Follow-Up: White Moderates Still Don't Challenge Fascism; re: me vis-à-vis Solomon Nelson vs Mike Israetel and Both Men's Racism
This short follow-up essay—specifically to a past critique of Solomon Nelson I wrote called "White Moderates Don't Challenge Fascism" (June 2025)—covers the controversies currently unfolding between him and Mike Israetel: how Solomon recently investigated Mike's PhD and found it (to be charitable to Mike) "incredibly wanting." Comments about Mike's dearth of academic rigor aside, the purpose of this piece (and its upcoming* companion video) is to weigh in both on Solomon's legitimate criticism of Mike, but also notable failure to investigate Mike beyond said criticism; i.e., for another glaring flaw that other creators on YouTube have previously discussed (meaning before Solomon released his September 2025 exposé concerning Mike's PhD, below): Mike's open racism (e.g., Scientific Snitch's "DR MIKE Is WRONG about RACE & BIOLOGY," August 2025—also below). In failing to comment on it—meaning while knowing about it ahead of time—Solomon is racist himself, albeit to a white moderate degree (the enemy of progress for all marginalized peoples, MLK; see: "Letter from Birmingham Jail" [1963] and apply it to trans folk and people of color as part of a larger struggle that white straight men like Solomon Nelson repress).
*Video to be recorded and uploaded in short order.
Some things never change, but we can call them out, nonetheless! Here, we'll show evidence that Solomon not only learned nothing from my criticizing him; he's actually defended Mike Israetel's racism in the past while milking him for clout into the present. White moderates still don't challenge fascism because they profit off it; i.e., by being racist and otherwise bigoted, including Solomon! He's not God any more than Mike is (therefore subject to the same academic standards he holds the other man to)! Let's take him down a peg!
Table of Contents
- About Me, General Disclaimers and Content Warnings (~½ page)
- Extended Disclaimer About This Piece as SFW and My Sources Critiquing Public Figures through Free Speech (~3 pages)
- No Favorites to Play (~1 page)
- Write-Up Body (~5 pages)
- Several Larger Quotations
- "About My PhD (and Work Based on It; re: Metroidvania and Ludo-Gothic BDSM" (re: from "Masters to PhD" [2025], ~2 and ½ pages)
- "Explaining My Basic Approach" (re: "White Moderates Don't Challenge Fascism," ~6 pages)
About Me, General Disclaimers and Content Warnings
About Me: I'm a trans-woman activist, sex worker and pornographic historian with her independent PhD (see: "About the Author" info [side bar] and the "About My PhD" quotation shared at the end of this piece). I specialize not just in Metroidvania, Tolkien, Amazons and ludo-Gothic BDSM (which I holistically combine while keeping modular), but began my postgrad research with a discontinued book on bodybuilding and statuesque bodies in popular media (the performance of strength, on and offstage); re: Neoliberalism in Yesterday's Heroes (2021; e.g., "Policing Bodies" and "Military Optimism"), which I absorbed into my Sex Positivity book series.
Disclaimer Regarding Essay Contents: All opinions are my own; i.e., as part of my research, conducted alongside my book series, Gothic Communism (2023). The material within is written/speaks about public figures and popular media for purposes of education, satire, transformation and critique, hence falls under Fair Use regarding copyright and free speech regarding defamation. It pointedly covers Solomon Nelson and Mike Israetel's YouTube channels, but also the medical industry and police state, etc, and is pointedly part of the larger work I do beyond my book series; e.g., my "Hailing Hellions" Q&A (2025), where I interview sex workers of all different kinds.
CW: racism, genocide and fascism, but also citations of older material that cover fatphobia, ableism, racism, rape, transphobia, medical abuse, whorephobia, and police brutality
Extended Disclaimer About This Piece as SFW and My Sources Critiquing Public Figures through Free Speech
Despite the above CWs, this write-up is completely SFW (no nudity or images of violence). Images of the e-mail and Discord conversations between Solomon and I are likewise shown, given by me to prove they actually happened; i.e., through conversations where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists, but also where I am party to the conversations being had while discussing matters of public knowledge that have unfolded publicly in the past.
To that, Solomon knows I think he's racist and, point in fact, has responded publicly to me in the past. He partly did so because I contacted him via e-mail to notify him that I was releasing my critiques on him responding to my January 2025 "White Moderates Debating Nazis" video (and which he responded to in the comments section, below):
This included him asking for my sources, wherein I gave him a list of materials back in January; i.e., describing Mike Israetel as racist (and some of which Solomon addressed in his response: "My Reply to Persephone van der Waard," March 2025):
Also, Solomon's e-mail and Discord addresses are publicly available on his YouTube channel description; i.e., for a business he runs (see: first collage).
To all of these points: "White Moderates Still Don't Challenge Fascism" critiques Solomon and his image; i.e., as a public figure, not private citizen, thus falls under free/protected speech (under American law, where I live); re: none of this information has been given with "actual malice." Rather, I have given it (disclaimer originally from "Hot Karl" [May 2025] and modified to address my comments on Solomon Nelson)
[…] as part of my research, conducted alongside my book series, Gothic Communism (2023-2025). The material within is written/speaks about public figures and popular media for purposes of education, satire, transformation and critique, hence falls under Fair Use regarding copyright and free speech regarding defamation; i.e., defamation—be it slander or libel (spoken or written)—requires a statement, specifically a statement of fact, to be false, and defamation of a public figure requires false statements thereof to have been made with actual malice, or knowing they were false when making them (see: third point below). Except opinions aren't statements of fact; opinions = free speech, which is unfalsifiable and protected, therefore isn't defamation. Regarding my use of the word "fascist" and "racism," these opinions aren't made with actual malice against public figures, but fall under my expertise as a researcher on these topics about public figures; i.e., in ways I believe are true (as matters of opinion) while giving my findings to the public (on YouTube or elsewhere): when describing people that, in my researcher's opinion, have fascist, ergo racist qualities, per my body of work (see: footnote for how calling someone fascist/racist isn't defamation; i.e., apart from hate speech and the open promotion of criminal activity—specifically hate crimes—through a given belief system, fascism and racism more broadly aren't strictly criminal in America, but political beliefs protected under free speech like all opinions are; e.g., someone can legally identify as a Nazi in the US, and even opine how they think the West is "superior" to other cultures, and doing so is perfectly legal provided it demonstrably stays a matter of opinion; re: not hate speech that actively and nakedly endorses and encourages hate crimes: free speech protects minorities and bigots alike).
