Meet the DOJ’s creepy shadow agency controlling racial tensions and media narratives



We all remember how during the Summer of Rage we were told that the riots literally burning cities to the ground were “mostly peaceful protests.”

Five years later, we’re now learning that phrases like that might have come directly from a secret government agency called the Community Relations Service, which manipulates racial tensions and media narratives under Title 10 of the Civil Rights Act.

To dive down the rabbit hole, Jill Savage and Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson, hosts of “Blaze News | The Mandate,” invite BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre to the show.

“Title 10 of the Civil Rights Act required there to be a community relations service, which went around and tried to smooth out problems between the different communities in the United States,” says MacIntyre.

While “in theory that sounds great,” the reality is “what this service actually ended up doing was managing the expectations of different communities when it came to violence, especially when it came to violence between black communities and white communities.”

“Anytime that a white person might receive some level of violence from a minority, these people were deployed to control the story, to control the situation,” says MacIntyre.

This control went to great extents, involving “[putting] lots of pressure on local media,” “[coordinating] with law enforcement,” and “writing prepared statements, in some cases, for the victim's families.”

“It's manipulating everything people know about race relations in the United States from top to bottom,” says MacIntyre.

He references the racially charged brawl between Somali and Congolese immigrants and a group of white men that led to the death of Donald Giusti, a white male, in Lewiston, Maine, in 2018.

The CRS was quickly “deployed to make sure that, again, there was no backlash over this [and] that the victims’ families were kept under control,” he explains.

MacIntyre explains that the CRS responded quickly to this incident in Lewiston, Maine, because they were already present in the city, having been involved in resettling the Somali community. Anticipating tensions and potential violence, they were prepared to manage any backlash against the Somali population when the predicted violence occurred.

“They already had the narrative ready. ... They were there to make sure that there was no backlash against the Somali community,” says MacIntyre, noting that the CRS has been “doing this for decades.”

But the operations of the CRS get even more disturbing.

CRS “continues to train leftist activists to this day; it would threaten to pull the FCC licenses of TV stations that did not hire black newscasters in an affirmative-action style. They worked with different black militant radicals in the '60s, some of whom were students of Saul Alinsky, in order to coordinate different riots,” MacIntyre says.

“The people who ran the organization admitted that the purpose of the organization was explicitly to prevent white America from having any backlash against any minority groups that might do violence against them,” he explains, adding that CRS controls everything “so that there isn't an awareness of the severity of many of these crimes.”

To make matters worse, CRS is permitted to “refuse most FOIA requests” and has “special privileges where they can avoid testimony in front of Congress and in courts.” “Even the notes that they take are destroyed and not entered into the public record.”

The agency has been able to fly “under the radar for so long” likely because it essentially has “an FBI level of confidentiality,” says MacIntyre.

“This is extremely troubling — beyond even the wildest dreams of what many people thought was possible for the federal government,” says Peterson. “What is their real goal?”

To hear MacIntyre’s answer, watch the video above.

Want more from 'Blaze News | The Mandate'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Woke right' smear weaponized by liberal interlopers against MAGA conservatives, populists — and Arby's?

James Lindsay. Photo by DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

On his website, he stated:

Woke Right refers to right-wing people who have adopted the characteristics and underlying worldview orientation of the Woke Left for putatively "right-wing," "conservative," or reactionary causes. They are, as reactionaries, the image of the Right projected by the Left made real by players claiming to be on the Right. That is, they’re right-wing people who act and think about the world like Woke Leftists.

Lindsay echoed this definition in his written responses to Blaze News, in which he suggested that woke right "means using critical theories or Marxian analysis for right-wing or anti-Left causes."

"It is very specific," Lindsay continued. "Most conservatives do not meet this definition."

A sizeable portion of the MAGA coalition does, however, supposedly meet this or one of Lindsay's other definitions. Right-wing populists, for example, are on the liberal's naughty list, as are those who subscribe to national conservatism, which he dubbed "the Woke Right final boss."

