Universal basic income is a dangerous delusion



As artificial intelligence drives fresh excitement in the tech world, major figures such as Elon Musk are reviving an old political fantasy: universal basic income. The idea has drawn support from a strange coalition, from progressive politicians like Andrew Yang to libertarian thinkers like Charles Murray.

To its advocates, UBI is the obvious answer to a future in which machines displace human labor. But beneath the sleek language of innovation lies the same old welfare-state promise: material comfort in exchange for dependence. Its supporters speak as though it were the natural companion of progress. In reality, it threatens to rob millions of the work, structure, and purpose that give life meaning.

UBI attracts supporters for very different reasons. For Andrew Yang and others on the left, it promises relief from poverty through guaranteed cash transfers. For Charles Murray, it has represented a simpler and more streamlined alternative to the sprawling welfare state. For Elon Musk and many AI boosters, UBI solves the problem of those with too little cognitive ability to compete, left behind in an increasingly IQ-based economy.

Their motives differ, but they share a revealing assumption: that UBI is an inevitable response to progress rather than a political choice with deep moral and social consequences. In each case, the individual is treated less as a citizen with duties and aspirations than as a materialist problem to be managed.

Welfare for all

A version of UBI basically already exists in the United States. With the vast web of interlocking welfare programs offered by the state for things like disability, poverty, child care, minority status, and educational attainment, most people can find a way to qualify for assistance with food or housing. It might not provide a comfortable or desirable life, but if someone doesn’t want to work to survive in America, they often do not have to.

For many people, the state has become not a temporary backstop but a long-term provider. That arrangement may keep some households afloat, but it has not produced a flourishing class of free and self-governing citizens. It has more often produced dependence, passivity, and bureaucratic management.

The case for UBI made by many AI enthusiasts bears a familiar resemblance to the old socialist dream. Human labor may become unnecessary, they say, but machine-driven abundance will replace what is lost. Freed from drudgery, ordinary people will devote themselves to art, philosophy, travel, community, and self-cultivation. The nation will become a republic of fulfilled and creative souls, all liberated from economic necessity. It is an attractive vision. It is also the same old fantasy that material abundance can dissolve the harder facts of human nature.

The idea that AI can produce the predicted level of abundance is itself a huge, untested assumption.

Man is not a machine

AI is well-suited to handling many managerial tasks and repetitive interactions. It is far less capable in situations that require judgment, responsibility, dexterity, trust, and adaptation to messy reality. Even the systems that do work require expensive hardware, enormous energy consumption, and a dense supporting infrastructure. A country that struggles to maintain basic institutional competence should be wary of fantasies about a nearly labor-free future sustained by flawless technical systems. Before promising a world beyond work, the advocates of UBI should first show that the machinery behind that world can actually exist.

Even if one grants the premise that AI could replace most labor and generate enough abundance to meet material needs, UBI would still collide with basic truths about human nature. Men do not work merely to eat. Work gives shape to the day, imposes discipline, teaches competence, and anchors identity. People on welfare in the current system are not known for their high propensity to churn out great American novels or breathtaking sculptures. Instead, welfare recipients tend to watch television, play video games, and do drugs with their free time. Idleness, not unleashed creativity, is the fruit most often produced by removing the human need for labor.

Undoubtedly, some genuinely talented people who are trapped in unfulfilling jobs would benefit from this UBI scenario, but for the average person, it would be a disaster. For most people, even imperfect work provides something essential: structure, routine, responsibility, and a recognized place in the world.

Slaves to the tech plantation

A humanity freed from the necessity of labor would see the Pareto Principle run wild, with a small number of talented and driven people benefiting greatly as the rest fall into idleness. The mortality rate of men spikes when they retire because they lose the structure and meaning that had previously defined their lives.

UBI advocates also have a habit of addressing only the survival aspects of economic behavior while ignoring one of its most important functions — status. The status hierarchy is one of the most important aspects of how humans order our societies, and to determine our place within that hierarchy, we play status games.

Occupations can be extremely desirable for the status they confer, not just the resources they provide. A plumber may earn more than a professor, yet many people would still prefer the title and standing that come with academic life. If AI makes a base level of abundance available, people will compete over something to obtain status. Maybe artisanal, hand-manufactured items will become the new marker of status. The point is that these behaviors are hardwired into humans, and we should not expect them to disappear even if we solve the problem suddenly that they initially addressed.

