Vance’s path to 2028 just got much more complicated



Until late 2025, the Republican Party appeared likely to carry the MAGA coalition more or less intact into the 2028 presidential election. No successor can reproduce Trump’s personality or political style. But the coalition he assembled — working-class voters, growing numbers of Latinos and other former Democrats, and disaffected liberals such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard — seemed durable.

JD Vance also appeared ready to clear the field. Marco Rubio, the only other plausible heir with national support, said just a few months ago that he would back Vance in 2028 if the vice president ran. The nomination looked less like a contest than a succession plan.

Much of the base may share Vance’s instincts, but the right is far from unanimous. His victory in an open contest cannot be assumed.

When I wrote my book, “JD Vance and the Future of the Republican Party,” the first sustained examination of Vance’s political thought and his place in the post-Trump GOP, that outcome seemed nearly certain. Vance would declare around the 2026 midterms. Rubio would endorse him. A few marginal candidates might enter, but none would reach double digits.

That scenario remains possible. It is no longer inevitable.

Two related developments have changed the equation: the fight over the U.S.-Israel relationship on the right and the war in Iran.

The first does not implicate Vance directly, but it has fractured the political world he must lead. Far-right podcasters and pundits have fixated on Israel and Jews for years. The dispute moved from the fringes toward the center when Tucker Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes on his podcast in October 2025, one month after Charlie Kirk — one of the right’s most effective coalition builders and gatekeepers — was assassinated. Influential voices soon moved beyond debating the wisdom and limits of the U.S.-Israel alliance to entertaining conspiratorial claims that Jews themselves threatened America.

The conservative movement has never been intellectually uniform. Libertarians, social conservatives, anti-communist liberals, nationalists, and other factions have long competed under the Republican tent. But the past nine months have produced something more corrosive. Positions on Israel, American Jews, and even individual media personalities have become loyalty tests. Conservatives increasingly sort themselves into camps and excommunicate dissenters.

Every presidential nominee must unite competing factions. Vance faces an unusual version of that task because he entered politics through the world of conservative intellectuals, think tanks, and media. He has friends and allies across rival camps. Preserving those relationships without appearing captive to any of them may become one of his hardest political tests.

RELATED: JD Vance reveals opinion on Epstein files, explains ‘demon’ alien theory, slams ‘full of s**t’ Gavin Newsom with Joe Rogan

Nathan Howard/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

The war in Iran has made that test harder. Trump’s coalition has always included incompatible foreign-policy factions: George W. Bush-era interventionists, advocates of a restrained and more hemispheric strategy, and hard-line isolationists. The alliance held as long as the administration avoided wars that lacked a clear connection to the American interest.

Iran forced the disagreement into the open. Will the Republican Party continue military campaigns in the Middle East, or will it reserve force for direct threats to the United States? Republicans answer that question very differently, and the war has split the party. Any 2028 nominee will have to navigate the divide.

Vance is no isolationist, but his instincts favor restraint. He is also more willing than many senior Republicans to question the scope of U.S. commitments to Israel. Those positions may appeal to much of the base while alarming interventionists, pro-Israel conservatives, and establishment donors.

Can Vance maintain relationships with controversial figures such as Carlson, reconsider American commitments in the Middle East, and still hold the Republican coalition together? A competitive 2028 primary would force those questions into the open. Much of the base may share Vance’s instincts, but the right is far from unanimous. His victory in an open contest cannot be assumed.

Rubio remains the likeliest challenger. He has said he will not oppose Vance if the vice president runs, but supporters continue to promote the popular secretary of state as a candidate. Rubio’s greater acceptability to establishment Republicans and his more interventionist foreign policy would turn the primary into a direct contest over the party’s future. He could expose every fault line Vance must bridge.

One factor may matter more than all the others: Trump’s endorsement.

RELATED: The GOP’s 2028 ticket math is already brutal

Will Oliver/EPA/Bloomberg/Getty Images

After the Iran war, Vance is less likely to coast through a genuinely open primary, especially if Rubio changes his mind. But Republicans may never receive an open primary. Trump still commands the party he reshaped, relishes the role of kingmaker, and will want to choose his successor.

An unequivocal Trump endorsement of Vance could end the contest before it begins. Other candidates could run, but they would struggle against a Trump-Vance succession. If Trump chooses Vance, the vice president may become the 2028 nominee by anointing rather than competition.

