Supremacism and Priority: Republicans and the American Right Wing

major problem with tamping down on hate and vile speech is that its' form is unacceptable, but it does contain some elements of truth at times.

If someone says Joe X is a wife beater, and he in fact is not, that's slander. The statement is false, and maybe damaging to Joe's reputation. There's no element of truth, that's the point. Lies don't get mitigation points for containing "elements" - if someone says the mayor is a radical Muslim, it's the adjective that makes it a lie - the fact that the mayor is Muslim doesn't somehow render the attack partially true.

We don't need to parse every element of a lie to know it's a lie - just as we don't need to drink a whole gallon of milk to know it's sour. One sip is sufficient.
 
If someone says Joe X is a wife beater, and he in fact is not, that's slander. The statement is false, and maybe damaging to Joe's reputation. There's no element of truth, that's the point. Lies don't get mitigation points for containing "elements" - if someone says the mayor is a radical Muslim, it's the adjective that makes it a lie - the fact that the mayor is Muslim doesn't somehow render the attack partially true.

We don't need to parse every element of a lie to know it's a lie - just as we don't need to drink a whole gallon of milk to know it's sour. One sip is sufficient.
Around 26 minutes in there is a discussion of training AI to discern between fact and opinion.
Stephen Fry is always worth listening to(I only caught the end of the program on BBC1 tonight-I am sure it was all interesting)

 
Last edited:
If someone says Joe X is a wife beater, and he in fact is not, that's slander. The statement is false, and maybe damaging to Joe's reputation. There's no element of truth, that's the point. Lies don't get mitigation points for containing "elements" - if someone says the mayor is a radical Muslim, it's the adjective that makes it a lie - the fact that the mayor is Muslim doesn't somehow render the attack partially true.

We don't need to parse every element of a lie to know it's a lie - just as we don't need to drink a whole gallon of milk to know it's sour. One sip is sufficient.
In some cases, peoples opinions about something are expressed in sometimes vile and lying form , yet an element of truth can still be discerned. You apparently want to throw the potential baby out with the bathwater without taking the time to look further into what was said.

Joe may have been yelling at his wife and been misjudged.
Mayor may have expressed views that seemed radical to caller.
With milk you can make that judgement. Not so much with people at times.
 
Last edited:
You apparently want to throw the potential baby out with the bathwater without taking the time to look further into what was said.
So you've misunderstood my point.


Joe may have been yelling at his wife and been misjudged.
Mayor may have expressed views that seemed radical to caller.
With milk you can make that judgement. Not so much with people at times.
But the falsity of the statement still remains, in the Joe example, because he doesn't beat his wife. To mischaracterize Joe's aggression, to say it is physical when it is verbal, is still a serious and damaging lie. When such lies are told, it is vital to identify them, and when that is done there results a legitimate judgment that Joe has been slandered. That conclusion is just as valid as the sour milk sampling. We penalize slanderers, we don't say, "Well, he has said some true things in other contexts, so we'll just skip the monetary damages phase." One of the obligations of adulthood, like it or not, is to be responsible for your public words and own what you say. If our politics and civic life is completely losing this basic standard, then we all suffer grave consequences.
 
So you've misunderstood my point.
If I did, your point wasn't very clear.
But the falsity of the statement still remains, in the Joe example, because he doesn't beat his wife. To mischaracterize Joe's aggression, to say it is physical when it is verbal, is still a serious and damaging lie. When such lies are told, it is vital to identify them, and when that is done there results a legitimate judgment that Joe has been slandered. That conclusion is just as valid as the sour milk sampling. We penalize slanderers, we don't say, "Well, he has said some true things in other contexts, so we'll just skip the monetary damages phase." One of the obligations of adulthood, like it or not, is to be responsible for your public words and own what you say. If our politics and civic life is completely losing this basic standard, then we all suffer grave consequences.
Fine. If you thinks it's a lie, investigate first to find out if it contains any truth at all before condemning it as all a lie. Many times statements that seem like all lies, reveal some truth on further examination.

