Democrats are the party of the elite



For generations, Democrats have portrayed themselves as the party of ordinary Americans — factory workers, waitresses, truck drivers, police officers, construction workers, and middle-class families trying to get ahead. Yet one of the most striking features of modern American politics is how often Democratic leaders, activists, and media allies seem genuinely baffled by the very people they claim to represent.

The latest example comes from Washington Post columnist Monica Hesse, whose reaction to President Trump’s appearance at a packed UFC event on the White House lawn last weekend revealed a familiar pattern among America’s cultural elites.

Time and again, Democrat leaders appeared surprised that Americans cared more about grocery prices and border security than about the priorities emphasized by elite institutions.

To tens of millions of Americans, UFC is simply entertainment. It is competitive, exciting, patriotic, and increasingly mainstream. To Hesse and myriad other journalists and political commentators, however, its popularity seems to require explanation — as though they are studying the customs of a distant tribe.

That reaction says far more about elite America than it does about UFC fans, and few institutions better embody elite opinion than the modern Democratic Party.

The inability to understand ordinary Americans has become a recurring problem for Democrats. Consider one of the most famous campaign images in modern history. In 1988, Democrat presidential nominee Michael Dukakis climbed into a tank in an effort to project foreign policy credibility. Though the campaign intended the image to demonstrate Dukakis’ strength and command in order to reassure wary voters, the photograph instead became a political disaster.

To many Americans, Dukakis did not look like a commander in chief — he looked like Alfred E. Neuman from Mad magazine, wearing an oversize helmet and generally appearing out of his element. The embarrassing image became iconic because it captured something larger than a single campaign mistake: a cohort of American elites — consultants, strategists, and media professionals — who apparently thought the photo was a good idea.

The same kind of blindness occasionally appears among establishment Republicans as well. George H.W. Bush’s comments upon seeing a new and improved grocery store scanner became a symbol — fairly or unfairly — of a politician disconnected from everyday life. But while both parties have produced elite figures detached from ordinary concerns, the problem is far more pronounced today on the left.

Indeed, many of the institutions that now shape Democratic politics are populated almost exclusively by people who live, work, and socialize within a remarkably narrow slice of America. They attend the same universities, read the same publications, and live in the same metropolitan areas. They follow the same social media accounts. Their children attend the same schools, and their friends share the same political and cultural assumptions.

And increasingly, they seem unable to comprehend how other Americans think.

When Hillary Clinton dismissed millions of voters as a “basket of deplorables,” many Americans viewed the comment not as a gaffe but as a rare moment of honesty. It reflected a prevailing attitude among Democrats, and elites more broadly, that disagreement could be explained only by ignorance, prejudice, or moral deficiency.

President Biden repeatedly displayed a similar tendency. During the 2024 campaign (before he was ousted), he and his allies often portrayed concerns about illegal immigration, inflation, crime, and cultural change as either exaggerated or illegitimate, even as polling showed those issues dominating voters’ concerns.

Time and again, Democrat leaders appeared surprised that Americans cared more about grocery prices and border security than about the priorities emphasized by elite institutions.

Vice President Kamala Harris often suffered from the same disconnect. Her public appearances frequently projected the impression that she was speaking to an audience of policy experts rather than to working Americans — when she was not donning fake accents, that is. Her campaign’s struggles were not merely ideological; they were cultural. Many voters simply concluded that she did not understand their lives.

The pattern extends well beyond politicians.

RELATED: Who wants to eat a trillionaire?

Leon Neal/Getty Images

Millions of Americans attend NASCAR races, pack country music concerts, and watch UFC fights. Elite commentators scoff and express bewilderment in response. Millions more display American flags, fill church pews, and worry about rising crime and open borders. Too often, the response from elite circles is not curiosity but contempt.