AI enthusiasts rarely consider the consequences of disconnecting the entire production process from humans. Markets currently seek to maintain an equilibrium between human production and human consumption. There are artificial signals and plenty of distortion, but markets are still human-centered. If you decouple the system from human input by placing everyone on UBI, you create a closed techno-commercial feedback loop that no longer needs to be restricted by human concerns. In such a system, the citizen is no longer a participant but a dependent end user. That is not merely an economic shift. It is a transformation in the meaning of social life.

The danger grows sharper once one considers the political power UBI would concentrate in the state. The U.S. government already plays favorites, denying business loans, college scholarships, mortgage assistance, and other benefits to races, religions, or political affiliations that it finds undesirable. Every payment can become a point of pressure. Every dependency can become a tool of compliance.

It should be obvious that the state would become even more abusive if it became the only distributor of economic goods and services. Incredibly, socialists, libertarians, and techno capitalists can all make the same mistake, though it is not that surprising once you realize the underlying error. Their ideologies differ, but all are tempted by the same thin view of man as a creature defined mainly by material needs. But man is not a machine to be provisioned. We are more than just inputs and outputs; we are creatures who require meaning and purpose. That is something that a universal basic income can never give.

Amazon gives lame excuse for removing 'offensive' dystopian novel about mass migration ruining Europe



France was among the Western nations whose elites determined it worthwhile in the second half of the 20th century to open the floodgates to mass migration from the third world, especially from former colonies.

Award-winning French novelist and travel writer Jean Raspail foresaw the threat this demographic replacement posed to his nation and to Western civilization more broadly and dared — following the collapse of the Fourth Republic and amid the flight of Vietnamese "boat people" to Europe — to explore this threat in his controversial 1973 dystopian novel, "The Camp of the Saints."

'A ban by Amazon is a virtual ban of book sales and distribution.'

Both then and now, Raspail's novel serves, on the one hand, to illuminate the folly of multiculturalist aspirations and allowing unassimilable hordes of culturally antipathetic foreigners into one's nation and, on the other hand, to enrage those who are still pretending that unchecked mass migration is a laudable policy and that saying otherwise is "racist."

Evidently, the book is still ruffling feathers. This time around, the novel has apparently prompted a negative reaction from the world's largest company, Amazon.

The novel — characterized by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "racist fantasy about an invasion of France and the white Western world by a fleet of starving, dark-skinned refugees" — was first translated into English in 1975 and has been published several times since in the United States. Despite growing in relevance and popularity, supply couldn't meet demand for the book in recent years, especially as the right-holders had reportedly refused to reprint it. A small publishing house stepped up, however, and managed to secure the rights.

RELATED: They'll Build a Fire with Your Lovely Oak Door

The late French writer Jean Raspail; Micheline Pelletier/Sygma/Getty Images

Vauban Books, an imprint of Redoubt Press, published a new edition in September, generating significant waves and sales. After months of sales of the title on its platform, Amazon U.S. removed the paperback listing for the new edition on Friday.

Vauban Books editor in chief Ethan Rundell said in a statement on Sunday that his publishing house was "informed by Amazon that the book is in violation of the company's 'offensive content' policy. Amazon has supplied no information as to which portions of the book are offensive nor to whom."

After noting that Vauban had sold roughly 20,000 paperback copies of the book since first listing it for presale on Amazon last summer and that it nets an average rating of 4.8 stars, Rundell said, "It may be no coincidence that the listing was removed one day after New York Magazine published a critical article on Vice President Vance that referenced the book. This echoes a 2019 campaign that targeted Stephen Miller, leading the novel's previous publisher to drop the title from its catalogue."

Rundell noted that regardless of whether Amazon chooses to distribute the title, Vauban Books "remains committed to keeping the novel in print and accessible worldwide."

Shortly after making the initial statement, Vauban Books announced that Amazon U.S. had also removed the hardcover edition of the novel.

There was a great deal of backlash over the book's removal.

Nathan Pinkoski, a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America who penned the introduction for the new edition, called the reported removal of the paperback option "an egregious act of censorship."

"Amazon is committed to the burning of your fine oak doors," wrote BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre, referencing the following line from the novel, "Your universe has no meaning to them. [The invading migrants] will not try to understand. They will be tired, they will be cold, they will make a fire with your beautiful oak door."

Former Idaho Solicitor General Theo Wold wrote, "Amazon just censored a book first published in 1973 that depicts the destruction of the west through third-world mass migration. I'm sure all the people who whine about 'book bans' when a school board prevents 6-year-olds from reading about gay sex will be just as upset."