The application of "woke right" to national conservatives amounts to the more tactical smear, as it not only cuts through the MAGA coalition but deep into the Trump administration and the Republican Party.

Past speakers at the National Conservatism Conference, which is run by the Hazony-led Edmund Burke Foundation, include Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Michael Anton, another senior State Department official; Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby; White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller; Trump border czar Tom Homan; and Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

Of course, there's also JD Vance, who underscored in a NatCon speech — given just days before President Donald Trump chose him as his running mate — that while America was founded "on great ideas," it is not, as some have suggested, reducible to "just an idea."

James Lindsay and a bunch of his friends tried to pump the hatred higher because the term 'illiberal' — it just didn't succeed in sufficiently tainting and de-legitimizing conservatives.

While Lindsay has danced around labeling Vance "woke right" for daring to express such thoughts, stating in December, "I haven't called JD Vance Woke Right anywhere yet," he has implied as much — calling him a "post-liberal" with a predominantly woke right team, who not only entertains the woke right definition of "nation" but did the unspeakable: speak at a National Conservatism Conference.

RELATED: JD Vance cuts straight to the heart of what animates Trump's nationalism — and it's not 'just an idea'

Vice President JD Vance. Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

In fairness to Vance and his fellow NatCon alumni, it is apparently easy to find oneself labeled "woke right." After all, even a fast-food chain has been tagged.

Lindsay recently indicated online that Arby's had veered into woke right territory with its post, "Unlike dad, our ham & swiss actually came back."

In the much ridiculed post, which he has since apologized for and walked back, Lindsay noted, "That's curtains for them. Cringe af."

When asked why national conservatives warrant their categorization as "woke right," Lindsay suggested that while "not all of National Conservatism is Woke Right ... the general thrust of the movement meets the basic definition."

Final boss

Hazony, the author of "The Virtue of Nationalism" whom Lindsay has repeatedly targeted with the “woke right” smear, explained to Blaze News that the strategy behind the term is not new.

"The main people who are behind this — and James Lindsay is the one who's most explicit, but I don't think that he's at all the only one — they've been doing the same thing for many years, long before the term 'woke right' came out; at least as far back as Donald Trump being elected, you know, so it's almost a decade ago," said Hazony. "There was this game of saying that in between liberals and Nazis or racialist fascists — in between, there is no legitimate position. That is a standard argument of the anti-nationalist liberal camp that has been used by many, many different people, and it's always the same."

"When people started using 'illiberal' ... in the mid-2000s, what they were doing was eliminating the legitimacy of the word 'conservative,' because 'illiberal' is anybody who's an authoritarian or a Nazi or a theocrat or a fascist, plus anybody else who's not a liberal," continued Hazony. "So that strategy, using the term 'illiberalism' as a way of saying, 'No, I'm not going to recognize that there are any legitimate conservatives or nationalists' — that's been around in that form for at least 15 years."

Hazony noted that more recently,

James Lindsay and a bunch of his friends tried to pump the hatred higher because the term "illiberal" — it just didn't succeed in sufficiently tainting and de-legitimizing conservatives. So they switched to "Christian nationalism," and it was the same kind of thing, where, you know, you pick the absolute least palatable people who can be called "Christian nationalists," you quote them, and then you say, "Well, everybody who's a nationalist and a Christian all the way right up to the borders of liberalism — that entire sphere of conservatives and nationalists who are basically normal but they have criticisms of liberalism — no, they're all illegitimate. They're all totalitarians. They all reject the American Constitution." And so they tried that; that peaked in 2023; and it failed. It petered out. They didn't succeed in convincing the average, intelligent person who's paying attention that the political spectrum is only liberals and fascists.

Whereas previous attempts failed, Hazony indicated that "this time, they have succeeded in drawing blood."

