Rule by the people? Not anymore in the Western world



On Friday, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency officially labeled Alternative for Germany — the country’s most popular conservative party — as a “right-wing extremist” organization. The nationalist party surged to second place in February’s federal election, winning 20.8% of the vote. This new designation grants the ruling government expanded powers to surveil Alternative for Germany leaders and supporters and sets the stage for an outright ban.

Germany has now joined a growing list of Western governments that delay elections, disqualify candidates, and ban opposition parties — all in the name of defending democracy.

Democracy has become a marketing slogan — useful for justifying war and globalist expansion, but disposable when it interferes with ruling-class priorities.

To call Germany’s relationship with authoritarianism “complicated” understates the case. The country’s historical memory fixates on Nazism as the ultimate expression of right-wing extremism and mass atrocity. But that singular focus conveniently ignores the fact that the Soviet Union, which helped defeat the Third Reich, imposed its own brutal regime across East Germany until the Berlin Wall fell.

Modern Germany has seen tyranny from both the far right and the far left. Yet its national identity now orbits entirely around a rejection of right-wing politics. Anti-fascism has become something like a state religion. But when a country builds its identity on shame and self-repudiation, it risks cultural collapse. We’ve seen the same pathology infect America, where elite institutions push a national narrative defined entirely by slavery and racial guilt.

Every nation has dark chapters. A mature society learns from them. It doesn’t define itself by them forever.

While German history explains some of its deep aversion to nationalism, the trend of suppressing populist movements in the name of democracy has spread far beyond Berlin.

Brazil’s Supreme Court banned former President Jair Bolsonaro from seeking office until 2030. Romania’s Constitutional Court voided its 2024 election, citing supposed Russian influence in the rise of populist candidate Călin Georgescu. And in the United States, courts came dangerously close to removing Donald Trump from the ballot — while the president now fights legal battles over whether he can exercise executive power at all under Article II of the Constitution.

This isn’t democracy defending itself. It’s ruling elites trying to outlaw their opposition.

Western elites justify their dominance by invoking democracy and individual liberty. That wasn’t always the case. The West once called itself Christendom — a civilizational identity grounded in faith, tradition, and truth. But it abandoned that foundation in favor of secular platitudes.

The United States has waged entire wars in the name of exporting democracy to places like Iraq and Afghanistan — nations that never wanted it and were never going to keep it. These projects were doomed from the start. Yet at least they wrapped American power in the language of benevolence.

Today, even that fig leaf has disappeared.

The modern West treats democracy as a branding exercise, not a principle. Leaders like Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, and Keir Starmer love lecturing the world about “liberal norms,” even as they jail political dissidents, censor speech, and turn domestic intelligence services against their own citizens. They condemn Vladimir Putin’s authoritarianism while staying silent as NATO allies crush dissent at home.

Democracy has become a marketing slogan — useful for justifying war and globalist expansion, but disposable when it interferes with ruling-class priorities.

Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio both slammed the German government for labeling Alternative for Germany as extremist. On social media, Rubio went further, blaming Germany’s open-border policies for the Alternative for Germany rise and calling the state’s surveillance powers tyranny in disguise.

Germany’s Foreign Office issued a formal reply, insisting the decision stemmed from an “independent” and “thorough” investigation.

The claim is absurd on its face.

No government can “independently” investigate and condemn its most prominent political opposition — especially not when the accusation is “extremism,” a term that now means little more than holding views the ruling class finds inconvenient.

I’ve made no secret of my dislike of modern mass democracy. But the original concept, at least, had merit. Democracy once meant rule by the demos — the people of a particular nation, rooted in shared history, culture, and civic identity. Its legitimacy came not from procedure or process but from the bonds between citizens and their country.

Today’s ruling class has twisted that definition beyond recognition. As I’ve written before, globalist elites now use the word “democracy” to describe a system governed by unaccountable institutions they alone control. Populism, they say, is dangerous. Democracy, they insist, must be preserved. But in practice, they oppose the popular will and protect only the process they’ve captured.

