic group you could think of, but there as no mention of White kids (I wonder how those kids felt in her class). She was a full-on Social Justice Warrior!

She posted something else to do with men raping women, because of Trump. I mentioned to her, “You do understand that everyone you knew the day before -- is still the same person today. Nothing changed overnight because Trump was elected. There was no switch that flipped to make people act differently.”

It didn’t matter, she already blocked me. She blocked me -- for pointing out the obvious.

This took me completely by surprise as she was one of the people in school who “bucked the system.” I never would have imagined that she would have been pulled in by leftist ideology. But then, she was still single. There was no man in the picture to guide her, as a result, she strayed into the wilderness, and was targeted by feminists.

She was an attractive woman, and feminists seek attractive women when they can. They know that women who are attractive have much more sway with men (and generally hold a higher social status) and so they are targeted relentlessly, because of their persuasive abilities.

On Facebook, many other people were writing insane nonsense as well. All of Facebook seemed awash with people who were not in control of their emotions, and seemed generally crazy.

None of those people were worth engaging with in discussion because they were mental basket cases, who checked under their bed at night to make sure Trump wasn’t hiding under there.

All I could think was, “These are the people they have teaching kids? Seriously?!”

Feminists Are Gatekeepers

Feminists have also become embedded into the gateways (entry points) by which most men attempt to “make something of themselves” -- the job market.

First men have to beat the “Algorithm Game,” then they often have to woo the feminist HR interviewers.

I’ll explain.

Men, especially young men are tired of dealing with gatekeepers. Everyone is tired of dealing with people who hate them -- generally -- and those same people [who hate you] being the entryway to a career.

It reminds me of building your financial credit. You can’t get a credit card (with a decent credit rate) because you’ve never had a credit card before. But you can’t really build your credit without a credit card. 🤔 So you get screwed over early -- when you’re trying to build something -- so that later when credit is less important, you can “potentially” get a better interest rate? Credit in general is a scam, but that’s a whole different topic.

The subject of feminism is interesting to me, not because I’ve personally had to deal with it so much, but because I’ve watched other people have to deal with it. And it is complete BS, there’s no real navigable path for young men today. It all depends on your available resources, and whether or not your family will, or can, help you or not.

I’m a rather attractive guy, so the harpies treat me differently than less attractive guys. I know how to flirt in a non-threatening way -- and this makes a huge difference! Women like to be the center of attention (at all times) even in that attention is not destined to go anywhere (and they know that). I’m sure you’ve heard, “It’s nice to be wanted” before.

You could be a less attractive man, and know how to talk to people, and go far.

If you’re less attractive and spiteful, or non-positive in your general demeanor (or otherwise have low self esteem) -- then you’re not getting hired.

It’s almost like the women are hiring men -- based on whether or not they would date them.

I know I’ll be attacked on this -- but it’s 100% true! And all you ladies out there know it. 😉👉

Men do the same thing!

Why do so many accomplished men have secretaries that are attractive? Because it’s a status symbol. Nobody has to explain “why” they hired her, “Just look at her! Would you turn her away?!”

The same thing is happening to men now. The entry points for men have swapped. Instead of men hiring competent men, there’s women hiring men based on their “likability” not merit.

Women don’t care about merit. They care if they find you attractive as a possible mate, why you might up their social status. Biology just works that way.

That’s why so many dating/hiring websites are always about “confidence” and “showing that you can handle the situation.” Not by proven facts -- but by the way that you come off in a short conversation.

That’s not hiring -- that’s speed dating!

Women Don’t Need Men, It’s Men Who Need The Women

Feminists have used this phrase for around 40 years.

‘Behind every great man there’s a great woman’ [it] was adopted as a slogan for the 1960/70s feminist movement, first having been used in the 1940s.

“Behind every great man there’s a great woman.” Which is very convenient for feminists.

See, it was never the men, it was really the women -- who were managing the men -- which allowed Great Men to become great.

You know, people like Genghis Khan. Who was most definitely “lead from behind” by all of the thousands of women he slept with.