At first glance, Joe is slandered. At second glance, he may verbally abuse his wife.
 
In some cases, peoples opinions about something are expressed in sometimes vile and lying form , yet an element of truth can still be discerned. You apparently want to throw the potential baby out with the bathwater without taking the time to look further into what was said.
Why should someone have to sift through shit to find something that may be of value, when there are other sources that one can deal with that don't require such work? If someone is vile and lying, they can rightly just be ignored for the manner of their delivery, whether they are telling the truth or not. It's not as if they are the only ones who might be telling the truth, or lying, but if they are just horrendous to deal with, can't cope with common decency, then everything they say can be tossed out without compunction - not because it is necessarily wrong, but because the delivery is unacceptable. People have to earn the right to be listened to.
I'm not saying that what they are saying in a "vile and lying" way can not have nuggests of truth, or even be substantially true. I am saying that there is simply no need to put any effort into establishing whether there is or not, until that person can converse in an acceptable manner.
I'm also not saying that you can't put effort into such endeavour, that is entirely up to you, but not doing so is not something to be criticised.
 
At first glance, Joe is slandered. At second glance, he may verbally abuse his wife.
Please. You know that second glance still shows Joe is slandered. Beating your wife and having an ugly argument (common to most marriages, at some point) are distinctly different. If you want to start proceedings to get Joe to stop yelling, that's another matter. But harsh words from Joe do not legitimize or excuse a false charge of physical assault. You can go hunt all the truth nuggets you want, but I'm not sending a man to jail on a false allegation. Nor would I trust the testimony of a slanderer on the separate case of verbal abuse. As Sarkus notes, trust is earned.
 
Please. You know that second glance still shows Joe is slandered. Beating your wife and having an ugly argument (common to most marriages, at some point) are distinctly different. If you want to start proceedings to get Joe to stop yelling, that's another matter. But harsh words from Joe do not legitimize or excuse a false charge of physical assault. You can go hunt all the truth nuggets you want, but I'm not sending a man to jail on a false allegation. Nor would I trust the testimony of a slanderer on the separate case of verbal abuse. As Sarkus notes, trust is earned.
No, it shows Joe is misjudged, not slandered. Just ask his wife to testify.
 
Please. You know that second glance still shows Joe is slandered. Beating your wife and having an ugly argument (common to most marriages, at some point) are distinctly different. If you want to start proceedings to get Joe to stop yelling, that's another matter. But harsh words from Joe do not legitimize or excuse a false charge of physical assault. You can go hunt all the truth nuggets you want, but I'm not sending a man to jail on a false allegation. Nor would I trust the testimony of a slanderer on the separate case of verbal abuse. As Sarkus notes, trust is earned.
No Joe is not slandered unless you consider a mistaken accusation due to his yelling to be slander., I don't. It is something easily investigated and cleared up. Real slander requires intent to lie not just mistakes accusation..
 
No Joe is not slandered unless you consider a mistaken accusation due to his yelling to be slander., I don't. It is something easily investigated and cleared up. Real slander requires intent to lie not just mistakes accusation..
False.

For something to be committing slander it only need satisfy 4 criteria:
1. Falsity of claim purporting to be fact
2. That it was spoken to a third party
3. Fault amounting to at least negligence
4. Damages could be caused

1. merely means the statement has to be false.
3. effectively says that if you did, should, or could, have known the statement was false, it satisfies the criteria. That you weren't aware it was false is usually no defense.

So, no, "real slander" does not require an intent to lie. In fact, some states make certain false accusations defamatory by default: accusations of criminal activity, or accusations of a "corrupt act", for example.

However, all that said, there is often a distinction drawn with regard slandering people in public office, where there needs to be a demonstration of malice. I.e. "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
This is because it is deemed (by some states, not sure if all?) that slander goes against free speech, and it is important to be able to challenge people in office, so the bar to reach slander is higher.

