Don't be fooled: This Apple privacy feature won't protect your identity



A 26-year-old man found out the hard way that Apple’s Hide My Email feature didn’t conceal his identity when he threatened the girlfriend of FBI Director Kash Patel in February.

Apparently, that anti-anonymous loophole doesn’t just work for federal officials. New information suggests that Apple’s Hide My Email doesn’t hide anyone’s identity, even from websites and marketers as it was originally intended.

Your real address and name may be visible.

So what went wrong?

Hide My Email's privacy problem

Apple unveiled Hide My Email in 2021 as part of its extended iCloud+ paid subscription. During its WWDC keynote event, then-VP of Apple Cloud Services, Mike Abbott, said, “We’ve all had moments where we’ve thought twice about sharing our personal email address, like when we’re filling out a form on the web. With Hide My Email, you can share a unique random address that forwards messages to your personal inbox, and it’s built right into Mail, Safari, and iCloud settings. So it’s easy to set up as many addresses as you need and delete them at any time, keeping you in control.”

This statement was made during a keynote segment dedicated to “another part of our ecosystem that puts your privacy first,” according to Apple's Senior Vice President of Software Engineering, Craig Federighi. Apparently, that was just marketing fluff.

As reported by 404 Media, Tyler Murphy, co-founder of a personal data removal service EasyOptOuts, unearthed Hide My Email’s one glaring privacy flaw. He made the harsh claim that, “Apple Hide My Email is leaking email addresses that are supposed to be hidden. We reported the issue and replication instructions to Apple over a year ago. We don't know why it hasn't been fixed, but we don't feel comfortable waiting any longer. Hide My Email users deserve to know that it may be possible for attackers to discover their hidden email addresses.” He concluded with a warning, “Free, publicly accessible people-search sites make it easy to link an email address to other personal details, so people relying on Hide My Email for safety may be at risk.”

Apple is reportedly investigating the claim, and despite recent software patches for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS, the problem has not been fixed.

A privacy-first facade

It’s important to note that this issue is different from the story we covered earlier this year involving Kash Patel’s girlfriend (Alexis Wilkins) and the FBI. In this case, the FBI requested that Apple provide the primary email address and name of the person who was sending threats to Wilkins to charge him for a crime. Although this wasn’t known at the time, Hide My Email addresses are not concealed within Apple’s servers, giving them the ability to link alias accounts to their original creators. (So much for privacy first, huh, Craig?)

RELATED: Is Google tweaking Android to listen in on you all the time?

Yuliia Kaveshnikova/Getty Images

Third-party websites and hackers, on the other hand, don’t have access to Apple’s servers and shouldn’t have the power to draw the same correlations. Yet, this is Murphy’s claim: That all Hide My Email aliases can be traced to their creators and the service actually doesn’t do anything at all.

What should you do?

If you’re a Hide My Email user and you’re relying on it for some sense of anonymity on the web, think again. Your real address and name may be visible. Since Apple has failed to fix the problem, it’s best to refrain from using the service for now. There are potential alternative options available through third-party email providers, but if we’re being honest, nothing on the internet is completely anonymous or private, so it’s hard to recommend those either.

If you think this whole thing has class-action lawsuit written all over it, you’re right! A case has already emerged. Filed by Anthony Alvarez, the suit goes after Apple on several counts, including negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and fraud.

The suit notes that the vulnerability was originally brought to Apple’s attention in June 2025, an entire year before the problem was revealed to the public by Murphy. Adding insult to injury, the suit claims that Apple reported a fix for the issue in March 2026, yet the problem still remained an active threat, at which point Apple covered up the flaw again.

Only time will tell if Apple gets into any real legal trouble over the Hide My Email debacle. In the meantime, it’s best to stay away from it entirely.

Stephen A. Smith defends the 'black first' identity destroying black Americans



In a recent conversation with Brandon Tatum and Gary Chambers, ESPN host Stephen A. Smith promoted a “black first identity” — which frames black identity through the lens of historical oppression rather than individual agency and achievement.

“What the hell is wrong with looking at yourself as black first before you’re anything else? Black before you’re American. Black before, you know, you’re anything else. What’s wrong with that?” Smith asked Tatum and Chambers.

“Because all black people ain't the same,” Tatum responded. “Like, for instance, we all different. So when I say ‘I’m black,’ what does that mean? The color of my skin.”