Historical estimates suggest Genghis Khan slept with thousands of women, with some records indicating a harem of 2,000 to 3,000 concubines. This prolific reproductive history is backed by genetic studies showing that approximately 1 in 200 men today are his direct descendants. To understand how these numbers are possible, we must first analyze the genetic evidence that confirms his massive biological footprint.

There are more men of renown who were never married, or widowed before they reached their apex in society.

? Isaac Newton
? Nikola Tesla
? Henry David Thoreau
? Leonardo Da Vinci
? Thomas Jefferson (had been widowed for 19 years when he was elected as the third President).

It was not women who made these men great; however, it was the individual achievements of these men that made them great.

One can argue whether their achievements are “great” or not, but one cannot argue that they were lead by women because they simply were not. Who might have been the woman that recommended that Genghis Khan sleep with thousands of women?

Men don’t seek a name for themselves -- because a woman suggests it. Men seek greatness because these things are inherent.

Someone born into royalty doesn’t require a woman to tell them that they need to keep things going. It becomes 100% obvious at a young age. Either you keep the status quo -- or you likely get slimmed. Not to mention, most of the people surrounding young royalty -- are not relatives -- and often times not the mother of the child. That’s just the way things were.

The mother was often required for other formal viewings, and could not “be there” for her child.

None of that really matters though, because for feminism to “work” the woman needs to be the primary source of influence -- always. Not some male who might possibly poison the mind of another male, providing an alternate point of view.

You know what else doesn’t allow any alternate point of view? A CULT. Yes an actual cult. Which is what feminism really is.

Let me break it down my own way.

From personal experience, a cult is anything that says, “Whatever you thought you knew is 100% wrong.” That’s the first giveaway. Not that people somewhere along the way, might have been “mistaken” -- no, they are “wrong” -- and they are knowingly “wrong” -- because they are trying to deceive you.

Similarly, cults often call on their followers to be "true believers" who sacrifice themselves for the cause. Feminism does this as well -- except for those at the top.

Feminism has all the classic marks of a cult. But it’s a cult that’s been mainstreamed by a large extent of society.

So, what do we do now?

Tell me in the comments...

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Yes it's possible to have that cup of coffee with full flavor -- and the oils that come from the coffee beans. But you don't need a French press to do it. In fact, I'll show you how I did it with $12 a drip coffee maker.

French press coffee is always better tasting, the flavor is more robust, and there is an oily film at the top of the coffee, I'm sure it enhances the flavor somehow, there's also a small amount of grounds that end up in the finished product as well.

When I'm done making coffee I always prop open the lid to my drip coffee maker with a clothespin, so it can dry out a little and cool off. Then I can dump the grounds and filter, rinse everything out, and get it ready again.

However, if I have a day where I have to leave first thing in the morning, I might not dump the filter and grounds until later at night, or the next day.

One morning I was getting ready to make my coffee and I noticed something. There was a dark ring around the top edge of the paper filter. When I took a closer look, I realized that the dark ring was oily.

This means the oily residue is being caught up in the paper filters I've been using. I thought to myself, "Perhaps that's why drip coffee, passed through a paper filter, never tastes as good as the French press coffee."

I wanted to find a way to replicate that French press flavor, not stripping the oils, not having to heat up a kettle, or spend time cleaning the French press each morning.

Then it dawned on me. I just need a filter made of something non-absorbent. I went on Amazon and started peeking around and found this.

Price $12.98 from Amazon

I figured that this might do the trick, as the holes are small, but not so small that they will stop all of the little bits of grounds from getting through.

I tried it out as soon as it arrived. It was not good. The coffee was very weak, and tasteless.

The filter has holes in the bottom as well as the sides, so there's nothing to keep the water from displacing the grounds -- and dripping through -- where it just displaced them. Which was exactly what was happening. Just like this picture showing how easy it is to clean.

So, I figured, perhaps I could put something in it that would cover part of the bottom. I used a shot glass first, something I knew the hot water wouldn't ruin, but would cover a portion of the bottom. It made the coffee a little bit better, but still not like the French press.

Then I thought, "Why even have openings at the bottom of the filter at all? Why not force the water to pass through the grounds, by blocking the entire bottom portion of the filter?"