Elections have become sacraments — rituals that legitimize the rule of bureaucracies, not expressions of the people’s will. The process is sacred, not the outcome. That’s why Western politicians now speak of “our sacred democracy,” which must be defended not from tyranny, but from actual democratic movements.

Western leaders still try to justify their global power by invoking freedom and liberty. But their credibility has collapsed. It’s farcical to hear men like Justin Trudeau or Keir Starmer preach about “shared Western values” while jailing political opponents and silencing dissent at home.

The moral authority of liberal democracy is crumbling. And the cause isn’t Putin or China. It’s Western leaders who’ve gutted the electoral process and replaced it with rule by managerial elites.

The Trump administration should continue to expose this hypocrisy. But it also must act. That means offering political asylum to dissidents facing persecution in places like Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Americans rightly recoil at repression in Russia. They should feel the same revulsion when it comes from our “allies” in Berlin, Ottawa, or London.

Why is the New York Times carrying water for the CCP?



In a prior article, I exposed the tangled web of the New York Times’ obsessive propaganda series, which attempted to discredit Shen Yun Performing Arts.

As it turned out, the lead author of the series, Nicole Hong, is only a degree of separation away from the Chinese Communist Party, which has launched a global propaganda campaign against the group and Falun Gong, the spiritual movement that founded Shen Yun. The CCP has targeted Falun Gong for extermination since 1999. Hong’s father has worked at two CCP-backed universities and was an honorary overseas director for a group with ties to high-ranking CCP officials.

The New York Times began a spree of desperate articles attempting to defend communism.

Though this may explain why Hong was motivated to do the CCP’s bidding, why did the New York Times allow it?

A walk through the paper’s history with communism leaves no doubt that its recent attacks on Shen Yun are consistent with its past willingness to carry water for authoritarian regimes.

Whitewashing communism

Perhaps the most infamous example of the Times doing the bidding for a communist regime was its coverage of Josef Stalin, who was responsible for more deaths through mass killings than Nazi Germany.

Walter Duranty, the Times’ Moscow bureau chief, wrote 13 propaganda articles, winning him a Pulitzer Prize in 1932. The articles gave a favorable view of Soviet communist policies, downplayed Stalin’s brutality, and claimed that the wealthy weren’t being physically exterminated but instead “liquidated as a class.”

In short, Duranty was doing the 1930s equivalent of clicking “copy and paste” on the very same Soviet propaganda he was being presented — without performing the due diligence expected of a journalist.

In 1933, Duranty outright denied the famine that was visible before his very eyes. He called reports of starvation “exaggeration or malignant propaganda,” despite evidence to the contrary from other journalists.

Hollywood got it right — for once

The Times’ reporting was so misleading that even liberal Hollywood pushed back. The 2019 film “Mr. Jones” tells the true story of Gareth Jones, the journalist who first reported on the Soviet famine of 1930 to 1933. That famine killed as many as 8.7 million people, including up to 5 million during the Holodomor in Ukraine and 2.5 million during the Asharshylyk in Kazakhstan.

In 2017, the Times began a spree of desperate articles attempting to defend communism. Its “Red Century” series, launched to mark the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, included several opinion pieces accused of romanticizing or downplaying the horrors of communism.

In one example, the Times ran an article headlined “Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism,” written by Kristen R. Ghodsee, who later published a book with the same title. The piece typified the paper’s vain effort to find redeeming qualities in socialist and communist systems.

From the headline alone, the piece became one of history’s most mercilessly mocked New York Times articles. But those who read past the headline found even more to laugh at.

Among the “evidence” Ghodsee presented was an interview she conducted with a 65-year-old Bulgarian woman who had lived under communism for 43 years. The woman claimed that the free market — rather than aging out of her 20s — hampered her “ability to develop healthy amorous relationships.”

The millions of women who starved under the communist regime could not be reached for comment.

Bias laid bare

That was just one of the absurd articles the Times published that year defending communism. Other doozies included an article portraying Vladimir Lenin as an environmentalist whose love for nature led to conservation efforts in Russia — while ignoring the environmental destruction under his successors.

