Who's behind the anti-ICE riots in New Jersey

 

The Twitter user known as DataRepublican, whom we've met in these pages before, has done another masterful job of analyzing the groups and individuals behind the out-of-control anti-ICE riots in New Jersey.  She condensed her findings into a lengthy post on X.  Here's how they begin.

ORG CHART EXPOSED: Which NGOs Are Organizing the Newark Protests, and How

How a six-word Signal message shut down a thousand-person protest.

On the night of June 1, 2026, journalist @NickSortor drove to Delaney Hall expecting what he'd seen for ten straight days: hundreds of protesters surrounding Newark's 1,000-bed ICE detention facility, human chains blocking federal vehicles, pepper balls and tear gas, helmets and gas masks distributed from organized supply stations, catered meals arriving on schedule. He found silence. The crowd — 200-plus the night before — was gone, with tens of thousands of dollars in pre-staged gear abandoned in place.

What happened between Sunday morning and Sunday night was a single message in an encrypted Signal group, as discovered by @bitchuneedsoap. A Cosecha NJ communicator posted a six-line announcement: "Cosecha is NOT mobilizing to Delaney Hall tonight. We are talking to strikers and their families to regroup." No negotiation, no vote, no gradual loss of enthusiasm. Some switch had been flipped off.

The natural question is how a protest of that size can be turned off with one message. The answer is that it was never a protest in the way most people understand the word. It was an operation — assembled, maintained, and disbanded through an organizational structure that looks, once you map it, like a military deployment with a nonprofit org chart.

The structure has four layers. Each answers a different question. Layer 1 decides whether to act. Layer 2 decides how many show up. Layer 3 decides what happens on the ground. Layer 4 keeps the whole thing running across days.

Understanding these layers is understanding how every major protest in America works, because the same people built the template.

There's much more at the link.  Follow it to learn precisely which organizations and individuals are funding and pre-planning all of the anti-Trump and anti-ICE demonstrations and other activities around the country.

We're going to see more and more "spontaneous" demonstrations and unrest as the mid-term elections draw closer.  Their objective will be to give the Democratic Party (and its further-left-wing supporters) a majority in both the House and the Senate, thereby stymie-ing President Trump as he tries to implement the rest of his agenda.  If they succeed in that, and in blaming all the country's problems at his feet, they're confident they can take back the Presidency in 2028.  Given a trifecta of President, House and Senate, they'll lock in their agenda so hard that it'll be impossible to root it out again.

I highly recommend reading all that DataRepublican has to say in the linked article.  I'm sure you'll see the pattern playing out in your own towns, cities and states.  As to what to do about it?  I'm sure you can come up with some useful ideas for yourselves . . .

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  The news has gone mainstream, with many additional details coming out.  Follow the link for more.

Medicine, health and gender ideology

 

I hadn't realized how endemic the gender apocalypse had become in the health care (?) industry until I read this article.

In Minton v. Dignity Health, Evan Minton, who was born female but masqueraded as a male, was scheduled by her doctor for a hysterectomy at Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a Catholic hospital near Sacramento, in August 2016. Two days before the procedure, the doctor informed the hospital that she was transgender, and the hospital canceled the surgery. The hospital’s position was that the surgery was elective, part of a “transition,” and that, as a Catholic hospital, they could not participate in sex change operations.

The ACLU filed suit under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The California Court of Appeals ruled in 2019 that Minton had standing to proceed, and in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Dignity Health’s appeal, leaving that ruling intact.

In the end, the San Francisco County Superior Court entered the following judgment: “It is adjudged that plaintiff Minton, Evan take nothing from defendant Dignity Health dba Mercy San Juan Medical Center.” Minton lost. She was awarded nothing.

In Hammons v. University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center, the ruling went the other way when a federal court subsequently ruled that the hospital’s refusal to perform a hysterectomy on a woman who dressed as a man violated the Affordable Care Act.

. . .

Jessica Simpson, a Canadian transgender activist who retains male genitalia, filed a complaint against a gynecologist who refused to treat her, claiming discrimination. The complaint was filed with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia in 2019, though no resolution has been publicly reported.

A report by Advocates for Trans Equality states, “If a transgender woman’s health care provider decides she needs a prostate exam, an insurance company can’t deny it because she is listed as female in her records. If her provider recommends gynecological care, coverage can’t be denied simply because she was identified as male at birth.”

There's more at the link.

Verily, the mind doth boggle.  How on earth is an insurance company to assess the likely costs to be incurred by a prospective member if they can't be sure whether he/she is male or female?  Women have gynecological expenses that men don't have;  men have male-specific illnesses that women don't have.  It makes a difference to risks, premiums, etc.  For that matter, how about life insurance when life expectancy is affected by biological sex?  All other things being equal, women live several years longer than men, and insurance companies take that into account when deciding on the premium for life insurance policies.  What if they can't be sure of the biological sex (and hence natural life expectancy) of the person applying for insurance?

I've got a simple proposal.  Whenever anyone applies for health insurance, life insurance, or anything else where biological sex makes a difference, insist that they have to undergo a chromosome check.  If it comes back XX, they're female, no matter what they say they are.  If it comes back XY, they're male, ditto.  Only in the vanishingly small number of so-called "intersex" cases (generally accepted by authoritative medical sources as being far less than 1%) would further testing be required.  The insurance or medical procedures the individual seeks should be awarded on the basis of this chromosome test.  If it's not appropriate for their chromosomal (i.e. biological) sex, they can't have it unless they pay for it out of their own pockets and the provider is willing to provide it.  Period (you should pardon the expression).  Biologically female?  No subsidized prostate or testicular cancer exam for you.  Biologically male?  No subsidized birth control pills or cervical cancer test for you.  Is the examination or procedure you want against the moral or ethical code of the provider?  Then you don't get it from them.  End of story.

I think that would eliminate most of the legal problems facing the health care industry, exclude a great deal of the political correctness and "wokeness" involved, and save insurers a lot of money into the bargain.  What say you, readers?

Peter

"The bottom line is simple: we’re already divided in everything but name."

 

That's the punch line to a recent article by Restricted Daily on X.  I think it makes good sense, although it doesn't offer solutions.  I think it's important enough that I'm going to re-publish it here in full, hoping that the author of Restricted Daily will permit that.

We keep pretending this is just another rough chapter in American politics, but deep down everyone knows that’s a lie. This isn’t disagreement anymore. This is disillusion. This is two completely different nations trapped inside the same borders, pretending we share values when we don’t. The Declaration of Independence was written when people finally admitted they could no longer coexist under a system that no longer represented them. That same feeling is back, whether people want to admit it or not.

We don’t argue over tax rates or road funding anymore. We argue over reality itself. Over biology. Over speech. Over history. Over whether borders matter. Over whether personal responsibility even exists. One side believes the country should be preserved, protected, and handed down stronger to the next generation. The other believes it should be dismantled, reprogrammed, and endlessly apologized for. You cannot reconcile those worldviews. You can only delay the inevitable by pretending compromise still exists.

Every election now feels like an existential threat, not a policy debate. Every law feels like an act of force instead of representation. People don’t feel governed anymore, they feel ruled. And when a large portion of the population feels that way for long enough, the social contract is already broken. You can wave flags and sing songs all you want, but unity doesn’t come from slogans. It comes from shared beliefs, and those are gone.

The truth nobody wants to say out loud is this: forcing people who fundamentally despise each other to live under one federal system is not unity. It’s pressure. And pressure always finds a release. History doesn’t care about feelings. Empires don’t fall because people stop loving them, they fall because they stop believing in them. When laws feel illegitimate and elections feel meaningless, separation stops sounding radical and starts sounding logical.

