MASSIVE VICTORY: SCOTUS sides with parents; Alito nukes LGBT indoctrination campaign



Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland's largest school district, approved over 20 works of LGBT propaganda for inclusion as instructional materials in its curriculum in late 2022.

The woke district was initially willing to let parents opt their kids out of lessons incorporating the non-straight agitprop and to provide notice when radical works celebrating sex changes, Pride parades, and reality-defying pronouns such as "Pride Puppy," "Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope," and "My Rainbow" were read.

However, the district determined that the opt-outs required by state law for sex education units of health classes did not apply, as the LGBT propaganda was introduced as part of the English curriculum.

'These books impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are "hostile" to their parents' religious beliefs.'

Unwilling to surrender their children to cultural imperialists and confident that the district's policy violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion, Christian and Muslim parents represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty took the MCPS to court — not seeking to ban the books but to reclaim the right to control their kids' exposure to them.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction that would permit them to have their kids excused from instruction related to the LGBT propaganda while their lawsuit proceeds.

The high court reversed a lesser court's judgment and noted that the parents "are likely to succeed on their claim that the Board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise."

"We hold that the Board’s introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks — combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs — substantially interferes with the religious development of their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable," Justice Samuel Alito noted in the opinion for the high court.

Alito emphasized in the majority opinion that storybooks targeting young children are "unmistakably normative" and "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected."

The conservative justice highlighted, for example, that one of the works of LGBT propaganda pushed in the district "does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice. Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated."

"These books carry with them 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs that the parents wish to instill in their children," continued Alito. "Like the compulsory high school education considered in Yoder, these books impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are 'hostile' to their parents' religious beliefs."

Alito suggested further that the three dissenting liberal justices' "blinkered view" that the LGBT propaganda was merely aimed at exposing students to the message that non-straight people exist and teaching them kindness "ignores the messages that the authors plainly intended to convey" as well as the school board's stated reasons for inserting the books into the curriculum.

Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, was among the many parental rights activists who celebrated the ruling.

"We owe immense gratitude to the courageous parents, like Tamer Mahmoud and Rosalind Hanson, who bravely stepped forward as plaintiffs in this landmark case," said Justice. "This decision protects family values and religious freedom from ideological overreach, sending a clear warning to every public school in America: Respect the sacred, fundamental rights of parents, or face the consequences."

Anticipating that the court would side with the parents, Corey DeAngelis, a senior fellow at the American Culture Project and a visiting fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, told Blaze News previously that "a ruling in favor of families would be a landmark victory for parental rights in education" — one that would "reaffirm the Supreme Court precedent and the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children."

The Supreme Court made abundantly clear a century ago in Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary that "the child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

'It's all about indoctrination.'

According to a poll of 1,000 American adults conducted in fall 2024 by the research company Heart+Mind Strategies, 69% of Americans agree that parents are the primary educators of their children and 77% agree that parents should be able to opt out their children from curriculum on "gender" and sexuality if they believe it is not age-appropriate or if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

"A victory would put wind at the sails of the movement to secure parental rights in education. A win would embolden parents to raise the alarm when school districts trample on their rights and try to lay claim to their children's upbringing in the future," continued DeAngelis. "A win would put school districts on notice and send a nationwide signal that kids do not belong to the government."

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

Blaze Media Illustration

Alvin Lui, president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit, told Blaze News, "Schools have over the last 20 years, especially in the last 10, been very aggressive in cutting parents out and not allowing them to opt out."

"Parents have had enough," added Lui.

The parental rights advocate stressed that the content at issue "has nothing to do with academics. Obviously. It has nothing to do with reading proficiency. It has nothing to do with what schools are supposed to be or what parents think schools are supposed to be. It's all about indoctrination."

The high court's ruling is a major upset for non-straight activists and their fellow travelers, including PEN America, which claimed in an amicus brief that if the petitioners prevailed, LGBT propagandists might suffer losses in sales and Montgomery County teachers might ultimately "steer clear of any lessons that include LGBTQ individuals and content rather than risk violating a court order."

RELATED: 'No b*** j** for you': State House silences Republican for reading smut Democrats fought to keep in elementary schools

Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

Lui noted that this case serves as a "reminder of how important it is for parents to stick on offense" and to make good use of tools like opt-outs to keep ideologues in the education system on the back foot.

While evidently happy about the outcome, DeAngelis indicated there is another form of opt-out that parents should seek.

"Families should be able to opt their children out of content that conflicts with their values regardless of whether the reason has anything to do with religion. And we shouldn't stop there," said DeAngelis. "Families shouldn't only be able to opt out of specific content — they should have the power to opt out of any government school that is in fundamental misalignment with their values."