Another piece argued that the American Communist Party in the mid-20th century gave people a sense of moral authority and purpose in fighting social injustice while downplaying its complicity in covering up or supporting Soviet atrocities. Yet another article argued that Bolsheviks raised their children with “world literature” and communal values, suggesting a sophisticated cultural upbringing under communism — an ideology that destroys culture.

A number of reasons could explain why the New York Times might amplify an anti-Shen Yun narrative beyond a supposed journalistic duty. For one, the paper has a well-documented anti-religious bias. It may also be waging a proxy battle due to Shen Yun’s ties to the Epoch Times — a competitor that heavily criticizes the Times.

The reality is that Shen Yun is growing, and a juicy exposé on a “mysterious” financially successful dance troupe will drive clicks and subscriptions, especially amid the Times’ desperate bid to maintain the relevance it deservedly lost.

The New York Times wages war on Shen Yun — but is Beijing pulling the strings?



Since August 2024, the New York Times has ramped up attacks on Shen Yun Performing Arts, a renowned organization dedicated to reviving the traditional Chinese culture that the Chinese Communist Party uprooted and violently silenced during Mao’s Cultural Revolution — and continues to do so today.

The frequency of the hit pieces borders on obsession, with the Times publishing 10 articles on the topic within the past six months.

The timing and focus of the New York Times’ articles coincide with the CCP’s broader strategy of transnational repression.

These stories, authored by “investigative reporter” Nicole Hong and co-author Michael Rothfeld, allege mistreatment of performers and financial improprieties within Shen Yun. Over 60% of Hong’s articles since August have been focused solely on discrediting Shen Yun. Why the obsession? A closer examination of Hong’s background and potential connections to the CCP raises questions about the impartiality and motivations behind her reporting.

Hong’s CCP connections

Hong has been with the New York Times since 2019. She previously worked at the Wall Street Journal, where she once told an interviewer:

We have a massive platform at the Journal. We have millions of readers. The editing process is very tough. When these big pieces come out — things we’ve been investigating for weeks — they’re bulletproof. People are going to talk about it.

That standard appears to be absent at the Times, which has become known for embarrassing itself in the Trump era.

Despite her professional credentials, Hong’s familial connections merit scrutiny over her ability to remain impartial.

Her father, George Hong, is a professor at Fordham University in New York and holds several significant positions within organizations closely linked to the CCP.

For example, he serves as a visiting professor at Zhejiang University and Jiangxi Normal University, both linked to the CCP. The former is a public university affiliated with China’s Ministry of Education, while the latter is co-sponsored by the Ministry of Education and the communist Jiangxi provincial government.

More notably, he was an honorary overseas director of the Western Returned Scholars Association, part of the CCP’s United Front Work Department. This agency gathers intelligence on individuals and organizations inside and outside of China to attack opposition and has been described as “the most powerful association” by Chinese media. In 2023, Chinese dictator Xi Jinping called on WRSA to rally talent worldwide to bolster its efforts.

Given George Hong’s prominent role within the WRSA, questions arise about potential biases and influences that may extend to his daughter. An overwhelming majority of children share their parents’ political affiliation, which would help explain why Nicole Hong is pushing false, CCP-friendly narratives.

And she’s not the only one with a potential conflict of interest.

CCP ties beyond Hong

Hong’s articles are co-written with Michael Rothfeld. Before 1979, the United States and the People's Republic of China had never established formal diplomatic relations. In 1979, Rothfeld was a member of the first cultural delegation from the United States to China, raising further questions about possible biases.

So shoddy is Hong and Rothfeld’s reporting that even the supposed victims they cite contradict their claims.

In their debut August article alleging that Shen Yun mistreats its performers, Hong and Rothfeld highlight untreated injuries and emotional abuse. They claim performers were discouraged from seeking medical care and were financially exploited, subjecting young performers to extensive rehearsal schedules with minimal pay.

However, the performers mentioned in Hong and Rothfeld’s reporting outright contradicted their claims.

One performer, Eugene Liu, was portrayed as a victim — a characterization he flatly denies. Liu, who performed from 2015 to 2017, publicly refuted their claims, stating that his experience with Shen Yun was overwhelmingly positive. He credited his time with the dance company for his subsequent artistic successes and for helping him avoid common pitfalls among his peers, such as internet addiction and substance abuse. Liu said he spoke out due to fear that Hong’s second-rate reporting would undermine Shen Yun’s mission to highlight the persecution of Falun Gong adherents in China.