Maybe it’s not about hate. Maybe it’s about honesty. About admitting that the experiment has split into incompatible outcomes. About recognizing that peaceful separation is better than perpetual cultural warfare, political revenge cycles, and a federal government that half the country views as hostile. Coexistence requires mutual respect, and that left the room a long time ago.

You can call it the Declaration of Disillusion. You can call it dissolution. You can call it whatever you want. But pretending we can duct tape this together forever is the real fantasy. The bottom line is simple: we’re already divided in everything but name. The only question left is whether we keep lying to ourselves, or finally have the courage to admit it.

I fear the author is correct.  I don't see how we can restore unity to a nation so far divided as ours has become.  It's a lot more difficult than during the American Civil War of the 19th century, because there are many issues dividing us, not just one central debate.  Furthermore, we don't have neatly divided states:  we have representatives from multiple perspectives in every state.  Big cities tend to be "blue", smaller towns and rural areas tend more towards "red", but overall the states are "purple" - and I don't see any practical way of satisfying all the blended colors in our present political melange.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."  Jesus Christ said that.  Abraham Lincoln made it the focus of his famous "house divided" speech almost two millennia later.  It's as true today as it's ever been.  Unless we find a way to bridge the gaps between us - and I have no idea what that way might be - our house, our nation, is probably going to fall.

Peter

Minneapolis and Minnesota: a "color revolution" in the making

 

Some readers may not be familiar with the term "color revolution".  American Thinker outlined the concept in an article last December.

A“color revolution” ... is a modern form of orchestrated political upheaval designed to replace an existing government without traditional military invasion or civil war ... These operations follow a remarkably consistent playbook, refined over two decades by Western NGOs, intelligence-linked foundations, and State Department-affiliated entities (Open Society Foundations, USAID, etc.).

Authors describe seven stages of a color revolution. The stages include these tactics, which I’ll list in approximate chronological order:

• Portray the target government as illegitimate, authoritarian, corrupt, or “fascist.”
• Front-load allegations: accuse incumbent of planning the crimes the opposition intends to commit (rigging, regression, dictatorship).
• Fund and train NGOs, student groups, and opposition politicians to repeat a unified message.
• Create/amplify a unifying symbol or theme (e.g., Orange Man Bad).
• Manufacture an electoral crisis.
• Street mobilization.
• Public appeals to and moral blackmail of the military and police: “You’re with the people, not the regime.”
• Promises of immunity, future positions for defectors.
• Threats to those who support target government.
• Provoke a response, flood media with images of “peaceful protesters” being attacked.
• International legitimation as foreign governments and media recognizes opposition leaders as “legitimate” authority.
• Sanctions, frozen assets, diplomatic isolation applied to sitting government.
• New elections scheduled under international supervision.

There's more at the link.  Notable examples of color revolutions may be found in the so-called "Arab Spring" uprisings, the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia in 2003, the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine in 2004/5, and a number of others.  Not all of the factors listed above were present in all the color revolutions, but most of them made multiple appearances.

A noteworthy common factor is that external (i.e. foreign) non-governmental organizations (NGO's) were involved in organizing and supporting almost all color revolutions over the past two to three decades.  Most of those NGO's were left-wing or progressive in orientation, and appear again and again in multiple uprisings.  Keep that in mind as we consider the current uprisings in Minneapolis and Minnesota.

The situation in Minneapolis right now is clearly an organized uprising against the enforcement of US immigration law by ICE.  It shows many of the signs of a typical color revolution in the making.  It is not random or haphazard:  it is professionally planned and executed, and run very like a military operation by its organizers.  As evidence, consider:

• The far-left network that helped put Alex Pretti in harm's way, then made him a martyr
• "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."
• "Look at the training 'MN Ice Watch' (which Renee Good belonged to) gives"
• Left-Wing Activists Run Shadow Police Force On Signal To Target ICE In Minneapolis
• What The Left Doesn't Want You To Know About Alex Pretti, The Man That Border Patrol Shot

I could post many similar links, but those above contain all the important information you'll need to make your own judgment.  If you're in any doubt about what I say here, follow them for yourself and learn the truth.

Next, keep in mind that violence against ICE is not widespread.  As Kevin Bass points out (his methodology is here), a mere nine counties (out of 3,143 in the entire USA!) have produced two-thirds of all such incidents over the past year.  Click the image below for a larger view.

That's hardly the widespread violence and unrest that the progressive left (and its lackeys in the mainstream news media) are trying to portray, is it?  That shows very clearly where the left is most organized and active.  However, they're bringing activists into those places from all over the country, not just to help their protests, but to learn from them how to do it and then "export" similar unrest to other cities around America.  Be prepared for that.

It's also clear that the anti-ICE demonstrations are attempting to divert attention away from the massive fraud uncovered in Minnesota's Somali community, and in which a large number of Minnesota's political figures are apparently implicated.  Prof. Glenn Reynolds says this.

The state’s Democratic political machine is reacting like a spooked squid to revelations that the machine and its clients are complicit in multi-billion-dollar frauds against the federal government.

And the “ink” being squirted is the not-at-all spontaneous wave of riots erupting against federal authorities in Minneapolis.

. . .

The House Oversight Committee this month found that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and state Attorney General Keith Ellison were not innocent bystanders to the fraud, but actually took part in the cover-up, taking active steps to silence whistleblowers.

And it all centered on communities of illegal immigrants and refugees, some of whose members siphoned money from federal taxpayers and in turn gave campaign contributions and political support to state Democrats — a self-licking ice cream cone of graft.

. . .

These are not spontaneous uprisings of the aggrieved, but organized actions featuring out-of-state actors and organizations, detailed training programs for demonstrators, and large amounts of intentionally murky funding from organizations like Indivisible, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and others.

They’re coordinating their anti-ICE operations — identifying, chasing and blocking agents to keep them from arresting illegal-immigrant criminals — through highly organized chat groups on Signal, a secure communications platform, Fox News reported.

And Minnesota government officials are proudly touting their involvement in this coordination ... That’s making these often violent, deliberately obstructive demonstrations look less like a civil rights sit-in and more like a government-backed insurrection.

. . .

Whatever investigators determine about how Pretti’s death unfolded, the fact remains that a cynical and corrupt political machine has fostered for its own purposes a situation that’s dangerous for its own supporters, and for the political future of our nation.

There's more at the link.

As a human being, I'm deeply saddened by the deaths of Renée Good and Alexander Pretti in Minneapolis.  May their sins be forgiven them, and may they rest in peace:  and may their families receive what comfort is possible.

HOWEVER . . .

Let us not forget that both died while actively interfering with law enforcement personnel in the execution of their duties, in situations where tempers and emotions were running high, and where misunderstandings in the heat of the moment could readily be foreseen and expected.  In both shootings, it is possible that the law enforcement officers concerned over-reacted to visual stimuli that - under the stress and tension of the circumstances - they did not have time to adequately process.  On the other hand, the actions of the victims actively contributed to that stress and tension, and therefore they were at the very least not blameless in their deaths.

It is also possible - although yet to be determined by legal process - that the shootings were justifiable under the laws and jurisprudence governing the conduct of the law enforcement personnel concerned.  Until all the facts emerge, and can be evaluated by competent authorities and ruled upon in court, I won't attempt to assign blame.  I could wish that others would be slower to judge, and be willing to wait for all the facts to come out.  By failing to do so, they're inciting and inviting further violence and bloodshed - which is, of course, exactly what some of them appear to want.

What is now effectively beyond doubt is that both Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti died as part of an uprising against the constitution and laws of the United States of America.  It's no good denying that - the evidence (as cited and provided above) is clear.  The ultimate responsibility for their deaths sits squarely at the door of those who planned, instigated and organized this unrest.  I can only hope that they will be called to account for it.