Now, whether you consider something to be slander or not is, frankly, irrelevant when you're hauled in front of a judge in a civil suit being accused of slander. "Oh, but judge, I don't consider it slander!" is, alas, no excuse. ;)
 
Update: Incel Groyper Drops GOP Guber Bid, Seeks Democratic Cong Nom

Flashback, July:

… a tweet by California gubernatorial candidate Kyle Langford, touting a "0% Unemployment Plan" and featuring a grinning Langford in front of the gates at Auschwitz.

As California Republicans gear up to challenge Governor Gavin Newsome, the field including the incel groyper Langford, FOX News personality Steve Hilton, and Christian nationalist Ché Ahn.

And this is one of those times when Republican voters can make the point; it remains to be seen who will emerge as the general-election candidate, but it's not some liberal making an accusation, but, rather Republicans who seem to think conservative voters want more supremacism in their platform.

For instance, it is unlikely that Democrats will send the Libertarian Transhumanist to the general election, but he thought he would try, anyway. And California Republicans have a diverse selection, this year, including the TV star, nationalist pastor, firebrand sheriff, Nazi sympathizer, and Devil fighter. There's also a bankrupt farmer and a little-known judge in the field, and FOX News is as good as the star power is going to get, with Mel Gibson having already declined.

The Auschwitz plan guy has decided his bid for the GOP gubernatorial nomination is going poorly, so he is "redirecting"↱ his campaign efforts to win the Democratic nomination to represent California Twenty-Six, presently held by Democrat Julia Brownley, who is retiring after this term.

We'll have to see how all that goes. In a district so closely split between Hispanic (42.9%) and white (42.4%) voters, we might wonder if Langford intends to play that line. While voters are not so exclusive as to refuse Republicans, it is unlikely the district, rated +8 Democratic in Cook PVI, will back the Nazi.

And it would certainly say something about priorities if they did.

 
renstimpy-1991-0102-happyhelmet-detail-bw-banner.png

John Harwood↱ explains:

In 1980, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan ousted Democratic President Jimmy Carter by consolidating the political realignment that followed the civil rights movement.

Reagan used symbolism to court aggrieved white conservatives, delivering a "states' rights" speech in the infamous Mississippi town where Ku Klux Klansmen had murdered three civil rights workers 16 years earlier. But his rhetoric reflected the 20th-century evolution in right-wing racial politics, from raw and ugly to sly and subtle.

The following year, a young White House aide explained that evolution in an interview:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'n*****, n*****, n*****,'" Lee Atwater began. "By 1968, you can't say 'n****r' – that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like 'forced busing,' 'states' rights'…abstract."

"Now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these…totally economic things. A byproduct of them is Blacks get hurt worse than whites. 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing."

Cynical though it was, the shift reflected progress; modern America had made overt racism broadly unacceptable. That's why conservative politicians took umbrage when journalists like me spotlighted their veiled appeals.

Nearly a half-century later, Donald Trump's throwback administration has discarded the veils. Its essence, in plain sight, is white supremacy enforced with violence.

The Southern Strategy is hardly unfamiliar¹: "The passing years have made it harder to argue that the Southern strategy was about anything other than racism", and that was 2014↗. Ten years later↗, the reflection went that whatever those other reasons might be, whatever else we might pretend it was about, this is, somehow, where those other reasons have led.

Americans cannot pretend this is new to us; but it either never ceases to surprise, or else just isn't surprising, who we're supposed to believe is only just now learning this part of the story. So the note for those is, no, this isn't new. We've known for a long time, and the difference 'twixt then and now¹ is the customary expectation that people wouldn't be so indecent as to explicitly accuse racism. What you see happening is what people were making excuses for, even as they would recoil from the prospect of how their consciences moved them. And, sure, we understand: It's not that they didn't want the supremacism, they just wanted it called something else.