Second, my statements regarding [Solomon Nelson's] behavior specifically concern comments he has previously acknowledged as having actually occurred; I did not invent [them; e.g., his original 2025 "Daniel Pekic's Response to My Mike Israetel Critique Is Baffling" video which my "White Moderates Debating Nazis" video responds to …]
My work is not a criminal accusation, then, but an academically-informed opinion regarding people I think are acting fascist, therefore racist. Opinions, in America, are free speech in the legally protected sense; i.e., something cannot be defamation regarding public figures unless it is demonstrably false—as a statement of fact but also actual malice, which opinions cannot be: the legal standard is far higher for public figures, because "actual malice" is a legal burden of proof that specifically applies, during defamation cases, to public figures[1a]. As Cornell Law School writes, "A public figure is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved [emphasis, me; e.g., the controversy between Solomon and Mike regarding their potential lawsuit, but also the school that passed Mike's PhD]. Public figures also include individuals who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety. Whether a party is a public figure is a question of law for the court. Public figures who wish to recover for injury to reputation must establish that the defendant acted with actual malice. Actual malice requires clear and convincing evidence that the defamatory falsehood was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth" (source).
I understand my opinions to be true as matters of opinion; re: per myself as a researcher of various public figures I am critiquing per my research for matters of education/public safety (fascism is dangerous). Regarding "public figure" as a flexible standard, the primary example is [Solomon Nelson]: a popular YouTuber [over 60,000 subscribers and counting] who I am researching—as I have said—based on publicly available evidence; e.g., his [very public, years-long feud with Mike Israetel] and various public scandals surrounding it; i.e., […] all of the people I criticize are YouTubers beyond a certain size (at least several thousand subscribers, apiece). All work with visible brands, logos, and faces […] in their videos/on their channels, and ostensibly monetized content while interacting with each other publicly on YouTube for those reasons.
Hence, the people I criticize would appear to classify as public figures per CLS's definition as I understand it; i.e., insofar as they operate publicly as such, versus private citizens who don't operate in public view for money and/or fame, but also public sway—specifically the ability to sway public opinion over different topics of dispute; e.g., "[Mike Israetel] is a terrible person," as [Solomon Nelson] and his fans and enemies both like to argue for or against. Regardless of the arguments being made, their disputes are public—meaning on YouTube, uploaded by them—and resolved publicly in ways I am responding to; re: as a researcher of fascism who studies racism in popular media, including YouTube videos and para/meta content. In fact, all of the information I am using is publicly available and provided by or regarding public figures; i.e., none of it is ill-gotten* or knowingly provided as false**, hence falls under free speech and Fair Use, enjoying those protections under American law. Unconfirmed screencaps are alleged until proven otherwise.
*My screencaps—[of my conversations with Solomon Nelson—were] accessed on a publicly available/advertised [e-mail and Discord address] with no password [and with me being a party to the conversation, where the other individual knew I was an ongoing critic of them]. Furthermore, the use of Discord images remains a common standard of evidence entertained in YouTube videos [… including Solomon's critiques of Mike Israetel and Jeff Nippard totaling nearly two million views (currently over 1.7 million) as of writing this.]
**Meaning "regarding my opinion of it" for purposes of education; i.e., regarding statements made by others that my writing comments on, here. To it, a source's information could be incorrect, but not to my knowledge or in my opinion when I gave [it; i.e., it is my researcher's opinion that Solomon Nelson—a businessman who has worked with Jeff Nippard and critiqued Mike Israetel before (and sells his consultations while advertising them, online)—is racist to a white-moderate degree, and Mike Israetel to an openly fascist degree; re: Mike arguing for open race science in ways other public figures have critiqued themselves, except for Solomon Nelson. This write-up continues my ongoing critique of Solomon and Mike, one produced to raise public awareness about racism in the bodybuilding industry as a whole].
To it, if Solomon actually values "straight-talking people" like he says (though he was talking about Daniel Pekic, a fascist; re: "…Is Baffling"; timestamp: 00:00), then none of this should even be an issue—i.e., boundaries for thee and for me—but I guess we'll see how he responds, if he even does* (a lack of a response still a response, Solomon)! In other words, will Solomon put his money where his mouth is, or am I—a white outspoken trans woman—simply a rival GNC threat to his rapidly growing channel? He seems like a nice guy who doesn't mind criticism, but then again, so did Jeff Nippard!
*I'd frankly be surprised if he did, this time; i.e., my previous essay having been up since June—this essay being a follow-up that reinforces older arguments: those I've previously made about Solomon, my doing so going as far back as January 2025! They can't have been that damaging because his channel (and prospects) appear to be doing quite well!
No Favorites to Play
While I am critiquing Solomon in this write-up, my doing so is in no shape or form a defense of Mike Israetel or anyone defending him (read: I am not working for Mikhail Alexandrovich Israetel)! As Solomon showed, Mike's PhD is complete ass; in my opinion, having written my own PhD (for others to read for free), Mike's PhD is complete ass[1b]! However, my opinion also determines that Solomon isn't the lord-and-savior many are depicting him as (e.g., Carved Outta Stone, a few images down). Rather, he's a bad actor posturing as good (while still having a red arrow pointing at himself and saying "fash," below):
Point in fact, when addressing that Mike was a race realist in my previous body of evidence I sent to Solomon (re: "Notes to Solomon Nelson, 1/29/2025"), Solomon deliberately chose not to respond—i.e., to Mike, his aforementioned arch-nemesis—but instead chose call me out: impeaching not just my character (for "being racist" while framing me as a wild-eyed "mad woman in the attic," above), but also my evidence... for critiquing fascists like Daniel Pekic (and Mike, though Solomon doesn't mention him)?