Peter

Quick post-storm update, and preliminary thoughts on Minneapolis unrest

 

The world outside is blanketed with a mixture of snow, sleet and freezing rain, which have combined to bed down into a 3" to 4" thick layer over everything.  One can walk on it if one's careful about one's balance, but put a foot wrong and it's slip slidin' away . . .

I won't go out today, because with my spine injury, balance is sometimes hard to maintain - and I don't want to have to call for an ambulance while lying in that icy, snowy blanket on the ground!  My wife has had to go to work, but it's only a couple of miles from here, and she's from Alaska!  She's been grinning broadly at all the complaints from locals about how snowed-in we are, and how difficult it is to drive, and so on.  Needless to say, her comparisons between here and Alaska have been great fun!  She should have no trouble driving to work and back.

I guess readers in the north-east are still getting the snow, sleet and freezing rain that left here a day or two ago.  Stay safe up there, please.  I know you're more used to this than we are, but Mother Nature is still a stone cold bitch who'll kill you at the drop of a hat (and sometimes drop it herself, if she's feeling that way inclined).

I've had a few e-mails asking me why I'm not commenting at greater length on the situation in Minneapolis right now.  Three points:

1. The 72-hour rule applies:  wait three days for the details to be established before you say something that might not be accurate.  I'll write about it tomorrow.
2. There's so much organization and purpose behind the civil unrest in Minneapolis that it qualifies as an insurrection, by any classical definition you choose.  This is not an angry public protesting - it's an organized militant group playing on public emotions and manipulating many (most?) of the protesters.  It's also a very clear attempt by the Minneapolis/Minnesota authorities to divert attention from the immense fraud perpetrated upon the people of Minnesota by criminal elements, including some of those authorities.  There's a lot more to come out about all that.
3. I am deeply, deeply concerned about the ruthlessness and purposefulness of the organizers behind these protests.  They remind me of the unrest in Southern states prior to the Civil war - think attacks on state militia troops passing through Baltimore, the Southern seizure of Federal property, and firing on a Federal installation.  As Divemedic (rightly, in my opinion) warns:  "At this point, we are closer to a Civil War than we have been in more than 60 years."

Pray for peace, but prepare for this uprising in case it spreads to your area.  If you live in a large city (particularly with left-wing politics) or anywhere nearby, that goes double for you.

Peter

Minnesota: Both sides are caught on the horns of a dilemma

 

Keep a careful eye on Minneapolis.  Things are getting bad enough there that they remind me of the virtual civil war that reigned for months in some of South Africa's worst-hit areas during the last years of apartheid.  The radicals on the left are trying to force the issue - and it can only be a matter of time before radicals on the right respond in kind.  As Rod Dreher points out:

Things are fast getting out of control in Minnesota. Leftist mobs are going after innocent people they think might be pro-ICE — including a tourist driving a rental car with Texas plates. The mob figured Texas plates surely must belong to an ICE agent. State and local authorities there have put themselves openly against federal law enforcement. It’s as if they’re all but begging Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act — and you know, if all this isn’t an insurrection, what is it?

What these fools don’t understand is that things like invading and disrupting a church service compels many Christians and others, who might have been doubtful about the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement, to rush towards Trump for protection from the mob. They are hardening sides. Frankly, I hope the feds swoop in with force and start mass arrests, starting with Don Lemon. Again: the protesters crossed a bright red line yesterday in going into that church.

This is how civil wars start. I’m serious. Here is a clip of an anti-ICE leftist standing on the streets of Minneapolis with a rifle in hand, ready for civil war. He says he’s standing on his block “to protect my people.” OK, but is he ready for Christian men to stand around the perimeter of their churches, with rifles, to protect their people?

There's more at the link.

The trouble is, the radical left wants that sort of confrontation.  They're doing all they can to provoke it.  They'd like nothing better than for President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, because then they could proclaim that it proves he was what they've called him all along - a fascist, a Nazi, another Hitler.  Eko explains:

January 15, 2026. Tore Says monitors document simultaneous Zoom calls across every major activist network in the United States. Sunrise Movement. Federal employee resistance groups. Military reservist networks. Senior Executive Service officials. Antifa organizers. Ideologically opposed groups, different platforms, never having worked together publicly.

Jake broadcasts intent to burn a Quran to provoke the left.

Pink broadcasts alerts about an “anti-Muslim rally” to mobilize the Left.

They both specify the exact time. They both name the location.

On the surface, they are enemies. In the intelligence chatter, they are the same network. One operative amplifies the threat. The other provides the violence. Two hands of the same foreign-funded clock.

Every Zoom call Tore documented discussed the same objective: create sufficient unrest that the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Upper-level conversations revealed specific instructions.

    1. Stage provocations at mosques.
    2. Arm counter-protesters.
    3. Ensure cameras capture everything.
    4. Coordinate media amplification across all platforms.

Then further instructions surfaced:

Promote the Insurrection Act subversively through conservative outlets. Embed in right-wing media. Make supporters demand the mechanism that will remove Trump.

The Left creates chaos to force federal crackdown.

The Right demands emergency powers thinking they’ll crush the opposition.

The synthesis advances through the collision. The moment Trump invokes the Act to restore order, the narrative locks. He becomes the strongman they warned about for a decade. Every news chyron, every influencer post, every talking head will say the same thing: You see? He IS the dictator.

The truth is irrelevant. Perception is the verdict. The justification for his removal is written by his own signature.

. . .

The timeline

    Day 1: Deployment orders. Media goes 24/7 crisis mode.
    Day 3: First judicial injunction filed. International condemnation starts.
    Day 7: Cabinet members leaking concerns to press.
    Day 10: Congressional emergency hearings announced.
    Day 14: 25th Amendment whispers in mainstream coverage.
    Day 21: Politically radioactive. Legally cornered.

Three weeks. That’s the window from finally crushing them to removing him for instability.

There won’t be time to organize. To protest. To vote.

By the time we realize the mistake, he is gone and the emergency powers are permanent.

. . .

They have called us fascist for eight years. Violent insurrectionists. Threats to democracy.

Now they engineer the conditions where we demand authoritarian powers. Where we cheer military force. Where we justify emergency rule.

They are making us become the thing they accused us of being.

Take the bait and the soul of this movement is gone. We become their lie.

This is spiritual war.

Our grievances are legitimate. The solution being sold is our suicide.

Again, more at the link.  I highly recommend that you read the whole thing.

Friends, the radical Left is not interested in compromise (except as a short-term tactic while they prepare their next attack).  They aren't interested in placebos or palliatives or politicians' pablum.  They will gouge and chip away at the established order until they've disestablished it - which will be their excuse to mount an all-out takeover bid, probably invoking the 25th Amendment.  Democrat representatives in Congress and the Senate will be joined by RINO's, and even if they get only a razor-thin majority in both Houses, that's all they need.  If they do, it's a very short step to taking over both Houses in the November 2026 elections, and blocking the rest of the Trump agenda permanently.

Think it's impossible?  I don't.  There's a legal, legislative, judicial and constitutional minefield dead ahead.  Any knee-jerk reaction by the right (particularly an armed, violent reaction) will lead us right into it.  We have to emphasize the rule of law, while recognizing that some aspects of that might be more of a problem to us than a solution to the current situation.  It's a very fine line to walk.

Peter

Am I a prophet, or what?

 

In an article last week on how the progressive left is trying to turn ICE's anti-illegal-alien sweep into another George Floyd-like uprising, I advised several precautionary actions for my readers, including this one:

Expect there to be another run on firearms and ammunition, just like 2020/21, as those who hadn't prepared in time try to do so at short notice.  If your own supplies are a little threadbare, beat the rush and stock up now, while prices are still relatively low.