The Democratic Party once excelled at connecting with ordinary Americans precisely because it better understood their views. Franklin Roosevelt, known as a “traitor to his class,” spoke the language of workers because he wanted them to be part of the Democrats’ coalition for generations. Harry Truman connected with voters because he shared many of their instincts. Even Bill Clinton possessed an intuitive feel for middle-class anxieties and aspirations.

Today’s Democrat coalition increasingly draws its leadership from elite universities, media organizations, nonprofits, foundations, government bureaucracies, and professional-class enclaves. These institutions exercise enormous cultural influence, but they are not representative of America as a whole.

As a result, Democrats increasingly mistake the views traded in faculty lounges, newsroom editorial meetings, and Washington policy conferences for the views held around kitchen tables. That confusion helps explain their shock at one political surprise after another, especially Trump’s victories in 2016 and 2024.

Democrat strategists express astonishment after yet another batch of election results defies their expectations. Panels of “experts” search for explanations, and reports are circulated that blame political circumstances or voters’ various “isms.” But the possibility that the Democrats have lost touch with ordinary Americans is rarely, if ever, considered.

RELATED: The left’s icons keep face-planting in public

Scott Kowalchyk/CBS/Getty Images

A political movement cannot represent people it does not understand. And it cannot understand the views of many Americans whom it increasingly views with a mixture of confusion, suspicion, and disdain. For a party that still considers itself the party of the people, that is a major problem it has yet to reckon with.

And it is also a problem for America as a whole. A healthy republic depends on officeholders who can understand — and respect — the culture and traditions of their fellow citizens, even when they do not share them. When America’s governing and cultural elites lose the ability to see the nation as it actually is, they make poorer decisions, deepen political divisions, and erode the mutual trust on which self-government depends.

A republic cannot long endure if those who wield influence come to view ordinary Americans not as fellow citizens to be understood but as strangers to be belittled and ignored.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at The American Mind.

Almonds feed a people. AI feeds a machine.



The artificial intelligence boom has become one of the biggest engines of the American economy. It has also triggered a growing backlash against the data centers that make the boom possible. Tech moguls have rushed to build giant warehouses packed with the computing power needed to run AI systems, but they have done almost nothing to explain to ordinary Americans why those facilities deserve so much land, water, electricity, and political favoritism.

That failure should have created an obvious opening for libertarians. Governments shower data-center projects with subsidies, wield eminent domain to seize land, and help politically connected corporations reshape local communities in the name of technological progress. A coherent libertarian response would attack the merger of state power and corporate power.

The first great use of AI will not be liberation. It will be surveillance and control.

Instead, many libertarians have chosen to cheer the expansion without asking what the technology will be used for or whom it will serve. Their quasi-religious loyalty to capital has pushed them into another foolish position and exposed the danger of turning an economic theory into a full worldview.

The tech elite insist that AI will revolutionize the world, but they have done almost nothing to tell average people how their own lives will improve. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs spin wild stories about superhuman intelligence and the automation of tens of millions of jobs. That does not sound like a sales pitch. It sounds like the setup for a science-fiction dystopia. The one concrete justification they offer is strategic: AI will supposedly define the future of warfare, and America must stay ahead of China.

That argument would carry more weight if the same people pushing AI were not also so committed to building the kind of technology most likely to be used against Americans. They are not preparing some noble shield for the republic. They are building tools that can make the United States look a lot more like the techno-authoritarian China they claim to fear.

Data centers consume staggering amounts of electricity, sometimes drawing as much power as a moderate-sized city. They also use enormous volumes of water, create nonstop noise, and disfigure the landscape. Developers have found ways to soften some of those costs by building new power infrastructure and improving cooling efficiency, but none of the problems have been solved. In the meantime, local communities absorb the burden.

The economic case is weak as well. Data centers create construction jobs while they are being built, but once construction ends, they employ surprisingly few people. Governments usually justify subsidies by promising long-term economic activity and job growth. In the case of data centers, corporations collect the incentives while communities get very little in return.