“Black people from New York is different than black people from the South. Black people from Africa that came over here as immigrants are very different than African-Americans. We’re diverse like anybody else,” he continued. “When white people say ‘I’m white first,’ what does that mean?”

Smith argued in response that black people should identify with their enslaved ancestors, as they are identifying with the "remnants of that even in today’s society.”


“I’m saying if you identify yourself as black before you identify yourself as American, what you’re doing is saying coming out of the womb, I know I’m going to be at a disadvantage because I’m in America and I’m going to have to scratch and claw and have an uphill climb,” he continued.

While he says that should not be met with a “defeatist attitude,” he goes on to say that it means “you are at least acknowledging that there are historical insidious acts that are associated with this particular nation.”

BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock is not amused.

“Stephen A. Smith is a cancer to the American media. That you could sit there and be paid $20 million a year by ESPN … and be as unqualified as Stephen A. Smith and then make the argument that there’s all these historical disadvantages, uphill climb,” he comments, annoyed.

“Don’t tell me about 150 years ago in slavery, something you did not experience. Don’t tell me about 100, 80 years ago, and segregation, and things you did not experience,” he says.

“When did you run uphill? When you flunked fourth grade? That was a racist plot? That was American racism making you repeat fourth grade?” he continues, pointing out that Smith’s obsession with a “black first identity” isn’t actually a “black first” identity at all.

“That’s a victim first identity. That’s what you just unpacked,” he explains.

“He’s promoting a victim first identity while claiming to be a Christian, while claiming to belong to some church, while claiming to have some sort of biblical worldview. Show me anywhere in the Bible where Christians are supposed to take on a victim first mentality,” he continues.

“Stephen A. Smith and myself grew up at the exact same time,” he says. “We’ve never been victims.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Mental illness has become a political identity — and SURPRISE, it's on the left: Study



There have been numerous studies in recent years highlighting correlations between political affiliation and mental health.

A 2021 study published in the journal SSM-Mental Health, for instance, concluded — on the basis of an analysis of depressive attitudes among conservative and liberal 12th graders from 2005 to 2018 — that "conservatives reported lower average depressive affect, self-derogation, and loneliness scores and higher self-esteem scores than all other groups."

'These findings have far-reaching consequences.'

A 2023 study conducted by Gallup on behalf of the Institute for Family Studies found that adolescents with "very conservative parents are 16 to 17 percentage points more likely to be in good or excellent mental health compared to their peers with very liberal parents."

A 2025 study published in the journal PLOS One found that "even after accounting for a variety of other factors, there is a clear propensity of conservatives to provide more positive assessments of their mental health in comparison to liberals" — although the researchers ultimately attempted to credit this tendency to stigma or survey terminology.

The American left's mental health issues show no signs of clearing up. In fact, while conservatives continue to enjoy relatively superior mental health, the sickness on the other side appears to be attracting sufferers into a political identity all its own.

In a study strongly recommending "replication and further exploration" that was recently published in the journal Political Behavior, Lauren Van De Hey of Utah State University found that "mental health identity has begun to function as a political identity for some individuals," particularly among "younger (Gen Z) and more liberal Americans."

RELATED: Actress Elliot Page mocked ruthlessly after trying to define 'healthy masculinity'

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Utilizing data from the national Cooperative Election Study administered by YouGov in 2022, the Utah researcher determined that a great many people now "categorize themselves as having had a mental illness, the vast majority of whom view mental illness identity and mental illness alienation as important to their sense of self."

"People who have experienced mental illness feel close to others who have experienced mental illness," wrote Van De Hey. "They are also likely to self-categorize as having or having had a mental illness, share a sense of group consciousness with others who have or had mental illness, and recognize the need to work together to change laws that are unfair to people with mental illness."

This obviously has political implications, explained the researcher, as it correlates with "support for increased state spending on health care, education, and welfare."

The study cited Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) as an example of a political elite for whom mental health appears to have become a "politicized identity."

Smith has on numerous occasions discussed her past experiences with depression, grouped herself with sufferers, and identified "mental health parity" as a legislative priority.

"Those more likely to categorize as having a mental illness are more likely to have a college degree; be a Democrat, liberal, and white; and have slightly lower family income," said the study. "For both the [Mental Illness] Identity and [Mental Illness] Alienation scales, the only consequential variable is ideology: Those with higher MI identification or MI Alienation are more likely to be liberal."