White moderates are truly the worst because they lie by omission and stand for nothing but defending Western liberal values in patronizing disguise[1c]; i.e., Solomon having defended Mike in the past; re: when I approached him with a valid critique of all parties involved, he turned right back around and pinned it on me. And if someone in my own comments section could call it out at the drop of a hat (above), then Solomon failing to/missing his chance to skewer Mike on his own, open-racist petard speaks volumes about Solomon's veiled racism:
To it, my write-up isn't so much to capitalize on the feeding frenzy of Mike's academic credentials, but to raise awareness about white moderacy and fascism working hand-in-hand; i.e., distracting from larger crises during capital-in-decline, ergo times of genocide—against trans people, but also people of color and all GNC, fat and/or disabled people, Indigenous persons, non-Christians (e.g., Palestinians and Arabs/the Global South as a whole), and other minorities harmed by capital and the status quo: one that Mike and Solomon each belong to, but also the entire bodybuilding industry!
For example, notice how Solomon makes the whole video about him and Mike, not the genocide in Palestine happening most recently over two years (and going back over a hundred—centuries if you include the Crusades)? Not even mentioning the Israelis killing the Palestinians en masse—almost like their doing so doesn't even exist for Solomon, only bodybuilding? Dick move, Captain Crunch:
(thumbnail source: Carved Outta Stone's cover AI "art" for "Leak Week - When PhDs Sh*t the Bed," 2025)
To it, I'm not gonna hold you above critique, Solomon. Rather—and from one nerd to another—I think you're a shit activist in dire need of a wake-up call; i.e., still debating fascists in the Free Marketplace of Ideas versus calling it what it is. The problem isn't academic greed on its own (though that is a problem); it's capital's key players, white moderacy and fascism, defending what's clearly an empire-in-decline (and proponent of genocide for centuries)! Apologizing for empire = failing to call out its crimes and key players—something I've called you out on, before! You embody Capitalist Realism through your work, ergo racism!
Write-up Body
To this, I'm critiquing Solomon the investigator for his myopic approach; i.e., with him focusing entirely on Mike Israetel's faulty PhD (and disingenuous marketing techniques surrounding it) that, while valid, overlook plain-as-day problems that, in my opinion (as an indie researcher with her own independent PhD*), are actually worse. Opinion (mine): racism/fascism > academic oversight! I still think Solomon shouldn't be censored for his criticism (and told him as much, below), but also think he's not above criticism, either! If he can say what he says about Mike, then I should be able to criticize him, too (though moderates historically hate being called bigoted, calling the act of doing so "anathema"). It's called equal rights, my dudes, not state's rights (which moderates like Solomon defend from activists like me):
*Whose thoughts on I'll cite at the end of this script; re: "From Master's to PhD" (2025).
Worse, not only do similarities exist between this scandal and another I've examined before—re: Karl Jobst and those in his community refusing to talk about Karl's racism and known fascist ties (re: "Hot Karl")—but Solomon has demonstrably used the ensuing hoopla he stirred up to aggrandize himself, first and foremost: while overlooking the glaring problem of Mike's fascist views (and American fascism at large); i.e., despite me bringing it to his attention, Solomon insisted I look into it, saying he was "too busy facing potential lawsuits" (a fact he acknowledges by recommending I watch Greg Doucette's most recent [as of October 4th] public addressal, "Not Proud of PhD | Mike Responds" 2025).
In spite of this, Solomon released a video on Jeff Nippard vis-à-vis Mike Israetel after our conversation ("Jeff Nippard, My Former Client, Has Turned Nasty," October 8th, 2025), and has only enjoyed exponential growth in his channel size since; i.e., having ~22,600 subscribers two weeks ago (on September 29th) and gaining an average ~3000 subs a day (~10,000[!] on October 9th)—with his current subscriber count being ~62,000 according to Social Blade (as of writing this). That's nearly 40,000 new subscribers in two weeks(!):
(source)
In short, Solomon's the folk hero scapegoating Mike as low-hanging fruit, and I'd like to set the record straight; re: Solomon's still the same white moderate I investigated only too recently—one who can't, despite his admittedly excellent critique of Mike's PhD now, effectively investigate fascism at any point (re: "White Moderates Don't Challenge Fascism"). Initially I critiqued Solomon for defending another fascist (re: "White Moderates Debating Nazis," June 2025), to which Solomon reacted to by first commenting on my video, then releasing his own in response (re: "My Reply to Persephone van der Waard"). He's arrogant; why wouldn't he?
In it, Solomon demonstrates a complete unwillingness to engage with my critique of capital, while also denying my claims of racism and fascism on his part; i.e., demonstrating a complete lack of comprehension regarding those concepts. At least at a glance, neither he nor Jeff Nippard, Greg Doucette or anyone else (except for Scientific Snitch) seems able to say anything about racism in the bodybuilding community at all—let alone genocide (not even Lyle McDonald, though I'm not as familiar with his long-term content and did enjoy his short-and-sweet fuck you to the haters: "Mike Isratel Admits to Lying About his Dissertation Draft," 2025)! Again, these people are not heroes; they're businessmen, and abuse the usual structures thereof to turn a blind eye to widespread societal issues. Sure, they'll shed a tear or two for middle-to-upper-class (cis) men and women who die from steroid epidemics; mention racism and suddenly they're as quiet as church mice (and all-too-happy to use "ob*se" as a slur, regarding fatphobia, below).
(artist: Sinead Rhiannon)
After Solomon's reply, I released my prior response, "White Moderates Don't Challenge Fascism"; re: calling out his white-moderate views on racism, but also fatphobia and capital (regarding my friends; e.g., Sinead Rhiannon, above). I sent him notifications, which he acknowledged but never (to my knowledge) publicly responded to on his channel; i.e., regarding my critiques of him in said essay (not my original YouTube video, which he did publicly respond to and is still up on his channel, below). In short, he swept them under the rug. White straight guys tend to do that when called out, if only because it's easier than looking themselves in the mirror (too busy admiring themselves, two images down).