"And when they opt out, parents should be able to take their children's education tax dollars to the school that best meets their needs," added DeAngelis.

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

Justice Alito issues reminder of what SCOTUS must do, even if unpopular



Unlike certain recent additions to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito has consistently delivered for God-fearing conservatives and constitutionalists.

This consistency and Alito's resistance to the fads of the day have made him a popular target for Democratic lawmakers and other radical leftists, along with their fellow travelers in the liberal media.

Democrats including Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) have, for instance, pressured Alito to recuse himself from cases of consequence. Other Democrats, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), have painted a target on his back, calling him a "threat to our democracy." Liberal publications such as the New York Times and ProPublica have pushed false narratives framing him as an extremist or at the very least as unethical. A false-flagger who helped the Lincoln Project stage a fake white supremacist rally in 2021 futilely tried to catch Alito saying something damning on tape. A radical even allegedly threatened to assassinate him last year.

Alito underscored in his recent interview with Peter Robinson, host of the Hoover Institution's "Uncommon Knowledge," that the judiciary has a responsibility to resist possession by the zeitgeist and to do what is right, even if unpopular.

In 2022, Alito gave a speech in Rome at a religious liberty summit convened by the Religious Liberty Initiative of the University of Notre Dame's law school, where he underscored that religious liberty is far more than just "freedom of worship."

'Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.'

"Freedom of worship means freedom to do these things that you like to do in the privacy of your home, or in your church or your synagogue or your mosque or your temple. But when you step outside into the public square, in the light of day, you had better behave yourself like a good secular citizen," said the conservative justice. "That's the problem that we face."

RELATED: American de-Christianization: Why it's happening and what it will mean for the republic

Photo by VCG Wilson/Corbis via Getty Images

When asked in the interview published Wednesday to expound on his suggestion in the Rome speech, Alito told Robinson, "I think it is the problem that we face because support for religious liberty, unfortunately, has cratered in the last 20, 25 years."

After Alito raised the matter of how the U.S. Constitution singles out religion and gives it protection that is not similarly afforded to views that are not religiously based, Robinson said, "I can't remember who it was who said that it's fair to expect the judicial system to ignore the politics of the day but naive to expect the judicial system to remain unaffected by the politics of the era — something like that. And if public support for religion, public practice of religion — if the support, as you just said, is 'cratering' — what can the court do over the long term?"

Alito indicated that the Constitution wouldn't turn on a faithful minority just because the majority turned on faith.

"There's a reason why we're not elected. We are not supposed to do what is popular. We're supposed to do what is right," said Alito. "We're supposed to interpret the Constitution and figure out what it means, and then apply the Constitution. That's the purpose of this institution, the core purpose of this institution."

RELATED: Secularists think they won at the Supreme Court — but they’ll lose in the end

Photo by CHIP SOMODEVILLA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

While suggesting that America is "basically a democratic country," Alito noted that the Framers, wary of the mob and its impulses, applied "some restraint on things that people might do."

James Madison was among the Founding Fathers aware of the need for checks on the mob, noting in Federalist No. 55 that "passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."

In Federalist No. 51, Madison discussed how the republican government could serve as a check on the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the "rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority."

"We have to stand firm on this, and I think we have done a pretty good job on it," said Alito, "but we have to keep it up because challenges ... will continue to come."

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

Study: Americans Are More Conservative Than Their Representatives In Congress

A new study of voting records found that congressional lawmakers are less conservative than the voters they work for in 41 out of 50 states, according to The Institute for Legislative Analysis. “While one may expect the most conservative lawmakers in Congress to represent the deepest red states, the data proves this is simply not […]

Conservatives can lead the charge on clean crypto rules



Many assume conservative principles belong to the past. They don’t. The debate over cryptocurrency regulation — including the House GOP’s Clarity Act — offers a chance to apply those principles to a 21st-century frontier.

Cryptocurrency and decentralized finance reflect core American values: free speech, free markets, and innovation from the ground up. Across the country, developers are building protocols that move money in microseconds, create new investment tools, and expand access to capital like never before.

With a Republican-led Congress considering landmark cryptocurrency legislation, we have a historic opportunity to apply time-tested conservative values to the cutting edge of financial innovation.

Blockchain technology provides a means to secure property rights in the digital era. The most transformative products likely haven’t even launched yet.

The potential benefits are massive. In 2024 alone, decentralized finance grew to more than $114 billion. Even more capital — billions of dollars — stands ready to enter the space through pension funds and institutional investors.

But that money won’t move without guardrails.

Institutional investors need transparency. That means audit requirements they can trust, legally accountable custodians, clear reporting on asset health, and safeguards against manipulation.

They also need legal certainty. Defined rules give investors confidence. Without them, they’ll stay away — or invest elsewhere.