Van De Hey concluded, "These findings have far-reaching consequences for mental health advocacy and the role mental health identity will play in the political sphere — especially as Gen Z matures as a cohort."

Dealing with a sample of 860 respondents, Van De Hey found that 26% categorized themselves as having had a mental illness in their lifetime, 22% categorized themselves as having had a physical disability, and 168 categorized themselves as having had a serious chronic physical illness.

Of the 220 respondents who said they had mental illness in their lifetime, 70% identified as "liberal" or "very liberal," 24% identified as "moderate," and 32% identified as "conservative" or "very conservative."

Of the same 220 respondents, about half stated that their identity as a person with a mental health illness was "important" or "very important to them."

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

Democrats can’t escape their trans problem



The Democratic Party has a problem: Americans are increasingly repelled by transgenderism.

Between 2022 and 2025, the average American’s favorability toward restrictions on transgender policies rose significantly. Support fell both for requiring insurance companies to cover gender reassignment procedures and for protecting trans individuals from job and housing discrimination.

The Democrats’ only long-term strategy is the faint hope that radical gender ideology will vanish into the cultural ether.

All of this happened as the share of Americans who consider it morally acceptable to change one’s gender has fallen from 46% to 40% since 2021.

This drop in support is seen in younger generations too. Eric Kaufmann found that between 2022 and 2025, the number of trans-identifying college students fell by half. The decline was even sharper at elite institutions: At Phillips Academy in Andover, the number of trans-identifying students fell from 9.2% in 2023 to a mere 3% in 2025.

At Brown University, the number of nonbinary students was nearly halved between 2023 and 2025. The data highly suggests those rates will continue to fall.

The Democrats’ problem grows more acute when considering the opposition to trans ideology from groups like Gays Against Groomers and the LGB Alliance. They are some of the most vocal advocates against drag queen story hours for children, gender reassignment surgeries, and cross-sex hormones for children. Their stand demonstrates to moderates that progressive gender ideology was always a radical, far-left movement.

All of this has put Democrats in an awkward position. The party fought hard to add transgender colors to the Pride flag, pushed to allow men to compete in women’s sports, and declared Easter Sunday “Trans Day of Visibility.” But as Americans withdraw support for transgenderism, the Democrats’ trans advocacy has become an electoral liability.

Though some Democrats like Rep. Seth Moulton (Mass.) argued after the 2024 election that the party’s over-the-top trans activism alienated voters, the party hasn’t backed away. Even as Democrats shift from their “party of empathy” messaging — which was meant to counter Trump’s “fascist,” muscular MAGA movement, now giving way to figures like Maine’s Graham Platner — their support for trans ideology has stayed consistent.

James Talarico, perhaps the Democrats’ last major pure empathy candidate, strongly supports transgenderism, though his stance has become noticeably awkward in his fight against Ken Paxton for the U.S. Senate in Texas. Recent reporting has revealed that Talarico’s church library is filled with pro-trans books aimed at children. And then there are his comments that “God is nonbinary” and that there’s nothing he “loves more than trans kids.”

Meanwhile, the gruff, populist Graham Platner, covered in tattoos and emphasizing his service in the U.S. Marine Corps, has centered his campaign around a Bernie Sanders-like socialist populism. But he still firmly backs trans rights. At a campaign event in 2025, Platner said, “I stand right in the f**king way of anyone who’s going to try to come after the freedoms of the LGBTQIA+ community.”

Though Platner and Talarico are almost complete opposites in aesthetic and presentation, neither is willing to abandon his support for transgenderism, even though it’s an increasingly unpopular issue for the average American voter.

RELATED: Trump’s Justice Department is shining a light on woke universities — finally

Angela Lewis/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Democrats cannot openly denounce transgenderism, because they still have to keep the trans constituency in their electoral fold. They are stuck with people like transgender Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), whose political identity is built on trans advocacy.

The Platner wing of the party, which seeks to represent the average, working-class American, won’t make trans advocacy a key campaign issue. But this wing will never denounce transgenderism either. The Democrats’ only long-term strategy is the faint hope that radical gender ideology will vanish into the cultural ether.

The party can’t admit it was wrong. To do so would mean admitting to being complicit in child mutilation and pushing biological falsehoods. Running against the same ideology the Democrats spent years promoting would alienate the far left, whose support for transgenderism remains staunch.