Solomon's ignorance, I can only conclude here, is willful; re: in the face of multiple genocides and climate change (as I've argued multiple times about Solomon to Solomon, at this stage). In spite of all of that, Solomon has chosen to focus on the most narrow topic he can, his holistic allergy (and subsequent bigotries) only expanding a larger blind spot to his own work and society at large! This is what I meant when I said white moderates don't challenge fascism. Solomon, in that respect, is utterly inept. Worse, he's arguably complicit—more concerned with selling a Vitruvian (nuclear, Nordic, etc) body image to insecure Western men than killing the goose that laid the golden egg (re: Mike being a punching bag for Solomon to critique minus Mike's racist elements): for these white straight men (and token examples) aping Eugene Sandow under Pax Americana, content trumps activism. Always.
(thumbnail source: Solomon Nelson's "Client Testimonial: Jake Hickman," 2024)
To be crystal clear as we proceed, Solomon's critique of Mike is valid, but it overlooks the other elephant in the room that Solomon can't have been ignorant towards; re: Mike's racism, specifically his race pseudoscience. I know this because I told him about it—specifically mentioning another person in the same community who released a video on the topic as recently as two months ago; i.e., before Solomon's video and with a channel size big enough to have been seen by Solomon; re: regarding a man he is currently investigating for academic fraud: Scientific Snitch's aforementioned (and recent) "DR MIKE Is WRONG about RACE & BIOLOGY" video. Ignoring those signs is, unto itself, a huge oversight and red flag (with Mike happy to critique my off-the-cuff response, but shying away from my actual essay bringing my full researcher's skills to bear).
Then again, I called Solomon out for this back in January and he reacted with a similar degree of obstinate denial (not even responding to my June critique despite me telling him about it via email and Discord, above). Some might call him obtuse(!); I call him complacent bordering on complicit, profiting off pointing the finger at low-hanging fruit while refusing to investigate larger systemic etiologies conducive to racism. He's overlooking Mike's racism again.
Specifically, Solomon pointedly refused to investigate the topic—telling me "to do it, instead, because he might get sued regarding Mike" (above). Yet, this didn't stop him from keeping said video up, but also releasing his video on Jeff, afterwards! In doing so, Solomon hasn't spilled a single drop of ink on the topic of racism save to say that he isn't racist, but also how I'm wrong and that my opinion of him is "slander[2]" (re: "My Reply to Persephone van der Waard"); i.e., choosing instead to qualify himself as a man of reason/champion of science and—as far as I can tell—Enlightenment values. This not only constitutes a willful, dated ignorance on his part about larger histories at work, but a deliberate silence he's made; i.e., while crafting a narrative around himself as victim with zero accountability. But someone who had multiple chances to speak out regarding Mike and the larger community's racism but doesn't is no victim—at least, not a perfect one; re: you, Solomon Nelson, had the perfect chance to blow up Mike's racism alongside his PhD shenanigans, yet pointedly chose not to. In my very-gay opinion, you kept quiet on purpose, Solomon.
To be charitable to Solomon, this is dubious investigative work; i.e., Solomon demonstrably turning a blind eye towards Mike's open racism, while focusing on something his own bigoted peers would not object to: their own image as center of the world (e.g., Solomon refusing to critique Bill Gates, a pedophile billionaire, above). Given the present state of affairs and fascism rising in the world, Solomon's stubborn silence on racism and complete inability to critique capital—and all while vocally celebrating men of science and grandstanding as "victim" (meaning white straight dudes like himself and his [token] peers)—is, itself, a massive problem that needs to be addressed.
So, that is what I will focus on, in my accompaniment video; i.e., said video is largely unscripted, but will include multiple visual aids going over some of the sources I've provided, here. Some are YouTube videos; others are past work of mine, which I will go over piece-by-piece.
Nonetheless, my point is not to discredit Solomon's investigation of Mike or Jeff for Mike's PhD, but to highlight Solomon's lack of focus in what—as far as I'm concerned—are more pressing matters about Mike, academia, and the bodybuilding industry tied to capital. Racism is a huge problem under American dominion, one Solomon has hand-waived in the past and present; i.e., not just his notable silence on the issue, but his inadequate and frankly problematic "understanding" of fascism and what it is (re: "White Moderates Don't Challenge Fascism," which we'll quote at the end of this piece). Here, Solomon straight-up ignores racism in his own backyard—critiquing Mike only for his 2013 PhD and present lies about it, not his public views on race (re: "DR MIKE Is WRONG about RACE & BIOLOGY" being a video made by someone nerdy who isn't male or white, below)!
This is also what I meant when I said white moderates don't challenge fascism; i.e., Solomon is a white moderate, and consequently doesn't challenge Mike's fascist tendencies, ipso facto. There's simply no mention of it anywhere in any of his content, ever. It's weird and he's gutless—meaning for keeping quiet after multiple times being told about it. To that, Mike is racist to a fascist degree, but so is Solomon to a white moderate degree; i.e., despite having addressed my complaints about him in the past (re: "My Reply to Persephone van der Waard")—and despite him and Mike ostensibly being "mortal" enemies—Solomon can't be arsed to say the quiet part out loud. "Ladies first," he practically said to me. Ok, dude, you asked for it! If discussing racism is like pulling teeth for you, then I'm the motherfucking dentist!
So allow me, babes! People out here treating Solomon like he's Luciano Pavarotti but even skilled operatives make mistakes; i.e., Solomon's closer to the "tenor voice crack" guy except he's clamming his notes on purpose (or refusing to sing the one's that matter—pick your poison)! He's just a man, and a white straight one at that; re: too scared to critique Great Men of History or capital as a whole. Indeed, he valorizes them, concealing or downplaying their flaws to make himself (and empire) more lionized! As an educated whore and antifascist who utterly detests white moderates, I refuse to make Solomon's JO crystal glow! How's that for straight talk, Solomon (albeit coming from a non-straight person, pun not intended)?
