THE POPE OF VANITY FAIR AND ISLAM - Frontpage - Thom Nickels

Traditionally, a religious leader should stand outside the orbit of worldly spheres. He should represent a set of values apart from Hollywood, the talking points of the DNC, and the philosophical swagger of New York icons like Patti Smith, Vanity Fair, and Vogue. Robert Prevost, or Pope Leo, is full of empty, blabbering swagger. He has declared that for Christians, “Islam is not the enemy.” He has put these words into action with his regular meetings with Islamic leaders in order to thank them for their peace-building efforts. In April 2026, he visited the Great Mosque of Algiers during his tour of African nations. He has stated that people who are fearful of Islam tend to be people who are against immigration (like the left, he dignifies illegal migration as ‘immigration’). And yet he utters not a word about the thousands of Christians being slaughtered in Nigeria but instead calls for “communion with Muslims.”

More blabbering swagger surfaced when Patti Smith visited Pope Leo XIV in July 2026. During that visit, Smith was as giddy as a high school girl on her first date. Here she was, an artist who lived with Robert Mapplethorpe, cavorted with poet Allen Ginsberg — and even prayed Buddhist prayers for him as he lay dying in New York City — here she was, a great lover of a certain school of French literature, mainly the novels of Jean Genet, being received in Rome for a 40-minute chat with Leo as if she were the First Lady of a small empire. Now, Patti Smith is probably the one artist who achieved fame for being at the right place at the right time. It’s not her talent necessarily that got her there, but the manner in which she made connections and used them to her advantage. She made the New York art scene her own, thanks to photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, and today she’s a regular visitor at the Vatican. She met Pope Francis in 2013 and performed for him in the Vatican. She’s a genius at self-promotion. It’s ironic in many ways that the first lady of punk and Jean Genet — Genet’s homoerotic novels of male prostitution, anal intercourse and criminality, like Our Lady of the Flowers and The Thief’s Journal, still command a wide literary audience — should be welcomed into the papal apartments while traditionalist Catholic organizations like the Society of St. Pius X, are refused entry.

Why did Robert Prevost, who also has a thing for the earth goddess, Pachamama, give 40 minutes of his time to a woman who once said, “Jesus died for somebody’s sins but not mine,” but not to a traditionalist wing of his own Church? A cautionary note about Patti Smith: She was not always so “cool” and “liberated.” A documentary on Tubi on the life of Robert Mapplethorpe shows the two of them meeting in New York as young artist-wannabes. Mapplethorpe, unsure of his sexuality at that point, has an affair with Smith but he is soon attracted to New York City’s gay leather bars. When Smith discovers Mapplethorpe’s secret life, she reacts much like any housewife in the 1950s: she’s hurt, scandalized, and spends an inordinate amount of time crying. She walks out on Mapplethorpe in an angry huff. Smith’s visceral reaction to Mapplethorpe’s homosexuality brought out the superficiality of her bohemianism: Her idea of being a rebel did not include breaking society’s standards when it came to the rules of coupledom. With Pope Leo, it is understood that “meeting people where they are” is an important part of the papacy. The pope is also a head of state. But meeting pagans, witches, communists, feminists, Father James Martin and Democrats who venerate abortion or drag queens who may have sold their soul to Satan, doesn’t mean that he necessarily agrees with these people. This is what Vatican officials say, anyway. But when he constantly meets with people like this, you begin to sense lies. You begin to sense an agenda. Something is truly rotten in Rome.