In their latest e-circular, received yesterday, SG Ammo, my favorite suppliers, had this to say:

We have seen a sharp increase in consumer demand for bulk ammo orders over the past 8 days. Daily sales volume initially rose 25% to 35%, and now 35% to 45% over the past 3 days when compared to the daily averages of the first week of this month. This also represents an even larger increase from demand in December. While some of this should be expected, as the busy season for selling ammo is generally November to April with a peak in March as income tax refunds get spent, we feel that the elevated demand signals a widespread urge by the consumer to stock up on ammo. In my opinion, it would be wise to stock up now if you need ammo while depressed market pricing lingers from 2025 and before 2026 price increases from the factories begin to force widespread increases in the retail market.

Yep.  It's as I predicted.  People are seeing what's going on in Minneapolis (where the George Floyd riots started in 2020) and realizing that "it's déjà vu all over again".  Many had become complacent since the last ammo shortage, and failed to maintain their stocks;  and others, new to firearms ownership since then, hadn't realized how rapidly ammo supplies can dry up.  They're looking at what's going on and realizing that forewarned had better be (ballistically) forearmed, and they're stacking it high, wide and deep.

I respectfully submit that at a minimum, if you're serious about preparing to defend yourself and your loved ones, you should have 100-200 rounds of quality defensive ammunition, plus another 400-500 rounds of training ammunition (enough for one to two years' practice sessions), for every defensive firearm you own.  Some can't afford that:  for them, I'd advise buying the quality defensive ammo right away (it's always the first to disappear off store shelves), and then accumulating training ammo one or two boxes at a time.

Buy in bulk if you can, because it's cheaper.  If you can't afford to do that on your own, get together with your buddies and put in a single group order so that you all save money.  I usually buy in bulk from either SG Ammo (free shipping over $200, which saves money) or Palmetto State Armory, but there are many other vendors out there.  Shop around and compare prices (not forgetting shipping costs).  However, don't forget to also patronize your local gun store(s).  They're more expensive, sure, but they need to make a profit to survive, and you want them to survive and be available in case you need something in a hurry.

If you're in any doubt about how tight supply can get, read the 2021 Shooting Illustrated article I linked above.  If you haven't yet assured your own reserve supply of ammunition, I strongly suggest you do so as quickly as possible.  I have no doubt that urban crime and unrest is going to escalate further, and may spill over from the cities to smaller towns and rural areas.  Remember the time-honored, age-old truth:  "It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it but not have it".  Truer words were never spoken about defensive weapons and ammunition.

Peter

I agree

 

As regular readers will know, I have literally decades of experience in environments of civil unrest, terrorism, and societal conflict, ranging from more-or-less peaceful demonstrations right through to the worst terrorist acts you can imagine.  I'm frequently astonished at the complacency and ignorance of people who think that "It can't happen here!"  I assure you, it most certainly can.

The expatriate American living in the Philippines, blogging at Come And Make It, appears to understand the reality of our situation, from a different-but-similar perspective.

There was a noticeable lag—roughly a year—[in Iraq after the war] between the collapse of central authority and the full emergence of widespread insurgency.

I see troubling parallels in the United States today. We're in that uneasy "lag" phase: deep instability is already here, with large numbers of people armed and ideologically primed for violence, yet most still hesitate to cross the line into open, sustained conflict. Instead, we see the precursors: fireworks thrown as provocations, screaming crowds, disruptive "stupid games," and tantrum-like escalations when people don't get their way. These are the behaviors of spoiled children testing boundaries.

So far, it's mostly individuals or small groups acting out. But the pattern is clear: one or two incidents beget more, then more still, until the tipping point arrives—and suddenly we have IEDs on interstate highways, coordinated attacks, and true insurgency.

A great deal of money—funneled from foreign governments, wealthy donors, and outside interests—has been poured into inflaming divisions, arming radicals, and eroding trust in institutions. These investments are designed to create exactly this kind of volatile tinderbox.

We are now one stray footstep away from triggering an avalanche of violence that could be very difficult to stop once it starts.

There's more at the link.

I warned earlier this month that the unrest being fomented over ICE and illegal aliens is reminiscent of the artificially-whipped-up demonstrations over George Floyd's death in 2020.  It seems many others agree.  See, for example:

• Minneapolis ICE Shooting Shows Left Wing's Protest Industrial Complex Wants Another 'George Floyd'-Type Riot
• The horns of the ICE dilemma (recommended reading)
• Stumbling Towards A New Civil War

See also the links provided in my earlier article.

El Gato Malo provides this succinct assessment.  Note:  he eschews capitals in his articles.

the "activists" they pay to run around trying to stop ICE are just upping the ante and taking even more unreasonable actions to try to protect the original incursions.

and they are creating incredibly dangerous situations.

on purpose and as a matter of policy.

and when you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

this issue is being used to try to drive an irreconcilable social fracture.

it’s being managed like an insurgency in the same city that keeps spawning these (and whose governor and congressional rep (this took place in omar’s district) both look like they’re about to get indicted for massive corruption around immigrants they flooded the area with to sway voting.)

it’s more than a little curious how these folks were all so ready for this within hours.

there is coordination here.

. . .

there’s an actual insurgency being run here by the same political junta that caused the immigration mess.

but this is not going to be 2020. you can feel the national mood turning. people have had enough of being held hostage by these out of control hysteria cohorts.

and at a certain point, you stop trying to convince and realize that you’re basically just at war over a set of fully unreconcilable worldviews.

Again, more at the link.

Note the last sentence above.  It's true.  No reconciliation is possible between the two sides of the illegal alien debate.  One side sees it as a fundamental threat to what it has always meant to be an American.  The other side sees it as a wedge issue to redefine what it means to be an American.

Rudyard Kipling put it well, in a different context:

East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet

That's what we have here - and unless sanity and facts prevail over emotions and feelings, it's going to get much, much worse, more quickly than most of us can imagine.

Peter

Minneapolis has been planning its insurrection for a long time

 

Through a couple of links on the Internet, I came across this tweet from Insurrection Barbie.  I've checked out some of the references she gave, and they're legitimate.  I'm going to reproduce it in full here, because I think it deserves the widest circulation.

Minnesota has spent years building an infrastructure of ICE watch patrols, NGO backed rapid response teams, and politically wired nonprofits that can flip from ordinary life to street mobilization in minutes. 

The key to Minnesota’s rapid mobilization is not Twitter activism. It is an on the ground surveillance and response network that local reporters have already documented in detail. A Star Tribune investigation into the “organized resistance to ICE” in Minnesota reads like a field manual for modern grassroots intelligence operations.​

In south Minneapolis, volunteers spend hours driving what they openly call ICE patrols. Phones are mounted on dashboards. Every sighting of a suspicious SUV, every cluster of federal jackets, is recorded and dropped into Signal and WhatsApp groups that run silently in the background of daily life.​

Those chats are not small. A single Spanish language group described by local reporting grew from a few dozen members to hundreds as the federal crackdown began. One message that ICE is at a gas station, grocery store, or apartment complex can draw a crowd in minutes.​

Volunteers position themselves near schools, mosques, and high risk housing, phones ready. Their job is to film, warn, and, when they choose, physically interpose themselves between agents and targets.​

When roughly 2,000 federal agents arrive in a region that has spent years quietly building an anti enforcement machine, confrontation is not a question of if but when. 

The sequence looks like this:

• ICE surge and visible raids trigger heightened patrols and chat activity.
• A lethal incident happens. Video, rumors, and initial reports hit group chats and local media at the same time.
• ICE watch networks push urgent alerts, including locations such as the Whipple Federal Building and specific hotels.
• Within hours, local NGOs and national groups issue public calls to action. Protest times and locations spread across social media and encrypted channels simultaneously.