(source)
Several Larger Quotations
Before we get to examining some of my references in the companion video, here's several larger quotes from past writing this follow-up builds on. They should be enough for you to get started, and convey the brunt of what Solomon ignored in my past critiques; re:
- from "Master's to PhD," specifically the section "About My PhD (and Work Based on It; re: Metroidvania and Ludo-Gothic BDSM"
- from "White Moderates Don't Challenge Fascism,"; i.e., the section "Explaining My Basic Approach"
"About My PhD (and Work Based on It; re: Metroidvania and Ludo-Gothic BDSM"
My PhD is independent, which means it's not peer-reviewed. It also concerns a topic, ludo-Gothic BDSM, that—when I started researching and eventually formulized (from early 2019 to October 2023)—had zero academic coverage; i.e., regarding a knowledge gap that my PhD sought to address by studying Metroidvania, another topic wholly understudied in academia. Even so, ludo-Gothic BDSM isn't even mentioned in my PhD argument: "Capitalism sexualizes everything for the profit motive using canonical (dimorphic/Cartesian) monstrous poetics to brainwash workers and pit them against each other during Capitalist Realism" (source: "Thesis Paragraph"). The statement doesn't specify Metroidvania, but Metroidvania were the example I used to explore said argument within my PhD: to fill the knowledge gap my PhD was addressing by formulating ludo-Gothic BDSM (and the palliative Numinous vis-à-vis Amazons); re (from Volume Zero):
…my work on camping the canon through Gothic poetics would go on, across five books, to focus extensively on Metroidvania (to a lesser extent) and ludo-Gothic BDSM and the palliative Numinous (to a greater extent) [source: "Two Years Later (give or take): Returning to My Thesis Argument after Five Books].
and
Even in 2023, I would only hint at the term's application; i.e., "ludo-Gothic BDSM" only appears 36 times in my thesis volume first edition, going on to appear 40, 180, 293 and 357 in the first editions for Volumes One and Two, parts one and two, respectively (the manifesto, followed by the Poetry and Undead/Demon Modules). This means that I've not only expanded on the term's application since October 2023, but also revisited and reapplied it numerous times while quoting older sources I wrote (source: "Concerning Rape Play: a 2025 Note on My Development of Ludo-Gothic BDSM").
I've certainly received flack regarding my PhD. These barbs range from Bad Empanada—a postcolonial YouTuber who took a hard right turn, politically (re: "The Chickens Come Home to Roost" and "Bad Empanada Calls for Genocide/Calls Trans, Plural & Furry Folk 'Useless Eaters,'" 2025)—up and telling me that "BDSM doctors aren't real" in 2024
(source: "Understanding Vampires," 2024)
to having random people approach and accuse me of everything from trying to exploit "real" sex workers (arguing how "I don't do sex work," myself, or somehow work with other sex workers in bad faith), to faking my PhD and calling myself one to get "street cred." I address some of those claims here (e.g., "Why Bother? Addressing the Haters" from Module II), but it's not really something I want to focus on. In short, I have better things to do with my time, and don't really want to clog up my own discourse defending my corpus from bad actors.
Instead, I wanted to address very quickly as to why I made my PhD independent at all, and why I think that's valuable in today's day and age.
Simply put, I made my PhD independent because I chose to own my work; i.e., these days, universities legally fund, therefore own candidates' research, effectively owning their PhDs too: a Faustian bargain where you sign away your rights to graduate and where, once you do, the university can do whatever it wants with your work. Worse, a rise in fascism is seeing entire departments shuttered by having their funding pulled, but also from censorship laws. So I didn't want to make things harder on myself and archiving my work by having it tied to a university body that, with its feet held to the coals, might suddenly decide to throw years of research I produced in a vault! Yet, you'd be surprised by the number of people who automatically devalued what I produced because of that; and furthermore, they assumed how I must be "up to no good"; re: despite my merely wanting to own my work, thus be better able to archive it and share it with others for free.
And yet, academia isn't some magical place where everyone is morally inclined/above critique. Quite the contrary, plenty of researchers steal from each other at a systemic level; i.e., seeking fame and fortune through problematic institutions like the Nobel Institute while taking credit for other people's work. Furthermore, academia is bigoted and exclusionary as a whole—with shit rolling downhill through the usual pecking orders; e.g., PhD departments foisting "grunt work" off onto PhD candidates and PhD candidates off onto graduate students, etc.
To it, having your work peer-reviewed isn't a guarantee of quality. For example, a recent scandal by Solomon Nelson has thoroughly exposed Dr. Mike Israetel's work to have been sub-par—both in terms of the overall nuts-and-bolts (spelling and grammar) but also its contributions to a larger body of knowledge ("Mike Israetel's PhD: The Biggest Academic Sham in Fitness?" 2025). To be fair, I don't even like Solomon as a person (re: "White Moderates Don't Challenge Fascism," 2025) but he's still correct about Mike—or at the very least, his assessment was grounded, ironically enough, in the very ideas of peer review that many who abuse academic credentials celebrate for themselves (double standards and all that). The general consensus seems to be that Mike got it for "street cred," a fact he leverages every chance he gets; i.e., by calling himself a doctor because technically he is one; re: from having gotten his PhD at an accredited university. Yet, here we are, watching that not really amount to much in real time!
By comparison, I'm not technically a doctor because I don't have my PhD from a real university. Instead, I got my master's in Gothic Studies from MMU and built on it independently through my non-profit book series. To it, the work I've done is extensive, holistic and iconoclastic enough that I readily accepted being independent, early on—meaning by 2021, after COVID dashed my plans for PhD candidacy. I certainly applied for candidacy, and also wrote submissions for journals and attended conferences. But in the end, all of that seemed less important than the work itself, so that is what I chose to focus on; I didn't want to compromise said work by devoting myself to the bloodsport that is academic life.
Instead, I've compiled all of it here for you to read. Go wild, my dudes!