A sane political movement would notice that. Many libertarians have not. Instead of challenging subsidies and land seizures, they have fought to champion the projects. Nick Gillespie of Reason recently posted a chart showing that almond farms use far more water than AI data centers. Almonds are notoriously inefficient in water use, and agriculture probably does consume more water overall.

But the comparison gives away the problem. People eat food. AI, at least so far, mostly offers job displacement and surveillance.

RELATED: Your enemies aren’t mentally ill. They apparently just want to kill you.

Blaze Media Illustration

Libertarianism grew, in part, out of the Austrian school of economics, which is useful for understanding markets. It was never meant to serve as a complete theory of human life. Like Marxists, however, many libertarians have turned an economic framework into a totalizing ideology. Free markets, contract law, and voluntary exchange become an all-encompassing lens through which everything must be judged. Once that happens, it becomes difficult to see anything that does not show up in GDP.

The real question is not how much of a resource gets spent, but for what purpose. Most people would not give up a hand to save a cockroach. Most would give up their lives to save a child. On paper, preserving the cockroach may look like the more efficient transaction. Only a lunatic would fail to understand why no sane person would ever choose it over the child.

Economics helps explain financial exchange, but in its hunger for abstraction, it often strips away the human element that drives actual decisions. Treat almonds and AI as interchangeable “economic activity,” and you erase the context that gives moral meaning to both. That is the error every ideology makes. Grand unified theories comfort the rational mind because they promise predictive clarity. Then they collide with actual human beings living in actual places.

Kevin O’Leary recently went on Tucker Carlson’s podcast to praise the record-setting data center he wants to build in Utah. Carlson pressed him repeatedly to name a job AI would create for ordinary Americans. O’Leary could not identify a single one. He fell back on vague assurances that new technologies always create jobs somewhere in the future. The one benefit he seemed sure about was that AI might help America defend Taiwan in a future war with China. That is a revealing answer to citizens asking how this technology will help their own country.

RELATED: The liberal guide to committing national suicide

Blaze Media Illustration

Many libertarians now seem to support data centers out of sheer loyalty to capital itself. Economic activity becomes an end in itself. Progress, no matter the cost, is presumed to produce more liberty. That is delusional. The first great use of AI will not be liberation. It will be surveillance and control. The same corporate and political class that backed vaccine mandates, digital surveillance, censorship, and biometric passes during COVID is now demanding trust on AI. Nothing in its conduct suggests a change of heart.

Our tech oligarchs lined up with Democrats, outsourced American jobs, embraced censorship, and showed enormous appetite for monitoring the population. They are not trustworthy allies.

The backlash against data centers may lack intellectual polish, but the instinct is sound. The elites driving AI are not on our side, and Americans have no reason to sacrifice their communities, resources, and liberty on behalf of people who plainly intend to use this technology against them.

Canadian province makes major move for independence — and it's not Quebec



Ottawa and members of the eastern ruling class of Canada have made no secret of their contempt for Canada's resource-rich prairie provinces and their inhabitants, proving time and again their willingness to simultaneously exploit the West's wealth and hinder its progress.

'Albertans are engaged and this is an issue people want to have a say on.'

While the powers that be might not be losing sleep over alienating the residents of these provinces, they could soon lose something far more precious: a province roughly 1.56 times bigger than California that's home to over 5 million people, vast natural beauty, the fourth-largest proven oil reserves in the world, a large variety of valuable metallic and industrial minerals, and Atlanta's former NHL franchise.

How it started

Canadians — not so much those in the 18-to-34 age bracket, who largely voted Conservative, but those over the age of 55 — decided last year to award another four years to the Liberal government that in the preceding years oversaw a historic growth of the federal deficit, numerous tax hikes, an unprecedented influx of immigrants, a spike in illegal immigration, rising crime, unanswered church burnings, a worsening housing crisis, and the rise of state-facilitated suicide as a leading cause of death nationally.