That’s where Washington plays a role.

The Trump administration shifted U.S. regulatory policy toward digital assets, elevating crypto to a national priority through executive order. Now, with a Republican-led Congress weighing landmark crypto legislation, conservatives have a real opportunity.

This moment demands more than slogans. It calls for applying time-tested conservative principles — rule of law, market discipline, and individual liberty — to the future of finance.

Don’t be afraid

Some treat cryptocurrency as a threat. Fair enough — the collapse of FTX still casts a long shadow over the current debate in Congress.

Sam Bankman-Fried, a Democratic megadonor, didn’t just run a failed company. He ran a cautionary tale — a playbook for what lawmakers must never allow again.

The FTX scandal highlights two enduring conservative truths:

  1. Human nature is flawed. Left unchecked, individuals will act out of greed and self-interest. Conservatives have never pretended otherwise — and that’s why we build systems of accountability.
  2. The rule of law matters. Pre-established standards prevent chaos. Waiting for disaster or making policy on the fly only magnifies the damage.

FTX didn’t collapse because of cryptocurrency. It failed because no one held Bankman-Fried accountable. He amassed influence through backroom politics and ran a tangled network of private firms without meaningful oversight. The result: billions vaporized and public trust shattered.

Thoughtful legislation can prevent the next meltdown — not by stifling innovation, but by setting clear, enforceable rules rooted in transparency, responsibility, and the rule of law.

A remedy with room to improve

The bill now before Congress offers a rare chance to get crypto regulation right.

It tackles the custodial vulnerabilities exposed by the FTX collapse and establishes a framework that allows digital asset projects to integrate into the broader financial system. Just as important, it does so under a unified set of rules.

The bill follows conservative logic. It exempts infrastructure providers — such as blockchain validators and payment processors — from regulatory burdens that don’t apply. These actors don’t make governance decisions, and the law should reflect that.

It also classifies participants based on their actions, rather than the extent of their political influence.

But the bill still needs one critical fix.

Lawmakers need to include decentralized autonomous organizations as eligible cryptocurrency issuers. These DAOs, the opposite of central banks, operate through user-led governance. Crypto users vote on the rules of the system they help create.

DAOs have become common in decentralized finance. Yet the current bill overlooks them. That omission could block the very groups driving innovation from entering the regulated space.

RELATED: Trump’s Bitcoin masterstroke puts America ahead in digital assets

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

If a project follows the rules, discloses information, and acts responsibly, it should qualify, regardless of how it governs itself. Whether the issuer is a DAO, a startup, or a traditional bank, one standard should apply.

That’s the conservative way: equal rules, fair enforcement, and space for innovation to thrive.

What if we get it wrong?

Leaving the bill unamended carries real risks:

  • Overreaching compliance rules could smother the best of American innovation — now and in the future.
  • Narrow legal definitions might force decentralized finance into the hands of a few massive exchanges, recreating the same “too big to fail” system that burned taxpayers in 2008.
  • Ongoing regulatory ambiguity could drive developers and infrastructure providers offshore, into the arms of authoritarian regimes eager to benefit from America’s hesitation.

The biggest danger? Watching capital and talent flee to countries that welcome decentralized commerce while the United States — its origin point — falls behind.

Decentralized finance leaders aren’t calling for lawlessness. They want smart policy.

Joe Sticco, co-founder of Cryptex and a White House Crypto Summit participant, put it this way: “In DeFi, it’s not about evading rules — it’s about building better ones.”

Sticco believes today’s innovators want a seat at the table. “We believe open financial systems can coexist with responsible oversight,” he told me. “We have to show up, we have to explain the tech, and we have to help shape the rules.”

Congress still has time to get this right. But the window is closing.

The path forward

Republicans now hold both chambers of Congress. That means the window to act is wide open.

This isn’t about growing government. It’s about setting the rules so innovation can thrive, fraud gets stopped, and people are held accountable. Here's what that looks like:

  • Clear rules that apply fairly to both traditional companies and decentralized projects;
  • Basic protections like audits, secure custody of funds, and anti-fraud measures;
  • Freedom for developers to build new tools without unfair roadblocks;
  • And clear standards for when crypto projects are considered stable enough to ease up on oversight.

With these fixes, the Clarity Act can do what no other crypto bill has: protect investors, promote innovation, and keep America in the lead.

We can build the future of finance right here — on American terms, with American values. But we have to act now.

Polish Voters Again Reject Liberal ‘Laboratory’ Candidate

The recent Polish election keeps conservative check on leftist prime minister and reflects Poles’ iron will.

Lawsuit: Airbnb Illegally Spiked Conservative Shareholder Proposals

Despite the recent corporate retreats from leftist propaganda, companies such as Airbnb still succumb to ideologist narratives and pressure.