"This term [woke] was designed to be humiliating by taking the term that we were using for the Maoist-style cultural revolution that was taking over America and Britain and other countries. And now they say, 'Those of you who are fighting against this, you're exactly the same. You're the same exact thing.' And it upsets people."

'You got dogmatic, fanatic liberals who thought that the whole world simply could be brought under liberalism either by persuasion or, if not, then by conquest.'

Hazony further told Blaze News that "it's deeply insulting at a personal level for people who've devoted their time to trying to save America and the West from the woke, and at the same time, it's incredibly effective at destroying the coalition that was built — the anti-woke coalition — by making the different parties despise one another."

"The idea that liberalism is about toleration was just thrown out the window and you got dogmatic, fanatic liberals who thought that the whole world simply could be brought under liberalism either by persuasion or, if not, then by conquest."

Playing with fire

Lindsay has tried tarring Blaze Media with the same brush he has used on Hazony and others, characterizing it as "the first captured stronghold" in his imaginative woke right "takeover" narrative.

'The term has little meaning other than as a slur used by people trying desperately to gatekeep this intellectual, cultural, and commercial majority movement.'

Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson, whom Lindsay has implicated as a key player in this supposed takeover, said, "I know Lindsay and we had a decent relationship until he suddenly lumped me and my tenure here at Blaze Media with his slur."

"Obviously, we have a wide variety of people and opinions at Blaze Media. We represent the broad MAGA-MAHA majority coalition, and I take that role seriously," continued Peterson. "But I do not need to say for the record that we are not 'woke right' because the term has little meaning other than as a slur used by people trying desperately to gatekeep this intellectual, cultural, and commercial majority movement."

Peterson suggested that the term's capricious usage has helped empty it of meaning.

"What's puzzling and ultimately discrediting about the term is that Lindsay and others lump disparate people and groups together into a wild, grand conspiracy," continued Peterson. "He and his associates refer a lot to abstract -isms like hermeticism, communism, and gnosticism and call all kinds of people followers of various schools of thought: 'Nietzscheans' and 'Schmittians.'"

The "Schmittian" smear lobbed around evokes Carl Schmitt, a German political theorist who critiqued liberalism, defined politics as the distinction between the categories of friends and enemies, and lent intellectual support to the Nazi regime in Germany.

Peterson noted that he once tried to explain his thoughts on Schmitt to Lindsay over text.

"As a student of political thinkers who were taught by Leo Strauss, who fled Nazi Germany (as opposed to Schmitt, who became a Nazi), I think Schmitt's writings are important to anyone who wants to seriously consider the nature of executive power, which is why they are still studied by people of all kinds throughout the world," said Peterson. "But the idea that this makes me a Nazi or that I agree with everything Schmitt says or believed is ridiculous. James recently asked me to 'denounce Schmitt' on X at his command, which sounds a lot like he's trying to initiate the very 'struggle sessions' he often decries."

Peterson emphasized the range of people and institutions that Lindsay and his fellow travelers have lumped into his "grand conspiracy," noting, for instance, that "they throw in institutions from the Roman Catholic Church to the Claremont Institute, countries from Hungary to China, and individuals from General Michael Flynn to Yoram Hazony to Peter Thiel in the mix as part of whatever the 'woke right' is."

"It becomes silly pretty quick," said Peterson.

Threatened liberals

The host of BlazeTV's "The Auron MacIntyre Show" — one of Lindsay's frequent targets — said that when it comes to Lindsay, woke right "seems to be more of a branding exercise and a political weapon than it does anything with definitive content."

"I think that's the reason so many people have had difficulty when attempting to have even a basic discussion about the term," MacIntyre said. "The guy who is most famous for coining and popularizing it himself has admitted that it wasn't a great one, and it doesn't really have a lot of content besides its ability to be used as a political weapon."

'The only thing that seems to actually link any of these people together is their willingness to win.'

MacIntyre suggested that woke right's apparent transformation in the wild from a denigratory term for anti-Semites and identitarians into a strategic full-spectrum put-down is “the real trick of this term.”