Trump has spoken more than once about the race to succeed him. Once he speaks definitively, the question may no longer be whether Vance can win the Republican primary. It may be whether the party is willing to hold one.

If Trump names Vance, he will likely become the future of the Republican Party. Trump will decide whether the party gets a primary or an anointing.

‘Need a cop? Thank socialism’ is dumb — but dangerously effective



Zohran Mamdani ran a brilliant campaign last year by promising to make New York City affordable through democratic socialism.

Now the bill is arriving.

Firefighters are good. Firefighters are socialism. Therefore, socialism is good. That is the intellectual caliber of the movement now ascending in American politics.

New York’s new pied-à-terre tax took effect this month. Almost immediately, the luxury real estate market tanked. Wealthy buyers, it turns out, are not livestock. They can delay purchases, move money, change residency, or simply decline to participate in Mamdani’s experiment.

This elementary fact appears to have surprised the people running America’s largest city.

That’s the trouble with democratic socialists. They are forever astonished when human beings refuse to behave like figures in a budget projection.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has a solution: Make the argument so stupid that nobody can discuss socialism seriously at all.

Appearing recently on “The Dean Obeidallah Show,” Ellison announced that police departments are socialist because taxpayers fund them.

“You call the cops; guess who pays them. Your tax dollars,” Ellison said. “Guess what that is. That’s socialism, pal!”

He threw in fire departments, water inspectors, and public works for good measure.

No, pal. That isn’t socialism. That’s just government.

Ellison wasn’t offering a forensic definition, of course. He was performing a cheap semantic trick for people he assumed would nod and applaud before thinking.

Police are socialism. Firefighters are socialism. Roads are socialism. Public schools are socialism. (Well, yes, kind of.) Once every government function becomes socialist, socialism no longer requires a defense. You already support it. You have no choice. Unless you plan to extinguish your own house fire, arrest your own burglar, and pave the road yourself, welcome to the revolution.

Joe Rogan has been repeating the same dumb line for years, I’m sorry to say. Last year, he again called the fire department socialist because everybody pays for it and everybody receives protection.

I like Rogan. He isn’t a malefactor like Ellison. He simply does not know what he is talking about. That is less wicked, but it is increasingly difficult to excuse in a man who has spent thousands of hours interviewing people who actually know things.

Millions hear Rogan and think: Well, gosh, that makes sense.

No, it doesn’t. It’s flat wrong.

Worse, Ellison and Rogan smuggle in the same fraudulent choice: socialism or chaos.

Either government employs police officers and firefighters, builds roads, and inspects drinking water, or every citizen must hire his own private constable, buy his own fire engine, and fill the pothole at the end of the driveway.

That is not the choice.

RELATED: The media’s Democratic cover-up is collapsing

Chuwy/Getty Images

Socialism concerns ownership and control of productive property. Government collects taxes, enforces laws, maintains courts, fields armies, and provides services. Governments did all of those things long before socialism acquired a name.

By the Ellison-Rogan standard, if we can call it that, every king who collected taxes was a socialist. Ancient Rome was socialist because it built aqueducts. George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were socialists because the national government employed customs agents. Louis XIV was apparently waiting for the workers to seize Versailles.

The alternative to socialism is not anarchy. It is limited government.

Conservatives sometimes make the mistake of talking as though government itself were the enemy. It isn’t. Not necessarily. Bad government is the enemy. Unlimited government is the enemy. Government that exceeds its legitimate purposes, devours private institutions, and treats citizens as dependents is the enemy.

But we need government.

We need cops and firefighters. We need courts, armies, roads, and public works — the odd toll road notwithstanding. Somebody must enforce contracts, punish violence, defend the country, and preserve public order.

Ordered liberty requires order.

The American political tradition does not reject government. It recognizes that government is necessary and dangerous and therefore must be limited by law. That is a much older and more serious idea than the facile view that every tax-funded service is socialism and every objection to socialism is an argument for anarchy.

Ellison knows better. That’s what makes him a bad guy. He understands perfectly well that a police department is not socialism. He chooses to speak as though he does not because the confusion serves him.

If cops and firefighters are socialism, then socialism is already as American as apple pie. No need to defend rent controls, wealth taxes, government grocery stores, confiscatory tax schemes, or the steady expansion of public power on their merits. Just offer the child’s syllogism: Firefighters are good. Firefighters are socialism. Therefore, socialism is good.

That is the intellectual caliber of the movement now ascending in American cities.