The only expert quoted in Hong and Rothfeld’s debut report is Nicholas Bequelin from Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center — which the U.S. Department of Education previously investigated for taking money from the CCP.

Shen Yun’s violent opponents

Most damning of all, a Chinese American YouTuber, who calls Falun Gong his enemy, claimed on social media to have been the catalyst for the Times’ reporting — and personally assisted them.

After Hong and Rothfeld’s debut article, he posted on X, “I was the one who introduced people to the New York Times, especially for the initial interviews [to discredit Shen Yun].” He was later arrested and charged after being discovered carrying an illegal firearm near a Shen Yun event. Even if he was lying about his involvement in the reporting, his statements still illustrate that Shen Yun’s critics are more than willing to resort to violence.

The timing and focus of the New York Times articles coincide with the CCP’s broader strategy of transnational repression. According to Freedom House, a nonprofit that advocates democracy, political freedom, and human rights, China conducts a “sophisticated” and “comprehensive” campaign of transnational repression, aiming to control and influence narratives about its policies and practices abroad. The CCP has targeted Falun Gong in particular since 1999 with its campaign to “eradicate” the religion to maintain state atheism.

China has detained Falun Gong practitioners for “reeducation through labor,” tortured 2,000 to death as of 2009, and killed 65,000 to harvest their organs between 2000 and 2008. Even in the absence of more up-to-date statistics, the numbers remain shocking.

And this is the party “America’s newspaper of record” has chosen to side with.

A green card is not a ‘get-out-of-deportation-free’ card



“Free Mahmoud Khalil” is quickly becoming the left’s new George Floyd rallying cry, as radicals once again champion criminals, thugs, and terrorist sympathizers. But their argument has a major flaw — Khalil is already free. He is free to return to Syria anytime and continue promoting Hamas. The government is not detaining him indefinitely or seeking to incarcerate him. President Trump is simply enforcing long-standing immigration laws that have been ignored for too long.

Last week, Trump announced that ICE had targeted Khalil, the Syrian national responsible for the pro-Hamas encampment at Columbia University, for deportation. “We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here. We expect every one of America’s colleges and universities to comply. Thank you!”

We don’t need to let 'intifada globalists' in our club.

Last month, I outlined how more than 120 years of uninterrupted case law confirms that deportation is not a punishment but a consequence of enforcing national sovereignty. The United States has the right to set conditions for admitting noncitizens. While the government cannot fine or imprison individuals — citizens or noncitizens — for expressing pro-terrorist or pro-communist views, it can require foreign nationals to leave. Freedom of speech protects against incarceration, but it does not grant immunity from deportation.

Recognizing the strength of this legal distinction, Khalil’s supporters are now arguing that there is a difference between those on immigrant visas and those on nonimmigrant student visas. Khalil arrived in the United States from Syria in December 2022 and became a legal permanent resident in 2024. A federal district judge in New York, disregarding the Supreme Court’s long-standing precedent on plenary power, temporarily halted his removal.

In reality, the Constitution does not distinguish between different visa types for noncitizens. Legal permanent residents do not have greater constitutional protection against removal than foreign students. Due process rights for noncitizens depend on what Congress establishes through legislation. While green-card holders typically have more legal avenues to remain in the country, Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly grants the president authority to remove any noncitizen who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.”

This is precisely what Khalil did. He led the now-banned Columbia University Apartheid Divest group, which occupied the campus and called for a global intifada in America. Like it or not, his actions fit the legal definition of endorsing terrorist activity and persuading others to do the same. Again, we cannot write such a law to detain indefinitely citizens or even aliens based upon such expressions, but we can ask foreigners to leave.

One is free to debate the political merits of these statutes, but the constitutional moorings are solid. As the Supreme Court ruled in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):

That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.

Holding a green card increases the likelihood of remaining in the United States and eventually becoming a citizen, but it does not provide a constitutional guarantee. As Justice James Iredell, one of the Supreme Court’s original members, wrote:

Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever [risk] he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.