"A lot of people assume that [anti-Semites and identitarians] were the original targets, and because of that, many people thought that perhaps there could be some value in it because, you know, not all of those groups are particularly ones that people enjoy being associated with," said MacIntyre. "That said, it's become quickly clear that the expansion of the term has now come to encompass Orthodox Jews like Hazony, guys who are big fans of Israel like Tim Pool, and others."

"He's included a large number of very well-respected people who are obviously well outside of this — guys like Matt Walsh."

RELATED: Let's build a statue honoring Pat Buchanan

BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre. Photo by DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

"The only thing that seems to actually link any of these people together is their willingness to win, their willingness to fight back against the left, their willingness to say, 'Actually, we're going to take affirmative steps. We're going to take power. We're going to use power to win political battles.' And that seems to be the main violation," continued MacIntyre.

'What they're finding is actually, no, conservatives would like to be in charge.'

When asked whether this campaign might be, at least in part, the early stages of an effort to politically neutralize JD Vance ahead of the next presidential election, MacIntyre answered in the affirmative.

"Not only is that the case, I think he's been pretty explicit about that," said the BlazeTV host.

MacIntyre suggested that Lindsay and other "new atheists, rational-centrist types" feel threatened by Vance and the national conservatives, given their willfulness and refusal to "be ruled by people who hate them, hate their values, hate their religion."

MacIntyre suspects that while the "salience" of the "woke right" term has risen, the credibility of those wielding it has "plummeted."

"[Lindsay has] made many enemies of pretty high-profile figures with good reputations by throwing around this term and attacking people who clearly don't hold any of the nefarious views he's attributing to them," said MacIntyre.

The attacks have also served to expose bad actors who "ultimately were hoping to undermine the conservative movement rather than be a productive part of it," said MacIntyre. "That's something that's critical to know at this juncture."

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

‘I, Pencil’ defined free trade — Trump’s tariffs are writing the sequel



On Sept. 17, 2024, thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies exploded in the hands and pockets of alleged Hezbollah operatives across Lebanon and Syria. Intelligence sources believe the Israeli government carried out the operation in retaliation for the terrorist attacks committed on Oct. 7, 2023.

Israeli agents reportedly intercepted the devices — manufactured overseas — and modified their batteries to include small amounts of explosives. However one feels about this novel form of retaliation, it serves as an explosive reminder of how critical a country’s supply lines are to national security.

Trump understands that reindustrialization is more than an economic policy. It’s a national imperative.

For decades, the global liberal economic order has operated on the assumption that nations could stretch supply chains across the world to maximize efficiency and profit — with little risk. Leonard Read’s classic essay “I, Pencil” illustrated the idea, celebrating how no single person or country could manufacture a pencil alone. It highlighted how markets, when left to coordinate production across borders, could reach extraordinary levels of efficiency.

If global trade remained stable and secure, national self-sufficiency seemed unnecessary. Countries could rely on the global market to supply even critical goods — so long as the U.S. Navy kept shipping lanes open. Under Pax Americana, the thinking went, every nation could specialize in what it did best and enjoy the shared prosperity of free trade.

The global trade system rested on the assumption that American military dominance would continue indefinitely. That belief led to some baffling choices.

A shocking share of goods essential to U.S. national security are produced almost entirely in China — including antibiotics and components used in American military hardware. The idea that a country would rely on semiconductors from its primary geopolitical rival to launch a missile defies basic strategic logic. Yet that is exactly what the United States has done.

Defense contractors have prioritized profit, operating under the assumption that global trade is both reliable and free from political risk.

While this approach always carried serious risks, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed its full recklessness. Fears of contagion and widespread labor shortages disrupted global trade, causing economic shocks and widespread shortages of consumer goods.

More urgently, the pandemic revealed that critical medical supplies — such as ventilators — were largely manufactured in China, where the virus originated. Despite this wake-up call, the United States has yet to reshore production of many essential medicines. Yet we still rely heavily on China for antibiotics and other critical pharmaceuticals.