RELATED: ‘Back the blue’ cannot mean blind obedience

Fort Worth Star-Telegram/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Ellison is dishonest about words because dishonesty serves his politics. Rogan is careless with ideas because being laughably wrong has never reduced his audience. Mamdani is careless with markets because he imagines moral righteousness repeals the law of supply and demand.

These are not serious people. But they are seriously dangerous.

They hold offices, microphones, audiences, and influence wildly disproportionate to their judgment. They confuse applause with vindication and slogans with thought. They speak with total confidence because none of them expects to pay for being wrong.

The people who do pay are homeowners, renters, workers, employers, customers, and taxpayers who cannot laugh, wave, and leave the consequences to somebody else.

Democratic socialism’s new champions are not merely wrong about economics. They are frivolous about power. They offer socialism or chaos because admitting the existence of limited government would ruin the con.

They are playing with cities and states they are not wise or disciplined enough to govern. Shine, perishing republic!

‘Fascinating’: JD Vance tells Joe Rogan the Trump administration ‘screwed up the comms’ with the Epstein files



For years, the Epstein files have fueled endless speculation, conspiracy theories, and demands for transparency — which have resulted in widespread disappointment among Americans demanding to know the truth.

Now, on the biggest podcast in the world, Vice President JD Vance is offering one of the administration’s most direct explanations yet for why the highly anticipated document release left so many Americans frustrated.

“The Epstein files were supposed to be released,” Joe Rogan said to Vance on “The Joe Rogan Experience.” “And there was a tremendous amount of resistance to those files being released. That concerned a lot of people because if you’re talking about very wealthy, powerful people that were engaged in crimes.”

“So you’re basically saying the fear is that whatever’s in the Epstein files was used to blackmail the administration into doing the Iran thing,” Vance replied.


“Or, at the very least, the people that were involved in the Epstein files that didn’t want them coming out had undue influence,” Rogan said.

“I say this with all candor, we absolutely screwed up the comms of the Epstein files. Like we just did. But do I think the reason we screwed up the comms is because we were trying to hide something? No,” Vance explained.

Instead, Vance believes the reason the administration “screwed up the comms” was that former Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed the client list was on her desk.

“So, what was the purpose of that performative display of the Epstein files, and she was saying there’s tens of thousands of hours of film?” Rogan asked.

“I don’t know what the purpose of it was, but I know that the effect of it was to make people mistrust the entire effort,” Vance answered, noting that he believes Bondi was “trying to respond to the political moment.”

Vance called himself one of the “OG Epstein conspiracy theorists” and admitted to going “down every single rabbit hole.”

“The original sin of the Epstein investigation, and obviously I’m biased here, but it was not what Donald Trump and the administration did in 2025. It was, you have to go back to 2007, 2008, the original Alex Acosta investigation of Jeffrey Epstein where he basically dropped the federal charges,” he explained.

“You go to the original warrant back in 2008, what was he looking for? What was he allowed to look for? What were they collecting? It was not looking at a broader conspiracy,” he added.

“That’s fascinating,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray comments.

“I don’t know if we’ll ever find out the truth,” he adds, “but that was fascinating.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'I don't care': Meet the man building Britain's new populist, anti-immigration right



The name Rupert Lowe will probably be unfamiliar to many Americans. To look at him, the former Reform U.K. member of parliament is the quintessential English gentleman — a farmer who breeds pedigree cattle amid the rolling hills of Gloucestershire, looking every bit the part in a waxed jacket and muddy Wellington boots.

Behind the pastoral image, however, lies one of Britain's most controversial political figures.

Restore proposes what Lowe describes as 'the most ambitious program of mass deportations ever seen' in Britain.

No friend of Farage

Reform U.K. suspended Lowe in March 2025 over allegations of workplace bullying before eventually expelling him from the party. Lowe has always maintained the allegations were politically motivated, arguing he was forced out because he took a harder line on immigration than the party leadership. He has since accused Nigel Farage of running Reform with a "messianic" leadership style that sidelines anyone viewed as a threat.

Following his expulsion, Lowe spent the next year sitting in the House of Commons as an independent MP for Great Yarmouth. During that political exile, he quietly laid the groundwork for a comeback, launching Restore Britain as a pressure group before registering it as a political party in early 2026. On March 23, Lowe officially entered parliament as Restore Britain's sole MP.

The new party occupies territory to the right of Reform, embracing policies — including mass deportations — that Farage has been reluctant to endorse.

That split soon attracted one of the world's most influential political voices.