Unlike certain progressive regions that got what they wanted in the form of another Liberal government, the Province of Alberta flatly rejected World Economic Forum regular and self-identified "European" Mark Carney and his woke party.

The Conservatives netted 91.9% of the vote in Alberta, the province with the youngest population. The Liberals alternatively brought in a measly 5.4%.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith acknowledged her fellows' frustration at the time, stating, "A large majority of Albertans are deeply frustrated that the same government that overtly attacked our provincial economy almost unabated for the past 10 years has been returned to government."

RELATED: Priest breaks hip — now Canada apparently wants him dead

Elections Canada

While there has long been chatter about Alberta possibly separating from Canada, the 2025 federal election energized the secessionist movement.

Proponents of Albertan sovereignty were further emboldened after the provincial legislature passed amendments to the Citizen Initiative Act, which make it easier to start a referendum, including one on separating from Canada.

On Jan. 2, Alberta's chief electoral officer issued the separatist group Stay Free Alberta's citizen initiative petition, kicking off a 120-day signature collection period and setting the stage for a possible referendum in the event the group could secure at least 177,732 signatures, which amounts to 10% of eligible voters.

How it's going

Stay Free Alberta petitioners, accompanied by hundreds of supporters, delivered the goods to Elections Alberta's Edmonton office on Monday.

The separatists claim to have collected 301,620 signatures, state media reported. Another 1,500 signatures were allegedly late in coming owing to problems with Canada Post, the nation's strike-happy, government-owned postal delivery service.

Stay Free Alberta leader Mitch Sylvestre told the crowd, "This process shows that Albertans are engaged and this is an issue people want to have a say on."

Elections Alberta confirmed that Chief Electoral Officer Gordon McClure has received the petition and signature sheets from Sylvestre.

The verification is, however, on hold until Justice Shaina Leonard — an appointee of the Trudeau Liberal government — rules on a legal challenge advanced by a pair of Indian tribes that claim the petition process threatens treaty rights. Her decision is expected later this month.

Should the Indians' legal challenge fail, the province will have 21 days to verify the petition.

If deemed successful, the petition will be submitted to provincial officials, who will then decide whether to sign off on a province-wide referendum, which could take place as soon as Oct. 19. Premier Smith previously indicated that if the requisite number of signatures were collected, she would put the question to a referendum.

RELATED: 'AMERICAN INVASION': Flailing Canada PM Mark Carney invokes historical grudge in latest lob at Trump

Leah Hennel/Bloomberg/Getty Images

An Abacus Data survey of 1,000 Alberta adults conducted in late February found that 26% of respondents support Alberta ceasing to be a Canadian province and becoming a sovereign country. Sixty-four percent of respondents signaled opposition, and 9% said they were undecided. The idea of regional independence was apparently most intolerable to those in the 60+ age cohort, 71% of whom signaled opposition.

A poll conducted last month by Canadian state media, whose coverage has largely been critical of the independence movement, said that 57% of United Conservative Party voters — those who back Alberta's current ruling party — would vote for separation. Supporters of the province's socialist New Democrat Party were almost unanimous in their opposition to breaking from the federation and Canada's leftist central power, with 98% saying they would vote against the initiative.

When asked on Tuesday how he would prevent Albertan separatists from succeeding in a possible referendum, Prime Minister Carney said that "there's the rule of law — there's the Clarity Act which has been opined upon by the Supreme Court," and "any referenda in any part of Canada need to be consistent with that."

The Clarity Act sets out the conditions under which the federal government would negotiate the separation of a province.

Carney, who also appears hopeful that the Indian tribes' legal challenge might prevail, added that Ottawa will in the meantime act "in the spirit of cooperative federalism, making the country work, making it work for Albertans, making it work for indigenous peoples, making it work for all Canadians."

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

Imagine If People Cared About Their Own Countries As Much As They Do Timmy The Self-Beaching Whale

Rather than confront the real problems plaguing their country, Germans are exhausting their goodwill on a sick whale.

