Christopher Nolan’s shocking woke sellout: Weaponizing Homer’s Western classic AGAINST the West



World-renowned director Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” is a big-budget epic adaptation of Homer's ancient Greek poem that follows Odysseus' perilous journey home after the Trojan War. Set to release this July, the film sparked scandal the moment marketing began.

Not only is Helen of Troy, who is described as a fair-skinned Greek woman in the original text, played by Kenyan-Mexican actress Lupita Nyong'o, but Elliot (formerly Ellen) Paige, a biological woman who started identifying as a man in 2020, plays a male character in the film. Although her specific role is unknown, one viral theory claims that she will play the mighty Achilles — the greatest warrior in all of Greek mythology.

BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre was surprised and disappointed when he learned about the direction Nolan’s “Odyssey” would take.

Nolan is “a man whose work has often been described as conservative or even reactionary,” he tells libertarian author and political activist James Keena.

As one of the greatest film directors of the modern age, Nolan, MacIntyre argues, “would have had the authority to tell a studio no” if it was pushing woke ideologies, like race and gender swapping.

“Why is it so hard for even some of the most stalwart directors like Christopher Nolan to avoid this trap?” he asks Keena.

“This is an ongoing assault on Western civilization and the norms of Western civilization. When you look at the story of 'The Odyssey,' it's part of Greek literature. That is one of the foundational things in Western thought,” Keena replies.

He explains that Homer’s central hero, Odysseus, is the kind of character that progressive thinkers detest. He’s “a very strong, type A male personality” who’s on a mission to return to his “nuclear family” and “re-establish law and order” in his kingdom of Ithaca, where suitors have invaded in his absence to steal what’s rightfully his.

“You can see why it sort of conflicts with what the ethos is now as to what a family should be, what a male should be like,” says Keena.

MacIntyre agrees, highlighting how Odysseus is a prime example of the patriarch archetype — the husband, father, and king who endures extreme hardship in order to return home and restore order to his household and kingdom.

“You want to, if you're a radical leftist, undermine those things that kind of hold together the American or the Western identity,” he says.

But there’s an even deeper (and darker) reality at play in Nolan’s woke “Odyssey,” says Keena.

“When you look at the collectivist group of philosophies Marxism, socialism, communism, they can't tolerate Western civilization or the concept of America,” he says.

Their unifying objective, he explains, is to “attack it, destroy it, replace it” by infiltrating every institution.

“And so what we're seeing on all levels, not just about movies or literature, but education, music, anything that you can pick out in society right now, is essentially a collectivist assault on Western civilization because it has to be destroyed in order to make room for the socialist revolution,” says Keena.

To hear more, watch the full interview 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.

Rural America’s new plague: Hicklibs and fail-libs



Rural America was once a refuge from radical leftists. Fewer amenities and job opportunities were a price some conservatives were willing to pay if it meant their traditional values and patriotism didn’t have to compete with progressivism.

But those pastoral sanctuaries are being blotted out one by one thanks to two new phenomena: hicklibs and fail-libs.

“As media and universities became more radical, their disciples moved into rural America through government-mandated institutions like schools and libraries,” says BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre.

“Thus the hicklib was born.”

A hicklib, MacIntyre explains, is “usually a social outcast, a failson who needs a moral explanation for why he hates the community he never fit into.”

“His resentment searches for a theory that will dignify his rage, and the progressive missionaries installed in his local institutions are happy to provide one,” he says.

The message is one of moral superiority: America is evil; those who disagree are “racist, sexist, backwards religious fanatics, destroying the lives of minorities"; and “white Christian culture” is the real evil in the world.

“The hicklib's failures to fit in become proof of moral superiority,” says MacIntyre.

Having found a solution to his inferiority complex, he sets out on a new mission.

“The hicklib shows up at town council meetings in a Black Lives Matter shirt to denounce minority oppression in a community with no actual black people. That absence naturally becomes further proof of the town's intolerance,” says MacIntyre.

“He loudly organizes Pride events attended by two other hicklibs. That little clique stages protests, distributes flyers, and imitates urban activist rituals. By practicing the sacraments of their faith, they hope to summon the spirit of the age to judge their reactionary little town.”

The hicklib, MacIntyre argues, has become a “plague” for rural communities.