'Weak sauce'

After initially expressing support for Reform, Elon Musk publicly broke with Farage, saying he "doesn't have what it takes" and describing his leadership as "weak sauce." Musk instead backed Lowe, dramatically increasing Restore Britain's online profile.

Within months, the party claimed more than one million social media followers and roughly 130,000 members — surpassing the Conservative Party's reported membership. In July, Lowe became the first British politician to appear on "The Joe Rogan Experience," introducing his movement to millions of viewers outside Britain.

If Reform seeks to channel public frustration, Restore Britain aims to dismantle the political consensus that has governed Britain for decades.

Its central objective is reversing what supporters call the "Boriswave" — the surge in migration that followed Brexit. Between 2021 and 2024, roughly 2.6 million people arrived in Britain. Under current law, many migrants become eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain after five years, opening a pathway to welfare benefits and eventually British citizenship.

Ready to remigrate

Restore proposes removing access to state benefits for ILR holders in an effort to encourage voluntary departures while also promising what Lowe describes as "the most ambitious program of mass deportations ever seen" in Britain. The party's proposed "remigration" policy would prioritize deporting foreign nationals who commit crimes, rely on welfare, cannot speak English, or live in social housing.

Restore also advocates ending voting rights and eligibility for public office for foreign nationals at every level of government. Supporters argue the proposal would reduce sectarian politics and ensure elected officials remain primarily accountable to British citizens rather than recent immigrant communities.

The party points to cases such as Labour MPs Tahir Ali and Mohammad Yasin, who urged Pakistan's prime minister to support construction of an international airport in Mirpur, as examples of lawmakers prioritizing overseas interests while representing British constituencies.

Kissing cousins

Restore also pushes beyond Reform on cultural issues.

One example is cousin marriage. Although Farage has expressed support for bans adopted elsewhere in Europe, he has stopped short of proposing one for Britain.

Restore explicitly supports banning the practice. The party argues that cousin marriage reinforces clan-based social structures, slows integration, and contributes to elevated rates of inherited genetic disorders within some communities. Critics of the practice frequently cite data from the Born in Bradford study, in which researchers have documented unusually high rates of certain inherited conditions associated with consanguineous marriage.

The party has taken similarly uncompromising positions elsewhere. It supports banning the burqa and niqab in public and ending religious exemptions that permit halal and kosher slaughter without prior stunning, arguing both policies are necessary to strengthen national cohesion and reinforce what it considers British values.

RELATED: Pakistani cousin marriage has no place in UK

Bloomberg/Getty Images

'I don't care'

Another issue that has helped define Restore Britain is Britain's long-running grooming gang scandal, in which organized groups of men sexually exploited and raped vulnerable children. Many of the country's most notorious cases — including Rotherham, Rochdale, and Huddersfield — involved gangs of men of Pakistani heritage.

Although the government's statutory inquiry followed Baroness Louise Casey's independent review, Lowe has sought to make the scandal central to Restore's political identity. The party funded its own inquiry, pressed ministers to preserve evidence for the official investigation, and argues that years of institutional reluctance to confront the offenders' backgrounds reflected a broader failure of Britain's political establishment. Supporters credit Lowe with helping keep public attention on the issue, while critics contend Restore has used it to advance its wider political agenda.

Such positions have predictably drawn fierce criticism.

The Daily Mail and the Telegraph have both published investigations into Restore Britain's candidates and supporters. Critics argue the scrutiny reflects legitimate questions about the party's leadership and membership. Restore supporters see something different: an establishment campaign designed to halt the movement before it can gain traction.

Academic and former Reform candidate Matt Goodwin likewise dismissed many of those leaving Reform for Restore, describing them in an interview with Spiked as "the wrong kinds of people, who hold the wrong kinds of ideas." He characterized many critics of Reform as "amateurs, egomaniacs, zoomers with very little political experience."

Lowe's response has since become something of a rallying cry for his supporters.

"I don't care."

GONE IN 60 SECONDS: Why Conor McGregor's loss to Holloway marks the definitive end of his career



Conor McGregor is many things, but boring has never been one of them. The wild years between his major bouts dissolved into a blur of court dates, shattered bus windows, and enough marching powder to send a bull elephant into cardiac orbit.

He lived like a man trying to out-party Hunter S. Thompson while trying to convince the world he was still an elite athlete. He posted midnight sparring videos from triple-decker superyachts. He littered social media with unhinged, deleted voice notes. Even so, millions of loyal fans believed that he had the capacity to regain his crown.