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!

Ex-Victoria's Secret owner now claiming Epstein 'conned' him once suggested he was demonically possessed



Former Victoria's Secret CEO and Bath & Body Works co-founder Leslie Wexner was questioned at his Ohio home on Wednesday by Democrat members of the House Oversight Committee over his relationship to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The 88-year-old billionaire said in a prepared statement that he has "been the subject of outrageous untrue statements and hurtful rumor, innuendo, and speculation," adding that he was "naive, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein."

Although he has not been charged with any crime, Wexner was identified in the newly released Epstein files — both in a 2019 FBI document and an FBI email — as a possible co-conspirator in Epstein's sex-trafficking case.

Denial

Wexner, whose net worth is presently estimated to be $10.8 billion, told lawmakers that he was introduced to Epstein in the 1980s by Bob Meister, the former vice chairman of the insurance giant Aon.

'Taunting and poking him with impatience, that little demon he really loves.'

After allegedly receiving references for Epstein from two of the pedophile's former superiors at Bear Stearns and Élie de Rothschild of the Rothschild family banking dynasty, Wexner developed a relationship with Epstein, then ultimately hired him to manage his personal finances.

The New York Times reported that during the time he managed Wexner's personal finances, Epstein not only became extraordinarily rich but came into the possession of a New York mansion, a private plane, and a luxury estate in Ohio, altogether valued at roughly $100 million and all previously owned by Wexner or one of his companies. Wexner told lawmakers on Wednesday that Epstein purchased the New York property from him for what he "was told was the appraised value."

Wexner noted in his prepared statement that Epstein "was clever, diabolical, and a master manipulator" — a deceiver living a "double life" who "carefully used his acquaintance with important individuals to curate an aura of legitimacy that he then used to expand his network of acquaintances, and apparent credibility, even farther."

The billionaire claims that he was only personally acquainted with the one side of Epstein — the "sophisticated financial guru," not the "side of Epstein's life for which he is now infamous."

Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre alleged in court documents that she had been trafficked to Wexner, according to multiple outlets. Wexner, however, claimed both that he has never been unfaithful to Abigail, his wife of 33 years, and that he completely severed ties with Epstein around the time of the pedophile's guilty plea in 2008 for solicitation of a minor for prostitution.

RELATED: 'I wasn't his girlfriend': Whoopi Goldberg breaks silence on her presence in the Epstein files

Photo by Joe Schildhorn/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images

Wexner claimed in 2019 that he had severed ties with the sex offender a year earlier, in 2007.

Wexner stressed in his statement to lawmakers that while he was "conned," he has "done nothing wrong."

Following the deposition, Rep. Robert Garcia (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, stated, "There was no one more involved in providing Jeffrey Epstein with the wealth and financial support he needed to commit his crimes than Les Wexner. There would be no Epstein Island, no Epstein plane, and no money to traffic women and girls without the wealth of Les Wexner."

"And yet, with all this evidence, Mr. Wexner admitted that the FBI and DOJ never questioned him," continued Garcia. "That’s outrageous and unforgivable."

A Wexner spokesperson said in a statement obtained by Politico that the billionaire "honestly answered every question put to him today by the Committee" and that "Wexner reiterated that he has no knowledge of, and did not participate in, Epstein’s illegal conduct."

Another malicious spirit

Epstein may not have been the first "master manipulator" to exert influence on Wexner.

In an interview that served as the basis for Julie Baumgold's August 1985 profile in New York Magazine, Wexner discussed "his dybbuk, which pokes and prods and gives him the itchiness of soul that he calls shpilkes."

According to Jewish folklore, a dybbuk is an evil human spirit whose past sins preclude it from finding peace. These spirits are believed to seek refuge in the bodies of living human beings whom they cling to and/or possess.