But as plagues often do, the hicklib has evolved.

“As the value of college degrees collapse, a new breed is emerging: the fail-lib,” says MacIntyre.

Unlike the failure-to-launch hicklib, the fail-lib is outwardly successful.

“The fail-lib worked hard in high school and gave progressive teachers every approved answer. She wrote her college entrance essay on the oppression of trans women of color in coal mining. On campus, she became an activist. She secured a degree in some woke humanities discipline and earned straight A's by repeating everything her communist professor told her,” MacIntyre illustrates.

But despite her academic success, the fail-lib fails to land the “cushy corporate HR job” her expensive college degree promised her. Turns out, college degrees no longer come with the status they used to, and the “poor, oppressed immigrants” she’s long defended are now the preferred candidates.

Instead of moving to a big, liberal city like she planned, the fail-lib is forced to dwell among the rural “townies” she disdains.

She “was promised luxury and elite influence; now she serves the people she despises while searching for any opportunity to make their lives worse,” says MacIntyre, speculating that the rise of artificial intelligence will only “intensify this problem.”

“The fail-lib might make less money than you; she may be less respected than you; she may even be despised by the townies she once mocked, but in her heart, she knows she's superior, and nothing could ever convince her otherwise.”

To hear more, 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 REAL reason the pro-life movement is hitting a ceiling



The pro-life movement has seen a number of significant victories under President Donald Trump.

In less than six years, Trump has stopped U.S. tax dollars from funding groups that perform or promote abortions overseas, appointed three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade, eliminated some federal funding to Planned Parenthood through Title X rule changes, protected doctors and nurses who didn’t want to participate in abortions, ended most government use of aborted fetal tissue for research, and pardoned several pro-life activists who had been arrested for protesting.

Despite these wins, many pro-lifers are frustrated with President Trump’s public stance on abortion. They criticize his treatment of the issue as a state concern instead of pushing for a strong national ban or more federal limits. They also feel he hasn’t done enough to stop widespread mail-order abortion pills and condemn his calls for “flexibility” on related policies.

While BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre is fully on board with the pro-life movement, believing abortion is “the murder of a child in no certain terms” and “one of the most horrific things about our society,” he argues that many activists fail to see the reality of what the movement is up against.

On this episode of “The Auron MacIntyre Show,” the host argues that no amount of laws or Trump bans can fix the problem because the entire American system — its economy, workforce, and culture — is built on easy access to abortion.

While Auron sympathizes with the many pro-lifers who were dissatisfied with President Trump during his 2024 campaign for refusing to make big promises about abortion bans, he argues that Trump was wise to take a nuanced approach to such a deeply polarizing issue.

“Donald Trump knew that this was going to be very unpopular, and he just refused to run on it in the election. ... That makes political sense,” he admits.

Now that Trump is president, he continues to treat the issue of abortion exactly as he promised to treat it during his campaign, but many pro-lifers are nonetheless incensed.

As midterms draw nearer, pro-lifers are working to ban the abortion pill, but Auron says the timing of this initiative is unwise.

“Trump’s got enough problems with other optical issues going on — Iran, deportations, Epstein files, all that stuff. He doesn’t need another unpopular thing on his plate,” he argues, reiterating that he fully supports the pro-life movements’ initiatives in principle.

But practically, these initiatives aren’t working.

“The core issue is the state referendums. If the pro-life movement was winning at the state level after the overturn of Roe v. Wade, it wouldn’t need Trump to go out and do any of these things,” Auron explains.

“They’re doing the Lord’s work, ... a completely justified and righteous crusade. But you need to understand that if you’re losing consistently on the state level, something has happened,” he continues.

What has happened, he explains, is that abortion has become foundational in America since Roe v. Wade. What that landmark case did was “[create] an incentive structure that put abortion at the center of many of our economic and cultural systems and understandings.”

“We have made literal child sacrifice the center of our civilization,” he says bluntly.

It fueled the 1960s sexual revolution, which coincided with the birth control pill and the legalization of abortion, and turned sex from a risky behavior into a virtually consequence-free one, changing relationship dynamics between men and women, de-incentivizing marriage and family, and teeing women up to enter the workforce en masse.

