Five Quick Things: The Mamdani Matriarchy Sets Up Shop In NYC

I’m going to do what I can to really make this 5QT, in fact, Q.

Mostly because I’m having one of those weeks where either I’m irritating all the people, or they’re irritating me, or we’re just all irritating. But I’m about done talking to you folks, and I need this weekend to get here pronto.

So there.

1. The Beta Male Jihad Is Underway In New York

Zohran Mamdani unveiled his transition team, and…

So all of the heads of his transition team are female? Well, of course they are. Mamdani, the Indian/Ugandan Muslim communist who ran on the necessity of globalizing the intifada and who seems awfully chummy with sharia law — its advocates are certainly chummy enough with him, given their rather orgasmic reaction to his election — won his majority on the massive strength of the female vote. (RELATED: Mamdani Is NOT a New Phenomenon: He’s the Center of the Democrat Party)

So why wouldn’t he surround himself with a female Praetorian Guard? Hey, it worked for Qaddafi all those years!

Though it’s clear that Mamdani has different selection criteria than Libya’s famous dictator had.

None of this should have happened. And it’s fair to note that most of why it did is that the Left has successfully replaced the population of New York, sufficiently at least, with people who aren’t just not New Yorkers but also not Americans in any meaningful way. (RELATED: The Cold Civil War Is Now on Defrost, and the Right Still Isn’t Ready)

But it wasn’t just the Third Worlders who elected the Third World mayor of what is destined to become a Third World city unless something drastic is done. It was the female vote, and specifically the under-30 female vote, which went 80 percent plus for Mamdani. And that includes the rich white girls who decided to check their privilege and vote “brown.”

Why in the hell did that happen?

2. Something To Consider

I don’t know where this originated. I saw it on Facebook, and it wasn’t attributed to anyone in particular. But there’s some truth in it.

Modern women constantly talk about being “oppressed” — while drinking $8 lattes in air-conditioned offices, wearing $300 leggings, and posting selfies from their iPhone 17. Let’s be real.

They only compare themselves to high-status men. CEOs, tech founders, politicians… the top 1 percent. The guys that busted their asses to get what they’ve EARNED. That’s their frame of reference. And then they complain about inequality.

Meanwhile, the other half of the male population — the guys stocking shelves, driving Ubers, fixing HVAC units in the middle of July — they’re invisible. They don’t exist in the narrative.

So when women say “men have all the power,” what they’re really saying is: “The men I’m attracted to are doing better than me.”

They’re not seeing the average guy. He’s been filtered out entirely.

That’s why a single mom with two kids from two different men can still say she “deserves better” than a hard-working, blue-collar guy. Because she’s not comparing herself to him. She’s thinking about the guy with the yacht who flew her to Miami and never called again.

While the feminists may mislabel this as oppression, the true definition of what they are feeling is envy — and they’ve disguised it as ideology.

Until society stops pretending the top 10 percent of men represent all men, this distortion will keep feeding the lie.

Start recognizing the men nobody talks about.

The ones carrying the weight.

The ones showing up without applause.

The ones who were never even given a chance.

That’s who I’m speaking for.

The world needs strong men

I think there’s a lot to this.

A week or so ago, I promised I’d do a column on how men are falling short in the relationship world, and I’m already being accused by some of you of shirking that obligation. I will do it soon, and when I do, I’m certain I will definitely need to take a few days off to get over the irritation that entry will surely generate. (RELATED: Electing the Image: Mamdani and the Mimetic Turn in Democracy)

That said, the above hits on so much of what’s wrong with our culture that it really is worth noticing, and while it applies to both sexes, I would argue the problem is more acute when it comes to men. (RELATED: The Real Divide Isn’t Red v. Blue — It’s Male v. Female)

Feminism flourished in large part because there were a lot of women out there who didn’t feel seen, and feminism spoke to their grievances. And as it fermented from a movement into a business and ultimately a racket, feminism created career paths for those unseen women, and a lot of those career paths led to institutions being feminized.