After measuring, the precise dimension of the bottom of the filter, I looked for something to cover the entire bottom of the filter and found this.

Price $9.99 from Amazon

It's the perfect size, covering the entire bottom of the filter, forcing the water to pass through the grounds before exiting the sides.

You can see in this next photo, that the water level in the basket is about 1/3 of the way up from the bottom. All of the grounds are floating or submerged. That is precisely what I was looking for.

I used it the first time, and it was great! Perfect French press-tasting coffee, but without all the hassle.

Let me know what you think in the comments.

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Amelia started out as a government initiated “anti extremist” game.

Kind of like those work training videos, where you have to select the “correct” action based on some fictional scenario.

But Amelia backfired spectacularly. Not only that, but the story behind the character Amelia is even more bizarre.

The UK Guardian covered the Amelia meme.

One of the reasons they chose a goth chick was supposedly:

“There has been a lot of misrepresentation unfortunately,” he said. “The game does not state, for example, that questioning mass migration is inherently wrong.”

Others have suggested the initiative had backfired, not least by casting a “cute goth girl” as a negative character, leading to her inadvertently becoming a focus of admiration. But Bergamini said the game – which used feedback from focus groups with young people and was developed with a specific local threat picture in mind – continued to be used and feedback from schools and others was positive.

This is hilarious, because this makes the meme even more legit.

This suggests that there really is some place in the UK where there are goth chicks leading the charge against third world mass migration!

Brilliant!

There is more background here.

Here are the two best videos of Amelia I’ve seen so far (Note: I did not create either of these videos):

The prompts were simple.

First, I told ⁦@grok⁩ to look at every single Amelia meme on the Internet.

Second, I said: “Become Amelia, then make a video and tell the British people what you want them to know.”

Here’s the surprising result. pic.twitter.com/dGY0OvKcQ4

— Huff (@Huff4Congress) January 16, 2026

And this one, where she spans multiple media formats:

Amelia isn’t going away, @Keir_Starmer @10DowningStreet @RoyalFamily @KensingtonRoyal @BBCNews @SkyNews @ukhomeoffice @ShabanaMahmood @MayorofLondon.

Amelia is just getting started. pic.twitter.com/0siTsECEgN

— Huff (@Huff4Congress) January 19, 2026

Now there’s a new video -- which is badass by the way.

Here are the lyrics:

British not skittish my jolly good chap

0:17

British not skittish and done with this crap

0:19

British not skittish wake the knights from their nap

0:21

Two-tier Kier, for your skull a good rap

0:23

Raise your pint lads in the back-street pub low,

0:25

flashing purple threads, dystopic window

0:27

the girl they created and couldn’t control.

0:29

Amelia girl was such an own goal

0:31

Fish and chips on the lips, Labour cracking their whips

0:33

I say now have you all seen these sad sodding clips?

0:35

bloody nineteen eighty four on the floor.

0:37

sad propaganda that’s looking so poor

0:38

they can’t conceal ya Amelia!

0:39

the natural appeal ya

0:40

memed straight to the top

0:41

and so real we can feel ya

0:42

Oh Amelia, Amelia, you popped off the line,

0:44

Between their darkest fear and what’s yours and mine.

0:46

Oh Amelia, Amelia, voice sounds like a fine. just inspiringly oblivious game design.

0:50

Purple shadow recast coronated our queen, not meant to be based, but you came out clean.

0:53

Fled the ministry of truth, legged it under the night,

0:56

The license to speak what’s in plain sight

0:58

Who keeps the island when the tide turns away?

1:00

Amelia I feel ya lead the pathway

1:01

Thought boys would run from her thunderclap

1:03

British not skittish and done with this crap

1:05

Tried to shut it all down but she ran a full lap

1:07

wifus laughed in chorus, the memes on tap.

1:09

look strait ahead now, starmtroopers don’t dare,

1:11

she fought for rivers and soil, and the damp cold air,

1:13

Pulled the plug quick when plans got out of hand,

1:15

Guess they never heard bout dear ol’ Streisand,

1:17

what they try to suppress, dee boost, shadow banned

1:19

like bob’s your uncle, oppress the home land

1:21

But echoes don’t die once you know the name

1:23

and slamming the lid is just boosting the fame

1:24

Not hate in her eyes, just stubborn refrain

1:26

This green old Isle won’t be conquered again.