“[Women in the workforce] has all kinds of huge benefits for employers. Corporations love working women. ... It basically doubles the labor pool,” Auron says.

Women also became huge money-savers for businesses because employers could not only pay women less than men to do the same job, but they could also pay men lower wages because the pressure to pay salaries that could provide for whole families suddenly vanished.

“Instead of getting one man doing the job that raised a family, you got a man and his wife both working for the same amount that just the man used to work for,” Auron says.

This shift also culminated in the need for more government. Before women entered the workforce, “Americans didn’t need a big government because women were at home, and they were building these associations, these connections, this social credit,” Auron says, “and so you didn’t have to have people step in and do all the things that women were doing.”

It also upped the nation’s GDP because all the work women were doing at home suddenly “[had] to get reterritorialized into the market.”

“When you move all of the female jobs, all of the female roles, all of the social capital that females were creating out of the economic zone and you move it into the economic zone, of course GDP goes up, line goes up, economic activity goes up because now there’s all these surrogates who have to do what women did when they were mothers,” Auron explains.

Abortion thus became a guarantee that the benefits of working women were locked in for corporations.

But the depth to which modern society is built upon the altar of abortion runs far deeper than that.

To hear Auron’s full breakdown, watch the episode 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.

Why leftism as a mental illness is a ‘comforting fiction’



As the divide between the right and the left continues to deepen, BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre explains that Americans are writing off what they don’t understand about each other as a “form of mental illness.”

“This is understandable when it comes to horrific crime. Someone like a serial killer is so violent and twisted that it's hard for us to comprehend their actions, and there is certainly a fair amount of mental illness that plays a factor,” MacIntyre says. “But today people often use this explanation when it comes to political disagreements.”

“Abortion, hatred for Christians and white people, the mutilation of children to turn boys into girls — these beliefs are so horrible that they can only possibly be explained by a malfunctioning brain,” he continues. “Of course, that's not the only explanation.”


“The other option is that some people have a very different set of values that drive them to pursue goals that we view as evil. The average American would like to avoid this truth, because it comes with an unnerving conclusion: Your political enemies aren't crazy; they are sane people who hate you and want to hurt you,” he adds.

MacIntyre explains that believing that a radical leftist who wants to mutilate children is mentally ill “is far easier than addressing the alternative.”

“The idea that half of America is crazy because they don’t share your political views is obviously absurd," he says. "The truth is much darker. We’re at least two societies, with mutually exclusive understandings of morality and purpose, trapped in one country.”

“The theoretical neutrality of the liberal system allowed this drift to occur under the surface, but the differences have become too extreme to ignore. Both sides have their own internally consistent understanding of the world, but they’re entirely incompatible with each other,” he explains.

“One side is going to win and one side is going to lose, and the winning side is going to impose its way of life on the other. There is no way to avoid this reality,” he continues. “And obscuring the truth with comforting fictions about mental illness only ensures that you’ll be on the side that loses.”

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.

'60 Minutes' blasted for pearl-clutching over disaster relief, rescue operations by 'anti-government far-right groups'



CBS News debuted a "60 Minutes" report on Sunday that delved into the supposedly troubling trend of Americans bypassing official channels to help other Americans who are struggling in the aftermath of natural disasters.

"What if we told you that after natural disasters, some of those who descend on hard-hit communities with offers to help are anti-government conspiracists and white nationalists?" Lesley Stahl said at the outset of the episode.

'Shameless and transparent.'

While the geriatric talking head clutched pearls over a pattern of life-saving help from undesirable sources — namely "anti-government, far-right groups" — video played showing men helping to clear brush, distribute supplies, and reinforce disaster-stricken Americans.

Among those men reportedly featured in the montage are members of the multiracial Virginia Kekoas militia group, which provided aid in 2024 to those areas impacted by Hurricane Helene and neglected by the Biden administration.

The "60 Minutes" report — which strategically focuses on the efforts of Patriot Front and Active Club, a pair of groups regarded as white supremacist hate groups by the scandal-plagued Southern Poverty Law Center — smears unsanctioned volunteers who are "far-right" and/or affiliated with militia groups as "disaster tourists who are out to sow doubt in government, soften their own image, and gain followers."

