The Use & Abuse of Women by the Southern Poverty Law Center

In the lead-up to last year’s Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, the Southern Poverty Law Center profiled all of us who were scheduled as headline speakers at the event. For God only knows what reason, Rachel Janik was assigned to my case. As everyone saw in the “interview” in Los Angeles, Rachel had allowed her hatred and her arrogance to cloud her judgment. 



After this disaster, she was understandably humiliated, and I imagine her superiors in the SPLC took her to task for the public embarrassment. She then followed this up with a magnificent hatchet job, the likes of which I have never seen.


One of the more transparently spiteful yarns in Rachel’s hit piece was a bit of gossip from Ashley Kopf. You will notice that Rachel, who fronted the entire “interview” as “an opportunity for [me] to respond,” never once asked me anything about this girl. Instead, she tried to blindside me with some juicy, hate-filled gossip from an ex-Maenad. This is the SPLC’s credibility in a nutshell.


Ashley became fast friends with Alexandria and Victoria – the two girls whose conspiracy was really the center of Rachel’s hit piece – immediately after I left New York and refused to speak with her again. She had sought out Victoria, my ex-fiancé, and tried to damage me (her words, not mine) as badly as she could. Alexandria raked Ashley into the conspiracy and gave her contact information to Rachel, who then interrogated her for an hour trying to get any incriminating gossip she could. True to form, Rachel did not care one whit about destroying Ashley’s name along with mine, and she implicated her as much as me in her sex & drug scandal piece. Ashley has since explained these circumstances in a public statement, which reads as follows:


Statement of Ashley Alexia Kopf

30 July 2018


Hello, my name is Ashley Alexia Kopf, and I am writing in general about an experience that I went through during the summer of 2018 which has sense plagued my conscience and peace of mind. Mainly this concerns the publication of a piece in which I was convinced to implicate another person along with myself in scandalous activities, that other person being the Libertarian politician Augustus Sol Invictus. While I will not try to say that my involvement or my account of it were untrue, I do feel that my words were skewed to have a certain effect in the political realm and that my obvious emotional and mental state of disarray at the time was capitalized on by this media company that calls itself the Southern Poverty Law Center.


The SPLC apparently used Invictus’ ex-fiancé in a similar fashion in order to obtain my personal information to reach out to me. Like females are often apt to do after experiencing some kind of disagreement with a man, I had reached out to Victoria Rice within weeks after having personal differences with Augustus Invictus, having had prior knowledge of who she was and how to make contact with her. Another girl in particular played a role in this matter, namely Alexandria Brown. I spoke to her on the phone at least once and was under the impression that she was a friend of Victoria’s, though I later learned there was some rift between them and that Victoria herself was in distrust of Brown’s intentions. The main role that Brown seemed to play (brief as it was) was to encourage me along and make me feel that I was helping Victoria or doing something virtuous in granting the interview. Suddenly, after the information was obtained from me, Brown mysteriously severed contact. In short, the SPLC was aware of Victoria’s pending court matter with Invictus, and once she made them aware that I was in contact with her, they were soon able to reach out to me and press me for an interview, which I granted them. Alexandria Brown seems to have played the role of an organizer who had no personal reason to actually care about the situation. I had come to believe that by offering a public statement that it might assist Miss Rice in her court case, for at the time I sympathized with her. I still cannot speak for what actually happened concerning that matter, but I do know that no evidence was ever found and that serious difficulties were caused in this process for Invictus and his family as a direct result of these accusations.