One organization appears repeatedly in any serious look at Minnesota’s anti ICE apparatus: COPAL, short for Comunidades Organizando el Poder y la Acción Latina. COPAL is not just another advocacy group. It runs a formal immigrant defense “rapid response” program that sits at the heart of Minnesota’s ICE watch system.

By late 2025, COPAL’s immigrant defense program had trained more than 10,000 people, a staggering number in a single state. Those trainees do not just sit at home. They plug directly into the Signal chats, patrol rotations, and rapid response networks that are now colliding with ICE in Minnesota’s streets.

The Vice President of COPAL is a DACA recipient who sits on the Board of Directors as well. His name is Edwin Torres DeSantiago and he has served on the leadership teams for the campaigns of:

    1. Tim Walz
    2. Peggy Flanagan
    3. Senator Tina Smith
    4. Senator Amy Klobuchar

He also sits on the Board of Trustees for the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University, showing his integration into elite institutional circles as well as movement politics.

They have a direct earmark from leading Democrats. 

COPAL publicly credits Representative Ilhan Omar and Senator Amy Klobuchar for securing federal funds for COPAL and partner ACER to develop the Primero de Mayo Workers Center in Minnesota’s 5th District.

COPAL’s own statement thanks Omar and Klobuchar for their leadership and notes that these federal dollars will be invested in worker organizing and community power on Lake Street.

That also explains why the anti-ICE demonstrations ramped up so sharply just as Minnesota's Governor Tim Walz was being pilloried for turning a blind eye to such mega-scale corruption and misuse of taxpayer funds over so many years.  ICE's activities provided a distraction around which left-wing opinion could mobilize, and use it as a smokescreen to divert attention to Federal and other investigations of the missing billions of dollars in entitlement and aid funding.  The news media has, in large measure, lapped it up.  Independent and social media appear to be continuing the investigation, but are battling to publicize what they're finding, because every major news outlet is "distracted" from the subject (and, since most of them are themselves left-wing or progressive in orientation, are likely grateful for the excuse).

Thanks to Insurrection Barbie for a very enlightening tweet.  I'll be following her on X from now on.

Peter

The organizers behind the anti-ICE protests

 

Following this morning's first article, in which I argue that we're seeing a deliberate attempt to turn illegal immigration into a cause célèbre like George Floyd's death in 2020, City Journal has this exposé of one of the driving forces behind that attempt.

The People’s Forum is a “movement incubator” and “a home” for over 200 left-wing groups. Its Manhattan location offers “co-working space, conference rooms, a theater for film screenings, a media laboratory, a lending library, and [the] People’s Café,” as well as an art space, “ideal for art builds, poster making, screen printing.” Part of what makes the organization so quick to respond is that outsourcing isn’t necessary—everything is in-house.

. . .

The group has drawn congressional scrutiny for its behavior and alleged Chinese connections. Last year, Senator Chuck Grassley contacted the Department of Justice about TPF’s “reported Chinese Communist Party ties.” Representative Jason Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, urged the IRS to revoke TPF’s tax-exempt status, citing its role in “inciting riots and violence, supporting illegal activity, and conducting other activity contrary to the public good.”

Elected officials are right to worry. One of TPF’s most radical allies is Nodutdol, a pro-North Korean organization that hosted its end-of-year fundraiser at TPF’s space. In April 2025, TPF hosted a Nodutdol-facilitated event on “Socialism and Sovereignty” in what it referred to simply as “Korea,” in which it denounced “the constant demonization of North Korea” and deemed “reunification” of the Koreas “a vital front in the global anti-imperialist struggle.”

Newer organizations also rely on The People’s Forum as a volunteer hub. That includes groups like ICE Out of New York, which has staged direct actions, such as a disruptive protest inside a Manhattan Home Depot over the corporation’s failure to condemn deportations occurring on its properties.

. . .

While TPF is based in Manhattan, its influence extends far beyond Gotham. Its classes use a hybrid format, allowing anyone with an Internet connection to participate. TPF’s in-house press and bookstore, 1804 Books, prints, publishes, and distributes all manner of “socialist literature and revolutionary theory.” And as it fundraises for a major renovation, the group’s reach and operational capacity appear poised to expand.

This weekend’s rapid, coordinated protests make one thing clear: the anti-capitalist movement is growing. The People’s Forum is just one node in a massive militant network that opposes the American experiment. Officials must keep watch—and when lawbreaking occurs, take action.

There's more at the link.

Friends, that's just one group, in one city.  There are literally hundreds, possibly thousands, of smaller groups in most liberal left-wing cities, and they're all fed by "umbrella" organizations such as The People's Forum.  George Soros and his Open Society Foundations is another funder and coordinator of such activities, as is Hansjorg Wyss and his eponymous Wyss Foundation and the Berger Action Fund.  There are many more like them.  They're pouring hundreds of millions of dollars every year into US politics in an attempt to derail the Trump administration's policies, and prepare to take back political power as quickly as possible.

They're all funding and organizing and coordinating the anti-ICE activities we're seeing on our streets.  They're all doing their best to make it impossible to control those activities, by any means necessary.  We haven't yet seen ICE officers ambushed and assassinated while doing their duty, but I think it's only a matter of time until we do.  After all, from their insular and blinkered perspective, ICE just killed one of their own protesters, so such a response would be no more than ICE deserves.

Tragically, such extremism is beginning to make its presence felt on the right, conservative wing of US politics as well.  Remember Newton's Third Law of Motion?  "Every action causes an equal and opposite reaction."  Extremism begets more extremism, swinging and see-sawing to and fro.  Most of the victims don't really care that much about the extremes - they just got in the way.  They're useful cannon fodder to be exploited for propaganda purposes.  The BBC went so far as to headline, "Two starkly opposed Americas laid bare by deadly ICE shooting".

We are not, repeat, not a United States at this time.  We're far from it.  We can't expect everyone to support common-sense courtesy and decency, because few extremists are willing to do so.  That puts every moderate in the cross-hairs of one or other (or both) sides.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Peter

Shades of 2020... are we seeing George Floyd redux on the left?

 

When it comes to politics, I'm not a great believer in coincidences.  When headlines, proclamations and exhortations pop up like weeds around the same subject, there's always some form of coordination behind them.  If anyone denies that, they're most likely part of the coordination effort.

That's what we're seeing now in connection with ICE's immigration enforcement:  a concerted, organized effort to paint the agency as evil, and its agents as villains and demons, and to use both as levers to attack President Trump.  It's shades of the George Floyd riots all over again.  Consider these headlines (and click on any one to read the article concerned):

• Renee Nicole Good was Minneapolis ‘ICE Watch’ ‘warrior’ who trained to resist feds before shooting
• Crockett warns of nationwide protests over ICE shooting: 'State-sanctioned execution'
• WALZ’S REBELLION: Minnesota Governor ... Threatens to Activate National Guard Against Federal Law Enforcement
• ‘Stoking the Grievance Industry’: Leftist Groups Mobilize After ICE Shooting in Minneapolis
• Chaos!: Democrats Use Minneapolis Shooting to Push Their Anti-Trump 2026 Campaign Theme
• Just how insane did Democrats become on immigration?
• Who Is Helping Low IQ Migrants Defraud American Taxpayers?

Those are just a few examples of the torrent of articles (from both left and right wing authors and sources) about the present political and social situation.

If you can't see parallels between the riots of 2020 and those of 2026, I fear you're living in cloud cuckoo land.  The left, progressive wing of US politics is trying to whip up fear, anxiety and doubt around the issue of illegal aliens and illegal immigration (although they're very careful never to use, or accept the legitimacy of, either of those terms).  They want to make it a standard around which to rally support, and to undermine the policies and actions of the Trump administration. To achieve that end, demonstrations and riots, public violence, even looting and trashing other people's property, are merely tools in their toolbox.  The "restraints" of law, common decency, and ethical and moral behavior are a joke to them.  They use those things against those who believe in them.