The risk of removal is not limited to committing a specific crime that must be proven through due process. It also applies to behavior deemed harmful to national interests, which falls under the discretion of the political branches to enforce.

Emer de Vattel, the Swiss scholar on international law frequently cited by America’s founders and in early American case law, made it clear that removal does not require criminal activity to be justified. He wrote:

Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, or doing it a manifest injury. ... Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates.

A judge has no authority to interfere with immigration officers' decisions. Aliens are not entitled to due process through courts to determine whether they meet the statutory definition of an excluded alien. As the Supreme Court ruled in Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950):

The decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the [p]resident, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer. ... The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.

Some may object to the sight of individuals being handcuffed for expressing anti-American views, but such actions are only taken to enforce removal. As the court stated in Turner v. Williams, “Detention or temporary confinement as part of the means necessary to give effect to the exclusion or expulsion was held valid.”

Unlike in criminal cases, federal law allows an alien facing removal who wishes to avoid detention to leave the country voluntarily.

From a political standpoint, a foreigner who holds a green card while calling for jihad provides even more reason for swift removal. If he naturalizes, the country will be left with a self-hating American citizen. As Gouverneur Morris stated at the Constitutional Convention, “Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”

We don’t need to let “intifada globalists” in our club.

America welcomes guests — but not those who want to destroy it



America is the most generous country on Earth. We open our doors, offer opportunities, and welcome those who seek a better life. But make no mistake — this country is a home, not a doormat. If you, as a guest, start trashing the place, don’t be surprised when we show you the door.

Mahmoud Khalil is exactly that — a guest. He’s a green-card holder who led violent, anti-Semitic protests at Columbia University. Labeling what he did as mere “protests” softens the outright hate against the Jewish people and Western civilization that he espoused during his weeks-long standoff.

Green-card holders are not entitled to the same protections as citizens.

The left is accusing President Trump’s decision to revoke Khalil’s green-card status as a violation of his rights while dismissing the critical fact that Khalil is not a citizen — and as such, actions have consequences.

Residents are not citizens

A green card is not a birthright; it is a privilege. It’s a golden ticket invitation to live and work in the United States. But as in Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, that ticket comes with terms and conditions. If you break the rules, you’re out. It’s not a passport. It’s not citizenship. It’s more like a revocable lease.

Imagine you’re handed the keys to a grand estate. The owners invite you to sit at their table, pour you a glass of wine, and say, “Stay as long as you like. Just honor the house rules.” And yet, rather than showing gratitude, you start smashing windows, tearing down walls, and whispering to others, “This place is awful. It must be destroyed.”

How long before the owner snatches those keys from your hand? And who in their right mind would object? If you threatened to burn down the guest wing, you would be thrown out, and the owner would be right to do so.

Deportations are lawful

Today, we are watching green-card holders — guests in our home — sow chaos, spew hatred, and threaten the foundations of the very country that took them in.

The left is wringing its hands, insisting that these guests have a “right” to do all of those things — which is simply not true. Green-card holders are legal permanent residents, not citizens. In fact, back in 1893, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could deport noncitizens at will. National sovereignty means we have the power to determine who comes into our house. If someone isn’t a respectful guest, the Supreme Court ruled we can kick them out.

Let’s be clear: Deporting Mahmoud Khalil is not a violation of his rights. He doesn’t have the same protections as U.S. citizens. We have opened our doors, allowing millions to chase their dreams in America. But that welcome comes with an expectation: Don’t destroy what you were invited into. You don’t come into my house and start swinging a hammer at the foundation. You don’t set fire to the roof. And you surely don’t get to claim victimhood when you’re shown the exit.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

This Yale professor warns of Elon Musk’s ‘fascism’ — and misses the real threat



Timothy Snyder may not be well known in American conservative circles, but his European influence is substantial. I hadn’t heard of the Yale historian until I moved to Vienna, Austria, where he enjoys a kind of celebrity status. European leaders frequently refer to his ideas, whether they are criticizing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency or comparing JD Vance’s criticism of censorship at the Munich Security Conference last month to the Holocaust. These talking points have crossed the Atlantic, reaching U.S. media through figures like CBS News moderator Margaret Brennan. Snyder’s influence among the American left continues to grow.

