The left’s next phase is even worse than woke



Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently made headlines when she claimed during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” with Jonathan Karl that “Woke 1 was crazy.” She was specifically referring to the extreme progressive rhetoric and positions of the 2020 COVID lockdown era, particularly calls to defund or abolish the police.

Some have interpreted the DSA member’s words as evidence that the left is entering a more sane, commonsense phase — but BlazeTV’s Christopher Rufo believes the opposite is actually true.

On this episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” Rufo and co-host Jonathan Keeperman sit down with foreign policy expert Zineb Riboua to dive into what Rufo predicts is the left’s next phase — a movement that will make the pinnacle of wokeism look tame.

“It's long been my thesis that what's next on the left is the ideology of Third-Worldism,” says Rufo.

Riboua breaks down what that term entails. “Third-Worldism is really about seeing everything through a very specific lens, where you show who is the colonizer, who is the colonized, who is the oppressor, the oppressed.”

This “very binary” way of thinking, she explains, pits “the global north” against “the global south,” with the explicit goal of seeing the latter “triumph.”

But this isn’t the massive shift some interpret it to be, she says. Third-Worldism, Riboua explains, is just “a different form” of the left’s longtime goal to take money and power from the West and give it to other groups via redistribution, reparations, and shifting power.

“My kind of pet theory is that there's also just a change in racial focus,” Rufo adds, highlighting 2020’s BLM era, which was hyper-focused around “black America's historical grievances [and] historical oppressions” — an era whose “leadership class” ultimately “collapsed.”

Rufo wonders if Third-Worldism is simply the shifting of the left’s racial focus off of black America and on to the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia.

“Is it just a racial shift in the subject — seeking the same policies, yes, but seeking a kind of stronger leadership class?” he asks Riboua.

“While it's true that there is a change in ... which race we're going to give priorities for, I think that what is, I think, more fundamental about Third-Worldism is that it positions things in a way that anyone who feels oppressed can join,” says Riboua.

“In a way, Third-Worldism is much more, I would say, inclusive of all these grievances against anything that is Western and de facto imperial, patriarchal even though things are obviously very much complicated in history,” she adds.

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Nick Freitas: Why young men are giving up on modern society



Why are so many young men checking out of modern society? According to Nick Freitas, the answer — unlike what the Gen X and Boomer generations would have you believe — goes far deeper than laziness or a lack of resilience.

Freitas tells Christopher Rufo and Jonathan “Lomez” Keeperman on “Rufo & Lomez” that the first thing to consider is that there is a real problem and it’s “different from what we faced in the past.”

“It’s really easy to point back like, ‘Oh, you think it’s hard now? What about the 19-year-olds that were storming Normandy?’ It’s like, yeah, that was hard. And that’s why we lift up and we celebrate the 19-year-olds that stormed Normandy,” Freitas explains.

“The problem is we have a bunch of 19-year-olds now where first of all, there’s no Normandy to storm, and they’re being told that all of the characteristics or instincts that would have informed the man storming the beach in Normandy are now bad, evil, toxic, horrible, and need to be repressed,” he says, noting that “that’s the part that’s unique.”


“That’s the part that I think Gen X-ers and Boomers have a hard time understanding is that the culture has shifted so much as to deliberately target the very things that young men were designed, I believe, designed by God to be,” he adds.

Freitas notes that it's “confusing and horrific” to attempt to thrive in an environment “where you’re told that all of your instincts are bad and you need to be emasculated.”

In order to deal with this, Freitas explains that “one of the big things” he tells young men is to seek identity through Christ.

“It’s eternal. It doesn’t promise me that everything is going to be going good. But it’s eternal. I believe it’s true. And so in so far as that’s where I get my identity, then all of a sudden I always have identity, meaning, and purpose,” he says.

“I never lose it, and it cannot be taken away from me,” he adds.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Former CIA analyst EXPOSES the Muslim Brotherhood's infiltration of American politics



The Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in America may be far more deeply embedded than most Americans realize according to former CIA targeter Sarah Adams.

Adams tells Christopher Rufo and Jonathan “Lomez” Keeperman on “Rufo & Lomez” that the organization has spent decades building relationships and political power from the ground up, financially supporting candidates while embedding itself in universities, religious organizations, chambers of commerce, and local civic groups.

“They back a lot of the political candidates financially as we know. They pump a ton of money into our universities, but they also are very much like the Chinese, and nobody’s really honest about that,” Adams explains.


“They start at the local level,” she continues, “They get involved in community organizations and chambers of commerce, you know, religious organizations, volunteer organizations.”