So the Democrats are scrambling to de-emphasize their trans activism as they shift toward a more populist approach. But their overemphasis on transgender ideology will haunt them for years.

Conservatives need to press the Democrats on why they backed trans so aggressively, championing the stories of survivors and highlighting the lifelong consequences gender reassignment surgeries bring. Woke is not dead, and the trans issue remains a live one for Democrats.

Editor’s note: This article was published originally at the American Mind.

A real nation knows who is in and who is out



After decades of brutal race and gender politics from the left, conservatives began treating identity itself as toxic. That reaction is understandable after fighting a sinister ideology for years, but ignoring identity is not an option. Human beings need a firm sense of who they are and where they belong. Progressives exploited that impulse in twisted, artificial ways, but the impulse remains natural and healthy.

As the United States confronts mass immigration, the question “What is an American?” has become unavoidable on the right once again. It is a question about identity. For the first time in decades, conservatives must navigate one of the most important parts of human life.

Defining American identity will be difficult, but it begins with friction. Borders must be closed and illegal aliens deported. That part is nonnegotiable.

Identity feels dangerous because it is dangerous. From the beginning of time, identity has been something men kill and die for. People can fight over voluntary commitments, but identity largely consists of things we did not choose. We do not choose where we are born or to whom. We do not choose to be a brother, sister, son, or daughter. Even religion, though it requires voluntary practice, is usually inherited before it is chosen.

Identity is what you cannot leave behind, often because you never chose it in the first place.

That is why identity produces existential conflict. Its involuntary nature means people cannot simply opt out when the pressure rises. If someone wants to kill everyone who likes the movie “Jaws,” you can stop being a fan. If someone wants to kill everyone born English, you cannot stop being English. You have no option but to fight.

This explains why the post-World War II consensus tried to suppress as many thick identities as possible. If people lack strong attachments to heritage, tradition, nation, or religion, they are less likely to treat those attachments as matters of life and death. The impulse is understandable. No sane person wants another war of religion or world war fought over nationalism.

But the shift carries a cost. Without the boundaries of nation and religion, we drift toward open-borders globalism, which is deeply unhealthy.

A nation without identity has no coherent sense of the public good. The man whose family has lived in America since the founding has different priorities from a newly arrived immigrant hoping to move his extended family here. The Christian who wants his faith reflected in his ancestral nation has conflicting interests with the Muslim who wants his new home to implement Sharia law.

The state cannot remain neutral between these visions. It must decide which identity takes priority and which public good it will pursue. Neutrality is a lie. Identity is inescapable.

RELATED: Two-tier Britain finally has its George Floyd moment

Blaze Media Illustration

As America tries to unwind the open-borders disaster liberalism produced, the need for concrete identity becomes obvious. Illegal immigration is a massive problem, but legal immigration has also been destructive. If being American means more than obtaining paperwork, uncomfortable lines must be drawn. Identities are inherently exclusive. Some people are in, and some people are out.

That feels dangerous because it is. But we no longer have the luxury of avoidance. Turning a blind eye to these questions created the mess. We will not escape it by doing the same thing again.

Modern people like rigid categories, but identity has always had strong centers with some flexibility at the margins. A traditional biological family is the best outcome and should be preferred above alternatives, but an adopted child can still become part of a family. People know what a woman is, but progressives exploit overly rigid definitions to destroy the category. If you say a woman is someone who can bear children, they immediately point to a sterile female and ask whether she is still a woman.

The rigid category becomes the tool of deconstruction.

Identity should be understood not merely as a scientific fact or a voluntary choice, but as a situated-ness that draws us toward particular ends. Americans are born with inalienable rights, but also particular duties. Our identities as Americans, Christians, sons, brothers, or fathers should cost us something. They are not merely about rights, choices, and freedoms. They are also about limits.

There are things you cannot be when you are a father, a Christian, or an American. These categories are flexible, but they are not fluid.

Our globalist order hates borders and limits because they create friction for economies of scale. McDonald’s wants to sell the same hamburger to everyone the same way. If it must accommodate Hindus or Catholics, or close Sunday in America and Saturday in Israel, efficiency and profitability suffer. Uniformity maximizes scale. That is why governments, corporations, and NGOs work to homogenize every population on earth.

But identity should create friction. People need borders and limits. Only when we know who we are and who we are not can we chart a beneficial course for our nation.