If he were really a true representative of Jesus Christ, he wouldn’t be afraid to use “strong arm” methods in attempting to convert the assorted lot of celebrities who cross his path. But Robert Prevost is afraid to do that because it would only upset the secular media, who would then cancel culture him. There would be no Vogue or Vanity Fair articles on his fashion sense. His wearing of Nike sneakers under his cassock (what happened to the standard fashion rule that one should never wear sneakers with dress pants?), or his casual love of American baseball caps (“So cool,” say Chicagoans, unmindful of the fact that Leo considers himself first a citizen of Peru and lastly, an American citizen) would no longer be idolized. Robert Prevost smiles that wide, crooked smile of his and lets Patti Smith be Patti Smith; he lets an atheist stay an atheist and a pagan, a pagan. One word of recrimination, a plea to change your ways — like Christ did to the Samaritan woman at the well or the woman caught in adultery — will get you in trouble with the world. Vanity Fair will cancel your photo ops. With the “coolness” dead, you will be known as the mean pope who is too rigid. Readers surely remember the media fuss over Pope Benedict XVI’s red shoes, called Ruby Red Slippers in some circles, which did not tickle the fancy of Vogue or Vanity Fair editors if only because the red shoes came to symbolize inflexible Catholic dogma and Pope Benedict’s holding the line regarding traditional Catholic morality. Esquire magazine, however, was the notable exception when it listed Pope Benedict as “accessoriser of the year.” Esquire theorized that Benedict’s red shoes were probably made by a famous Italian fashion house. A lot has changed since 2008. Consider ABC News’s story on Pope Benedict’s shoes versus the media’s handling of Pope Leo’s fashion style. “While the Vatican had never confirmed or denied if the shoes were Prada,” ABC reported then, “continued chatter about the pope’s dress sense led the Vatican daily L’Osservatore Romano to print a condemnation of media stories it said trivialized the head of the church.” L’Osservatore Romano stated that the inclusion of the pope on its best-dressed men’s list was, “of a frivolity that is very characteristic of an era that tends to trivialize and does not understand.” “The pope’s shoes,” the article continued, “like his range of flamboyant hats, are nothing to do with vanity but all to do with tradition…The Pope, in summary, does not wear Prada, but Christ,” it said. So far, L’Osservatore Romano, run by Jesuits, has been silent on the “trivialization” of Pope Leo re his Nike sneakers and baseball hats. When Robert Prevost met and prayed with the female Archbishop of Canterbury, the secular photo-ops captured the moment in its most superficial glory: Here is the pope playing nice with the Church of England; being respectful, etc., so how can this be wrong? The meeting itself was not wrong, but what the secular observers did not realize was that Pope Leo’s namesake predecessor, Pope Leo XII, declared that Anglican orders are invalid, meaning that Church of England priests and bishops are not priests and bishops at all but more like costume wearers on Halloween, or outright imposters. This is still the doctrinal language of the Catholic Church, despite the handshaking and crooked smiles of the current Bishop of Rome, who seems to be working overtime to change the Catholic Church forever.

LInsday Clancy: The Heroic Male Juror Who Stood Up to Toxic Feminists

America has a new hero in the fight against radical feminism: the lone male juror who would not capitulate to the myth that Lindsay Clancy was not responsible for murdering her three children. One can only imagine the stress he was under during jury deliberations, as the nine women jurors, some of whom were wearing pink, turned on the heat and tried to get the last man standing to buckle and adhere to the tenets of their cult: women are not to blame. He was the only juror to understand that murder is criminal. As for the other two men on the jury who voted with the women, perhaps they were male feminists with soy boy accents. Massachusetts, after all, is an over-the-top woke Democratic state. So woke, in fact, it’s astounding why the prosecution allowed nine women to be on the jury. Those lawyers have obviously not been paying attention to how liberal women have changed the culture. Massachusetts was like this in 1971 when I couldn’t keep count of all the abortions filtering through the operating room where I worked. There were so many “therapeutic abortions” at Tufts New England Medical Center the discarded fetuses (babies) were stashed in a large medical waste dumpster behind the hospital.

Scandalous, to be sure, but this was the era of Gloria Steinem and the beginnings of feminism. (Almost a decade before, in 1963, Gloria Steinem went undercover at the Manhattan Playboy Club and then went on to write a scathing piece for ‘Show’ magazine on Hugh Hefner’s “misogynic” empire.) Feminism has come a long way since the 1970s. The Lindsay Clancy mistrial showed pretty clearly where that road has taken women. Many are now saying that what came out during the trial – the large numbers of women outside the courthouse demanding that Clancy go free – will have an adverse effect on women’s rights because of certain precedents set by the defense in the case, namely that Clancy was not responsible for her actions because of postpartum mental illness. She couldn’t help it; out-of-whack hormones made her do it. “Lindsay Clancy could have been me!” as the women outside the courthouse told reporters. If it becomes an established fact that women will be seen as not being responsible for their actions if they are hormonal, then women are in trouble. One can easily imagine an employer asking a female job applicant, “Are you currently hormonal?” As one woman on X stated: “One bad hot flash and boom!” This is more than disastrous for women, considering their own gender just established in court that hormones can make you kill three people. Down the line this could mean that women should not be judges, police officers, and they should certainly never be elected to the U.S. presidency. The first woman president argument has come up a lot since the Clancy trial. The argument is that a woman cannot be fully held accountable for her actions because hormones, postpartum psychoses or her biological condition can affect her judgment. Then why should we risk having a woman president?