Joe Rogan provided live commentary, and his excitement was infectious. He confessed to wanting to believe the former champion could still produce magic.

Cold snap

The first real sign that the legend possessed limits came on July 10, 2021, at UFC 264. McGregor’s tibia snapped against Dustin Poirier with the crack of a dry branch, forcing the Dubliner into a prolonged competitive exile. He traded the daily grind of the gym for titanium rod rehabilitation sessions. That injury became the permanent line between the fighter he actually was and the myth he tried to preserve. The subsequent years became a parade of recovery updates and constant promises of a return.

A return did materialize, though it was destined to be short-lived. Saturday — five years on from that shin-splintering night in Las Vegas — McGregor made his return to the Octagon at UFC 329 inside the T-Mobile Arena.

His opponent was fellow MMA veteran Max Holloway, a man who had spent McGregor’s entire hiatus fighting the absolute best featherweights and lightweights on the planet. The arena held a rather eclectic crowd featuring Mike Tyson, Tucker Carlson, and Vince Vaughn, all paying thousands of dollars to witness what was marketed as the greatest resurrection since Lazarus.

Flicker of hope

The opening bars of the Notorious B.I.G.'s "Hypnotize" echoed through the arena. It was the perfect entrance music for the self-styled "Notorious" McGregor. Joe Rogan provided live commentary, and his excitement was infectious. He confessed to wanting to believe the former champion could still produce magic.

The Irish faithful, both in the stands and back home, shared that exact wish, desperately embracing the possibility of the greatest comeback in sporting history. We needed the Mac to conquer the improbable and completely rewrite the laws of the impossible.

But once the fight began, the delusion evaporated in just over 60 seconds. McGregor threw a heavy, wild kick, landed awkwardly on his right leg, and immediately lost his footing. Seconds later, he attempted a follow-up kick, only to wince in agony. The months of promotional hype and international press tours dissolved in an instant.

When the referee stepped in to call a halt to the misery, McGregor sat with his head buried in his hands. Bypassing the microphone entirely, he exited the cage in what felt like a permanent vanishing act.

RELATED: The sad decline of Conor McGregor

JORGE GUERRERO/AFP/Getty Images

Off the cliff

McGregor recently celebrated his 38th birthday. He’s still a young man, but in the 155- to 170-pound divisions of mixed martial arts, 38 is a chronological cliff, where human reaction time slows just enough for elite 20-something killers to take your head off. History tracks a brutal, unbroken pattern of legend after legend refusing to accept this biological reality. The American B.J. Penn pushed past his prime into his late 30s, only to suffer a horrific seven-fight skid, looking slower and more vulnerable with every appearance.

The sport functions as a meat grinder with a marketing department. Tony Ferguson marched straight into his 40s on an agonizing eight-fight losing streak, transforming from the most feared lightweight on earth into a visual cautionary tale for the entire roster. The Brazilian superstar Anderson Silva lingered long enough to go 1-6 at the end of his UFC run, absorbing unneeded damage from athletes who used his name to build their own brands. The sport does not accommodate aging heroes.

Hit the showers

The financial machine will survive the loss of its favorite cash cow. McGregor completely transformed the UFC's economic reality during his meteoric rise. He turned a niche combat sport into a multibillion-dollar mainstream industry through an unprecedented marketing capability that no fighter before or since has replicated.

In his competitive prime, his ability to predict the exact round of a knockout matched his technical precision inside the cage, forcing even his harshest critics to respect his execution and refer to him as Mystic Mac. He made the sport immensely profitable for the executives, generating hundreds of millions of dollars while single-handedly inventing the concept of the MMA "money fight."

The knee injury at UFC 329 closes the door on any future athletic success inside the Octagon. There is no training regimen, experimental therapy, or medical procedure that can restore the fast-twitch reflexes and structural durability required to beat elite, hungry fighters. He leaves the sport as an incredibly wealthy promotional executive and a guaranteed Hall of Famer, but his time as a functional, successful competitor in the UFC has reached its absolute end.

The dark religion behind ‘manifesting’



The power of positive thinking has taken an occult turn. After his UFC victory at the White House last month, Sean O’Malley told Joe Rogan that he had seen the outcome beforehand and manifested it into reality.

Whether he meant those words casually or literally, they reflect an increasingly common belief among athletes, entrepreneurs, influencers, and podcasters. Success is no longer merely achieved through discipline and hard work. It is manifested — even conjured. Consciousness itself creates the future.