The pandemic and Israel’s pager attack made one thing clear: The era of supply chains divorced from security concerns is over — if it ever truly existed.

The global liberal economic order operated on the assumption that American dominance would go unchallenged. Under that model, it seemed economically irrational for any country to sabotage goods it sold to the United States. Nations believed they could depend entirely on foreign production because the reach of American power would keep economic exchanges politically neutral.

But Israel didn’t manufacture the pagers that wound up in the hands of Hezbollah operatives. It simply accessed the supply chain and modified those devices. These weren’t weapons or advanced military systems. By tapping into the logistics of basic consumer electronics, Israel was able to inflict serious damage on its enemy.

This illustrates the core vulnerability of today’s trade model.

Donald Trump has long argued that Americans are getting a raw deal in the current global economic system. While the United States has embraced free trade, many of our allies — including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Israel — have maintained protective tariffs.

Meanwhile, China has benefited from open access to U.S. markets despite its use of centralized planning, currency manipulation, and widespread intellectual property theft.

Trump has made clear that his goal is to reverse this imbalance. For both economic and national security reasons, he intends to use tariffs to secure better trade agreements and bring as much manufacturing as possible back to the United States.

Some disgruntled mainstream conservatives — particularly at publications like National Review — have joined leftist politicians and media voices in sounding the alarm over efforts to build an economic order that prioritizes U.S. interests. For many neoconservatives, free trade has become a kind of orthodoxy. They treat economic predictability — even within a broken system — as more important than restoring national sovereignty.

NeverTrump conservatives often dismiss the president’s trade agenda as outdated or uninformed. They mock his focus on reviving the American middle class. Among the D.C. elite, working- and middle-class Americans from “fly-over” states are often treated as relics of the past — easily replaced by foreign labor in a gig-based, service economy.

But Trump understands that reindustrialization is more than an economic policy. It’s a national imperative.

Tariffs once funded nearly the entire federal government. Now, Trump is attempting something unprecedented: using tariffs strategically within a modern, globalized economy. This may ultimately fail — but it’s clear to anyone paying attention that the current model is collapsing. Staying on the same path leads only to a slower, more orderly decline.

Political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli warned that the boldest reforms bring the fiercest opposition. A leader who proposes a new system will face resistance from all who benefited under the old one and enjoy only lukewarm support from those uncertain about the future.

If Trump succeeds, he will have demonstrated vision and resilience in the face of a system deeply hostile to him. If he fails, history may view him as the man who delivered an already-ailing economy to an early grave.

What remains clear is this: Every nation that hopes to endure must learn how to secure its supply chains. That process will demand serious reindustrialization. The era of security-neutral trade is ending fast — and those guided by short-term indicators instead of long-term national interest may not survive what comes next.

Harris' attempt to pander to Christians after insulting them goes very badly: 'You're at the wrong rally'



Kamala Harris' latest attempt to pander to a group she has alienated with her politics and prejudices appears to be going very badly.

After attempting to win back those black male voters now abandoning her and the Democratic Party en masse with the promise of federally legalized marijuana, Harris set her sights more broadly on Christian voters, insinuating that "putting faith into action" means casting a vote for her — despite her zealous support of abortion and gender ideology, her past anti-Christian remarks, and her efforts to run roughshod over religious liberties.

The online component of Harris' "souls to the polls" campaign, which corresponded with her visits Sunday to churches in Georgia, was overwhelmingly met with ridicule.

Harris tweeted an image of herself standing on a church platform with crosses in the background, stating, "We each have the power to make a difference — in our communities and in this election. Now is the time to come together to show faith in action and service."

Despite netting nearly 2 million views on X, the post received fewer than 8,000 likes.

'This is such disgusting, superficial, disingenuous pandering, it's beyond words.'

BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey quipped, "Christian Nationalism is so scary."