The feminists supporting Clancy said as much: She’s not guilty of murder because she didn’t know what she was doing. Ironically, many of the women asking the “Can a woman be president?” question cannot be dismissed as rabid misogynists. In 2016, the Daily Mail quoted Cheryle Rios, founder and CEO of GO APE Marketing, who came out and said she could not vote for Hilary Clinton for president. “With the hormones we have, there is no way a woman should be able to start a war,” she stated, adding that she supports equal rights for men and women but cautioned that “There’s an old biblical sound reasoning why a woman shouldn’t be president.” Rios received so much flak for her view that she had to clarify things: “I didn’t say that women should be abused, or that they are stupid or can’t be lawyers, doctors or run successful businesses. I fully know and support that they can as I have done that. I mentioned one position only the Head of our government, the Head of State, the Commander in Chief, the President…” The Clancy trial has brought this old argument back into the public sphere. And when you review the comments on X, you’ll see that almost the majority of them are from women who believe as Rios does. Frankly, I was astonished at how many women were saying things like this: “Lindsay Clancy’s trial is exactly why we will never have a female president!” “If they let her walk, as a woman, I say repeal the 19th!” “If hormonal changes can cause a woman to kill her own children: can a woman be trusted as a police officer, or with owning a firearm?” Columnist Ann Coulter went further when she stated in 2021 that women should not have the right to vote “because women see the government as their husbands.”

Coulter then told Media Matters: “If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president.” It wasn’t until 1975 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Taylor v. Louisiana that systematically excluding women from juries violated the constitutional right to a fair cross section of the community. In 1972, TV talk show host David Susskind told feminist Germaine Greer that a woman cannot be president because of hormonal changes. Greer lambasted Susskind, telling him that hormonal changes “was not a mental illness.” A recent September 2026 Pew Research Center study announced that “Americans have grown more skeptical that a woman will be president in their lifetime.” The study concluded: “While Democrats and Republicans have similar views on the likelihood of a woman president, they differ widely in seeing this as personally important. Three-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say it’s extremely or very important to them that a woman is elected president in their lifetime. This compares with just 5% of Republicans and GOP leaners.” Feminists argue that no single woman who has run for president so far has been young enough to become pregnant. As in the abortion debate, the men are told to not enter into conversations about women’s bodies or hormones. The men are called “loud and opinionated.” On the other hand, if Lindsay Clancy is found not responsible for her actions because of hormones and prescription drugs, how can any woman argue she should be CEO, president, or in charge of anything at all? Full equality – a word the Left loves to abuse – means holding women accountable for their actions. Thom Nickels

Pope Leo and Patti Smith - but NOT the SSPX

Traditionally, a religious leader should stand outside the orbit of worldly spheres. He should represent a set of values apart from Hollywood, the talking points of the DNC, and the philosophical swagger of New York icons like Patti Smith, Vanity Fair, and Vogue. When Patti Smith visited Pope Leo XIV in July 2026, she was as giddy as a high school girl on her first date. Here she was, an artist who lived with Robert Mapplethorpe, cavorted with poet Allen Ginsberg — and even prayed Buddhist prayers for him as he lay dying in New York City — here she was, a great lover of a certain school of French literature, mainly the novels of Jean Genet, being received in Rome for a 40-minute chat with Leo as if she were the First Lady of a small empire.