Our thoughts influence our actions, but they do not govern reality. We make plans, set goals, exercise prudence, and work diligently. The outcome ultimately belongs to God.

At first glance, this language may sound harmless. Athletes have long used visualization techniques. Coaches encourage competitors to imagine success before a game. Olympic athletes mentally rehearse routines. Quarterbacks visualize throws. Fighters picture victories.

But modern manifesting goes far beyond sports psychology.

Traditional visualization is straightforward. Imagining success can improve focus, reduce anxiety, build confidence, and prepare the body for performance. The athlete does not create reality through thought. He prepares himself to perform when reality arrives.

Manifesting makes a different claim.

It holds that consciousness participates in creating reality. The fighter does not merely prepare for victory; he helps bring it into existence. The entrepreneur does not merely work toward success; he attracts it. The individual does not merely respond to the world; he creates his own reality.

This way of thinking has become so common that many people no longer recognize how strange it is. Yet it represents a significant religious shift in modern American culture.

Ironically, little about it is new.

The roots of today’s manifestation movement extend into 19th-century American religious history and, before that, into occult and hermetic traditions.

One important source was Christian Science, founded by Mary Baker Eddy. Christian Science taught that matter is subordinate to mind and that many human problems result from false thinking rather than objective conditions.

Christian Science differs from today’s manifestation culture in important ways, but both assign consciousness a far more fundamental role than traditional Christianity permits.

Closely related was the New Thought movement. Its writers and lecturers taught that positive thinking could produce health, prosperity, and success. The message was simple: Change your thoughts, and you can change your reality.

RELATED: How the WNBA’s biggest star became its biggest embarrassment

Katelyn Mulcahy/Getty Images

Many modern manifestation teachers merely repackage New Thought for the social media age.

The vocabulary has changed, but the assumptions remain strikingly similar.

Instead of speaking about positive thinking — the scientific language of that era — people now invoke frequencies, vibrations, energy, alignment, and quantum possibilities — the scientific language of ours. Instead of spiritual laws, they speak of neuroscience and mindset.

The central claim remains unchanged: Your thoughts possess creative power.

The fundamental reality, they teach, is consciousness. The awakened self is divine.

This worldview also resembles older occult, esoteric, and theosophical traditions.

Historically, occult systems taught that hidden knowledge gave initiates access to powers unavailable to ordinary people. Reality operates according to secret principles that could be learned and harnessed. The enlightened individual gained mastery by acquiring that knowledge.

It is the promise of the serpent in the garden: You will know as God knows.

Human beings know by discovering what is real. God knows as the creator who determines what is real.

Modern manifestation culture often follows the same pattern. Its teachers claim that reality contains countless possible futures and that consciousness selects among them. Individuals are urged to discover hidden truths about their power, unlock limiting beliefs, raise their vibrations, and learn the principles by which the universe operates.

The pattern appears throughout many nonbiblical religions: You are a higher consciousness trapped in a body and must discover the secret that will restore you to divinity.

The problem is not sin but rather ignorance of your own godhood.

You do not need redemption through Christ to restore communion with God. You need enlightenment to remember that you are God.

That is why modern manifestation can accurately be described as a form of neo-gnosticism.

Ancient gnosticism taught that human beings contained a hidden divine element. The fundamental human problem was ignorance of this truth. Salvation came through secret knowledge that awakened people to their true nature.

Modern manifestation often follows the same structure:

You possess hidden creative powers.

You do not understand your true potential.

Limiting beliefs keep you trapped.

Special knowledge sets you free.

The language differs, but the story remains familiar. And its attraction is obvious.

Manifestation promises control in an uncertain world. It offers success without dependence, power without submission, and meaning without repentance. It assures individuals that they are not subject to forces beyond themselves but possess the power to shape their destinies.

RELATED: What if the commies were right after all?

Apic/Getty Images

Yet the system contains a serious flaw: It is self-validating.

When someone succeeds, the success proves manifestation works. When someone fails, the failure is blamed on faulty manifestation. Success confirms the theory. Failure confirms it too.

It resembles the gambler who remembers the one time double zero hit twice in a row and forgets every losing bet.

A theory that can absorb every possible result explains nothing. It merely improvises a new explanation after the fact.

Christianity begins somewhere else entirely.

Scripture teaches that human beings are not creators but creatures. God alone exists from eternity. He created human souls and a material world, and he called that world very good.