To that, if people want to attack me for my work, just remember what you're attacking; i.e., as a sex worker academic, my series dedicates to anti-fascism, including racism, sexism, transphobia, and various other ethnocentric behaviors that canonically further the abjection process pursuant to profit. If you bash me, you're bashing a critique of genocide, rape, and various other abuses capital causes by design. Also, I'm not afraid of criticism. If you really want to critique my work—and that of my friends and 100+ associates who have worked on this project as a whole—I welcome good-faith (constructive) criticism; i.e., that actually engages with my arguments (preferably by citing them). But Nazis and those who historically defend them in bad faith? Kindly fuck right off (decide if that applies to you, Solomon)!
"Explaining My Basic Approach"
I'm a very busy woman, thus lack the spare time to quote Solomon's coppery to death. Instead, I'll be relying on camp, but also summary and paraphrase. Also, despite my expertise in Gothic vernacular and poetic arguments (e.g., cryptonymy and the abjection process furthering or challenging genocide; again, see: "Paratextual Documents" for all of these terms), I've chosen to mostly omit them, here: for more commonplace language that Solomon probably knows. My doing so nonetheless remains an interpretation; i.e., of Solomon's arguments, albeit as an academic would, and while trying not to confuse him (even though I very easily could/doubtlessly will because my arguments will sound alien to Solomon—not wholly unknown, but nonetheless foreign, hence worthy of dismissal and disdain through his usual approach defending Capitalism). That doesn't mean I can't have fun "while in Rome"; i.e., I'm an academic campy whore, which informs my basic satirical approach, versus unironically aping the Romans: Solomon represents the West "in action," hence gives an avenue to critique the latter through the former.
To that, it's not so much what he literally said, verbatim, that I critique and more how I interpret it, while taking my time and having fun; i.e., per my antifascist expertise, which targets neoliberalism and white moderates, but also different abuses committed by medical professionals—actual or de facto—playing the pimp (thus cop); re: white moderates are fascists with more/different masks, including doctors achieving fatphobic, transphobic and whorephobic aims, etc.
To summarize Solomon's response to my original critique (re: "White Moderates Debating Nazis"), he assigns blame to me like a doctor would; i.e., calmly and coldly calling it my fault how the Left is divided, while hypocritically branding me an intellectual snob who pushes for a Utopian worldview that "Marx would roll in his grave about." Solomon's projection/prejudice and gaps in his debatable knowledge about Marx aside—and comments about Marx himself aside (who I critique for his own homophobia; re: "Making Marx Gay")—Solomon's polemic versus me is full of strawmen; i.e., that blame the victim (which trans and fat people are, under Capitalism) while fixating on a narrow, profoundly unuseful definition of "Nazi": one moored to the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler from nearly a century prior.
This interpretation of, and deviation from, my own arguments by Solomon is an important distinction, so I want to dissect it a bit before we proceed. In Solomon's own words, "A Nazi subscribes to Hitler's far-right, authoritarian ideology—marked by extreme racism, authoritarianism, and genocidal intent; that doesn't describe Daniel, and so calling him a Nazi is slander" (re: "My Reply to Persephone van der Waard"; timestamp: 3:12, below).
Solomon is incorrect on multiple levels. Most important is how "Nazi" does not have a single definition, as he purports:
-
- One, "Nazi" as I use it, is synonymous with "fascist," which I will explain more in a moment; nevertheless, it doesn't exclusively "belong" to Hilter in the present moment (e.g., Neo-Nazis), nor did it in past forms of American fascism while Hitler was alive (e.g., the American Nazi bund, but also the KKK and their own neo-medieval orders and terminologies).
- Two, there are groups comparable to Nazis in function, if not in name—again the KKK, Proud Boys, and similar cryptofascists, but essentially anyone who isn't a flag-waving Nazi; i.e., anyone who has fascist qualities that, for all intents and purposes, are alt-right, ultra conservative, or otherwise palingenetic ultranationalist to varying but also modular degrees (see: Umberto Eco's "14 Points"). To that, Solomon gives three things (four, if you include Hilter) to define a Nazi; Eco provides fourteen, but also treats fascism as a global affair that goes well beyond the Germans. These groups also carry different names; i.e., for the same basic ideas borrowed by the Nazis from Italy (chiefly "fascism" the word and the Roman salute), but also American geopolitics' own Manifest Destiny (re: Bad Empanada's "How the USA Inspired the Nazis"); e.g., Western chauvinist, race realist, pro-European, and white nationalist, etc—all comporting as fascist through dogwhistle and disguise: you can be a Nazi without advertising as one, across a polity of fascist offshoots.
- Three, "Nazi" is a broad label that applies to fascist people; it also is a common insult used to describe someone who is strict—i.e., in a variety of ways that aren't comparable to Nazis (e.g., "femi-Nazi" or "grammar Nazi," etc). Indeed, the unironic usage of "Nazi" + [noun] is a common form of DARVO used by people on the alt-right: "I'm not the Nazi, you're the Nazi!" as well as obscuring what Nazis are through stolen language—a technique called "obscurantism," which the Nazis (and similar historical forms of fascism) were known to do; e.g., the Nazis called themselves "national socialists," which one, didn't accurately describe them to start with, and two, they stole from German leftists who were killed during the German Revolution (1918-1919), but also from Hilter's situational frenemies, the Strasserites (who he later killed, after assuming power). In short, Nazis—and by extension all fascists—lie, cheat and steal as a political modus operandi, making their synonymizing with fascism in general (as well as establishment politics in Western countries) historically apt.
However, the legality of calling someone a Nazi also needs to be acknowledged:
-
- Four, it isn't a crime in America to call someone a Nazi (not yet, anyways), nor anything comparable to a Nazi (e.g., like a certain American hard rock band who just happen to be "pro-Confederate," above); it also is not a crime to be a Nazi, in America (more on this in point six).
- Five, it isn't slander in America to call someone a Nazi, insofar as doing so is a matter of opinion, not defamation; i.e., you can't be guilty of doing so because doing so is not a crime, but it also isn't defamation—meaning you can't be liable for it unless the statement is provably false (again, more on this is point six). And don't just take my word for it; take it from Noah Samsen, who explains after receiving a letter of intent (from accusing Ethan Klein of supporting genocide): "For someone to be to be found liable for defamation, there's a few bars that need to be reached. First, the plaintiff must establish that the allegedly defamatory claim is a statement of fact; next, that statement of fact must be provably false; it also must have caused demonstrable damages to the plaintiff's finances or reputation; and lastly, the statement has to have been made with actual malice. 'Actual malice' is a legal standard; it's the highest legal standard for defamation claims and it's only applied to public figures. Basically it means the defamatory statements have to have been made with the existing knowledge that these statements were false" (source: "Ethan Klein Lawsuit Response"; timestamp: 8:59). All of these bars must be met, not just one.