Rabbi Julian Sinclair, writing for the Jewish Chronicle, noted that "Kabbalistic works, at least from the 16th century onwards, sometimes contain instructions and protocols for the exorcism of dybbuks, ceremonies to drive them out of the bodies they have colonised."

Baumgold wrote that when Wexner was a boy, his father called the dybbuk "tummel, a churning, so he feels 'molten' and unformed, pricked by these spiritual pins and needles."

"[Wexner] met this demon again when he was 40 and already worth half a billion," continued Baumgold, "when he climbed the mountain in front of his house in Vail and almost froze to death and decided to change his life. This demon he calls 'terminal shpilkes,' which makes him wander from house to house, repeating the pattern of his childhood on a luxurious scale, wanting more, swallowing companies larger than his own. It is precisely the reason that Wexner has a billion and didn't stop at, say, 5 million and a new Mercedes every other year and what he calls 'normal life.'"

The profile concludes with:

Lex Wexner picks up his heavy black case and flies off in his Challenger, with his dybbuk sitting next to him, taunting and poking him with impatience, that little demon he really loves. The dybbuk turns his face. What does he look like? "Me," says Les Wexner.

Journalist Whitney Webb suggested that while "one may interpret this use of shpilkes, literally 'pins' or 'spikes' in Yiddish and often used to describe nervous energy, impatience, or anxiety, as Wexner merely personifying his anxiety," his decision to use the word "dybbuk" was "significant."

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

Former child star calls out Hollywood's phony 'inclusive' image: 'They eat their own'



"Boy Meets World" and "Mrs. Doubtfire" actor Matthew Lawrence has some knowledge to drop: Hollywood's superficial obsession with "inclusion" and "compassion" masks one of the most ruthless businesses in the world — especially if you're a child star.

As Lawrence's brother Joey might say, "Whoa!"

Matthew made the comments in a recent conversation with older brother Joey and younger brother Andrew on the thespian trio's "Brotherly Love Podcast."

'They just literally toss them to the wolves, taking no responsibility.'

Fame shame

Lawrence noted that the pressure of sudden fame and wealth is harder for child actors, for whom success comes "before you actually know who you are." How to navigate that is something the industry "quietly stopped teaching" its youngest employees, Lawrence claimed.

Lawrence, who landed his first recurring television role at age 4, said the industry had a certain "responsibility" to child actors. His brothers, both of whom entered showbiz before they were 6, seemed to agree.

RELATED: 'Silence of the Lambs' star sorry for vilifying transgenderism: 'It's f**king wrong'

- YouTube

Tossed aside

Speaking of the highly publicized drug problems of troubled celebs like former Nickelodeon child star Tylor Chase, Lawrence put some of the onus on an industry that discards them once they're no longer useful.

"I feel like they haven't failed. I feel like the business has failed them," he said, while observing the disconnect between such callousness and the image the business likes to project:

Hollywood always talks about how they're the most compassionate, inclusive, amazing community, and they eat their own. Literally eat their own. They put these kids in movies. They build them up and talk about how incredible they are and throw money their way, [only] to pull the rug from them as soon as something doesn't work or as soon as they have outgrown that moment, and they just literally toss them to the wolves, taking no responsibility.

RELATED: James Van Der Beek's message about finding God resurfaces after death: 'I am worthy of God's love'

Photo by Ron Galella, Ltd./Ron Galella Collection via Getty Images

Guilted cage

As for Hollywood activism, Lawrence suggested it's mostly motivated by guilt.

"They do have this inherent thing where they feel bad that they are sitting on top of a mountain of cash and fame."

This doesn't always translate into a good grasp of the issues, Lawrence noted.

"They always seem to pick and choose, like, the 'in' topic, when all this crap is going wrong with the world that they just look right over."

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

Do the Epstein files confirm this Pizzagate theory? NY Mag contributor makes stunning admission.



WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of leaked emails from the personal account of John Podesta, former President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, in late 2016.