And, no, it's racism. It's misogyny. It's supremacism. And, yes, we understand why so many people who made excuses for it are ashamed of what they did; there are many reasons why they ought to be. We cannot appease our way out of hatred; we cannot reasonably expect that validating and reinforcing supremacism will confince it to stop.
____________________

Notes:

¹ We're not doing the whole list, right now. Bottom line, it's just not new.

² More particularly:

「The cruelty, as Serwer puts it, is the point. This isn't a new idea. Wallace Shawn's sense of "maybe" is, as he recognizes, a question of perspective; it is hard to accept that so many of our American neighbors really would be so cruel. Nor, in those classifications, is it simply "us" who find it so unbelievable; this wells up from American traditionalism, so "we" are also taught into these perspectives, and even "they" recoil at the prospect of their own cruelty, hatred, and sin.」

On Shawn, see "What They Voted For: 'Maybe they didn't want to be gentle or kind'" #1↗, October, 2020, "This really is what it comes to, and if it seems people are tired of pretending to be good, we might still wonder why they pretended in the first place." On Serwer, see #5↗ from the same thread: "In this Us and Them, it has gone so far that 'they' really are, at their political demographic core, those who want particular harmful actions and results but simply wish it called by another name that does not rankle their self-loving virtue."

Harwood, John. "The Essence of Trump 2.0 Is Violent White Supremacy". Zeteo. 15 January 2026. Zeteo.com. 15 January 2026. https://zeteo.com/p/the-essence-of-trump-20-is-violent
 
On Colloquy, Reality, and Supremacism

mrfish-20141130-notokkk-detail-bw.png

Start with historian Rick Perlstein↱ explaining:

This IS Stephen Miller's ideology. Full fucking stop. I won't even bother to pull out the salient quotes. Just click the link and read the whole thing.

It's a 1926 article from The North American Review: "The Klan's Fight for Americanism"↱, by Hiram Wesley Evans, the Imperial Wizard and Emperor of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, celebrating the first decade of revival.

A commentator affirms:

Not an exaggeration. Stephen Miller gets his immigration policy ideas from the white supremacist novel Camp of the Saints and website VDARE.

How do I know? I've read his emails.

They were leaked to the Daily Beast years ago.


(@MsEntropy↱)

And here's the thing: Sometimes people pretend it's hard to figure out what's going on, after all one person tells them one thing, and then someone else tells them another, but, for instance, the thing about the leaked emails is true. The Southern Poverty Law Center↱ explains:

In the run-up to the 2016 election, White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller promoted white nationalist literature, pushed racist immigration stories and obsessed over the loss of Confederate symbols after Dylann Roof's murderous rampage, according to leaked emails reviewed by Hatewatch.

The emails, which Miller sent to the conservative website Breitbart News in 2015 and 2016, showcase the extremist, anti-immigrant ideology that undergirds the policies he has helped create as an architect of Donald Trump's presidency. These policies include reportedly setting arrest quotas for undocumented immigrants, an executive order effectively banning immigration from five Muslim-majority countries and a policy of family separation at refugee resettlement facilities that the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General said is causing "intense trauma" in children.

In this, the first of what will be a series about those emails, Hatewatch exposes the racist source material that has influenced Miller's visions of policy. That source material, as laid out in his emails to Breitbart, includes white nationalist websites, a "white genocide"-themed novel in which Indian men rape white women, xenophobic conspiracy theories and eugenics-era immigration laws that Adolf Hitler lauded in "Mein Kampf."

Hatewatch reviewed more than 900 previously private emails Miller sent to Breitbart editors from March 4, 2015, to June 27, 2016. Miller does not converse along a wide range of topics in the emails. His focus is strikingly narrow – more than 80 percent of the emails Hatewatch reviewed relate to or appear on threads relating to the subjects of race or immigration. Hatewatch made multiple attempts to reach the White House for a comment from Miller about the content of his emails but did not receive any reply.