I recently attended Snyder’s “Making Sense of an Unsettling World” lecture at Vienna’s Institute for Human Sciences. His casual demeanor, paired with a Zelenskyy-style quarter-zip — a nod to the Ukrainian leader he has met and advised — reinforces his “rebel professor” image. This blend of defiance and intellect captivates and galvanizes college students, making Snyder both a compelling and polarizing figure.

Snyder’s call to 'defend institutions' fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable.

After the predictable barrage of ad hominem attacks on Trump — of which there were many — Snyder shifted his focus to the most controversial figure in the administration: Elon Musk. As Snyder spoke, I couldn’t help but notice the vast ideological divide between the left and the right. This gap felt particularly sobering, not just because of its seemingly unbridgeable nature but also because Snyder's perspective undermines the very foundation necessary to bridge such divides: dissent and dialogue enabled by free speech.

Snyder accuses Musk of building a privatized, fascistic government by dismantling America's institutions. According to Snyder, we common folk are mere pawns in Musk’s algorithmic “system,” which he claims is designed to predict and manipulate human behavior. The goal, Snyder argues, is clear: to destroy institutions, privatize government functions, and siphon taxpayer dollars into Musk’s pockets.

Negative vs. positive freedom

Snyder’s argument centers on a critique of the conservative notion of “negative freedom” — the idea that freedom is best preserved by minimizing external restraints on the individual. He dismisses this concept as “freedom against,” portraying it as a tool ripe for exploitation by figures like Elon Musk. In Snyder's view, Musk uses this version of freedom to turn the masses “against” institutions, only to privatize them for personal gain later.

In contrast, Snyder champions the left-leaning principle of “positive freedom,” or “freedom for.”This approach suggests that freedom is only legitimate when exercised in service of ideals codified and enforced through institutions. According to Snyder's 2016 manifesto, which evolved into his New York Times best-selling pamphlet "On Tyranny," institutions “preserve human decency” and serve as the greatest barriers to tyranny. In this framework, Musk emerges as Snyder’s villain, a modern-day figure following in the footsteps of 20th-century fascists who dismantled institutions to consolidate power.

Institutions need accountability

Snyder’s alarmism about Musk exposes the deep divide between the left and right on the nature of freedom and the role of institutions. While critiques of corporate and political power are valid, Snyder’s perspective assumes that institutions should be defended without question, a stance that conflicts with conservatives’ healthy skepticism of concentrated power — a skepticism the left once shared.

Positive freedom, as Snyder envisions it, relies on the belief that government can act as a benevolent force. This assumption contradicts James Madison’s warning that “if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” But angels don’t govern us. Washington bureaucrats are subject to the same ills and vices that make government over the masses necessary. Defending institutional authority without scrutiny undermines the conservative commitment to negative freedom — the principle that individual liberties should be checks against excessive power.

Snyder’s solution, then, is not just to oppose authoritarian figures but to resist decentralization itself. He cites Aristotle and Plato to argue that inequality leads to instability and that demagogues exploit free speech to seize power. In Snyder’s world, speech is only “free” when it supports institutional interests rather than challenges them. Yet his call to “defend institutions” fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable. Snyder assumes institutions are inherently legitimate, ignoring the need for them to be accountable to the people they serve.

Where Snyder falls short

Snyder’s argument falls apart here. The left's crusade against so-called oligarchs like Musk isn’t about returning power to the people — it’s about re-centralizing it under authorities leftists consider ideologically acceptable.

Negative freedom is dangerous to them because it allows individuals to dissent, challenge state-sanctioned narratives, and question institutional orthodoxy. Yet it is precisely this freedom that has protected human decency from the imposition of top-down tyranny.

Snyder is right that institutions should be defended when they uphold the people's dignity, rights, and liberties. But just as institutions act as a check on the whims of the populace, the dissent of the people serves as a vital check on the inherent corruptibility of institutions. As Madison argued, both safeguards are essential.