The decentralized army of sleuths that subsequently combed over the leaked emails found not only damning insights into Hillary Clinton and her doomed presidential campaign but odd messages about pizza, hot dogs, ice cream, and other foods.

'842 occurrences of the word pizza, which seems like a lot.'

The recurring references to food in non-culinary contexts prompted some to theorize that they were code words related to pedophilia and human trafficking — a theory that the mainstream media and so-called fact-checkers emphasized was "dangerous," "fake news," and, in essence, a "moral panic."

New York Magazine, one of the publications that strenuously criticized the so-called Pizzagate theory nine years ago, suggested in the wake of the new Jeffrey Epstein documents' release that "pizza" might be a code word, after all.

Dan Brooks, writing for New York Magazine, noted that the latest trove of Epstein files published by the Department of Justice "contains 842 occurrences of the word pizza, which seems like a lot. By comparison, the word hamburger appears only 190 times, while the phrase 'sex with children' appears 20 times."

Brooks admitted that "some of the pizza-related material seems pretty weird."

RELATED: Gov. Pritzker's cousin steps down at Hyatt over Epstein relationship

Photo by Joe Schildhorn/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images

Not only did Epstein appear to have automated alerts reminding him to deliver a certain individual pizza, but he was asked on more than one occasion if individuals could have a "quick pizza" together in his absence.

One email said, "I wanted to let you know that the crew really enjoyed the pizza today. Thank you for letting us do that."

Another message from a redacted sender stated, “This is better than a Chinese cookie! Let's go for pizza and grape soda again. No one else can understand."

Additional emails carry subject lines such as “The Pizza Monster!” and include more peculiar uses of the word.

“You mean radiating a soft glow with the look of bliss and excitement. Yeah, that's the pizza...” one message reads.

"These recent Epstein materials do make the financier seem strangely interested in pizza and unusually committed to having it delivered to other people," added Brooks.

There are also recurring references to "pizza and grape soda" in the child sex offender's texts and emails.

Despite the strangeness of the exchanges, a photograph in a text conversation between Epstein and his urologist appears to indicate that on at least one occasion, they were actually discussing pizza and grape soda.

While there has been plenty of speculation in recent weeks about the pizza references, particularly because they appear in both the Epstein and Podesta files, the term "cream cheese," which appears 196 times throughout the Epstein messages, has also raised eyebrows.

In one exchange, a participant wrote, "Lol, I don’t know if cream cheese and baby are on the same level," alongside discussions of scheduling activities that some observers say raise further concern. The phrase also appears in other unsettling contexts, including "cream cheese baby."

The use of cheese and pizza imagery in reference to pedophilia and child abuse is not limited to so-called Pizzagate conspiracy theorists.

In 2020, the Telegraph, a U.K.-based newspaper, reported that a parents' group working to curb the dissemination of child sex abuse material online allegedly found that cheese and pizza emojis were being used as stand-ins for "CP," meaning "child porn."

The founder of the group, a London woman identified only as India, indicated that in some cases, individuals using the emojis shared images of children scraped from parents' social media accounts.

"There are pictures of little boys aged 5 or 6 on the beach in their swimming trunks and chances are that picture was taken by their parents on their holiday," said India. "Somehow that picture has gotten into their hands."

Brooks, prickled by recent declarations by Redditors and others that at least one core Pizzagate claim might have been accurate all along, stated, "If Epstein and his friends did use pizza as a code word for sex, that wouldn’t mean that the original Pizzagate conspiracy theory was correct — even if it was also the case that pizza was a sexual code word in the Podesta emails."

After spending the bulk of his article entertaining the possibility that "a syndicate of pedophiliac celebrities, financiers, and their urologists," equipped with code words, committed "unimaginable acts of cruelty," Brooks spends his final paragraphs attacking those who made similar claims nearly a decade ago.