- Six, calling someone a Nazi is not the same thing as calling them a criminal or sex offender (see: point four); i.e., someone cannot be arrested in America for being a Nazi or a fascist, because both (and all their variations) are a political belief, which constitutes free speech; re: to call someone a Nazi is not calling them a criminal, therefore isn't slander according to American law because Nazis are protected by free speech for their opinions. For instance, Tentinger Law firm writes, "An opinion is [not] considered defamation. The First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, protects statements of pure opinion from being considered defamation. / For example, an online review of a doctor stating the doctor is 'rude' or a 'jerk' is not defamatory. Those are expressions of opinion. But a statement that a person is a criminal or a sex offender, if false, are defamatory. Those are statements of fact that can be proven false" (source). Again, calling someone a Nazi is not the same thing as calling them a criminal, but equivalent—in legal terms, that is—to calling them a jerk, asshole, or bigot. It's an opinion, and opinions, by their very nature, are unfalsifiable: you can't prove them true or false because they're subjective and, more to the point, not policed speech.
In conversational terms, "Nazi" as I use it = fascist, but it doesn't strictly equal Hilter and the ideology of the Third Reich. This tragic reduction is Solomon's approach—mine being a far broader and more applicable usage conducive towards universal liberation from capital and its bourgeois Superstructure; i.e., my research (a form of opinion) synonymizing "Nazi" with "fash" more broadly on a modular spectrum, one that applies to post-Hitlerian examples (re: Eco). "Nazi," as I use it, is purposefully broad because it allows for speculative richness, hence people like myself (a trans sex worker and scholar of fascism) to call out bigotry more easily than white moderates classically do; re: I am an antifascist by trade, and Nazi as I use it = fash, crypto(fascist) or not. To reference Eco, himself: "While Eco is firm in claiming 'There was only one Nazism,' he says, 'the fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change'" (ibid.). So while not all fascists are technically Nazis, and all Nazis are technically fascist, the distinction is frankly moot; i.e., when the whole point of its making is to highlight someone acting fascist at all. Nazi, then, has become imprecise shorthand: to identify a broad spectrum of things beyond Hilter and zee boys.
Keeping all of that in mind, I'm a researcher/educator who uses "Nazi" to describe Solomon and Daniel—who are both public figures, specifically YouTubers who were already responding publicly to each other before I weighed in (also on YouTube)—for behaving in ways comparable to Nazis; i.e., my "You're a Nazi!" statement, which was made by me about both men, effectively being an opinion, and one given by a researcher of such things knowing it cannot be proven true or false the way I am using it. Calling someone a Nazi is not a statement of fact unless something is said that can be proven false; e.g., saying "Daniel has a Nazi flag in his basement" directly to his employer to try and get him fired (which I did not say or do). This would be true even if we used Solomon's definition, except I didn't use "Nazi" the way he did; ergo, his argument is a strawman, and a poor one at that: "That's just, like, your opinion, man."
Speaking of which, Nazis classically rely on white moderates who defend them from activism (snobs or otherwise); i.e., in classically medicalized language, amounting effectively to an Imperialism of discourse[3] that moderates police and abject (the foreign plot peppered by various boogey people, Antifa or otherwise). The point is, we're both nerds, here, with Solomon—despite his hypocritical statements about my snobbery—effectively the pot who calls the kettle black (except I'm the nerdy slut, here, as are my friends Solomon discounts through his attack on our work). And if you don't believe me, just consider how Solomon constantly talks about "elite-level athletes"; i.e., to validate himself versus Mike Israetel[4] while also flaunting his own relative education (alongside his partner/classmate[?] in the same banner image, below). The functional difference between myself and Solomon owes to how Solomon isn't an activist; he's a white moderate who hides his bigotry behind medicalized language, but also nerdy ceremony and regalia: rackets to fleece students, but also perches to crow from (commonly to announce, thus advertise, a university's overestimated dick size)!
Beyond graduation ceremonies, Solomon says he's "a law-abiding citizen," that doctors aren't cops, and not all cops are bad, etc (no mention of genocide; e.g., the Palestinians). It's the white moderate handbook, used from Jim Crow onwards; i.e., to maintain "peace" as a white man's word in a white man's world, which MLK called, "the presence of negative justice [during] the absence of tension" (source).
The difference is dialectical-material function. Through my achievements, labor and output, I marry African-American civil rights activism to queer people, disabled folk and minority sex workers, etc; crowing his own achievements, Solomon ignores centuries of abuse from doctors serving the profit motive as cops do—e.g., classically white male doctors calling women "hysterical" while lobotomizing them[5] or committing them to mental institutions (also called hospitals), while also sterilizing Indigenous Peoples/people of color while attacking fat people and trans people as doctors also do. "Rioting is the voice of the unheard," said MLK, and doctors commonly sterilize that versus finding consensus concerning Capitalism; i.e., as the source for so much widespread harm, including genocide whitewashed by moderates (male or not, white or not): dead souls, dead generations, dead whores, dead planets. Mad science is mad medicine.
To it, Solomon never challenges my calling him a white moderate, nor does he provide any evidence for his rebuttals beyond the regular approach white moderates abuse: calling my statements "false"; i.e., as a position to assign by an in-group member styling himself "logical" (from Aristotle onwards), yet ignoring the evidence all around him. He acknowledges genocide, yet does nothing to critique it or billionaires; i.e., by insisting how the world can never change beyond what it currently is. He'll denounce individual cases of overt, mask-off fascism and bigotry (e.g., homophobia), but not the status quo that leads criminogenically to such things on a global level; i.e., billionaires, presidents, and military leaders, but also medical doctors and those playing at medical doctors (unless Solomon is a doctor but if so, he's still not exempt from bigotry or criticism).