Auron MacIntyre, the host of BlazeTV's “The Auron MacIntyre Show” who helped "ratio" the vice president's post, responded, "I think you're at the wrong rally."

MacIntyre's comment, which received roughly 9,000 more likes than Harris' post by the time of publication, referred to the vice president's remarks at her campaign event last week in La Crosse, Wisconsin.

On Thursday — the day Harris blew off the Archdiocese of New York's 79th annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner — the vice president reportedly told a pair of Christian college students who yelled "Jesus is Lord" that they were "at the wrong rally."

Grant Beth, one of the pro-life students mocked by Harris and elements of her crowd, told "Fox & Friends," "This is what you are going to get with a Kamala Harris presidency."

"You are going to get the Kamala Harris that alienates over 50% of the U.S. population that is Christian," continued Beth. "You're going to get the Kamala Harris that skips the Al Smith Memorial Dinner."

When an audience member yelled, "Jesus is King," at a campaign event for Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), Trump's running mate said, "That's right. Jesus is King!"

"Christians won't be fooled," tweeted Trump campaign adviser Alex Bruesewitz wrote in response to Harris' "souls to the polls" post.

Popular YouTuber David Freiheit wrote, "4 days after telling a rally-goer who said 'Jesus is Lord' that they were 'at the wrong rally', Cackling Kamala puts out this message. This is such disgusting, superficial, disingenuous pandering, it's beyond words. And if it works on you, you are an idiot."

One user wrote, "Christians are voting for Trump."

Harris told members of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Stonecrest, Georgia, on Sunday, "Our country is at a crossroads, and where we go from here is up to us as Americans and as people of faith," reported CNN.

'She has done nothing to support people of faith and what we believe and what we stand for.'

"We face this question: What kind of country do we want to live in?" said Harris. "A country of chaos, fear, and hate, or a country of freedom, compassion, and justice?"

Like the booster group Evangelicals for Harris, the vice president attempted to use scripture to paint her political cause as morally righteous, casting herself, for example, as the protagonist in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

This might be a big reach for a great many American Christians, including Billy Graham's son, Franklin Graham.

Blaze News recently reported that Franklin Graham said his dad would never have supported a candidate like Harris, highlighting how her positions are antithetical to Jesus Christ.

"My father was a strong conservative all of his life, theologically as well as politically," Graham told Premier Christian News. "He would have never voted for or supported someone like Kamala Harris — someone who is almost anti-Christ in her positions. She has done nothing to support people of faith and what we believe and what we stand for."

Harris has found numerous ways to alienate Christians, including

  • suggesting that Catholic judicial nominees who embrace the Vatican's moral teaching should be disqualified from serving on federal courts;
  • co-sponsoring the "Equality Act," which Kenneth Craycraft, the James J. Gardner Chair of Moral Theology at Mount St. Mary's Seminary and School of Theology, indicated would compel Christian hospitals "to perform gender transition surgeries, open women's restrooms to men, and force girls and women to compete against boys and men in athletic competitions";
  • introducing and sponsoring the Do No Harm Act, which would force religious individuals and organizations to engage in activities that directly violate their firmly held religious beliefs;
  • attacking abstinence education;
  • supporting overturning the Hyde Amendment, thereby freeing up federal funds for abortions; and
  • authorizing a raid on the home of a pro-life activist who exposed Planned Parenthood's alleged trafficking of baby parts.

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

CONVICTED: What Trump’s campaign MUST start preparing for



Trump might have been found guilty in the hush money trial, but that doesn’t spell the end of his campaign.

Not only did Trump raise more than $50 million after the news of his conviction hit the media, but the Supreme Court is going to rule on the former president’s immunity in the D.C. case.

Steve Deace believes Trump needs to start preparing immediately.

“I’d have my running mate ready to go right after that ruling, no matter how it goes. If they rule against me, then I immediately have this running mate here right now,” Deace explains. “If I’m Trump, and they rule against me, between the appeals in New York and the D.C. case, I’m spending the rest of this year in a courtroom until the election basically.”