Trump-backed conservative wins Polish presidency, can torpedo Tusk's liberal agenda: 'Rebuff to the Brussels oligarchy'



Polish boxer-turned-historian Karol Nawrocki met last month with President Donald Trump and attended an event at the White House marking the National Day of Prayer. Nawrocki reportedly shared with Polish media that Trump told him he would win the Polish presidential election.

Trump was right again.

Nawrocki, backed by Poland's national-conservative opposition Law and Justice (PiS) Party, defeated the liberal mayor of Warsaw — whom Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem deemed a "train wreck" — in Poland's presidential election runoff on Sunday. The results, published on Monday, showed that Nawrocki beat Rafał Trzaskowski 50.89% to 49.11%, thereby securing a five-year term.

'You picked a WINNER!'

Upon taking office on Aug. 6, Nawrocki can continue former President Andrzej Duda's work of preventing Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk's "globalist liberal government" from simultaneously advancing its leftist, pro-European Union agenda and from undoing the reforms undertaken by the previous PiS government.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio congratulated Nawrocki on his "hard-earned victory," noting that "together, the United States and Poland will forge the most ambitious alliance in our shared history on defense, energy, and commerce."

Trump said in a Truth Social post, "Congratulations Poland, you picked a WINNER!"

RELATED: Liberals freaked out over Vance's Munich speech. Just wait till they read the State Department's Substack.

Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Nawrocki noted in response that his top priorities are a "strong alliance with the USA, as well as partnership based on close cooperation."

In addition to opposing illegal immigration and the EU's ruinous migration frameworks, the former boxer made abundantly clear on the campaign trail his opposition to leftist social policies, promising to axe any legislation that threatens to weaken Poland's pro-life legislation or normalize non-heterosexual unions, reported the Catholic News Agency.

Nawrocki also emphasized that Poland's national culture is rooted in traditional Catholic values, telling supporters, "Poland's strength lies in its faith and family values."

'It's bad news for the EU, Ukraine and women.'

Homeland Security Secretary Noem likened Nawrocki to Trump last month at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Poland and suggested that under his leadership, Poland could "steer Europe back toward conservative values."

Various European conservatives and populists celebrated Nawrocki's victory, including Jordan Bardella, the president of France's right-wing populist National Rally party, who tweeted, "The Polish people have spoken and their free and democratic choice must be respected, including by the Brussels leaders who ardently hoped for their defeat."

"Faced with a European Commission whose authoritarian policies and federalist ambitions are brutalizing national sovereignty, Karol Nawrocki's victory in the Polish presidential election is welcome news," said Marine Le Pen, former National Rally president. "It is a rebuff to the Brussels oligarchy, which intends to impose a standardization of legislation on member states, contrary to any democratic will."

Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán Viktor called the election a "nail-biter," calling the outcome a "fantastic victory."

Western liberals, meanwhile, clutched pearls and ramped up their fear-mongering.

Adam Simpson, a lecturer at the University of South Australia, wrote, "Nawrocki's win has given pro-Donald Trump, anti-liberal, anti-EU forces across the continent a shot in the arm. It's bad news for the EU, Ukraine and women."

RELATED: Rubio wages war on foreign free-speech tyrants with visa ban

The White House

Simpson acknowledged that it's harder to frame Nawrocki as "Russia-friendly" — a framing routinely used by critics of other national conservatives and populists in the region.

'More anti-European, nationalist and pro-Trump.'

It'd be an especially hard case to make that Nawrocki is sympathetic to Moscow given he has called Russia a "barbaric state," recommended cutting off diplomatic relations with the Kremlin, and has personally been put on a Russian wanted list after leading efforts to topple Soviet monuments while director of the Museum of the Second World War and head of the Institute of National Remembrance, reported ABC News.

Nevertheless, critics have made hay out of the incoming Polish president's vow to oppose NATO membership for Ukraine and suggestion that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy "treats Poland badly."

Piotr Buras, head of the European Council on Foreign Relations' Warsaw office, told the Washington Post that Nawrocki will be a "much more radical politician" than his predecessor — "more anti-European, nationalist and pro-Trump."

Anne Applebaum, the Atlantic staff writer who smeared as propagandists early proponents of the pandemic lab-leak theory and wasted ink last year imagining parallels between Trump and various 20th-century dictators, made sure to repeatedly label Nawrocki as an "authoritarian populist."

In the wake of the election, Tusk, now facing some calls to step down, indicated the Polish parliament will hold a confidence vote on his government.

Jacek Sasin, a PiS parliamentarian, suggested that Tusk was a "completely frivolous man who got a red card from the Poles."

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

'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!