Miller's perspective on race and immigration across the emails is repetitious. When discussing crime, which he does scores of times, Miller focuses on offenses committed by nonwhites. On immigration, he touches solely on the perspective of severely limiting or ending nonwhite immigration to the United States. Hatewatch was unable to find any examples of Miller writing sympathetically or even in neutral tones about any person who is nonwhite or foreign-born.

Miller has gained a reputation for attempting to keep his communications secret: The Washington Post reported in August that Miller "rarely puts anything in writing, eschewing email in favor of phone calls." The Daily Beast noted in July that Miller has recently "cut off regular contact with most of his allies" outside the Trump administration to limit leaks.

That was 2019.

It's kind of like the idea that Trump voters had some mysterious other priorities, particular reasons for voting for him, that did not involve his supremacist rhetoric and tendencies. Whatever excuses they wanted to make for the Birther conspiracist in 2015-16 couldn't possibly hold in 2020, or 2024. Moreover, the 2019 leak showed white supremacism close to Republican politics even before Trump was elected, and part of the Trump administration from the outset.

The thirty-one pages from a century ago are what they are, and, sure, the overlap is actually kind of obvious starting somewhere around the fourth paragraph, reinforced in the fifth, and even anti-Catholicism by the sixth. The seventh objects to "radicalism, cosmopolitanism, and alienism of all kinds" along the way to asserting a "sane and progressive conservatism along national lines".

"We have enlisted our racial instincts," explains the KKK Emperor, "for the work of preserving and developing our American traditions and customs." A century ago, the KKK sought to preserve the old to impose as the new; today, "maga" seek to preserve those developed traditions and customs, that racial instinct, and along national lines, as American tradition and custom.

This was always the priority. It's why they allowed their "sane and progressive conservatism" to bleed them nearly to death before blaming liberals, just like the Klan did in celebrating itself: "Except for a few lonesome voices, almost drowned by the clamor of the alien and the alien-minded 'Liberal', the Klan alone faces the invader."

Except they weren't alone: "Also, there are many millions who have never joined, but who think and feel and—when called on—fight with us. This is our real strength, and no one who ignores it can hope to understand America today."

A century later, it's still true, such movements rely on people who will do their part as long as they never have to acknowledge that's what they're doing.
____________________

Notes:

Evans, Hiram Wesley. "The Klan's Fight for Americanism". The North American Review, v.223 n.830. March-May, 1926. JSTOR.org. 18 January 2026. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25113510.pdf

Hayden, Michael Edison. "Stephen Miller's Affinity for White Nationalism Revealed in Leaked Emails". Hatewatch. 12 November 2019. SPLCenter.org. 18 January 2019. https://www.splcenter.org/resources...ity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails/

 
Pogrom and Regret

Via Minnesota Reformer:

Sharif, the Madina Mall shop owner who fears she may have to return to the bad old days of having a boss, gave out an exasperated sigh.

"Would you believe if I told you I voted for this man?" she said, referring to Trump.

Sharif is not politically active, but in 2024, some campaigners came to her shop and told her that Trump would be good for business and against the LGBTQ agenda.

"I was immediately hooked," she said. She voted Republican for the first time.

Now, chagrined, she said, "I never thought the man I put in office would come for my family, make me financially struggle and cause me so much fear that I carry my passport when I go to the bathroom," she said, pointing at the mall's bathrooms.

"I feel as though the weapon I built is coming to kill me and my people," she said.

It's true, a lot of people get confused by what Republicans mean in terms of being good for business, but if they've got a reason like needing someone "against the LGBTQ agenda", they're probably not going to ask too many questions about what a Republican thinks is good for business.

That's just the way it goes with Republican voters, and it's been that way for a long time. Here's a priority, and here's an excuse; it's called the Southern Strategy.
____________________

Notes:

Mohamed, Atra. "A cloud of fear hangs over Minnesota immigrant communities". Minnesota Reformer. 19 January 2026. MinnesotaReformer.com. 22 January 2026. https://minnesotareformer.com/2026/01/19/a-cloud-of-fear-hangs-over-minnesota-immigrant-communities/
 
Sharif, the Madina Mall shop owner who fears she may have to return to the bad old days of having a boss, gave out an exasperated sigh.