When Snyder and his growing following on the global left seek to suppress dissent for the sake of institutional authority, they don’t prevent tyranny — they empower it.

Safe spaces or speech traps? Unpacking the left’s ‘free speech’ ruse



Freedom of speech is essential to a free society, yet progressives have spent years distorting its meaning to mislead the public.

In a recent attack on the Trump administration, CBS host Margaret Brennan claimed that “weaponized” free speech caused the Holocaust. This dangerous misrepresentation of history ignores that the Nazi regime sought to suppress free speech, not promote it. Her remarks reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

Courageous Americans must reject this twisted version of free speech and defend open dialogue — especially on college campuses.

Brennan is hardly alone, of course. Progressives have redefined free speech under the banner of tolerance, equality, and “safe spaces.” In practice, this has enabled targeted discrimination and harassment against those who oppose their political agenda. The result is widespread self-censorship and intellectual conformity.

Americans became accustomed to a dystopian reality, where praying in public, questioning the origin of COVID-19, and refusing to use someone’s preferred pronouns were labeled “dangerous” forms of speech that had to be silenced — sometimes even through violence.

With Donald Trump’s return to the White House, these restrictions are lifting. People are slowly readjusting to speaking freely without fear of government reprisal, cautiously voicing opinions once deemed off-limits. This newfound freedom is promising, but the fight against state censorship is far from over.

Meanwhile, university campuses are again in turmoil over the Israel-Palestine conflict. Activists have threatened Jewish students and occupied buildings, prompting administrators — mindful of the federal government’s new stance against such behavior — to crack down. Yet, protesters insist their actions are protected as “free speech.”

The same thing is taking place outside of schools, too. Consider the Maine legislature’s efforts to discipline state Representative Laurel Libby (R) — an elected official who had the audacity to question the continued presence of men in women’s sports in her district. For the crime of flagging such an incident on social media, Libby was censured by the legislature in a straight party-line vote — unable to vote on behalf of her constituents until she apologizes.

Remind me again which party poses a threat to democracy?

Liberals often resort to distorting the truth and rewriting history to justify their extreme measures. Margaret Brennan’s comments didn’t emerge out of nowhere; they reflect a broader progressive campaign for intellectual conformity through censorship, intimidation, violence, and revisionist history.

Benjamin Franklin warned in his Silence Dogood letters that “whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech.” Censorship remains the most direct path to tyranny.

Young adults are in a crucial stage of their lives — a time to develop resilience and critical thinking.

Courageous Americans must reject this twisted version of free speech and defend open dialogue — especially on college campuses, where future leaders are being force-fed a false narrative of their rights and pressured to stay silent. Students deserve better.

Why SCOTUS Should Nuke ‘No-Speech Zones’ Once And For All

The future of our First Amendment liberties and the lives of countless women and children depend on the Supreme Court overturning Hill v. Colorado.

To Europe’s leaders: We aren’t drifting away from democracy — you are



Dear esteemed leaders:

I write to you as an American commentator who has long studied the histories of our respective nations and the principles that have shaped the modern world. Your recent remarks, exemplified by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s warning to the United States about its alleged failure to support liberal democracies, compel me to respond — not out of antagonism but out of a shared concern for the democratic ideals we once jointly championed.

I respectfully submit that Europe, rather than exemplifying liberal democracy, is drifting toward a system that bears troubling parallels to the authoritarian regimes it once overcame. Allow me to outline this case with clarity and evidence with the hopeful aim of fostering mutual understanding.

Are you honoring the principles we fought for together?

Liberal democracy, as articulated by thinkers like John Locke and fortified through centuries of struggle, rests on the people's sovereignty, expressed through free speech, free elections, and accountable governance. Yet, across Europe, we observe a troubling erosion of these pillars.

In Germany, citizens face prosecution for questioning state policies on gender or immigration. Speech deemed inconvenient is silenced under the guise of protecting social order. The United Kingdom has detained individuals for silent prayer near abortion clinics, a stark infringement on both expression and conscience. Sweden imposes penalties for critiques of religion, narrowing the bounds of public discourse. These are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a broader trend: the suppression of dissent, once a hallmark of the Soviet system, not the Europe that triumphed over tyranny.