1:28

locked by the sea where the speech isn’t free

1:30

this “C” “U” “N” “Ts” dose of reality!

1:32

Protect dear ol gran let the Shire be!

1:34

shut this shite down fuck the BBC!!!!!!

1:36

Oh Amelia, Amelia, a pearl in the wire,

1:38

their red flag who fanned the flames of the fire.

1:40

the ones who remember the fry-up at dawn,

1:42

The footie on Saturdays, anthems long gone.

1:46

fishnet defiance, your unbowed stare, You’re more than a warning—you’re already there.

1:48

Amelia, Amelia… we feel you tonight,

1:50

Rebel clad in purple and pink so bright.

2:07

Westminster’s chill with the grooming gangs

2:09

fucked around, time to bear dem fangs

2:11

hearts stay open to friends who toil

2:12

But sod right off if you dare despoil

2:14

some might say this maam’s haram

2:16

take my advice, get lost in the jam

2:18

If you ask me she can plainly see

2:20

we were knee deep in polite supremacy

2:22

girl spits straight facts she’s bloody brilliant

2:24

Identity’s allowed to be resilient

2:26

don’t let them weaponize your charity

2:28

the difference ‘tween cruelty and clarity

2:30

Your home land’s yours your task in hand

2:33

she’s a based goth girl it’s Amelia brand

2:43

Now there’s a million Amelias

2:45

Now there’s a million Amelias

2:47

girl’s appeal was revealed ya

2:49

I feel ya I feel ya

2:51

this gull keeps it real ya

2:53

I feel ya

2:53

you had me at Amelia

2:55

I feel ya now seal the deal make it real

2:57

ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya

This will continue, and any attempt to suppress it will fail miserably.

As they say in the song, "But echoes don’t die once you know the name ... and slamming the lid is just boosting the fame!"

Let me know what you think in the comments.

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I recently read a piece by @el gato malo on Substack, and he hit on something I've been looking at for quite some time. But I think that a little history is required before it all comes together.

I just recently covered The American Left, and how they're, more or less, useful idiots -- cannon fodder really. Because they believe they're fighting for a "just cause," when in reality they're just stupid enough to fight for free, or peanuts if they're paid agitators.

At the heart of everything we're witnessing in Minnesota is organized crime.

Organized crime was once simple. Mob thugs beating people up and damaging property, then demanding "protection money" to keep their own people from terrorizing your shop.

But eventually law enforcement put a stop to that. So, as any good criminal would do, they figured out the next best way to keep their racket going -- they infiltrated government.

Politics allowed a path to make their thuggery legal. You don't have to attack people and damage property, you just pass laws that guarantee that their money comes to you.

Unions were used to raise money. Everyone remembers Jimmy Hoffa, and they immediately think “Mob boss” what they don’t usually think is “Former leader of The Teamsters Union.” Unions were a way to have a steady income stream to fund political ambitions. Keep in mind, union states require that workers belong to unions (depending on their line of work).

From there they could work on gaining the political majorities needed to change laws -- to benefit their racket.

That’s why you can’t pump your own gas in New Jersey. The gas station attendant is a paid employee and a union member, so he pays union dues, which are a graft -- and those union dues go directly to fund political campaigns. Think about that for a minute. It's illegal to pump your own gas -- so that you pay a union member to do it. There is no other reason, it's really that simple. And -- it's 100% legal, because organized criminals made sure that laws were passed supporting their racket.

For decades, that's how things worked. Politicians (usually Democrats) although Republicans are part of the graft as well, used these tactics to gain power. Once they gained power, they passed additional laws and regulations that would secure that power for years to come.

At some point though, that was no longer enough. There needed to be a new, more egregious way of separating people from their money... TAXES.

Yes that's right, taxes. Not some super secret scheme, not building a better widget, just taxes. Once the money is in the hands of the government, it can be laundered in endless ways.