Jason Kenney, Canada's former Conservative minister of immigration and former Alberta premier, tweeted, "This is outrageous. Amazon handles up to 80% of book distribution in North America. A ban by Amazon is a virtual ban of book sales and distribution. I have never read The Camp of the Saints (although I am now moved to do so,) so offer no judgement about its merits. But there is no denying that it is a widely read novel with a significant cultural impact on France, and around the world."

It appears the backlash prompted Amazon to rethink things.

As of Monday morning, the paperback version of the novel is available again on Amazon.

When asked for comment about the novel's removal, Amazon told Blaze News that an "error" was responsible for the paperback listing of the book's temporary removal and that other formats were not affected.

An Amazon spokesperson told Blaze News, "We’ve resolved an error that briefly affected the availability of a paperback listing of The Camp of the Saints, and the title is now restored."

Vauban Books stated after its title reappeared on the platform, "Amazon has still not offered an explanation as to why the novel was taken down. We have received NO explanation, much less apology, for the deletion of the paperback Friday and hardcover this morning."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The liberal guide to committing national suicide



The prime minister of Spain, Pedro Sanchez, has announced that the country will legalize 500,000 migrants, creating a massive political and demographic shake-up inside the country. Spain fought the Reconquista for hundreds of years to recapture its lands from North African Muslims. In the 20th century, the country fought a civil war and was ruled by Francisco Franco for decades to ward off communism. Despite all these efforts, Spain is ultimately racing toward the progressive open-borders suicide that so many other Western nations have pursued.

So the question everyone is left asking is: If liberalism ultimately makes nations fragile, how did it come to dominate the most powerful countries in the Western world?

Most people are lazy, selfish, and impulsive. Successful civilizations are created by accumulating low-time-preference behaviors that collectively enable them to overcome the negative aspects of human nature. Those lessons are costly to relearn with each generation, so these prosocial behaviors are encoded in the traditions, folkways, and institutions of civilization. The systems that allow society to function work their way into language, religion, literature, song, and art until they are almost invisible to the people who live inside them. The people could not imagine living any other way.

This thick network of embedded folkways and traditions does a great job of cultivating virtue in the citizenry and perpetuating the society that gave birth to them, but it makes cooperation with other nations difficult. In many cases, even the inhabitants of the society cannot really articulate what the behaviors are or what makes them work because they have become second nature. The very thing that makes them work for the host nation makes them very difficult to explain or implement in other cultural contexts.

As civilizations shifted their priorities, they started to lose the traditions, folkways, and even religions that defined them.

A small, tight-knit society is great for a time, but eventually it gets outcompeted by larger civilizations. The advantages of scale are too great, and to compete, the small, successful nation must learn to expand through cooperation. The civilization with more troops, more crops, more trading partners, and more allies will eventually crush smaller societies, no matter how virtuous those societies might be. This is where liberalism enters the equation.

Liberalism, in the classical sense, not the modern Democratic Party, was a project that allowed civilizations to scale. Specifics of religion, custom, tradition, and even financial transactions had been too deeply territorialized in particular civilizations to allow cooperation or commerce between different peoples. In many cases, the differences were so severe as to spark wars. To enable cooperation and scale, the scaffolding that allowed cooperation at the local level needed to be removed from these divisive, conflicting cultural contexts and reterritorialized into a neutral space where different peoples could access it.

By identifying and extracting the behaviors that enabled social cooperation from their cultural contexts, liberalism created a framework that enabled different nations to engage in commerce and other forms of exchange. A minimum viable morality was reached among nations, allowing them to sign business contracts, diplomatic treaties, and trade agreements that each side understood and could adhere to. Rather than go to war, people with very different ways of life could buy, sell, and even ally with each other productively. Capitalism was born, and with it came vast gains in wealth and standard of living.

The benefits of this explosion in cooperation are obvious, but in life, there are no solutions — only trade-offs. Eventually, the costs of liberalism began to rear their heads. As nations began to liberalize and scale, they still maintained deeply rooted cultural identities and ways of life while experiencing an influx of wealth. The ruling class would need to manage these new relationships of trade and diplomacy, so they increasingly interacted with the ruling classes of other nations within the new liberal framework rather than through their own native cultural networks.