Our thoughts influence our actions, but they do not govern reality. We make plans, set goals, exercise prudence, and work diligently. The outcome ultimately belongs to God.

The biblical question is not, “What reality can I create?” It is, “What has God ordained, and how should I respond faithfully?”

That distinction may sound subtle, but it marks two radically different visions of the world.

One places creative sovereignty in human consciousness.

The other places it in God.

So when O’Malley says he manifested his victory, he may mean only that he visualized success and prepared himself mentally. If so, there is little controversy.

But if he means that consciousness itself helped create the result, then he is participating in a much larger religious movement — one stretching from 19th-century metaphysical spirituality through New Thought and occultism into today’s podcast culture.

The language is modern. The temptation is ancient.

'Islamophobia': Pakistan-born MP attacks Restore colleague for exposing Muslim rape gangs to Joe Rogan



Rupert Lowe, the Restore Britain leader who unveiled the stomach-churning "Rape Gang Inquiry Report" last month, spoke to podcaster Joe Rogan in an interview released on Wednesday about the mass rape of young white girls in the United Kingdom by predominantly Muslim Pakistani gangs.

Lowe also highlighted the U.K.'s problem with parallel Islamic legal systems operating in the U.K. and their apparent tolerance by British authorities who are sensitive to the "Muslim bloc vote."

'They will all be banned on day one.'

Afzal Khan, a Pakistan-born Labour member of parliament who previously served as parliamentary chair for the Labour Muslim Network, melted down publicly over this illuminating interview.

Rather than engage with Lowe's commentary, Khan sought the regulation and possible punishment of his colleague's free speech by submitting a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, which is responsible for investigating alleged breaches of House of Commons Code of Conduct and Registers.

Khan wrote in a Thursday letter to Commissioner Daniel Greenberg that "on 8th July, Rupert Lowe MP appeared on 'The Joe Rogan Experience' podcast, in which he claimed that parallel Sharia courts are tolerated within the U.K. judicial system. This is not only a flagrant lie but is deeply inflammatory and fuels Islamophobia."

RELATED: 'Rape of Britain' ignored because of the Muslim vote, UK lawmaker tells Joe Rogan

L-R: Mary Turner/Bloomberg/Getty Images; Carmen Mandato/Getty Images (R)

While the British government officially rejects the idea that Sharia law and Sharia councils have any legal authority in the isles, lawmakers have for years expressed concerns that the councils are forming a parallel legal system.

According to a 2019 parliamentary brief, Sharia courts have existed in the United Kingdom since the 1980s. By 2012, there were at least 30 major Sharia courts in England. According to a 2018 independent review commissioned by the Home Office, the number of Sharia courts in England and Wales is as high as 85.

The 2018 review found that many Muslims couples were not civilly registering their marriages with the appropriate authorities and were therefore reliant on this parallel legal system for resolving marital disputes and securing religious divorces.

The report also found that these Islamic courts engaged in discriminatory practices and that some of the councils inappropriately questioned women, pressured individuals into making financial concessions to obtain a divorce, and in some cases failed to refer domestic violence or child abuse to the police or real courts.

Despite identifying various problems with the parallel legal system, the report effectively recommended tolerance, stating, "We consider the closure of Sharia councils is not a viable option."

Khan — who recognized in his letter that Sharia councils exist in the U.K. and that they adjudicate religious divorces and "may also give verdicts on other aspects of day-to-day life for Muslims" — made clear that he resents more than just Lowe's remarks about the Sharia court system.

The Pakistani native complained to the commissioner that the "Rape Gang Inquiry Report" commissioned by Lowe claimed "that 'Muslim' gangs are to blame for child sexual abuse in Britain" and "that 'at the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture' primarily by Pakistani Muslim men since mass immigration began in the 1950s."

Khan suggested that such claims were unfounded and were "Islamophobic."

RELATED: 'Beyond evil': Nightmarish report reveals full scale of mass Islamic rapes of '250,000' white British girls

L-R: OLI SCARFF/AFP/Getty Images; Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images

After leaning on an Al Jazeera commentator's characterization of Lowe as a neo-Nazi, Khan returned to the matter at hand, claiming that Lowe's appearance on Rogan's podcast was "extremely problematic" — especially since Rogan previously "failed to counter [Vice President JD] Vance's 'sort of joke' that the U.K. is heading towards being 'the first Islamist country with nuclear weapons.'"

'These are barbaric, medieval and backward Islamic practices that have no place in our country.'