"Would you believe if I told you I voted for this man?" she said, referring to Trump.
So the Sharif don't like it? Casbah is rockin too much?

I agree this resonates with the Southern strategy and also the "good Germans" who voted for lawn order and full employment and all that, but also gobbled up the antisemitic propaganda in Der Stürmer, and then just sorta looked elsewhere when their path took them past a camp, or heard rumours of them, or saw their former neighbors being loaded into boxcars.

You can bet a present day Julius Streicher managed to stoke Ms Sharif's fears about an LGBTQ agenda sufficiently to let her imagine that children were in peril - "converted" to deviant gender doubts, or exposed to vestigial flopping penii in changing rooms, or crushed by trans behemoths on a soccer field.

And now the Streichers, the ambulatory anal fistulas that are the Stephen Millers of the MAGA brigade, have the brain-bursting amplifier of all vitriol, venom, blood libel and cracking pottery: the weird wide web. We must all speak out against them, wherever we go, while we still can.
 
Because, Of Course (Durable Values)

af-20240903-fuentes-stopsteal-trumplost-detail-bw.png

So, a white supremacist named Fuentes has something to say about "race traitors":

When Renee Good was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minneapolis earlier this month, white nationalist Nick Fuentes celebrated.

"I don't think there is anything tragic about it at all. I think it's good," Fuentes said during his nightly program. "It's one less idiot in the world."

In the aftermath of another deadly encounter in Minneapolis last weekend, this time involving Customs and Border Patrol agents who swarmed and shot Alex Pretti, Fuentes once again used his program Monday night to celebrate that there is now "one less asshole in the world."

After falsely asserting that Pretti was "a masked man with a loaded gun" who was actively attempting to physically interfere with a deportation operation, Fuentes fumed that immigrants are destroying our country and intend to "enslave us and take our lives."

"You feel bad about this race traitor?" Fuentes said. "That's what they are. You feel bad about this lesbian poet [Renee Good] and Alex Pretti, the male nurse? You feel sorry for these race traitors that laid down their life in defense of this scheme?"


(Mantyla↱)

It's not so much that we didn't know, or couldn't imagine. The twentysomething groyper is just coming right out and saying it. Speaking his mind. Expressing the durable values that raised him to prominence among Republicans.
____________________

Notes:

Mantyla, Kyle. "'One Less Asshole In The World': Nick Fuentes Says Alex Pretti Was A 'Race Traitor'". Right Wing Watch. 27 January 2026. PeopleFor.org. 27 January 2026. https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwing...ick-fuentes-says-alex-pretti-was-race-traitor
 
Because, Of Course (Durable Values)

af-20240903-fuentes-stopsteal-trumplost-detail-bw.png

So, a white supremacist named Fuentes has something to say about "race traitors":

When Renee Good was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minneapolis earlier this month, white nationalist Nick Fuentes celebrated.
"I don't think there is anything tragic about it at all. I think it's good," Fuentes said during his nightly program. "It's one less idiot in the world."
In the aftermath of another deadly encounter in Minneapolis last weekend, this time involving Customs and Border Patrol agents who swarmed and shot Alex Pretti, Fuentes once again used his program Monday night to celebrate that there is now "one less asshole in the world."
After falsely asserting that Pretti was "a masked man with a loaded gun" who was actively attempting to physically interfere with a deportation operation, Fuentes fumed that immigrants are destroying our country and intend to "enslave us and take our lives."
"You feel bad about this race traitor?" Fuentes said. "That's what they are. You feel bad about this lesbian poet [Renee Good] and Alex Pretti, the male nurse? You feel sorry for these race traitors that laid down their life in defense of this scheme?"