In South Africa we used to say that the left wing (meaning, in that country, the anti-apartheid forces during the 1980's) were trying to make the country ungovernable.  To a considerable extent, they succeeded, leading to that country's first-ever democratic elections in 1994.  They used violence, controlled and uncontrolled, as just another method of applying pressure.  It cost us tens of thousands killed, possibly hundreds of thousands - we'll never know - and they still haven't stopped.  Stress kills, even after many years and many miles.  (See, for example, my 2008 article about the death of a good friend.)  I'm convinced that my heart attack in 2009, out of the blue with no warning, was just such a delayed-effect reaction to all those years.

With that experience behind me, I can say with absolute confidence that precisely the same tactics (particularly intimidation and aggression) are being used against conservatives, and against law enforcement officers and agencies (with particular emphasis on the Department of Homeland Security and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency).  The lyrics are different, but the tune is the same.  The fatalities here are a lot less, too . . . for now.

Folks, remember how disrupted things became in 2020 and 2021?  Expect it to happen again.  If you live in cities (and I sincerely hope many of you heeded my earlier warnings and left big cities behind you), you're going to be right on the spot.  Think it won't affect you?  I have news for you . . . the success of the left depends on you feeling their wrath personally, and being afraid of them, and therefore voting the way they want in order to "make it stop".  They won't leave you alone.

If you're still city-bound (and even if you're not), pay extra attention to the following:

• Make sure your emergency preparations, food and ammo stocks, etc. are as ready as possible.  Expect there to be another run on firearms and ammunition, just like 2020/21, as those who hadn't prepared in time try to do so at short notice.  If your own supplies are a little threadbare, beat the rush and stock up now, while prices are still relatively low.  Service and lubricate your firearms, and load your spare magazines!  There's nothing quite so useless in a defensive emergency as an unloaded magazine... or, perhaps, an empty fire-extinguisher when your house is burning.  (You do have fire-extinguishers - quality ones, of a reasonable size - in your home, don't you?  When did you last check them?)
• Design, prepare and practice emergency drills with your spouse and children, and anyone else who lives with you.  Be ready for an emergency if one arrives unannounced.  Liaise with your neighbors, and arrange with those of them who are realists to help each other if the need arises.  Keep your vehicle(s) serviced and at least half-filled with fuel, ready to leave in a hurry, and have at least 72-hour bug-out bags packed for every member of your household.
• Have spare cash on hand, as much as you can afford.  In an emergency, some vendors are likely to refuse credit cards, and/or the card charging systems might be out of service.  Cash is king!

Finally, if Minneapolis 2020 looks like it's coming to your neighborhood, be somewhere else!  Let insurance pay for repairs and replacement for any damage they do to your home and vehicles.  That's what insurance is for.

Peter

Order, counter-order and disorder in Venezuela

 

That seems to be what's happening in Venezuela at the moment.  There's only been one major media report of which I'm aware, over at Gateway Pundit, plus a passing mention on CNN, but it appears a coup d'etat is being attempted at present.  Stony silence from the rest of the mainstream media as I write this on Monday evening;  we'll see if there's more news tomorrow morning.

However, I'm not limited to the mainstream media.  I have a certain amount of what's colloquially known as "back-channel" news coming through.  No less than seven reports have reached me, from different parts of Venezuela, indicating some serious (and violent) disagreements between Maduro loyalists and thugs, and locals who were celebrating his overthrow.  In several cases, gunplay ensued, with civilian victims reported.  On the other hand, the armed factions (including the armed forces) aren't always on the same page.  I've had at least three reports of armed groups fighting each other in an attempt to take over local power structures and/or deny them to other groups.  Again, casualties are reported.

Nobody really knows how this will play out.  Chavez, and then Maduro, armed as many young gangs as they could, totaling perhaps a million people if you believe some reports.  These so-called "colectivos" were relied upon by the Maduro regime as enforcers of their political will, and many are criminals and murderers.  It wouldn't surprise me if they - and/or some of their leaders - tried to seize greater power now that Maduro is out of the way.  It'd be no more than self-defense on their part;  if the Big Boss isn't there any more, they're going to want to protect themselves against any reaction against them by the people or by Maduro's replacement, whoever that ends up being.

This article gives a good perspective on the scale of the problems confronting Venezuela, and also the USA as it tries to control what happens there.

Venezuela, says Robert A Pape, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and one of America’s leading academic experts on political violence, has “perfect terrain for insurgency and terrorism”, as well as multiple armed militias and criminal networks numbering in the tens of thousands.

“Venezuela hosts numerous armed groups, including colectivos, who are pro-government militias used for repression; Colombian guerrillas like the ELN [National Liberation Army] and remnants of FARC [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia]; major criminal networks like Tren de Aragua; and elements of the Venezuelan military operating semi-autonomously,” Pape tells The Telegraph.

“America will discover enormous apathy and significant opposition among the mass public. Ordinary people don’t like their resources going to benefit a foreign country. Trump’s gleeful promise to send in US oil companies to ‘operate’ Venezuela’s oil smacks of Western imperialism that is sure to trigger the worst images of the ‘ugly American’ that so many in the region know all too well,” he adds.

Let’s assume Rodríguez, whom Trump has also said is “willing to do whatever the US asks”, is a willing client.

What happens if she lacks the ability or the means to deliver the change America wants, or simply to hold the country together?

Venezuela is not going to be easy for anyone to fix.

Trump “is correct in saying this is a deeply corrupt regime, and it’s a deeply factionalised military and state structure engaged in all sorts of illicit activities, who would be hard pressed to part with their ill-gotten gains, prestige and positions, and literally put their necks on the line,” says Christopher Sabatini, senior fellow for Latin America at Chatham House.

The country is staring down the barrel of hyperinflation and a never-ending debt crisis. As Pape notes, the ELN controls patches of the border with Colombia, as well as gold and rare-earth mines in the southwestern provinces of Amazonas and Bolívar.

And Maduro and Hugo Chávez, his predecessor, bought loyalty by carving the state into fiefdoms from which their various clients could extract rents, impoverishing the nation while creating powerful rival power centres.

“Now the head is gone, as we see when you have dictators die, you end up getting a lot of rivals under the leader jostling for power. So don’t be surprised if somebody in the military shoots the vice-president. That’s part of the disintegration,” says Pape.

There's more at the link.

Frankly, I'm glad I don't have to worry about governing Venezuela in its present state.  That job may be impossible!

Peter

Sure makes you think, doesn't it?

 

Found on social media, in multiple locations and variations:

That's one so-called "conspiracy theory" that immediately sounds suspiciously as if it might contain more truth than falsehood.  Were the Hortmanns murdered to send a message to their fellow politicians in Minnesota that disloyalty to the "machine", the "system", call it what you will, would be mercilessly avenged?

What say you, readers?  I've never been a conspiracy theorist, and hope never to become one, but this seems far more persuasive than mere coincidence or happenstance.

Peter

I did not know this

 

I was fascinated to read an account of the development of the term "bulldozer" and the machine known by that name.  The thing is, in our politically-correct society, I found it hard to believe the article's explanation of where, when and how the word originated.  Here's an excerpt.

According to an 1881 obituary in a Louisiana newspaper, the word “bulldozer” was coined by a German immigrant named Louis Albert Wagner, who later committed suicide by taking a hefty dose of opium dissolved in alcohol. Little else is recorded about Wagner, but his term became a viral sensation in late 1800s America, going from street slang to dictionary entry in just one year. It likely originated from a shortening of “bullwhip,” the braided tool used to intimidate and control cattle, combined with “dose,” as in quantity, with a “z” thrown in for good measure. To bulldoze was to unleash a dose of coercive violence.