Patti Smith is probably the one artist who achieved fame for being at the right place at the right time. It’s not her talent necessarily that got her there, but the manner in which she made connections and used them to her advantage. She made the New York art scene her own, thanks to Robert Mapplethorpe, and today she’s a regular visitor at the Vatican. She met Pope Francis in 2013 and performed for him in the Vatican. She’s a genius at self-promotion. It’s ironic in many ways that the first lady of punk and Jean Genet — Genet’s homoerotic novels of male prostitution and criminality, like Our Lady of the Flowers and The Thief’s Journal, still command a wide literary audience — should be welcomed into the papal apartments while traditionalist Catholic organizations like the Society of St. Pius X, are refused entry. Let me say upfront that I generally like Patti Smith and much of the bohemian culture she represents, but I think Pope Leo has his priorities wrong when he refused to meet with a traditionalist wing of his own Church but gave 40 minutes of his time to a woman who once said, “Jesus died for somebody’s sins but not mine.”

Yet even in the secular world, Patti Smith was not always so “cool” and “liberated.” A documentary on Tubi on the life of photographer Robert Mapplethorpe shows the two of them meeting in New York as young artist-wannabes. Mapplethorpe, unsure of his sexuality at that point, has an affair with Smith but he is soon attracted to the thrill of New York City’s gay leather bars. When Smith discovers Mapplethorpe’s secret life, she reacts much like any housewife in the 1950s: she’s hurt, scandalized, and spends an inordinate amount of time crying. She walks out on Mapplethorpe in a huff. Smith’s visceral reaction to Mapplethorpe’s homosexuality brought out the hypocrisy of bohemian life: Acting like a rebel does not include breaking society’s standards when it comes to the rules of coupledom. With Pope Leo, I understand that “meeting people where they are” is an important part of the papacy. The pope, one must remember, is also a head of state. But meeting pagans, witches, communists, feminists, and Democrats who venerate abortion or drag queens who may have sold their soul to Satan, doesn’t mean that he necessarily agrees with these people. If he were to use “strong arm” methods in attempting to convert the assorted lot of celebrities who cross his path, he would only upset the secular media, who would then cancel culture him. There would be no Vogue or Vanity Fair articles on his fashion sense. His wearing of Nike sneakers under his cassock (what happened to the standard fashion rule that one should never wear sneakers with dress pants?), or his casual love of American baseball caps (“So cool,” say Chicagoans, unmindful of the fact that Leo considers himself first a citizen of Peru and lastly, an American citizen) would no longer be idolized. Pope Leo’s job is to let Patti Smith be Patti Smith; to let an atheist be an atheist and a pagan, a pagan. One word of recrimination, a plea to change your ways — like Christ did to the Samaritan woman at the well or the woman caught in adultery — will get you in trouble with the world. Vanity Fair will cancel your photo ops. With the “coolness” dead, you will be known as the mean pope who is too rigid.

Readers surely remember the media fuss over Pope Benedict XVI’s red shoes, called Ruby Red Slippers in some circles, which did not tickle the fancy of Vogue or Vanity Fair editors if only because the red shoes came to symbolize inflexible Catholic dogma and Pope Benedict’s holding the line regarding traditional Catholic morality. Esquire magazine, however, was the notable exception when it listed Pope Benedict as “accessoriser of the year.” Esquire theorized that Benedict’s red shoes were probably made by a famous Italian fashion house. A lot has changed since 2008. Consider ABC News’s story on Pope Benedict’s shoes versus the media’s handling of Pope Leo’s fashion style. “While the Vatican had never confirmed or denied if the shoes were Prada,” ABC reported then, “continued chatter about the pope’s dress sense led the Vatican daily L’Osservatore Romano to print a condemnation of media stories it said trivialized the head of the church.” L’Osservatore Romano stated that the inclusion of the pope on its best-dressed men’s list was, “of a frivolity that is very characteristic of an era that tends to trivialize and does not understand.” “The pope’s shoes,” the article continued, “like his range of flamboyant hats, are nothing to do with vanity but all to do with tradition…The Pope, in summary, does not wear Prada, but Christ,” it said. So far, L’Osservatore Romano, run by Jesuits, has been silent on the “trivialization” of Pope Leo re his Nike sneakers and baseball hats. What we have today in the Vatican is the politically expedient game of “nice”: Give even those who ruffle your spiritual feathers a pastoral blessing and send them on their way as they are – unchanged. When Pope Leo met and prayed with the female Archbishop of Canterbury, the secular photo-ops captured the moment in its most superficial glory: Here is the pope playing nice with the Church of England; being respectful, etc., so how can this be wrong? The meeting itself was not wrong, but what the secular observers did not realize was that Pope Leo’s namesake predecessor, Pope Leo XII, declared that Anglican orders are invalid, meaning that Church of England priests and bishops are not priests and bishops at all but more like costume wearers on Halloween, or outright imposters. If this language unsettles you, it is still the doctrinal language of the Roman Church, despite the handshaking and wide smiles of the current Bishop of Rome, who probably wishes these old rigid standards would go away.