RELATED: The collapse of conservatism nobody wants to admit

Blaze Media Illustration

Defining American identity will be difficult, but it begins with friction. Borders must be closed and illegal aliens deported. That part is nonnegotiable. Legal immigration should be radically limited, or ended altogether, until we work through this crisis. Every tribe has had a path for outsiders to join, but the cost should be steep. If someone is granted the gracious opportunity to become American, it should require real sacrifice.

The Bible gives us a model in Ruth, who abandons her homeland and pledges, “Your people will be my people, and your God my God.” She does not cling to her former identity. She leaves her former people, her former gods, and marries into the tribe.

Becoming part of the Hebrew people involved friction. It came at great cost. That is how you know it was worth it.

To be American is to be distinct and set apart. If anyone is to have the privilege of joining that identity, it should be difficult. Only through sacrifice can a stranger prove worthy of our great nation.

Bill Gates quietly retires climate terror as AI takes the throne



For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.

The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

RELATED: How Bill Gates and friends turned global health into a profit machine — at your expense

AvigatorPhotographer via iStock/Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This Independence Day, Ditch The DNA Test And Learn More About Your American Ancestors

In a frustratingly divided nation, we need stories that unite us to a shared American vision of the good life based on our nation’s founding principles.

New Video Series For America’s 250th Teaches Americans Why They Should Love Their History

'We can’t remember it very well if we don’t know it very well. And so, part of the purpose of this series of lectures is to remember.'

'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!

Supreme Court will hear challenge to Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for non-straight youth



The U.S. Supreme Court indicated Monday that it would hear a First Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of Colorado's 2019 counseling censorship law, which prohibits so-called "conversion therapy" for minors.

The controversial state law, an amendment to Colorado's Mental Health Practice Act, prohibits psychiatrists and mental health care providers from encouraging an individual to reconsider their sexual preference or to "change behaviors or gender expressions."

Under the law, a mental health professional who fails to indulge delusions or affirm homosexual inclination could face disciplinary actions, lose his license, and/or receive hefty fines. The law does not, however, similarly prohibit gender ideologues from encouraging confused children in therapy sessions to embrace the delusion that they are actually members of the opposite sex or to undergo sex changes.

Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian who specializes in trauma but has also helped minors with eating disorders and gender dysphoria, filed a federal lawsuit in September 2022, alleging that the censorship law violates the Free Speech Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as applied to her.

'Their faith and their relationships with God supersede romantic attractions.'

Court documents indicate that Chiles has long worked with "adults who are seeking Christian counseling and minors who are internally motivated to seek counseling." Her clients, many of whom found her through referrals from churches or word of mouth, apparently uphold a biblical worldview that includes "the concepts that attractions do not dictate behavior, nor do feelings and perceptions determine identity"; that "their faith and their relationships with God supersede romantic attractions"; and that "God determines their identity according to what He has revealed in the Bible rather than their attractions or perceptions determining their identity."

Chiles indicated that she does not try to help minors alter their sexual preferences or identity if they are not seeking change. Rather, "she seeks only to assist clients with their stated desires and objectives in counseling, which sometimes includes clients seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body."

'It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech.'

While she has yet to receive a complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the Colorado law has chilled her speech and adversely impacted both her counseling and ability to help minors.

The case, Chiles v. Salazar, made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, where a Biden judge and Obama judge affirmed a lesser court's ruling in a 2-1 vote that the ban regulated Chiles' conduct rather than her speech.

Chiles' attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom filed a petition with the Supreme Court in November, asking whether "a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause."

ADF president and general counsel Kristen Waggoner stated, "The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government's biased views on her clients."

"There is a growing consensus around the world that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria need love and an opportunity to talk through their struggles and feelings," continued Waggoner. "Colorado's law prohibits what's best for these children and sends a clear message: The only option for children struggling with these issues is to give them dangerous and experimental drugs and surgery that will make them lifelong patients."

A ruling in Chiles' favor would threaten similar prohibitions in 27 states against helping minors overcome their confusion.

When the Supreme Court decided in December 2023 not to hear a First Amendment challenge to a similar "conversion therapy" ban in Washington state, Justice Samuel Alito noted in his dissent that he would have granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, adding, "In recent years, 20 States and the District of Columbia have adopted laws prohibiting or restricting the practice of conversion therapy. It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech, and all restrictions on speech merit careful scrutiny."

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