One example of how my words were skewed was in how the article mentioned that “Invictus pried through her (my) texts, photos, and emails.” While it is true that I had mentioned that I was under the impression he had gone through my phone and cited these 3 things as reasons for why those actions were potentially unnerving, in reality, I lacked confirmation that he ever went through my phone to begin with; it was more something that was implied and understood, and most importantly, a personal matter. In fact, later on he contested that I was actually awake and handed him my phone of my own accord. I can only possibly attribute this misunderstanding to my delirium or even potentially to the sleep medication that I was taking at the time (Seroquel). More importantly, it was pretty obvious to me after having read the article after the fact (after I had already endured over an hour of questioning) that this interviewer, Rachel Janik, was truly, truly reaching for literally almost any piece of vilifying information that she could find, and it did not matter to her whether she needed to insert herself into people’s personal lives and convince them to incriminate themselves in the process, even under the guise of “helping” someone else (Miss Rice). In fact, a couple of months after the SPLC published its hit piece in question, I was next emailed by a journalist from Huffington Post around Thanksgiving, and when I declined to speak on the matter this time I was told that my name could be used with or without my consent due to the fact that I had issued a “public statement.” Again, we see a blatant disregard of a person’s personal life and privacy, along with their lack of willingness to have it smeared across the internet for the sake of some political agenda. One can only speculate on how this information and namely, my personal contact information, was shared in order for them to reach out to me a second time during a holiday.


While I am pleased to see that to date no other similar articles have been written concerning me at the mutual expense of myself and Invictus, I am still disturbed now that the dust has settled to truly understand how I have been used and the utter lack of professionalism involved. I certainly never calculated the cost of having my name associated with such ugly language, but if I had any say in the matter I would wish for that information to be removed from SPLC’s website, entirely and permanently.


Summarily, in retrospect: To me it was clear that I was going through something (private) emotionally concerning Invictus  and that the SPLC had something to gain from it, and they wasted no time in swooping in to get that from me. I have not spoken to Invictus for nearly a year since but I have now come to an understanding and in short, I am not pleased with what has been done to us both.


This is a general statement written for a general use/audience. I simply hope to be understood. Thank you.


One playing Devil’s Advocate might argue Rachel’s innocence in this case, because perhaps she just didn’t know that Ashley was on medication and in a state of delirium, or that she was trying her best to damage me in an effort to get back at me for leaving her. I’m willing to concede that perhaps she did not know these things; in all likelihood, she probably never even bothered to investigate that. But that’s exactly the point: the Southern Poverty Law Center and its employees are supremely unconcerned about frivolous things like truth, fairness, or credibility. Their use of personal enemies and scorned lovers to write tabloid gossip is pretty clear evidence of that.


That December, Jessica Schulberg of the Huffington Post was determined to smear another attorney by association with me, and so decided to repeat some of the tabloid gossip of the SPLC and add a little of her own. I explained to her the same thing I explained to Rachel, that I would not defend myself publicly against Victoria and drag her through the mud, and to the same effect: she simply added the word “allegedly” and repeated the allegations as fact, proving as so many others have that they do not care about protecting any “victim” but only about smearing those they hate.


Unbeknownst to me at the time, she also tried to strong-arm Ashley into making a statement against me. Ashley had told Schulberg that she did not want any part of her hit piece, and Schulberg informed her that she could use her statement anyway, because Ashley’s interview with the SPLC was now “public record” – demonstrating once again that none of these leftist fiends give a single goddamn about the women they use: they care only about manipulating them against their chosen targets.


The details surrounding this witch hunt are addressed in full in the book being published August 12th, Set the World on Fire.

Augustus Invictus
​Augustus Invictus is a jurist, writer, and political activist in Orlando, Florida. Publisher of The Revolutionary Conservative and Managing Partner of his law practice, Invictus is a right-wing libertarian and a member of the Republican Party. In 2016 he ran for the United States Senate in Florida as a Libertarian, and he is a former Chair of the Libertarian Party of Orange County.

Invictus earned his B.A. in Philosophy at the University of South Florida in Tampa and his J.D. at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago. Returning to his hometown of Orlando, he studied leadership at Rollins Crummer Graduate School of Business.

A Southerner and a father of eight children, Invictus contends that revolutionary conservatism requires a shift in perspective from the exaltation of abstract ideologies to a focus on our families and communities.