The Problem with Orthodox Christianity

My spiritual journey to Orthodox Christianity had much to do with the liturgical changes in the Catholic Church after Vatican II. Vatican II, despite good intentions attributed to “the Holy Spirit,” ruined a perfectly good Church in so many ways. Prior to the Council, Catholic convents and seminaries were filled to capacity; after the Council, thousands of priests and nuns left what they thought would be a permanent calling. This fact alone should be enough to damn the Council that was all the rage in the 1960s. As a boy at that time, I recall reading the Jesuit magazine America, where articles praising the Council promised a ‘new springtime’ for the Church. I felt only dread reading these pieces written by revolution-happy Jesuits who sanctioned everything in that revolution as “the work of the Holy Spirit.” How convenient: make a radical change, modernize to the extreme, and then call it the work of the Holy Spirit. I left the Church at 19 when the hybrid-transition Mass was in full swing. This was the era of quick changes, when each Sunday brought another liturgical revision or addition. The last straw was when they turned the altars around to have the priest face the people like a performer on the Ed Sullivan Show.

Years of agnosticism finally brought me to a spiritual crisis in my early 20s. I then gave Catholicism another try, and my first Mass after a long absence was in a new Norbertine church on Philadelphia’s Main Line where they had an altar-in-the-round and burlap banners in place of mosaics and statues. I knew instantly that this was not the same church I had been baptized into. I found comfort in the Traditional Latin Mass for a season, but these Masses in Philadelphia were never stationed in one parish for long, even though traditional parishes were established outside the city. In the city, Catholics were either too liberal or apathetic to liturgical abuse and innovation. They went with the flow, believing, as the Jesuits of America did in the 1960s, that all radical reform, was the work of the Holy Spirit. And to question the Holy Spirit was a sin. I had known about Orthodoxy since I was a teenager. The beauty of icons, the majesty of the liturgy of Saint Basil or St. John Chrosystom, the splendor of Mount Athos. In Orthodoxy, there was never any talk of revising the liturgy or making it more pleasing to Protestants. Orthodoxy was inflexible; a living “museum” with muscle, where liturgical tradition doesn’t change with the times. And so, I became Orthodox, although the priest who received me into his Philadelphia parish did so without any ceremonials. He was a former Roman Catholic, as was his wife, and as were many people in the parish. Nearly all had left Rome because of Vatican II. Was this exodus the work of the Holy Spirit? Yet Orthodoxy, despite its beauty, did not seal the deal for me. I came to realize Catholicism was in my DNA. Getting used to priests with wives and families (a house divided; personal attention split in multiples) was odd and off-putting; getting used to priests who worked part-time as lawyers or contractors - most Orthodox priests have dual careers – or priests who never went to seminary (they are not rare in Orthodoxy) were also disturbing factors. Since becoming Orthodox, I’ve noticed that many of the young men converting from Protestantism or agnosticism knew little about Catholicism when entering Orthodoxy. Many of them did a hop-skip-and-jump over Catholicism and went straight to Orthodoxy. Many of them, as I would learn, were afraid to consider Catholicism because of “the pope thing.” Years of childhood brainwashing perhaps had made the pope somewhat of a boogeyman. One young guy from a Mennonite background told me he would consider becoming Orthodox before Catholic because of all the negative things he heard about the pope growing up, and because he thought that Catholics “overdo” their veneration of the Blessed Virgin. “The Orthodox are way up there with the Catholics when it comes to the Virgin Mary, but they are not as bad,” he said. His comments made me want to return to the Catholic Church, bad liturgy notwithstanding. Perhaps it’s the twisted secular age we live in, but since I’ve been a member of this Orthodox Philadelphia parish, I have never heard a sermon on what constitutes a sin in the Orthodox Church. Our good priest will talk endlessly about the importance of going to confession, but he never talks about the heavy sins one may commit that need confession. I can only conclude that he assumes everybody in the parish knows them already, even the “rush through” Protestant converts, but is this really the case? I’m not talking about excessive, fanatical fire and brimstone sermons, but occasional loving reminders that might align to a specific gospel reading. One former priest I know said he never talked about serious sexual sins during sermons because of the possibility of confusing children in the congregation. What he did do, however, was add an occasional ‘Pastor’s Note’ essay to the parish bulletin reminding parishioners of the Church’s official stand on matters of morality. Catechesis should be an ongoing thing. (The priest I am referring to was not Orthodox but an Anglican Catholic priest who spent four years in seminary.) During the 12 or 13 years I’ve been attending this parish, the only sins I’ve heard mentioned from the altar have to do with slander and gossip. Okay, well and good.