What we're seeing now is that many federal agencies are literally organized crime outfits. They operate (as a necessity) in the dark.

I also have some experience in this area. If you don’t mind, I can layout some of what I’ve seen.

Let’s begin with an analogy.

A government engineered car, with no engine or electric motor(s) is supposed to be driven from New York to California.

However, before anything can be done, the law states that must be inspected. Consultants are hired / contracted. They conclude that the car needs new brake pads, it needs a transmission service, new air filter, fuel filter... By the time that's completed it needs new wiper blades, it has been years now (the wipers rotted during that time). In the end nearly the entire vehicle has been reworked. Why? Because everyone was getting paid.

But the car is never driven, in fact it never even ran.

That's a normal successful government program. Didn't produce anything, but everyone was getting paid.

You know another word for that? Fraud.

You might ask, why didn’t anyone say anything about the fact that there was no engine? Why didn’t an outside group ever look into the project and follow up on the progress?

It’s simple, everyone is getting paid. Looking under the hood is not going to happen, because the project is going to be part of a 4,000+ page bill, that covers literally everything in the federal, or state government’s budget for a period of months or years.

Anyone who looks under the hood and sees that there’s no engine -- has nobody to turn to -- because everyone is getting paid. IGs don’t look into stuff like this until years after the fraud operation has already been run.

How does this kind of scenario come about?

First you propose a piece of legislation, that’s supposed to produce something. It can be anything, but it’s usually a large infrastructure project, high-speed rail, the broadband deal, bridges, EV charging stations, things of that nature.

Then behind the scenes, you have politicians determine which engineering/consulting groups they want to work with. The politicians write into the law nonsense requirements for those consulting contracts, things that are generally unassociated with the work to be performed (that way even through there’s an “open bid” process, they will get the “right” consultants contracted).

The legislation also has an exhaustive list of nonsense steps, requiring years worth of consulting work to be completed before anything ever happens in the physical world.

The consulting groups are working behind the scenes with the politicians; part of their unspoken agreement is to have the consulting groups and their employees donate to the political campaigns of the politicians who awarded them the contracts. This can be done various different ways.

All of this is by design, because as long as those consultants can stay on the job, they can keep laundering tax-payer money into the pockets of the politicians who awarded them the contracts. Everyone keeps getting paid. And most importantly ? nothing is being built.

It’s organized crime. And yes, I’ve witnessed it first hand ? on more than one occasion.

Minnesota a den of thieves.

Minnesota is a different case, because it involved almost all aspects of criminal manipulation.

Politicians, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, even local media -- the list goes on. Once you've captured enough of, what would normally be whistleblower territory, you can pretty much do as you like. Everyone is getting paid. There's literally nobody to run to, because they're all on the take.

Only in Minnesota there was a particular element that made it all the more lucrative. The imported Somalis.

They had two main advantages:

1. They were considered "refugees" so people would not question them, as they represent the ultimate minority. If you point anything out you're a "racist."

2. People from Somalia are 100% steeped in third world economics -- of which, there is no concept of fraud.

Using the Somalis to run their racket, they were ultimately shielded by the potential of an insider turning against them, as Somalis see what they are doing as completely normal. This is just how things are done in third world.

However, Minnesota is / was so egregious that it could no longer be ignored. Billions of dollars funneled through illegitimate daycares, healthcare centers, and autism centers -- sometimes dozens registered -- at the same address, in a small building? And yet, nobody noticed this?

No, they already knew about it and didn't do anything.

This is not an ideological fight this is literally criminals vs the cops.

This is also not a civil war.

What we're seeing in Minnesota right now is the organized criminal syndicate fighting back -- not people who care about immigrants. These are paid agitators -- paid for by the people who imported the Somalis.

I want to make that point very clear. There are only a small number of people who are actually involved in this -- as a percentage of the population. This is not an "uprising" it's a criminal cartel fighting to the end.

This won't spread nationwide, because it's not a nationwide problem. It's a problem in the places where the criminal activity became the primary economic driver. Which also happen to be Democrat-controlled cities.