This is where I’m going to recommend again that everybody read that terrific Helen Andrews piece at Compact from last month, talking about how institutions that let all the feminists in became feminized, and that changed their character in ways which, it turns out, aren’t better than before.

They did a terrific job on the first pullquote: “Anti-discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized.”

So when you’ve feminized all the institutions and now you’ve created grievance among the unseen men, what do you get?

3. Nick Fuentes.

I think some of what I said in yesterday’s column might have been misunderstood, and I was racing through a ton of material and really just wanted to throw things out for thought, so perhaps I glossed over this too much. (RELATED: The False Prophet of the Digital Right: What Nick Fuentes Really Sells)

Somebody on X accused me of being “groyper-curious.” I have absolutely no idea what that means.

My understanding of Fuentes is, I’ll admit, limited. And I don’t really have all that much interest in changing that.

What little I’ve seen of his content seems to fall into two categories. First, he’ll make some points which, if you take them out of the context of being things Nick Fuentes says, are defensible if not outright reasonable. That’s not surprising, seeing as though they’re things he got from other people who weren’t Nick Fuentes and probably weren’t/aren’t fans of his.

And second, he says things that are calibrated to get him maximum attention and to infuriate all the right people. Praising Hitler and Stalin and saying JD Vance is a gay man married to a “jeet” (seriously?) are the purest possible examples of bait.

It’s obvious that they’re bait. And of course, they reeled in all these fish.

What people don’t seem to understand about Fuentes’s audience — I’m not part of his audience, but I happen to know a couple of kids who are — is that they don’t take most of that stuff seriously. They get a huge kick out of the fact that he has the gall to say such transgressive things, which give decent people the vapors. They don’t think Hitler was a great guy, and they don’t think Fuentes thinks that.

From a Gen X perspective, the analog to this is Andrew Dice Clay. Everybody knew that Clay’s bad-boy vulgarian routine, complete with the over-the-top male chauvinist jokes and persona, was shtick. What made it entertaining was how fresh it was, coming in the face of the “politically correct” trend that was getting started on college campuses.

Clay was a hyper-masculine, muscular transgressive rebel. Fuentes is… something a little different. The Boomers among us might be better poised to evaluate whether he’s more of a Lenny Bruce-type figure.

Regardless, these attempts to cancel not just Fuentes but Tucker Carlson for having interviewed him and the Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Roberts for having taken up for Carlson are really, really good for Fuentes’s business.

Ziocons are literally signal boosting Nick Fuentes.

They’ve been bringing him hundreds of thousands of followers and probably billions of media impressions at this point.

Has to be intentional.

— Mark Mitchell, Rasmussen Reports (@honestpollster) November 6, 2025

Yeah, you people really showed Fuentes. He’s crying all the way to the bank.

4. A Fatal Flaw?

There is this tendency on the part of the old guard, blue-blood conservative set to declare itself too good for certain kinds of people, and that tendency has really not done the movement much justice.

What happened in Virginia is a good example of this. I’m a fan of Winsome Sears and her story, and I liked her as the lieutenant governor of that state. But I find it instructive that she got utterly boat-raced by Abigail Spanberger, who probably belongs on that stage with Mamdani, largely because of two things. First, that some 500-600,000 Republicans (and GOP-leaning independents) who voted for Glenn Youngkin stayed home instead of turning out for Sears, obviously.

And second, that she got absolutely nowhere with the black vote.

This is going to sound racist to some of you, but I don’t want to ever see the GOP nominate a black candidate for major office again who can’t get at least 20 to 25 percent of the black vote.

And I say that as perhaps the biggest fan of black conservatives that I know. I think you have to be amazingly principled and courageous as hell to be a black conservative. And I admire that completely.