But why not abortion? There’s been not one word about pornography, abortion, unmarried couples living together, homosexuality or divorce. Is this because these issues have all become political? Was our good priest told by a higher Church authority to avoid these topics because they have all become politically charged and it might make some liberal parishioners angry? To be woke and Orthodox seems like an outrageous oxymoron, but they do exist (cafeteria Orthodox). As my former Anglican Catholic priest friend did, why can’t a discussion of these matters – ongoing catechesis – be included in a pastor’s note inserted inside the parish bulletin when a particular gospel reading may warrant a reminder on the more serious sins everybody seems afraid to talk about?

As troubled as the Catholic Church is at the moment, there are still Catholic bishops who dare to deny Holy Communion to politicians who support abortion, but that almost never happens in the Orthodox Church. Or if it does, it is rarely reported. Ironically, the Orthodox Church can be intense on externals like the importance of fasting – there are more fasts in the Orthodox Church than in all of Christendom – but it seems to remain silent on the great sins of the age, at least on the parish level. The good priest at my parish likes to sermonize about converting the woke, far left millennial population surrounding the parish, but he never specifies how this is to be done. He thinks that by opening up the church grounds with festivals and neighborhood friendly church events, the agnostic neighborhood women with blue hair who have had 2 abortions and think God is any far-left Democrat candidate running for office, will want to become Orthodox. In a certain sense, people like this would be good conversion candidates, especially if they didn’t know about the sins that are never talked about when it comes to confession. Thom Nickels

Liberal Women Ruin Museums

In 2023, the New York Times ran an article entitled, “Increasingly, Women Are Running the World’s Great Museums.” Some of the museums mentioned were the Louvre, the Vatican Museum, and the National Gallery of Art. But it’s not only museums where women dominate. Other arts and cultural institutions seem to be on a permanent trajectory to hire women as CEOs. On the surface, this shouldn’t be a problem. Qualified women should certainly take their place at the top if they are the best candidates for the job. But…. There seems to be a troubling common denominator here. The vast majority of the women in these positions fit a certain mold. They come pre-stamped and processed. They are monochrome, feminist, left-leaning women schooled in the progressive agenda.

That agenda might be summed up this way: they are the products of left-leaning universities where life is seen through a lens of oppressor and the oppressed. Feminist and gender ideology is also a big part of the mix, and so suddenly you have heretofore great cultural institutions like the Athenaeum of Philadelphia bowing before the latest left-wing craze to come down the pike. The Athenaeum used to be a unique place. Once an institution of great cultural impact, it has now been “democratized” in a weedy grassroots way — thanks to the death of many of the classically educated old white men on the board and the institution’s takeover by a board of political progressives, all inspired by female leadership. What happened to the Athenaeum of Philadelphia reminds me very much of what the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History has turned into: a museum too focused on “oppressors and the oppressed.” The Athenaeum’s cultural offerings — lectures and receptions — has a largely woke focus. An author like Lionel Shriver, who wrote “A Better Life,” a novel about migrants who destroy a New York American family, would never be invited to speak there. That’s because there’s an ideological test every author and speaker must pass before being given the chance to appear before an audience there. This is cancel culture hiding behind a polite female smile; it’s censorship in the name of programming. One Athenaeum offering slated for December is a talk by Bench Ansfield, an Assistant History Professor at Temple University who uses “they” pronouns. On videos Ansfield appears to be of indeterminate sex — the slanted little bun on the top of “they’s” head and “they’s” choice of intricately designed shirts suggest female, but the voice suggests otherwise.