It's not so much that we didn't know, or couldn't imagine. The twentysomething groyper is just coming right out and saying it. Speaking his mind. Expressing the durable values that raised him to prominence among Republicans.
____________________

Notes:

Mantyla, Kyle. "'One Less Asshole In The World': Nick Fuentes Says Alex Pretti Was A 'Race Traitor'". Right Wing Watch. 27 January 2026. PeopleFor.org. 27 January 2026. https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwing...ick-fuentes-says-alex-pretti-was-race-traitor
Why are you giving that guy publicity?
 
Traditional Values and the Collapse of Tradition

Short form: It happened again.

Another rightist-traditionalist has fallen into serious disrepair because his tradlife just wasn't entertaining enough. Podcaster Elijah Schaffer has fallen from grace with one of his employees, herself such a tradwife that her marriage received particular papal blessing.

Somewhere between tradhoes and e-girls, it might sound like a complicated thing, but it's also straightforward. Between the pressures of marital publicity, the demands of celebrity, and a secret affair with a fellow exemplar, Elijah Schaffer finally cracked.

To understand how we got here, let's go back a bit.

For much of the past decade, Schaffer has been a regular presence on the far-right conservative media scene, as a podcaster, commentator, and, in his latest incarnation, as CEO of the outlet the RiftTV. Schaffer and various sidekicks would often discuss trad values, of which he—married in 2020 and now the father of two young children—was not just an outspoken supporter but presumably an exemplar.

A few months ago, Schaffer took a mysterious month-long absence from his livestreamed show on Rumble, the right-wing video platform. And when he returned last week, on January 26, he looked rough. Schaffer admitted his face was unusually red—he blamed the lights in his new studio—and said he had developed a "permanent black eye" from crushing mental stress that, as he put it, would cause lesser men to commit suicide.

Schaffer certainly had plenty to be stressed about. FBI Director Kash Patel's girlfriend is suing him for suggesting she's a Mossad agent. He claimed that people were trying to kill him.

But unbeknownst to his listeners, something else was weighing on Schaffer. Despite being one of the digital right's most vocal boosters of traditional families, he had filed for divorce from his wife four days earlier.

Ditching his usual material aimed at whipping up hate toward Indian immigrants and Muslims, Schaffer instead used his return show to launch into a baffling rant straight out of family court. He vowed that he wouldn't give up his sons "without a few shots fired." He told his viewers that he wasn't necessarily speaking metaphorically.

"I'm not going to go down without—without, you know, a few shots fired," Schaffer said. "Figuratively, of course, we're saying. But physically too, if needed."

Then Schaffer appeared to address his estranged wife.

"Mama bear, mama bear, fuck you!" Schaffer said. "What about dad? What about dad? Don't fuck with me! Don't fuck with my kids. Don't fuck with my income, don't fuck with my ability to take care of my kids. I will fuck you up."

The monologue grew stranger ....


(Sommer↱)

Schaffer rose to prominence in part by misrepresenting an armed assailant as an innocent victim of the people he attacked in order to discredit antiracist protesters. His popularity was such that he could utter against Mormons, on the air, at The Blaze, without fear. What finally did Schaffer in was his conduct, allegedly groping a coworker, and harassing his co-host so badly that she sued the company. Schaffer tried to repair his image by becoming a tradman, advocating certain family values, bragging about his wife and kids, and shaming others—including fellow influencers—for insufficient households. "It worked for a time", writes will Sommer, but Schaffer's online channel has declined. Last month, Schaffer complained, "This job has destroyed me, and I'm not even very popular."

"No one believes me," he lamented on Monday, "that my life doesn't make any sense right now." Tuesday saw Schaffer make claims that his family had been kidnapped, and that the FBI was trying to murder him. Some of his fellows worried that he might have already hurt his wife and kids.

In a mark of how twisted the online right has become, far-right YouTuber Jean-François Gariépy, whose own wife disappeared under mysterious circumstances in 2023 and was never found, wondered openly whether Schaffer was smart enough to murder his spouse without being discovered.