Elections, the bedrock of democratic legitimacy, have also been undermined. Ukraine’s indefinite suspension of voting, however justified by conflict, sets a precedent that weakens its democratic fabric. Romania’s recent nullification of an election result — because a sovereigntist party prevailed — suggests that outcomes displeasing to the European establishment may be discarded. In Germany, discussions to ban the Alternative für Deutschland, a party with significant public support, reflect a willingness to override the electorate’s voice.

This behavior is not one of a confident democracy but of a system fearful of its own citizens — a system reminiscent of the Eastern Bloc’s “managed” elections, not the vibrant pluralism that defined postwar Europe.

Globalist policies that bypass democracy

Further compounding this drift is the imposition of policies that lack a democratic mandate. The aggressive pursuit of climate goals and environmental, social, and governance frameworks often bypasses public consent and is driven instead by unelected bodies and elite gatherings like the World Economic Forum in Davos. These initiatives, while framed as moral imperatives, impose sweeping economic burdens — rising energy costs and shuttered industries — without clear electoral backing.

Historically, centralized control over vast swaths of life, unchecked by the people, was a feature of the Soviet Union’s command economy, not the free societies that rebuilt Europe after 1945. The parallels are not exact, but they are unmistakable.

The United States is not without fault. Our own democracy has faced its trials — overreach, elitism, and polarization among them. Yet in November 2024, we held an election, and the American people chose a path of renewal, reaffirming government by consent. This stands in contrast to Europe’s trajectory, where the will of the people is increasingly subordinated to the priorities of a technocratic class.

Is history repeating?

History offers a sobering lens. Europe’s leaders in the 1930s failed to recognize Adolf Hitler’s rise, not because they lacked elections, but because they tolerated the erosion of liberty under the pretext of stability.

Force, fear, and expansive state control supplanted democratic norms then as they risk doing now under different banners. The United States played a pivotal role in dismantling that fascism and, through the Marshall Plan, rebuilding your nations — not to enable new autocracies but to secure liberty’s foothold. With that legacy in mind, I urge reflection: Are you honoring the principles we fought for together?

JD Vance’s remarks at the recent Munich Security Conference underscore this divide. He called for unfettered freedom of speech, the uninterrupted conduct of elections, and an end to U.S. funding of Europe’s state-aligned media — positions grounded in first principles of self-governance. He questioned NATO’s relevance in a post-Soviet world and America’s disproportionate burden within it. He did not espouse provocations but rather rational appeals to adapt to new realities. The elicited dismay from European leaders suggests a growing philosophical rift — not over petty differences but over the essence of democracy itself.

Back to the basics of democracy

I write here as an individual, not on behalf of any institution, but as someone who listens to and speaks with millions of Americans every day through my program. While some in our own country fail to recognize the message, “We the people,” which was sent to our capitals in 2024, leaders across the West mustn’t continue to mistake a movement that simply demands a return to long-established norms of law, order, and the Bill of Rights as “Hitlerian.”

The failure of elites to listen and respond to their people builds dictators. Nascent authoritarians — “baby Hitlers” — are among all of us, waiting in the wings. But by ignoring the will of the people, you water those seeds and, perhaps unknowingly, allow their scope and power to grow.

I harbor deep respect for the peoples of Europe and the United Kingdom, with whom Americans share an enduring bond. Our intent is not to abandon you but to refocus on our own renewal — a task long overdue.

We are stepping back from the role of global enforcer, not out of indifference, but from a belief that each nation must secure its own destiny. NATO, designed to counter a now-defunct threat, requires re-evaluation; its costs, borne heavily by the United States, must align with current needs, not past promises. We will no longer subsidize systems that stifle the very freedoms we once defended together.

I implore you not to misconstrue this as a threat but as a call to mutual accountability. The greatness of our civilizations — yours and ours — stems from the people, not their rulers. The courage of ordinary citizens felled fascism and communism, and their voices must still guide us. I hope we can realign with those founding truths, restoring a partnership rooted in liberty, not lecturing.

With respect and in earnest dialogue,

Glenn Beck

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.