The NY Mag contributor suggested that such "conspiracists" — not the allegedly vampiric cosmopolitan elites who might refer to their preferred victim types with fast-food references — are "one of the most terrifying forces in 21st-century America."

Having turned his ire away from the dead pedophile and his associates to those Americans searching for justice and accountability, Brooks concluded his article by smearing American democracy as a "well-documented conspiracy of morons."

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

Republicans and Democrats are in revolt — for very different reasons



America’s 250th anniversary is defined by one undeniable fact: Both sides of the aisle are in open revolt against elites. Nothing would make the founders more proud. They created this country through their own act of rebellion against an out-of-touch ruling class. But it’s far from clear whether today’s elites will be fully defeated — or if the country is doomed to suffer under another self-serving class.

Only one of these revolts will ultimately be good for the American people — and the wrong one has the momentum.

On the right, at least, the revolt has been under way for a decade. Before 2016, Republican voters had repeatedly backed go-along-to-get-along politicians — the Romneys, McCains, and Bushes of the world. In return, they got mountains of debt and deficit spending, multiple unwinnable wars, and massive expansions in the size and power of government. Rather than clean up the country’s messes, the GOP elite made them worse.

Out of sheer frustration, Republicans turned against their ruling class, throwing their support behind Donald Trump. He has since demolished the GOP establishment. While the Trump revolution is still under way in policy, on the political front, it’s over. The old Republican elite is never coming back.

Then there’s the open revolt on the left. Like the frustrated Republicans of a decade ago, today’s Democrats are furious at their elected officials for the lack of change. But whereas the right is fighting to return quintessential American values to the fore, these leftists want to ditch those values altogether. Their vision can be summed up in one word: socialism.

Hence the stunning victory of Zohran Mamdani in New York City, the rising star of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Congress, and socialist candidates in congressional primaries. And hence the deluge of socialist activists coming out of college campuses. They’re sick and tired of Democrat elites who don’t do anything with their power. They’re determined to seize that power for themselves.

Say this for the current anti-elite moment: It’s beautifully American. Both the right and left are breathing new life into our national ideal of sovereignty, which holds that the people are ultimately in control. It’s good to remind ourselves — and our would-be rulers — that we the people are still in charge.

But not all revolts are created equal. Despite their superficial similarity, the Republican and Democrat visions are diametrically opposed and fundamentally incompatible. At the end of the day, the right is trying to permanently give power back to the people. The left, on the other hand, is setting the stage to create a permanent — and much worse — ruling class.

The difference between these two revolts is clear in the kinds of policies they back. On the right, Republicans from Donald Trump down are fighting to gut unelected bureaucracies, give families the funding to choose their children’s education, and slash red tape to unleash small businesses and job creation. Their immigration crackdown is also rooted in sovereignty, rolling back the blatant attempts to prop up ruling class power by bringing in foreign voters. On issue after issue, Republicans are taking power from elites and giving it to the people.

RELATED: We escaped King George. Why do we bow to King Judge?

Photo by Pierce Archive LLC/Buyenlarge via Getty Images

The socialist wave is rushing in the opposite direction. Today’s leftists want government control over every facet of the economy, vast expansions of the welfare state, and unprecedented power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. As history attests, socialism creates a ruling class that runs roughshod over everyone else, since absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Only one of these revolts will ultimately be good for the American people — and the wrong one has the momentum. Democratic socialists are surging in local, state, and national elections, while Republicans are doubting themselves instead of doubling down on their agenda.

Republicans are also wondering if their revolt can survive once Trump leaves office. But they should be working to ensure that it does, rallying around leaders who will keep taking the fight to our would-be overlords. In this time of revolt, there’s no guarantee of who will win. But the same was true 250 years ago, at America’s birth. The battle then was very much between the revolutionaries who stood for the people and those who stood for the elites. The founders led their fellow Americans to cast off the shackles of that ruling class. Now Republicans must rally the people once again to ensure another 250 years of sovereignty and national success.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.