This isn’t about race. It’s about constituency. And it isn’t a shot at black Republican politicians. It’s a shot at the old conservative movement, which let itself be — at its very infancy — tarred as racist and never bothered to fight for those votes while the Left politically and intellectually enslaved that community, completely to its detriment.

William F. Buckley defended segregationists in the 1950s and early 1960s not out of racist motives but adherence to constitutional and philosophical principles. We can argue about whether he had a leg to stand on, but that’s not what’s interesting here. It never occurred to him that he was letting down the movement by not balancing those positions with legitimate outreach, particularly when conservatives had the tradition of Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass to draw from in competing for the hearts and minds of the black community. That opportunity lost all those years ago, the party that Buckley reshaped is still making only half-assed efforts at reaching blacks.

And nominating Sears before building a constituency around her — like getting her elected to something first within the black community and bringing those voters along for the ride — is a very half-assed effort.

Those half-assed efforts really don’t get you anywhere. They demonstrate that the Republican base vote isn’t racist, but on the other hand, we’re loudly opposed to DEI, and yet we nominate somebody for statewide office who is clearly where she is because of the color of her skin and not her demonstrated political clout within her own community or her ability to bring that community along as part of a winning coalition.

And the voters who came out for Youngkin but aren’t high-propensity Republicans looked at that and said, “Meh.”

Those are the voters you need. Either that or you need some new people to add to the coalition. Spanberger got pretty much the same vote Terry McAuliffe lost with four years ago. The problem was that Sears didn’t bring anybody to the table.

Am I trying to say that I want the “groypers” — I still have no idea what that even is, but I gather they’re the Fuentes types — as part of the GOP coalition rather than black voters? No. What I’m saying is I don’t want to turn anybody away, and I don’t think my side can afford to.

Not when the Left is taking the girls who think it’s sexist to say they aren’t as good at sports as men, and the confused men undressing in the locker room after proving conclusively on the field that the girls are wrong about that. They’ll take furries, La Raza, satanists, Wall Street crooks, old-school union goons, Jews, jihadists, college professors, homeless bums… they’ll take everybody.

Queers For Palestine. Ask them about that and they’ll just give you a look that says, “So?”

This is why they win elections they have no business winning.

Having very high standards for your voters is very laudable. It’s so laudable that it gives you a perfectly virtuous excuse for losing elections.

The Buckley crowd was too good to chase the votes of blacks in the 1960s when some of them were still up for grabs, and thus lost the whole community forever. And now we have people too good to chase the votes of disaffected young white males looking for a way to rebel against the woke cultural status quo because they might have been exposed to Nick Fuentes.

“Hey, making that mistake worked really well the first time we did it. Let’s try it again!”

Sorry, but I tend to notice that engagement and conversion are a better way to grow a movement than looking down on the losers. Sooner or later, you realize the losers outnumber you. If you don’t, you might find yourself still arguing about stuff like this with the other occupants of the boxcar as it heads for Camp Mamdani.

Because make no mistake, that’s who the other side is.

5. Finally, I have this…

I think I failed on the Q part again this week, but I don’t know what I’d cut. So I’ll at least go quickly with this…

Immaculate handling here

Interviewer: “…white people shouldn’t joke about genetic superiority? Like, that was kind of, like, the criticism, broadly speaking, and since you are talking about that, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about that, specifically?”… https://t.co/XoholYVQl9

— Lulu Cheng Meservey (@lulumeservey) November 6, 2025

What a great answer.

She didn’t engage at all with that stupid question. Doesn’t care about being canceled. Isn’t interested in the little boxes they’re going to try to put her in.

The questioner’s vocal fry alone would have made me uncooperative. But this was entertaining as all get out.

Have a great weekend, y’all. Go get your copy of Blockbusters today!

READ MORE from Scott McKay:

The Cold Civil War Is Now on Defrost, and the Right Still Isn’t Ready

Dear President Trump, Please Make Carbon Capture Go Away

Could Dick Durbin Just Hurry Up and Go Away?