Khan closed his complaint by suggesting his Oxford-born colleague's "words and actions create a hostile working environment, particularly for Muslim MPs," and that Lowe's supposed "rampant racism" warrants an investigation.

Lowe responded to Khan on Friday by sardonically thanking Khan for reporting him to the parliamentary authorities over his appearance on Rogan's show, the rape gang inquiry, and his criticism of Sharia courts, the burqa, and halal slaughter.

The Englishman claimed that "these are barbaric, medieval and backward Islamic practices that have no place in our country. When Restore Britain gains power, they will all be banned on day one. It will be glorious."

In addition to forwarding the report and Restore Britain's mass deportation plan to Khan, Lowe told the Pakistani native, "If you have an issue with my politics — please come directly to me for an adult discussion, rather than running to the authorities in an attempt to censor my views which are held by a large majority of the British complaint."

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

'Rape of Britain' ignored because of the Muslim vote, UK lawmaker tells Joe Rogan



Rupert Lowe, the head of Restore Britain in the U.K. Parliament, released a damning report on June 16, detailing the staggering scale of the horrific crimes committed against generations of young white girls in Britain by predominantly Muslim Pakistani gangs.

The 219-page "Rape Gang Inquiry Report" — which was commissioned by Lowe and led by Sammy Woodhouse, a rape-gang survivor who over a decade ago helped expose the mass rape of girls in Rotherham, England — estimated that the number of white girls subjected to "repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma" since the 1950s is "at the very least, 250,000."

'You're going to have a real problem.'

The report's disturbing insights not only into the crimes but into the British establishment's egregious response captured Joe Rogan's attention last month. In an interview released Wednesday, the podcaster sat down with Lowe to discuss what Elon Musk has elsewhere dubbed "the rape of Britain," as well as the correlated issues of mass migration, the failure of multiculturalism, western Islamicization, and the fall of civilizations.

After raising the alarm about the costly and seemingly interminable inundation of foreigners into the United Kingdom, Lowe — whose party advocates for mass deportations — highlighted Britain's problem with migrant populations, particularly those originating from Islamic nations, that "are increasingly living in small groups of people who haven't integrated, who are living under Sharia law, and who have their own courts."

Rogan, unsettled by Lowe's observation of parallel Islamic legal systems operating in the U.K. and allegedly tolerated by British authorities, said, "There's certain cultures that if you allow them to come into your community and then they institute the laws of the country where they came from, you're going to have a real problem."

"They don't live the way you live. They don't have the same respect for women that you have. They don't treat them the same way. They don't allow dogs," continued Rogan.

"The idea is supposed to be that Western society is inclusive and progressive because we're intelligent and educated and we care — but you can care so much that you let in criminals, and then you give those criminals all your money, and then the criminals can take over your country, slowly but surely."

RELATED: 'Beyond evil': Nightmarish report reveals full scale of mass Islamic rapes of '250,000' white British girls

L-R: OLI SCARFF/AFP/Getty Images; Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images

Rogan suggested that people are wrong to be skeptical about the possibility and ramifications of such a takeover, referring back to the collapse of the empires of yesteryear.

"People look at the Colosseum, you look at ancient Greece, and they think, 'Wow, I wonder what happened to those guys.' What do you think happened?" said Rogan. "Probably the same s**t that's happening right now to England, the same s**t that could have happened to America. It's — civilizations fall apart for various reasons. And one great way to get them to fall apart is to bring in a bunch of people and they don't have to follow your laws."

Lowe bridged the topics of civilizational collapse and rapacious parallel societies to the rape gang inquiry, suggesting that he and others had to crowdfund the report because the "government will not have a statutory inquiry" — a special kind of state inquiry that can compel witnesses to give evidence or to supply documents — because the powers that be are sensitive to the "Muslim bloc vote."

Lowe claimed that as the result of his efforts to force disclosures in Parliament relevant to the inquiry, it has become clear that "a lot of the data has not been properly collected" by the police, the National Health Service, social services, and other institutions with regard to the crimes and the particulars of their perpetrators.

The Restore Britain leader suggested further that while the powers that be know that members of imported populations are disproportionately prowling about and preying on native British girls, "they don't want to admit that their multicultural experiment" has failed, "which as you probably know, famously Enoch Powell warned would fail with his ... 'Rivers of Blood' speech, for which he was heavily criticized."

"They don't want to be called racist," added Lowe.

Rogan said, "We hope you guys turn it around."

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