The ability to operate in the liberal global framework brought wealth and status, and soon societies were selecting for this ability rather than focusing on the territorialized traditions and virtues that had previously defined them. The incentives in these societies began to shift away from maintaining their own cultures and toward profitably engaging with the liberal world order.

As civilizations shifted their priorities, they started to lose the traditions, folkways, and even religions that defined them. They were vastly superior, both militarily and economically, to nations that had not learned to cooperate at this scale, but they were trading away something crucial with this advantage. The minimum viable morality may have been sufficient to trade tea or silk, but it was not sufficient for maintaining the social cohesion of particular societies. It turns out that the bare-bones morality extracted from their cultural and religious contexts is not enough for humans to survive in the long term.

This loss of identity and social duty started to have serious consequences. Ruling elites no longer saw the citizens of their country as family to which a duty is owed but as interchangeable economic units that could be rearranged to maximize productivity and profit. One warm body that generated labor and consumed goods was just as valuable as the next and could be swapped out at will. That is why Spain and many other Western nations have adopted this suicidal policy toward immigration — no human is Spanish; they all exist under the same liberal globalist moral architecture.

Liberalism seemed like a miracle when it allowed for scale and the massive advantages in wealth and productivity that come with it. But as the old identities and traditions fell away, the same force that allowed civilizations to grow beyond their wildest expectations also made them fragile and vulnerable. The trends we are watching play out across the Western liberal order are the slow but inevitable consequences of the radical shift we embraced in human organization, and they will not be corrected without paying a cost.

The collapse of conservatism nobody wants to admit



From its earliest days, the United States saw itself as a nation with intense purpose. Not a static country, not a museum of inherited customs, but a project. Alexander Hamilton envisioned a commercial republic that would rival the great powers of Europe. The doctrine of manifest destiny pushed that ambition across a continent. After World War II, the same impulse extended outward into global leadership.

America, in other words, has always kept its eyes on the horizon.

But once the frontier had been settled, the U.S. seemed to turn inward, focusing its boundless energy and notion of destiny toward a social crusade. The progressive civil rights movement became the story Americans told about themselves more than any other. A nation built on outward expansion turned inward. The energy that once drove settlers westward and engineers skyward was redirected into a different kind of project: a moral and social crusade at home.

This narrative is so powerful that it now dominates both the conservative and liberal mind. This means that the U.S. no longer really has a conservative movement, but rather two competing versions of the same progressive teleology that only disagree about the pace at which the social revolution should be pursued.

Restless people settled the US; we barely complete the conquest of one challenge before some group splinters off to brave the next frontier.

The philosopher Aristotle is famous for his discussion of telos — the end or purpose of a thing. Many modern thinkers have discarded this notion of ultimate purpose in favor of a more materialistic understanding of the world, but Aristotle is right, and they are wrong. America was always a nation in tension, recognizing the need to solidify its identity as the first true product of the New World even as it was immediately compelled forward by ambition. Restless people settled the U.S.; we barely complete the conquest of one challenge before some group splinters off to brave the next frontier. The American advance has always been relentless. Our nation is one of great purpose and great energy that will be directed toward whatever end we put our minds to.

For most of its history, America’s telos was expansion. Not merely territorial, but civilizational. A restless people moved outward, solved one problem, then immediately sought the next. This produced enormous dynamism. It also produced tension. The country had to define itself even as it constantly outgrew its previous definitions.

The civil rights myth

North America is the natural domain of the United States, but once the West had been truly settled, there was nowhere left for that pioneering spirit to expand. World War II proved to be the nation’s most radical period of transformation, during which it emerged as one of only two real superpowers dominating the globe. There were attempts to redirect that impulse. The space race briefly reopened the horizon. The competition with the Soviet Union offered a global stage. But these proved temporary. The deeper shift was happening at home.

The civil rights movement had begun as a reasonable request for legal equality, but was quickly merging with hippie culture and anti-Vietnam protests into a full-blown revolutionary deconstruction of America. The story of the civil rights movement was no longer the effort to seek a temporary solution for a wrong done to a specific group. Instead the movement fully embraced the progressive and Marxist themes of its contemporaries. America was no longer a great nation that needed to make some adjustments to integrate black citizens better; it was an eternal oppressor that had to be entirely reconstructed.

That shift matters because it supplied a new telos. If the old purpose had been expansion, the new one was equality, understood not as a condition to be achieved, but as a process without end. Every disparity became evidence of unfinished work. Every institution became suspect. The project could not conclude because its logic required constant renewal.