Now, I am no enemy of androgyny. The hyper-masculine male culture in the 1970s needed a huge dose of David Bowie, Mick Jagger, and Lou Reed theatricality, but that’s not what is happening today. Today, the fun theater of Bowie has been exchanged for gender polemics as serious as Marxism. By leftist standards, I’m sure the quality of Ansfield’s work is noteworthy. (Ansfield’s book won the Athenaeum’s Literary Award for Nonfiction.)

One must not forget that these prize-winning works are all judged by leftist literary standards, so if you are on the wrong editorial page, you’ll never be on their list to win an award. (Ansfield’s area of expertise in “their” latest book, “Born in Flames,” is a look into “late-twentieth-century transformations in race and capitalism.”) While progressive, white liberal women are having their moment in the sun, the damage they often do in the institutions they control has negative consequences. This brings us to the 162-page report issued on July 4 by the White House Domestic Policy Council, which accused the Smithsonian museum of being “subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.” The council faulted the National Museum of American History with downplaying the Founding Fathers and early colonial and Revolutionary history. It also charged that the museum engaged in “anti-white,” “illegal alien,” and transgender activism, and accused the museum of trying to “indoctrinate” teachers and students through its exhibitions, programming, and teaching resources. This is what progressive museums under the direction of leftist female academicians do, and it should come as no surprise to anybody. During a heated House DOGE subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill, Rep. Nancy Mace pressed Smithsonian Director Dr. Anthea Hartig on whether men can become women, what defines a woman, and how many genders there are. Like most progressive women when they are asked such questions, Hartig refused to answer Mace when pressed on these questions. Throughout it all, Hartig was amazingly poker-faced and kept repeating the all-too familiar lie that the Smithsonian is a non-partisan institution, while neglecting to explain why a 2020–2023 exhibit there included a diary from a 13-year-old girl exploring issues including gender identity. Gender identity, along with ICE and immigration, are the two chandelier issues of the left. For her part, Hartig seemed to have no knowledge of the gender exhibit and stated that she’d have to check into that. Shortly after the Capitol Hill hearing, the Berkshire Conference of Women Historians, wrote a letter in support of Hartig: We stand with Dr. Hartig…. The Berks remain steadfast in its commitment to inclusive feminist historical scholarship and the collaborative networks that make this work possible. If only it were possible to bring the House DOGE subcommittee hearings on Capitol Hill to Philadelphia to get institutions like the Athenaeum of Philadelphia to answer a few questions.

NAILING BLACK TEEN TERRORISTS

The genesis of the so-called “teen riots” happening across the country began as “flash mobs” in cities like New York and Philadelphia. These flash mobs were composed of mainly black teenagers who organized through social media to meet at a certain location where they could then create their special brand of havoc: fights, window smashing, and large-scale shoplifting. This was especially true in 2003, the year when New York City’s first official flash mob ransacked Macy’s.