“So, I need a running mate who can be essentially the face of the campaign around the country right away. I can’t lose anymore time,” he adds.

Deace believes this person needs to be “someone people like.”

“So I can send them out to the ‘normies’ and make me appear more likable. And then if they rule for me, I just do the exact same thing by pivoting to the campaign right away,” he explains.

BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre agrees.

“I think that’s largely right. I mean, ultimately what we’re looking at here is of course unprecedented, and so the strategy needs to be as well,” he says. “But I think when you look at the condition of the country, you look at the average person, most people don’t like Joe Biden. Even people on the left don’t like Joe Biden.”

This is why he’s less worried about the voters and more worried about the voting process.

“I do think that how the votes are going to be cast and the process of the election are probably far more important than the messaging of the election to be honest,” MacIntyre explains.

“I do agree that you probably want to make sure that you have somebody who’s relatively young, relatively competent, well liked. Somebody who can go ahead and take over that position right away. I do like somebody like a J.D. Vance in the slot,” 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.

The Total State Warns Tyranny Has Already Triumphed

Auron MacIntyre makes the case that our liberal democracies have been irredeemably co-opted by the deep state and other powerful interests.

Who’s really at war with Ukraine? Apparently 'it’s not Russia'



Even though Russia invaded Ukraine over two years ago, the ongoing war between the two countries still has many people confused. Who’s the good guy in this situation? Surely, it’s not Putin. But Zelenskyy? What about the U.S. and the other countries offering aid to Ukraine?

According to founder and CEO of “Truth in Media” Ben Swann, "none of the above" is the answer. Despite the various narratives surrounding the war, Swann claims that Ukraine is actually a pawn in a much bigger game.

Swann recently joined Auron MacIntyre to explain how Ukraine became a “corrupt slush fund for the global managerial elite.”

“Is there something particular about the culture or the way that Ukraine is structured or the corruption there that allows United States companies or officials to profit uniquely from Ukraine?” MacIntyre asked.

“There’s a couple of things, actually,” Swann said. “Ukraine itself was historically, in the last 40 years, infamously ... one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. ... It’s run by oligarchs; it was handed over and basically auctioned off to the highest bidder; it is essentially run by gangsters.”

Further, “we have within the United States a whole lot of political players who have managed to get themselves involved in Ukraine,” including the Biden family, which we know “has business interests” in the country, Swann explained.

“Ukraine is being handed over. It’s not just about the war but the rebuilding effort afterwards; it’s the massive global funds that are being set up to administer hundreds of billions of dollars going back into Ukraine and the control of that.”

Swann went on to explain that Argentina has had the highest International Monetary Fund debt of any country, which is why Javier Milei was elected — to hopefully recover their “famously destroyed economy.” However, once the warring between Russia and Ukraine comes to an end, “by a long margin ... it will be Ukraine.”

A lot of the global money being funneled into Ukraine — money we’ve been told is a generous gift to aid their war against Russia — “is no longer a gift” and “no longer aid.”

“It’s a loan,” Swann said. “[The money] is all being restructured into loans that now the nation of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine will owe for generations” — billions, if not trillions of dollars that will take “lifetimes” to pay off.

“If you really want to look at who’s at war with Ukraine and who just conquered Ukraine, it’s multinational corporations; it’s not Russia. The real winner — the real entity that has won a war without firing a bullet at the people of Ukraine — is multinational corporations that now own that country and will own it into the foreseeable future,” Swann concluded.

To hear MacIntyre’s response, watch the video below.


— (@)

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.

Is Technology the Antidote to Leftism? | Ep 23
play icon

Is Technology the Antidote to Leftism? | Ep 23

How '1984' Has Failed.
play icon

How '1984' Has Failed.

Here's How YOU Will Be Decolonized
play icon

Here's How YOU Will Be Decolonized