Conservatives initially stood against the civil rights revolution. Barry Goldwater famously opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not because he supported Jim Crow, but because he understood the legislation as a revolutionary attack on states’ rights. Many conservatives initially objected to Ronald Reagan enshrining the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday into law because they still remembered that King was a communist sympathizer and serial adulterer who supported what we would later call DEI.

It was very clear that the CRA had already mutated well beyond its initial purpose and that civil rights law was expanding to consume every area of American life. But every movie, television show, novel, and news broadcast was selling the civil rights revolution as the new story of America. Conservatives never stood a chance.

The new telos of America was one of equality. The framers had written that “all men were created equal,” and it was now the purpose of the U.S. to make that a reality. While Thomas Jefferson may have penned those famous words, it is very clear that neither he nor most of the founding generation meant them in the way modern Americans do today. The continuation of slavery is the obvious example, but early American immigration laws restricted naturalization to whites of good character.

Alexis de Tocqueville, author of "Democracy in America," famously argued that American blacks and Anglos were incompatible and that a race war would likely come before any national civil war. Even Abraham Lincoln was not optimistic about the integration of black and white America, with plans to send former slaves back to Africa once the Civil War was concluded. Whatever previous generations meant by that famous phrase, they obviously did not believe in a never-ending quest to remake society in the name of equality.

Predictably, leftists took the revolution as far and as fast as they could. America’s original sin was slavery, and the country’s entire purpose was now a never-ending mission to atone for this great evil. The suppression of black Americans was systemic, so the United States had to deconstruct all previous hierarchies to avoid oppression. First race, then gender roles, then marriage, then religion, then the concept of biological sex itself. No matter how absurd the exercise proved itself to be, the hunt for one new oppressed minority to grant civil rights to became the telos of America.

Conservatives are the Washington Generals

Conservatives assumed their classic position as beautiful losers. They rejected the speed and intensity of the revolution but accepted the premise. Republicans went from rejecting MLK Day to worshiping the communist as some moderate paragon of the civil rights revolution. The conservative movement rapidly came to believe much of what the left was already asserting, but wanted the revolutionaries to drive the speed limit. Yes, the founders were racist. Yes, they had failed in their promise. Yes, the story of America was its eternal reinvention to achieve social equality. But also, the military and baseball are good, and maybe we can keep some of the Christianity because that also seems important.

This created a strange phenomenon: two competing progressive teleologies, one extreme and one more moderate, came to dominate the American mind. The conservatives began to manifest this ideology in areas of life where they held power. American foreign policy became one of eternal liberation, where our country would conquer the world in the name of liberal democracy.

Despite theoretically opposing feminism or gay rights in the U.S., conservatives would also cite violations of these civil rights as reasons to invade and control other countries. American churches, even conservative ones, began to center their message on race relations, liberation of the oppressed, and care for illegal immigrants. A real right wing no longer existed in America; the new frontier was the eternal civil rights revolution, and the only question was how far and how fast it should go.

This dynamic has created something of an identity crisis for the American right. On one hand, conservatives want to limit the excesses of the left; on the other, they have bought entirely into the progressive premise. American conservatives do not really want to return to the intention of the racist, sexist, and homophobic beliefs of the founders. They like the progress, they approve of the revolution, and they are ashamed of their past.

This subversion of the American vision is unfortunate, but it does not have to remain permanent. Instead of wasting our blood and treasure trying to turn every authoritarian backwater into a flourishing Jeffersonian republic, we could once again turn our eyes to the stars. Instead of trying to stamp out every form of inequality in our society, we could embrace hierarchy and the pursuit of greatness.

Instead of being ashamed of our founders, conservatives could follow manifest destiny to Mars and beyond. That requires rejecting the idea that the nation’s highest purpose is to endlessly remake itself in pursuit of abstract equality. It means accepting that hierarchy, excellence, and difference are not pathologies to be erased, but features of any functioning civilization. Before we can pursue the frontier once more, we must believe that we are a people with a purpose, a nation that deserves not just to survive, but to thrive.

Japan’s beautiful love affair with America



For a brief moment, X stopped reading like a machine built to aggravate, divide, and degrade the people using it. Instead of the usual sludge of foreign bots and demoralizing propaganda, American users found themselves, thanks to a new auto-translation feature, staring at something unexpected: a flood of posts from Japan celebrating the United States. Monster trucks, backyard barbecue, Old West revolvers, bluegrass music, country songs, and all the rowdy symbols of American life that our own elites often treat as embarrassing were suddenly being admired from abroad.