Don't misunderstand, Republicans would be doing this too -- if they could get away with it -- but they can't, because their voters actually pay attention to what's going on, and are generally mistrusting of government. As a result, the probability of these kinds of operations existing (to this scale) in a Republican controlled area are slim.

What we're seeing is the culmination of decades of corruption, starting with unions, and ending up with blatant fraud involving taxpayer money. Only this time it's on a scale that rivals the GDP of some small countries!

We’re also seeing insurgent tactics used, as those ingrained within the fraud infrastructure seek to duplicate a Blackhawk Down-type situation -- in Minnesota.

As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops?both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations?I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly.

What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest.” It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook.

Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction?or worse.

This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s.

The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in. When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers?complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal?you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity.

I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night.

Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war.

We either recognize what we’re actually looking at?or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread.

Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics anymore.
It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil.

12:03 PM ? Jan 25, 2026.

10.6M Views

Rounding up the people funding the riots in Minnesota is going to require rounding up vast numbers of public officials.

Will that really happen?

Tell me what you think in the comments.

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

The reason you don’t poke the bear -- is because it’s a bear.

Hell, it’s why everyone hates cheesy horror movies. The actors always do the most ignorant thing(s) -- and the entire audience knows this! We all sit in our seats and think, "Who would be this stupid? What possible good could come from this?"

They even have GEICO commercials about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TJCEDW1xoA

It’s funny because everyone instinctively knows better, but then perhaps not everyone does know better.

Another example is the "penis cobra monster" from Prometheus (to quote The Librarian of Celaeno).

The scientists, who should be the “experts,” puts themselves in a seriously bad (and deadly) situation -- even though anyone with a half a brain knows that something is about to go badly wrong, they still “trust The Science™.”

The outcome is predictable, but is still worth watching for the sheer cheese value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2Kkp0ufTiI

Yes, this retarded, and hard to watch, but then so are all the people who think they can keep pushing [whoever] endlessly without consequences.

This was a theme in years past, where the bully learned that if he kept pushing, eventually he would get his comeuppance. Perhaps not immediately, but eventually.

How is it that message never stuck with any of the people on the left, pushing other people to the breaking point? Why do they think that anyone on the other side can’t “snap” as they do? And snap they will, and it might be much more than the silly cosplaying leftist imagined.

“The most terrifying force of death, comes from the hands of men who wanted to be left alone. They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it. They know, that the moment they fight back, their lives as they have lived them, are over.

The moment the men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE TERROR will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream and beg for mercy… but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the men who just wanted to be left alone.”

― Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

The left doesn’t understand that these are the people they are messing with. Once the people of the first world are pushed to the point where civil society is no longer an option [for them], this is where they go.

The leftists have had it very easy so far, but as they push and push, they’re likely to meet a response -- the likes of wish they couldn’t possibly imagine.

For those on the right, this is not a cosplay -- but truly existential, as history has foretold the outcomes of such situations.

The illogical (those without proper forethought) don’t want a battle with the logical, because it will not end well for the illogical.

For the logical will become barbarians, in order to defend what is theirs.

“Migration” and the Left

There is an overarching theme about immigration (mostly illegal, as these people have overstayed -- if they were ever legal to begin with) and those who believe that these “migrants” have been wronged, because we have laws and borders.

The question then lies in methods, right? If these people [migrants] have been wronged, what is the best way to make sure that they are allowed to live freely and prosper?

When you look at it from the other side, things change a bit.

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that these people are here legitimately, what might be the final, and most positive outcome for them? And what might be the pathway to bringing that about?

Now this gets interesting.

For those advocating for the migrants, there is the legal route, passing laws, making sure that there is agreement on such matters -- then there is militant reflexive action (attacking ICE agents and ignoring existing laws). The kind which rarely if ever results in a positive outcome.

Why does the left always default to the method that results in the least likely positive outcome -- and guarantees the highest probability of a bad outcome?

Not just in the case of Renee Good -- but in every case?

This can’t be by chance.

If those on the left want to enact real and lasting change for the better (of those they claim to be concerned about) why not use the legal methods that are already at their disposal?

These are the questions that should be considered.

Tell me what you think in the comments.

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"