If, like gods, we aspire to create machines in our own image, then it’s fitting that the original bulldozers were humans. Leading up to the corrupted U.S. election of 1876, as the Southern states were being reconstructed following the Civil War, terrorist gangs of predominantly white Democrats roamed about, threatening or attacking Black men who they thought might vote for the Republican Party. The men were the bulldozers, and the acts they carried out were bulldozing.

. . .

“The good people have been cowed down, brow-beaten, insidiously threatened, forced to silence or worse, the countenancing of outrages, blackmailed and their contributions made the lever for future extortions, their tongues muzzled, their hands tied, their steps dogged, their business jeopardized and themselves living in continual fear of offending the ‘bulldozers,’” read an article in the New Orleans Republican in June. By the following year, the association of “bulldozer” with rampant voter suppression during the election made it a common term across the U.S. for any use of brutal force to intimidate or coerce a person into doing what the aggressor desired.

It’s hard to trace when the word first became a label for machines. For decades, it floated around the language tree, resting a while on branches where some instance of terrific violence needed a novel and evocative label. A handful of arms manufacturers marketed various “bulldozer” and “bulldog” pistols in these years. As the 19th century came to a close, it popped up in a Kentucky newspaper as a term for a towboat used to smash through heavy ice and in an Illinois court case to describe a manufacturing machine that had ripped off a worker’s left arm.

The bulldozer we know today took shape in the first quarter of the 20th century. In 1917, the Russell Grader Manufacturing Company advertised a bulldozer in their catalog: a huge metal blade pulled by mules that could cut into the earth and flatten the land. Other manufacturers like Holt, Caterpillar and R. G. LeTourneau were working on similar devices, technological descendants of scraping tools developed in the American West and associated with Mormon farmers. In time, animals were replaced with tractors (on wheels or continuous tracks) powered first by steam, then gasoline and eventually diesel. The word, which at first referred only to the blade itself, started to mean the entire machine, one that was unrivaled in its ability to rip, shift and level earth.

There's more at the link.  It makes very interesting reading.  A tip o' the hat to Ted Gioia for including it in his list of the best online articles of 2025.

I decided to investigate further.  One of the meanings of the word "bulldozer" given in the Collins English Dictionary is "a person who intimidates or coerces".  Until I read the article above, I'd never heard the word used to mean that - but then, I learned to speak English-English (actually, colonial-English) rather than American-English, so it's not surprising I'd never heard of the historical American roots of the word.

Wikipedia (hardly a trustworthy source, I know) does not list that meaning under its disambiguation entry for "Bulldozer".  However, its sister site Wiktionary does list it:

3.  (historical, chiefly in the plural) A member of a self-identified group of white US Southerners who colluded to influence outcomes of post-Reconstruction elections by intimidating, coercing and bullying black voters and legislators, including burning down houses and churches, flogging and murdering opponents.

4.  (by extension) A bully; an overbearing individual.

Again, more at the link.

So, unlikely though it sounded to me, I guess the article is accurate.  I learned something new today.

Peter

Bloody cheek!

 

If Greenpeace wanted to make at least half of America fighting mad, it's chosen a good way to go about it.

A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace in March to pay pipeline company Energy Transfer $667 million for the environmental group’s rogue campaign to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. Now, Greenpeace is trying to get a Dutch court to nullify the jury award, which the trial judge reduced to $345 million in October. Energy Transfer is asking the North Dakota Supreme Court to block the activist group’s attempt to end-run the U.S. legal system. If Greenpeace’s efforts succeed, they would harm much more than the pipeline company. They’d open the door for activists to torpedo other American critical infrastructure projects under European law.

. . .

The suit claims that Energy Transfer’s litigation violated Greenpeace International’s rights under the European Union’s 2024 anti-Slapp law, an anagram for strategic litigation against public participation. The law seeks to protect journalists and nonprofit organizations from meritless lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate them.

Greenpeace’s case isn’t an ordinary appeal, in which a party asks a higher court to review a lower court’s application of the law. Rather, Greenpeace is asking a Dutch court to reassess the merits of the North Dakota case under Europe’s sweeping anti-Slapp directive. The case marks the first attempt to apply the law “extraterritorially” to stymie a lawsuit brought in a country outside the European Union.

If the European directive achieves this reach, it would extend the EU’s regulatory imperialism to the political and social spheres where Europe and America follow starkly different legal norms: In a nutshell, Europe’s speech rules are based on values, while America’s are based on rights.

. . .

Under the EU directive, courts can award damages to parties that have been subjected to “abusive court proceedings,” including those involving “an imbalance of power between the parties” or “excessive” claims.

Greenpeace claims in the Dutch lawsuit that the financial resources of Energy Transfer constitute an “obvious” imbalance of power and that the company’s demands for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages are “clearly excessive.” But the rule of law is based on whether the parties acted within their legal rights, not on whether they happen to run a successful business like Energy Transfer that is seriously affected by a shutdown in operations. If Greenpeace succeeds, expect other activist organizations to incorporate in Europe so they can wiggle out of liability by invoking the EU’s loosely drawn “abusive court proceeding” standard against U.S. companies.

There's more at the link.

I don't know whether the European Union envisaged its anti-SLAPP law being used in this way, to undercut and nullify the duly constituted courts and legal system of a nation that's not a member of the Union.  Nevertheless, it was worded loosely enough that Greenpeace sought to take advantage of it.

What happens if the Dutch court rules in Greenpeace's favor?  For a start, no US court will issue an order making the Dutch ruling binding under US law.  That right does not exist in terms of our constitution.  So, let's say the US court goes ahead with its proposed ruling, and orders Greenpeace to pay damages.  What if Greenpeace refuses, citing the Dutch court's ruling?  If the US government sues them in a US court to recover the money, they'll simply file another Dutch lawsuit in retaliation.  If the US does nothing, our laws will quite obviously no longer be adequate protection for our constitutionally enshrined property rights - and that will open the door to a Pandora's box of litigation, countersuit and wealthy lawyers.  What if the US tries to sue Greenpeace in a European court?  What if the latter rules that the US has no standing to do so, not being a member of the EU?

This is an appallingly complex can of worms.  What it might lead to is anybody's guess.  However, one thing I'm sure of:  from now on, if I come across anything Greenpeace wants, or motivates, or works towards, I'm going to oppose it.  I'll even donate to their opponents, whether or not I agree with their perspective.  Try to thwart our laws, would they, without so much as a "By your leave" to the American people?  To hell with them!

Delenda est Greenpeace!

Peter

An alternative point of view concerning extremism

 

Yesterday I cited Rod Dreher at some length concerning right-wing extremism.  As usual, the responses were mixed:  some for his views, some against.  I find it concerning that some were absolutely dogmatic in their views - it was their way, or the highway, and their agreement or disagreement was absolute.  That's very dangerous.  You'll recall Oliver Cromwell's words to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1650:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

Too many of us (including me, sadly) can assume that we are not mistaken, whereas our opponents are.  In many (but by no means all) cases, it would be a lot better for us to listen to the other side and see whether there's any common ground to be found, or a better approach to achieving something of importance to the society in which both of us live.

An anonymous reader, commenting on yesterday's article, provided a link to this post on X.com by a user calling himself "Wokal Distance".  I thought it made sense.  The reader who posted the link thought it rebutted Rod Dreher's perspective, but I think it does more to sustain it overall.  I decided to re-post the whole thing here, so you could compare and contrast them for yourselves.