It reminded Americans that our culture is not only real, but vivid enough that another people can see its beauty even when we have been taught to sneer at it ourselves. If Americans and Japanese are to continue to enjoy our distinct cultures, we must fight to maintain the true diversity that makes a civilization worth preserving.

Status in the U.S. and many other Western nations is acquired by looking down on the folkways of the average American.

Most Americans know that there is a strong current of appreciation for Japanese culture in the U.S. Americans eat Japanese food, watch anime, read manga, practice karate, and revere samurai movies. While we were once in a brutal war, Americans have come to respect the noble and beautiful traditions of the Japanese. What many Americans did not know is that the Japanese also have a robust subculture of appreciation for American culture.

Americans are constantly told that they have no culture, or that what they do have is shallow, vulgar, and unworthy of defense. In much of elite life, status comes from mocking the tastes and traditions of ordinary Americans. Status in the U.S. and many other Western nations is acquired by looking down on the folkways of the average American.

It is not just that the Japanese love American culture, but that they seem to focus specifically on rural Southern and Western archetypes. Banjos playing “Take Me Home, Country Roads," barbeques grilling comically large steaks, monster trucks crushing everything below them. The Japanese love and celebrate everything that American elites have trained the population at large to sneer at.

Recently, many people have been asking the question “What is an American?” But the Japanese seem to know right away. There is no confusion, no debate. The answer is obvious and plays itself out in the memes, re-enactments, and celebrations the Japanese enjoy while honoring American culture. Sometimes another people can identify your defining traits more clearly than you can, especially after your own institutions have spent years trying to dissolve them.

In a period when many people in the United States feel estranged from their own inheritance, it was oddly heartening to see ourselves reflected in a nation we admire. If the Japanese know who Americans are, then the least we can do is be proud to act like the Americans the Japanese love.

This sudden outburst of cultural appreciation also puts to bed the idea that Americans are xenophobes who hate other countries. Japan’s love for the U.S. is reciprocated with great fervor by Americans. But why are Americans so willing to appreciate and embrace the Japanese while being dismissive of so many other countries? The answer is simple: The Japanese are worthy of admiration. Not all cultures are equal, and the Japanese have emerged from the devastation of war to rebuild a high-trust society on a foundation of rich history and honorable conduct. It turns out that Americans don’t hate other cultures; they simply save their appreciation for those that deserve it.

The social media cultural exchange also highlighted the importance of real diversity and the need to protect distinct cultures. Both the Americans and Japanese hold reciprocal appreciation for each other’s civilizations and want to see them continue into the future. Americans want our grandchildren to be able to visit Japan in 100 years and experience what we celebrate now, and the Japanese feel the same about the U.S. An island called Japan that had the same borders and topography but was filled with Indians, Palestinians, and Somalians would not be the same. If the island chain of Japan were full of Haitians, it would not be Japan; it would be Haiti with some cherry blossoms.

RELATED: Disney’s ‘Gay Days’ are canceled. Don’t pop the champagne just yet.

Blaze Media Illustration

That is the point that modern ideology cannot admit. A nation is not just a market, a legal zone, or a patch of land inside a set of borders. It is the Japanese people, their way of life, and the culture they create that define the nation. Japan has been better than most modern nations in protecting its identity, but the country is under immense pressure to open its borders. Like much of the modern world, Japan is experiencing a massive decline in birth rates and is struggling to care for its elderly population while replacing its workforce. After dabbling in increased immigration to bolster its workforce, the nation has elected a right-wing government to reimpose restrictions. A civilization can survive low birth rates for a time; it cannot survive replacement.

Americans are beginning to understand the same truth about themselves. If Japan would cease to be Japan after demographic replacement, then the United States would cease to be the United States under the same conditions. America is a real, distinct culture with traditions, folkways, and history that are worthy of pride. America is not just an economy or an administrative zone attached to a flag. We need to stop being shamed into rejecting our culture or treating it as the banal background for a global empire. Japan is beautiful because the Japanese have built a civilization worth preserving. America is beautiful because Americans built a distinct culture worth preserving. That culture deserves more than ironic detachment or ritual embarrassment. It deserves loyalty. The Japanese, in their odd and affectionate way, reminded Americans of something many had forgotten: This country is real, its inheritance is beautiful, and it is worth preserving.