"Poor Elijah," Gariépy asked. "Does he have the brains to get away with it?"

Sommer notes that Schaffer's family does appear to be safe, but things are only going downhill. It's enough to get Milo Yiannopoulos to speak up. In one of the recordings he posted, a woman alleged to be Sarah Stock describes a sexual relationship with Schaffer at CPAC, including alcohol, Benadryl, and blacking out.

Yesterday, Sarah Stock posted a vague denial and apology, and then deleted her X account. A recent convert to Catholicism¹, Stock gained some rightist credibility shortly thereafter, advocating xenophobic nationalism based on Euro-Christian values and identity.

†​

This has long confused conservatives: Look, your family is your family, but when you make a living talking about how your family is better than others, yes, the collapse of your publicly-advertised family values probably means more to others than if you were just an average, unheard nobody enduring divine trials of normalcy.

The thing about changing a "boozy, racist frat-boy persona" into a tradman for the sake of being seen is that, at some point, the tradfans want that trad representation to be genuine, and tradlife is something of a change for the boozy, racist frat boy.

It's one thing if, somewhere between the Kissing Congressman and Slutwalk, something something mumble, murmur, but it's really hard to explain the significance of the range between. A consensual blackout would not be the weirdest thing in the world, but compared to the guy who resigned his office for kissing a staffer who wasn't his wife, it is hard to say these trads got caught up in the little things.

Of course, it's probably not really the affair itself that has undone Schaffer. Another thing about these right-wing sensationalists is their penchant for exaggeration, so it's hard to figure the impact of the lawsuit about accusing Kash Patel's girlfriend of being a Mossad honeypot. But between the pressures of declining ratings for an apparent one-hit wonder, internecine rightist bickering over Jewish conspiracy theories, and the wreck of his exemplar marriage, perhaps some erratic behavior ought not be unexpected.

†​

One thing that is difficult to explain to the intractable is the sort of point you wouldn't make to anyone else: At some point, we should acknowledge the impact of living in self-imposed epistemic delusion. Enabling that delusion is actually easy.

It's the thing about politics: Someone says something, someone else says something else, and it's hard to know who's right, except sometimes it is kind of like when the one says science and the other says young-Earth creationism because God is great; if you look beyond the mere fact of being told two different things, you might be able to discern a little bit about who's right, or who to believe, or, at least, who is making believe, pretending, insupportable, &c.

You don't suddenly become ignorant and unable to remember science just because another person told you the Earth is six-thousand years old. Just like you don't need to be confused just because your favorite celebrity wants to rehash rightist-Christianist propaganda like it's new. Just like you don't need to forget history because someone you don't like happens to coincide with the right answer.

"No one believes me that my life doesn't make any sense right now", Schaffer laments, and it's true I might easily sympathize with that sentence. Might. Solidarity is complicated because of generality; his complaint is nearly a requisite station of existential masculinity, and hardline rightists generally don't trust the advice of ideological diversity. I can't make his trad life make sense to him; I can't make his prejudice look pretty enough for his need. To the other, I can also accept that he's not in a position to abandon that much of his principle. If he must lose everything before anything will start to make sense again, it is unlikely Schaffer would tolerate that advice from someone like me.

There is an old saying about what you live by, you also die by. Even figuratively. At some point, we should acknowledge the impact of living in self-imposed epistemic delusion.
____________________

Notes:

¹ Conversion to Catholicism is a recurring feature in rightist tradlife advocacy with some, albeit undetermined, affecting relevance. J.D. Vance, for instance was an atheist who converted to Catholicism in 2019 because he really liked that the Catholic Church was really old.​

Sommer, Will. "A Shocking Sex Scandal Rocks the Trad Right". The Bulwark. 5 February 2026. TheBulwark.com. 5 February 2026. https://www.thebulwark.com/p/shocking-sex-scandal-rocks-trad-right-elijah-schaffer-sarah-stock
 
Last edited:
Back
Top