I despise the Groyper movement, but if you want to understand where Fuentes gets purchase with young men I will tell you how it happened by telling you about my experience at the orientation night when my son joined elementary school band:

My 11 year old son son joined the elementary school band, and so I went to the parents orientation night which was held at a local high-school. As the night went on it became obvious to me why young men rage against the larger social system.

The classrooms were inundated with DEI messages and trans pride flags. On the walls there were posters, stickers and various decorations that all invoked the various totems if diversity. Black lives matter messaging, decolonization messaging, LGBTQ+ messaging, and basically ever sort of race and gender social justice messaging you can imagine was present. The advertisements for post secondary opportunities featured social justice education prominently, including advertising a course on indigenous ways of knowing" as something grade 12 students should pursue upon graduation.  Many of the teachers has "this is a safe space" sticker son their doors, and others had variations of "in this house" messaging on their doors or on the walls of the classroom.

The entire aesthetic which dominated the decoration of classrooms was the progressive leftist coded "in this house" and "be kind" aesthetic. As soon as you walked into a classroom there was no doubt as the the political leanings of whichever teacher occupied that classroom. The only way I can describe it is to say that progressive social justice activists have colonized the school and marked their territory. 

A woman in a mask (who was in charge) got up and read a number of land acknowledgements before acknowledging the contribution of indigenous people to ways of knowing. Standard leftist land acknowledgement boilerplate. Additionally, every interaction was done in the style of HR style professionalism mixed with progressive leftist coded gentle parenting.

When it comes to how the teachers behaved I am going to draw on both that night and the other times I have been at my sons school in order to explain it. To begin, the boys are treated almost as though they are defective girls. The feminine modes of interaction and socialization are treated as though they are the only legitimate modes of interaction and serve as the taken for granted way to properly interact and navigate the world. Almost all the authority figures at my sons school are women with almost no exceptions. One day my son found out that the school had hired a single male education Assistant, and my son came home and told me, in wondrous amazement, that he saw a "boy teacher" at school. The level of wonderment and surprise he expressed was on par with what I would expect if he had walked into school and seen a triceratops walking the hallways. 

My son often comes home from school and expresses utter frustration at the fact that his preferred way of communicating, as well as the things that are aligned with his temperament are treated as though they were somehow inferior. As he is 11 (and being assessed for autism) he lacks the correct technical language to describe this, so it generally shows up as him getting in trouble for being insufficiently "gentle" and "kind" in response to various passive aggressive power plays and instances of bullying carries out by his more socially developed (often) female peers. 

To say that band night was feminine coded would be an understatement. It would be more accurate to say that feminized modes of behavior and communication were embedded in every single interaction. It was a totally alien environment for anyone who isn't well versed in navigating the social codes of progressive leftist institutional spaces. It was like the slogan "the future is female" was taken to be a command delivered from God Himself turned into an education program.

Now, I want you to imagine what it is like for an 11 year old boy to be saturated in that environment day after day. he is an alien in his own school who is treated essentially like a ticking time bomb who needs to be effectively managed rather than engaged with an taught, and he knows this is happening. It is hard to overstate the level of hostility towards boys that is  floating around in the ambient culture of the school system. It isn’t so much that there is an explicit form of anti-male bigotry (although examples of that exist) it is more that there is an overall attitude of distaste for anything masculine and an utter indifference towards the interests, fortunes, and inner lives of young boys. The expectations, norms, rules, and standards of behavior cater to the sensibilities of girls and women.

This is the entire social system that a young boy goes through from when he is 6 years old all the way until he is graduated from university.

It’s an old trope on the right to say “imagine if the roles were  reversed,” but that would be to miss the point. I know that many on the left will say that all of this is perfectly acceptable because of historical injustices and the pursuit of Social Justice. What I want to  point out to you is how absurd the world must appear through the eyes of  the average 11 year-old boy. He is basically told he has a host of social advantages (white privilege, male privilege, straight privilege, etc) that he has never experienced and will never benefit from, and this justifies the system which he is immersed in. And the worst part is, if young men point any of this out, the very people who are doing it will look them in the eye with a straight face and deny that any of this ever happened. Making matters worse these men begin to figure out that the institutions have been used to advance a leftist political agenda that scapegoated their group (young white men), and when they point this out everyone in authority calls them evil bigots.

And all this happens during their formative years.

Now, Imagine you are a young white male.

You graduate from the school system and are released into the world only to find that the feminine modes of socialization pushed on you are entirely unfit for purpose. That the social skills you were taught fail utterly in both the job markets young men tend towards (construction, engineering, building, landscaping, etc) and have no purchase in the dating market where highly agentic, masculine, wealthy men have a huge advantage over the passive, docile "nice boy." On top of that, imagine that a great deal of the job listings that you peruse make it clear that preference will be given to women and "diverse" candidates, and that the job interview itself is full of shibboleths, coded statements, and trap questions meant to elicit responses that allow the hiring party to exclude anyone who isn't sufficiently versed in and aligned with the priorities of the DEI/Woke/Social Justice paradigm.

On top of that, that if a you do get a job you will exposed to various sensitivity trainings, DEI trainings, and intersectionality workshops in which your group (straight white men) are repeatedly scapegoated as the source of all the worlds pathologies. Laid at your feet are patriarchy, colonialism, racism, sexism and a great number of other social evils for which you are taken to be complicit in and have a responsibility for fixing in virtue of being a white male.

While all this is going on a series of scandals (COVID, Men in womens' sports, trans kids, etc) reveal to you the degree to which the institutions that make up the society you live in have adopted an ideology that is actively hostile to you because you are a straight white male, and have been denying you opportunity while scapegoating you for all societies problems and treating you like you are a defective girl.

Once you understand this, the real question is not "why are some young men radicalizing?" the real question is "why are there any young men at all who have not been radicalized?"

None of this is to excuse any of the extremist radicals who are attempting to harness the resentment and anger of young men for their evil purposes. The point is to get you to understand why young men will attach themselves to any voice who is willing to stridently call for the obliteration of the social system and ideology which lied to them during their formative years and is currently doing things which rob them of opportunities for advancement and success.

The institutions have totally blown their credibility with young men, and have completely destroyed young men's trust in institutions. Young men view the current set of social institutions as ideologically corrupt and totally illegitimate, and they view the narratives that emerge from those institutions as being expressions of as nothing more then a story told to legitimize an ideology which seeks to hold them back. As such, the institutions and their narratives have absolutely no normative pull on young Gen Z men. 

I am not saying the situation is hopeless, but unless you acknowledge what I have laid out here, and engage in a good faith attempt to understand what the school system, Universities, non-profits, HR departments, and other civic institutions have done to young men, you will never be able to gain their trust enough to lead them away from guys like Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate, Andrew Torba, and other pathological influences.

That certainly highlights why so many of our young men are attracted to extremism in one form or another.  It's a chilling condemnation of what we've allowed our schools to become:  institutions where our children are brainwashed and propagandized, rather than educated.  I can't think of a better argument for home schooling than the description above.

Compare and contrast that to Rod Dreher's perspective, as covered in these pages yesterday and ten days ago.  What do you think, readers?

I've come out of a background where differences of opinion led - literally - to civil war, mass murder, and the utter destruction of the fabric of a nation.  I've seen it at first hand in the Third World far too often to be under any illusions about how bad it can get.  I would far rather talk than start shooting, unless and until the latter option becomes the only way to defend what one believes in - and yes, I've done that, too.

Only those who've seen and experienced how bad it can get have any real idea of the ultimate development of the mess we're in.  Ask those who served in Mogadishu, or "hot spots in Afghanistan or Iraq.  They know . . . and they don't want that to come here . . . but if we don't get a handle on extremism on both the left and the right wings of our body politic, it's going to come here.

Peter