In short, Solomon's arguments uphold and demonstrate Capitalist Realism per a medicalized Protestant ethic, one quick to dismiss the entirety of my evidence and largely through a transphobic and fatphobic lens calling us "dubious"; e.g., "ADAB" (All Doctors Are Bad), from A.T.A.C.K. Issue 9 Feb 24 (source); i.e., as part of my trans-woman history working alongside fat people—specifically fat sex workers like Sinead, below—towards fat/universal liberation versus partial clemency (which white moderates attain and uphold, across all registers). Solomon's a pedantic gatekeeper policing Omelas, and silence through selective arguments don't help his case when called out.
Needless to say, he's done nothing to address any of these criticisms over time, including at the present moment; re: during the current phase of his "beef" with Mike Israetel (I wonder). This makes Solomon racist as white moderates classically are: as silent partners to those they otherwise seem to openly disagree with (the "mob layers," as another bodybuilder critic puts it*). Both serve state power in different ways, functionally no different (as servants to the bourgeoisie).
*I.e., Atlas Power Shrugged, in his recent video, "Will the Science-Based Mafia Protect Mr. Mike?" (timestamp: 10:36). Atlas is talking about men obviously defending Mike and taking a share of his profits directly. But the reality here is that Solomon—by refusing to critique Mike's racism at all—is critiquing his rival for some things, but not others. By failing to critique racism, Solomon fails to challenge fascism, instead profiting off its revival. Indeed, he's functionally no different than Mike and his more open defenders, at this stage. Moderates historically tend to be white, straight and male (tokenism does allow for female and/or non-white queer examples, but I digress); however stochastic or kayfabe Solomon's white moderacy is, it still doesn't challenge fascism because Solomon profits off a strategic arrangement with Mike: Batman vs the Joker playing at false rebellion—selective criticism (and punishment) a fascist tactic upholding racist structures (re: me vis-à-vis Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds, 1997).
For the rest of my thoughts on Solomon and company, refer to my upcoming companion video, which will cover my sources in an unscripted fashion after reading this script out loud.
Footnotes
[1a] "Concerning the legality of calling someone a Nazi or fascist regarding their behavior as racist—i.e., as a matter of opinion tied to public figures, which YouTubers are." Solomon is a public figure, and one I've critiqued concerning this topic, before (see: quote from "Explaining My Basic Approach").
[1b] As I respond in a community post to Atlas Power Shrugged's "Do We Owe Mike a Retraction?" (who wanted to know if the spelling errors were unusual in Mike's PhD, 2025):
Regarding the state of Mike's PhD and having finished grad school and attempted postgrad (which I completed independently because of Covid):
I got my master's in England as an exchange student (English Studies: the Gothic), and can say that the number of spelling and grammar mistakes were oddly high in Mike's PhD. That being said, it was pass/fail and what they cared most about was content, methodology and literature review communicated well. To that, if the spelling mistakes/formatting errors didn't get in the way of conveying the overall message, I suspect it wouldn't matter much. Then again, I come from the humanities, not the STEM fields (though I did date someone as they were finishing their MS [nematology] and remember the same basic idea applying to their work, too; re: content over polish).
As for my PhD, I released it independently—meaning as independent research (on sexuality under capital vis-à-vis the Gothic, Metroidvania and Amazons)—but in that case, I polished the shit out of it, because I wanted it to be read by people outside academia. Mike's PhD was collecting dust somewhere and I get the feeling he was mainly using it for "street cred," so it being rougher doesn't really surprise me (source).
[1c] With me having enjoyed Solomon's critique of Jeff Nippard up to a point (though frankly he sounds pretty full of himself towards the end; e.g., preaching "reason and logic" in ways that sound very Cartesian, ergo Western Liberalism; timestamp: 44:08).
[2] It isn't. See: my quote from "Understanding My Basic Approach" at the end of this writeup.
[3] Borrowed from Alexandra Norton's "The Imperialism of Theory: A Response to J. Russell Perkin" (1994). We whores chose to invoke the Medusa much like Norton does Foucault (or anyone else); i.e., for their speculative richness.
[4] Often with Lyle McDonald; e.g., "Lyle McDonald Critiques Mike Israetel's Fitness Advice" (2024). To be frank, I don't like Mike Israetel—the man's a neoliberal convert transplanted from Russia to the USA at the end of the Cold War—but I think Solomon and Mike share common ground; i.e., insofar as neither, when confronted (as I do, in this essay), will meaningfully critique Pax Americana and its medical bigotries towards various minorities/sex work. Sex work is work, my dudes, and silence is genocide; i.e., something that, once confronted about, you can either stop doing or maintain. Where do you stand, in that regard? Profit or people?
[5] I.e., for an imbalance of the humors, bicycle face and similar cases of wandering womb.
About the Author
Persephone van der Waard is the author of the multi-volume, non-profit book series, Sex Positivity—its art director, sole invigilator, illustrator and primary editor (the other co-writer/co-editor being Bay Ryan). Persephone has her independent PhD in Gothic poetics and ludo-Gothic BDSM (focusing partially on Metroidvania), and is a MtF trans woman, Tolkien and Amazon enthusiast, anti-fascist, atheist/Satanist, poly/pan kinkster, erotic artist/pornographer and anarcho-Communist with multiple partners. Including multiple playmates/friends and collaborators, Persephone and her many muses work/play together on Sex Positivity and on her artwork at large as a sex-positive force. That being said, she still occasionally writes reviews, Gothic analyses, and interviews for fun on her old blog (and makes YouTube videos talking about politics). To learn more about Persephone's academic/activist work and larger portfolio, go to her About the Author page. Any money Persephone earns through commissions or donations goes towards helping sex workers through the Sex Positivity project; i.e., by paying costs and funding shoots, therefore raising awareness. She takes payment on PayPal, Patreon, and CashApp, etc; all links are available on her Linktr.ee. Every bit helps!
Comments
Post a Comment