Neuroscientist Iain McGilchrist: Everything you’ve been told about the brain’s hemispheres is ‘almost the inverse of the truth’



Everything you think you know about the function of the human brain is wrong — and Dr. Iain McGilchrist, author of "The Master and His Emissary," is sitting down with BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre to explain why.

According to McGilchrist, the modern belief that the left hemisphere is “verbal and rational and dependable” while the right hemisphere is “air fairy,” “emotional,” and “not very dependable” is a farce.

“All of that is completely wrong. In fact, it’s almost the inverse of the truth,” he tells MacIntyre on “The Auron MacIntyre Show.” “The right hemisphere, as I will explain, is far more dependable, far more stable, and the left hemisphere is prone to emotional outbursts of a very narcissistic kind.”


“It is prone actually to anger and to disgust and self-righteousness and emotions of that kind,” he explains.

And because of how important the brain is to each and every living being, the science surrounding it deserves to be challenged — which is exactly what McGilchrist is doing.

“In the left hemisphere, you see things that you already know what they are and you know you want to get them. They’re fixed, they’re isolated, they’re in a way fragmentary, they’re decontextualized, and they’re examples of a kind,” McGilchrist tells MacIntyre.

“Meanwhile, the right hemisphere is seeing a completely different world. It’s seeing a world in which nothing is ever fully certain," he says, adding, "It always might be something different."

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist's commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘The level of mistrust runs too deep’: Auron MacIntyre’s warning to establishment conservatives



A growing identity crisis is shaking the conservative movement, as longtime tensions between grassroots audiences and establishment voices boil over in our increasingly digital age.

According to BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre, the chaos is driven by years of mistrust built first between the mainstream media and their own audiences, and now between conservative institutions and their audiences.

“To say that the conservative movement has come off the rails would comically understate the damage,” MacIntyre begins.

“Plenty of commentators blame podcasts for this new disorder, and the new ecosystem gives them no shortage of bad behavior to cite. But that diagnosis misses the deeper cause,” he says, pointing out that the “deeper cause” is, conservatives are now replicating the legacy media’s attitude toward their listeners.


“Establishment conservatives treated their audience the same way the legacy press did: as a resource to be managed, manipulated, and occasionally milked. A movement that spent decades being lied to will not be stitched back together by scolding the people who finally stopped listening,” MacIntyre says.

“Democrats screamed about disinformation, warned about the dangers of free speech, and then launched research projects designed to replicate what they claimed to hate. The right cheered the upheaval. Establishment conservatives, however, never fully grasped what the shift meant for them,” he continues.

“Trump didn’t rise only as a battering ram against progressive media. He rose as a middle finger to conservative establishment media as well. That plan worked and then kept working in ways that many people didn’t anticipate,” he adds.

Now, MacIntyre explains, “conservative gatekeepers” are mimicking the “panicked reflexes the left showed” as they accuse others of “dangerous rhetoric,” call for “deplatforming,” and ask for “responsible voices to regain control.”

“These instincts never belong to one ideology. They belong to institutions that sense their monopoly slipping away,” he says.

Now, MacIntyre is warning conservatives that they “can’t lecture podcast audiences about responsible broadcasting after years of manipulating their own viewers.”

“The level of mistrust runs too deep. Censorship will fail too. Shaming and platform policing didn’t rebuild credibility for Democrats, and it’s not going to rebuild credibility for Republicans, either,” he adds.

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist's commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Outstanding': Harmeet Dhillon brings down the hammer on remainder of Minnesota church-storming suspects



Weeks after Don Lemon and dozens more agitators allegedly stormed a church service in Minnesota, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon made a much-anticipated announcement.

On Wednesday, Dhillon announced that all 39 individuals suspected of disrupting the church service had been arrested as of Monday, adding an intriguing detail about a couple of the arrests.

'Outstanding work by DOJ. You don't get to terrorize churchgoers in America.'

"As of Monday, all 39 individuals indicted in the attack on Cities Church in MN had been arrested, two of them while abroad," Dhillon wrote on X.

"We @CivilRights look forward to bringing justice to the victims of this attack and demonstrating our commitment to justice for all!" she continued.

RELATED: Don Lemon enters plea following January arrest in connection with Minnesota church disruption

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Activists stormed Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on January 18.

Apparently among them was ex-CNN talking head Don Lemon, who previously pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiring to violate someone's constitutional rights and violating the FACE Act.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) praised the DOJ's persistence in this case: "Outstanding work by DOJ. You don't get to terrorize churchgoers in America."