The year 2009 saw Philadelphia’s first flash mob on South Street, where crowds of rowdy black teens put the fear of God into local businesses, especially as gunshots were fired above the crowd. “A few dozen outliers in this adolescent crowd turned violent, ransacking a convenience store, pulling drivers from their cars and, in the most serious incident of the evening, assaulting a cyclist and leaving him unconscious and bleeding in the street,” researchers Christian DuComb and Jessica Benmen wrote about the Philly 2009 riot. It was local media, by the way, that coined the term flash mob. Philadelphia’s South Street had been a countercultural enclave of head, leather, New Age crystal and tarot card shops, restaurants and small theaters. By 2009, the street had been discovered and marked as a hangout by unsavory riffraff, which included disproportionate numbers of minority youth. In 2011, a smaller but more vicious flash mob on South Street attacked a group of whites, where they broke the leg of left-wing journalist, Emily Guendelsberger, and seriously injured a number of her male friends. In the days of Mayor Frank Rizzo, this sort of behavior would have been nipped in the bud. School kids, although minors, would have been hauled into jail and then turned over to their parents, or maybe the parents would have been arrested. The candy-coated, velvet glove “Ah, come on, they’re just kids” treatment would not have played out in Rizzo’s Philadelphia. In 2009, many left-wing voices made excuses for flash mob behavior. There were Op-Ed editorials calling for more “after school” programs. The assumption was that the government was responsible for keeping these kids busy so they wouldn’t turn into rabid animals. Voices calling for the arrest of the students or their parents were criticized as being “racist” and “cruel.” But where is it written that any kid, be they Asian, Italian, Irish, African American or Indian, can team up with ethnic or racial peers and hold a city hostage? The phenomenon of violence-prone black teens running wild through the city seemed to abate for a time, but in 2017 that flame reignited when hundreds of black teens caused a disruption along 15th Street and City Hall, where several people were injured. That same year a flash mob of over 500 black teens threw bottles at police and jumped on cars in the Germantown section of Philly. WHYY’s Billy Penn, reporting on the City Hall flash mob, stated the riot was the “fourth such flash mob in 2017.” The article raised the question of why these incidents continue to plague Philly. Billy Penn did not, however, use the term ‘black teens’ but referred to the rioters as “hundreds of teens,” making it seem like the rioters were an even match of white and black individuals. The term ‘teen takeover’ is now standard among the legacy media when describing the latest incarnation of flash mobs. The term is an exercise in blatant avoidance of the truth, as many of the people who comment on these stories in print or online make cryptic comments like, “the usual suspects are responsible.” Occasionally, photos will be published of the culprits which make it obvious that nearly 100% of the rioters are black. Matt Walsh, in a podcast titled, “Teen Takeover Unpacked,” quoted one black lawmaker defending the black teen rioters by comparing them to white skateboarder groups in the early 1990s, whose main offense was not creating riots or destroying massive amounts of property, unless you consider scratches to sidewalks and retaining walls as major social disruptions. The white skateboarders, while certainly annoying, didn’t attack people, jump on cars, vandalize stores or break the legs of left-wing journalists. In 2026, media headlines regarding ‘teen takeovers’ make no mention of what kind of teen we’re talking about here, although some news pieces will mention the race of the individuals involved towards the end of the report, perhaps to thwart serious inquiry regarding just who is behind this mess, because it’s surely not the white curly-haired stoner kid who is a fan of Kurt Cobain. A May 2026 edition of Newsweek had the following headline: “Map Shows US Cities Hit by ‘Teen Takeovers.”

Newsweek cited Orlando’s Icon Park, Tampa, Buford, Georgia, Edmond, Oklahoma, Henrico County, Virginia, Detroit, Chicago, and New Rochelle, New York. A headline in the Tampa Bay Times in June 2026 read: “1 Shot after teen takeover at Clearwater Beach.” The conspiracy to not use the word ‘black’ in any article describing these riots has been going on for so many years it has now become a normalized practice, which makes it much harder to criticize or undo. James Fishback, a fourth-generation Floridian running to succeed Ron DeSantis as Florida’s next Republican Governor, came down hard on the Clearwater riot, “…It’s quite fitting that members of the media…had no issue calling the events of January 6th a violent insurrection, when in fact no one was charged with insurrection. One thing we have to confront is that black youth violence is a problem in Florida. The truth of the matter is that the group here on Friday night was almost exclusively young and black. “ Fishback nailed it when he added, “There’s something to be said about the root causes that lead a 12-year-old who was arrested here on a Friday night to riot without parental supervision.” The question is: why are children—black children and not white children – coming together in swarms to attack and rob pedestrians, and trash downtown businesses? Conservative critics point to the high numbers of fatherless/single mother children in black urban communities as proof that liberal policies have never really served black families. The king of divisive black politics himself, Barack Obama, once even admitted that absent black fathers continue to be the number one problem in Black America. As Fishback pointed out, “72% of black kids born today will be born to an unmarried mother.” That’s a major part of the problem.