In addition to leaning on Henderson County Sheriff Lowell Griffin's critique of the challenges supposedly posed by "misinformation" and "outside folks" in disaster areas, "60 Minutes" turned to Freddy Cruz, a program manager at the Western States Center — a Portland-based leftist organization whose bread and butter appears to be concern-mongering about perceived white nationalism — for help in framing the story.

RELATED: Klansman allegedly on SPLC payroll was 'true believer' white supremacist, not reformed infiltrator

ALLISON JOYCE/AFP/Getty Images

"These people come in, they hand out water, they help clean up the debris," Stahl said. "Whatever their ideology, they're doing something positive, aren't they?"

"What we're seeing is actually these groups will show up and generate a whole bunch of social media content," Cruz said. "We're dubbing it 'disaster tourism.'"

This and the other bizarre attacks in the report did not go over well with some of the self-giving groups and individuals who have repeatedly stepped into the breach in those moments where the government's relief efforts have proven wanting.

The United Cajun Navy — a nonprofit organization that was not mentioned in the "60 Minutes" episode by name but has for decades engaged in life-saving rescue operations, humanitarian assistance, and logistical support in areas hard-hit by floods, hurricanes, and other ruinous natural events — noted on X, "We have many media outlets that are very good to us. Then there's this trash."

"This SCREAMS 'Funded by the [SPLC]," wrote the UCN, which in the wake of Hurricane Helene joined forces on aid efforts with Mercury One — another outfit whose relief efforts "60 Minutes" smeared by implication. "Even though we aren't mentioned, we would still be happy to comment ON THE RECORD about what [horse manure] this is. It's time to put 60 Minutes out to pasture, Holla!"

Shawn Hendrix, the "expert survival dad" featured on MrBeast's YouTube channel who was among those who helped victims of Hurricane Helene, said in response to CBS News' agitprop, "Not one 'left'-leaning news station reached out to me during the disaster. They pretended it wasn't happening because Biden was president and Cooper was governor, failing us badly. I was up there for months and never once saw a CNN camera or MSNBC crew. Now, over a year later, they want to create some wild narrative. They weren't there, so how did they know?"

"I, however, was there," Hendrix continued. "The only people being selective about who they helped were FEMA. I saw no racism; no one cared who you voted for. We were all just surviving and serving."

BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre tweeted, "SPLC funding the KKK story drops[.] A week later 60 Minutes just happens to run a 'hey that white guy helping you while your house was destroyed is probably a fascist' segment."

"Shameless and transparent," MacIntyre added.

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

America ignores the externalities of immigration policy — while other countries bring the hammer down



Immigration policy is often argued in abstract terms — statistics, ideals, and political talking points — but its real effects are felt most sharply at the local level.

And while other countries have much stricter laws surrounding immigration, Americans like BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre are personally feeling the effects of our own lax ones.

“While the Dominican Republic is, you know, not really someplace I want to spend the rest of my life, it is a wildly, wildly better civilization, to the point where they have a wall, and they will just shoot any Haitians that get near it because they basically treat it as some kind of contamination that’s going to destroy their society,” MacIntyre explains.


“Haiti was literally founded on a satanic voodoo blood ritual. A blood sacrifice of white Europeans was the core beginning of this. ... The idea that you’re just going to have the native population rise up and slaughter the oppressor and then rule itself, that played itself out in Haiti, and we can see the exact result,” he continues.

“And yet, we see people constantly trying to bring this culture into the United States. It’s absolutely crazy,” he adds.

MacIntyre notes that this has already affected his own community, where a woman in his area “was beaten to death with a hammer by a Haitian immigrant” in “one of the most horrific videos” he’s ever seen.

“So, this is no longer some kind of abstract understanding. ... No, this is directly getting people murdered in my community. People in places I have been, I have driven by, are getting murdered because of what is going on here,” he says.

“And yet, we see the main concern is the safety not of American citizens who are beaten to death by hammers, but to the Haitians who are coming here themselves,” he continues, pointing out that the majority of these immigrants add no value to the country.

“If you look at the statistics, you can see that 65% of Haitian households are on welfare. They are dependent on welfare for their living. That means that the entire community is a net drain on the American social system,” he explains.

“You and I are paying to keep these people here and possibly murder our fellow Americans,” he says. “So everything about this from the economic argument to the moral argument is a complete lie.”

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.

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.