Likewise, BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre lauded the arrests, noting how easily the case could have disappeared in the news cycle.

"I appreciate the follow-through on this. Many people predicted that the administration would do nothing and with all of the other news it would have been easy to let this quietly drop out of the cycle. But they didn't, they charged them all," MacIntyre said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Stagnant wages, skyrocketing home prices, empty promises: The village is failing its children — they might just burn it down



According to an old African proverb, “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.”

BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre is concerned this same dynamic is playing out among America’s younger generations today. Many young people feel scorned by policies and systems that favor older generations and immigrants while barring them from owning homes, starting families, and pursuing careers.

As housing prices skyrocket, wages remain flat, jobs get shipped overseas, and immigration transforms the workforce, political figures keep touting record stock-market levels as evidence of widespread economic success. But inflating asset values is far from the same thing as genuine national well-being.

If something doesn’t give soon, will our young folk lose hope in the system and start trying to destroy it?

On this episode of “The Auron MacIntyre Show,” Auron dives into this pressing question.

“The French Revolution was horrific, but it happened in part because the king really was making bad decisions. The Russian Revolution was an absolute nightmare, but it did happen because the czar was not doing a good job and was ignoring the needs of the people,” says Auron.

“The systems you're operating have to benefit most of the people involved because if they don't, there will eventually come a time where everyone either checks out or decides that they don't want to play this game anymore,” he warns.

When this happens, the results usually end up being “much worse” than the original predicaments that caused them.

Right now, the younger generations are being given the same advice that made older generations financially successful: “Work harder,” “[increase] your skill set,” “[put] your time in,” and “[make] wise financial decisions.”

While this is still “good advice to the individual,” says Auron, it’s no longer applicable to the masses due to how policies have shifted over time.

“You can't keep running the entire economy for Boomers and the laptop class. ... There has to be a buy-in or eventually people will get violent or apathetic — and you can't be angry or surprised when that ultimately happens,” he says.

“The affordability issue is going to be the issue. It just is. Like that and immigration are going to be one and two for probably the next 10 years at least, and so any Republican administration, any Trump administration, any (let's hope) JD Vance administration — they're going to have to address this problem,” Auron urges.

To hear more of Auron’s analysis, watch the video above.

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist's commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘The moment that's going to stay with me for the rest of my life’: Auron MacIntyre on Trump’s unforgettable State of the Union



In his nearly two-hour State of the Union address last night, President Trump celebrated what he described as an extraordinary "turnaround for the ages" in his leadership, declaring America now "bigger, better, richer, and stronger than ever" amid a booming economy marked by declining inflation, reduced gas and mortgage rates, rising wages, and a tightly secured border with no illegal entries reported in recent months.

He spotlighted aggressive immigration enforcement measures, stood firm on his tariff strategy, cautioned Iran against pursuing nuclear weapons while favoring diplomatic paths, floated new proposals like universal retirement savings access and curbs on institutional home buying, paid tribute to military veterans and the Olympic hockey squad, delivered pointed critiques of Democrats and previous administrations, and painted an optimistic picture of renewed national strength heading into the midterm elections.

But there was one singular moment that BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre says was genuinely unforgettable.

“The moment that's going to stay with me for the rest of my life is watching Iryna Zarutska’s mother with Erica Kirk and just the pain on her face in that moment and the fact that Democrats could not even in that moment summon a shred of humanity,” he says.

“I still don’t think that we have dealt with the psychic trauma again of that one-two punch of Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska, and so I think that [Trump] highlighting that and, you know, showing the grief that is still there for that mother and knowing that we need justice, we need to end political violence, we need to end the soft-on-crime policy — I think those were all incredibly strong moments for him,” he adds.

Fellow BlazeTV host and SOTU panel member Steve Deace agrees that this was one of the most powerful, albeit enraging, moments of the entire event.

He points to a viral tweet from Turning Point USA Chief Operating Officer Tyler Bowyer that shined a spotlight on the depths of Democrats’ hypocrisy.

Deace calls the close-up snapshot a “devastating” blow to Democrats.

“It’s a post of one of the Democrat members of Congress who did not want to stand during [the honoring of Anna Zarutska], and he’s got a Ukraine flag on his lapel. If that is not a portrait of where we are,” he scoffs.

“This is what the Democrats actually think of the Ukrainian people,” says guest and senior editor at Human Events Jack Posobiec.

To hear more, watch the video below.