“So they’re more integrated than I think most people realize,” she adds.

Lomez points out that there are even reports that Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is funded by the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Admittedly these are just headlines, that you know, he may be funded by Muslim Brotherhood,” he says. “This comes as a surprise to me, but it sounds like you’re saying, ‘No, this is something to be expected.’”

While expected, Adams notes that it is “complicated.”

“When it comes to the U.S., though, it’s so complicated because when we say ‘Muslim Brotherhood,’ you’re not going to drive down the street and have a building and it says ‘The Muslim Brotherhood.’ It’s going to be called something like, I don’t know, the Saudi American Friendship Society, right?” she explains.

“And so that’s where it’s complicated because people at the local level don’t even know that they’re interacting,” she says, noting that even local candidates and activists have no idea.

“That awareness does not exist at all in the United States,” she adds.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Inside the Charlie Kirk Israel controversy: Andrew Kolvet sets the record straight



The atrocious assassination of Charlie Kirk last September has ignited numerous conspiracy theories, some of which involve the nation of Israel. Even though Charlie was publicly very pro-Israel for years, especially in light of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, rumors that the TPUSA founder was beginning to waver on his support for the Jewish nation have led some to speculate that Israel might have been involved in his murder.

So where did Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA really fall on the issue of Israel?

On a recent episode of “Rufo and Lomez,” co-host Jonathan Keeperman sat down with executive producer of “The Charlie Kirk Show” and TPUSA spokesman Andrew Kolvet, who addressed this question.

“This issue [of Israel] was probably the most difficult for Charlie to navigate in life,” says Kolvet.

He explains that for Charlie, there was one “bright line” when it came to Israel: “Jew-hate has no place in the conservative movement,” and “the scapegoating of an entire people group” is an “ancient evil” that cannot be tolerated.

However, that doesn’t mean that he was ever part of the hard-line, activist “pro-Israel” crowd who demand unconditional, unquestioning support for every Israeli policy. That’s why Charlie was sometimes “accused of being an anti-Semite,” Kolvet explains.

He notes that the “driving force” of the Trump-era conservative movement — which Charlie heavily shaped — has always been “non-interventionalism.”

“Charlie was certainly a driver of that and certainly a proponent of that. He wanted the government to focus more on domestic issues, but he also wasn't willing to go to that point and blame, you know, a small nation in the Middle East for all the world's ills,” Kolvet tells Keeperman.

This balanced stance became harder to maintain after Hamas’ October 7 attacks. Many on the right who already held non-interventionist views saw the war in Gaza as validation of their skepticism toward Israel.

“This is an instance of where our preconceived bias, confirmation bias was played into by geopolitical events,” Kolvet says.

The intense fighting reinforced the idea that U.S. ties to Israel drag America into foreign conflicts, creating a “perceived reality” that has grown since October 7 and put pressure on Charlie’s middle position. “It’s a tricky issue,” Kolvet acknowledges, “but we have to be able to say a couple things very, very clearly, I think, on our side if we’re going to keep the coalition together.”

“One, we are America first. Our interests are more important than Israel's interests. If you are an American, that has got to be a bright line in the sand,” he adds, acknowledging that there are legitimate questions about Israel spying on the U.S., the recurring “$4 billion” in annual U.S. aid to Israel, and the sharing of intelligence and technology with the Israeli military.

“I think those are all valid questions, because we have to be about our own business first and foremost. We have to be about our own priorities first and foremost,” he adds.

However, if American interests “align with Israel,” Kolvet sees that as a positive.

“I certainly don't think we should be asking that same question when it comes to Hamas, for example, right? ... There's no moral equivalency between the two,” he says. “But we also have to just be really up front that we have domestic issues that we need to get done and we need to accomplish or we're going to lose this country and the West will fall if America does not get this right.”

He laments the reality that the conservative base’s division over Israel has “poured into the story of Charlie.”

Ultimately, TPUSA stands for two basic principles, says Kolvet: “Reject Jew-hate,” but “be about our own business first” and then address “geopolitics and foreign policy.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Inside Spencer Pratt’s insurgent LA run: Creative director exposes the unfiltered truth in explosive interview



Many conservatives across the country were tuned into Republican candidate Spencer Pratt’s audacious, underdog run against incumbent L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D) — but few know about the “creative genius” behind Pratt’s wildly popular social media campaign.

On a recent episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” Pratt’s creative director Gabriel Mann joined the program to pull back the curtain on the raw, grassroots operation that terrified the L.A. political establishment: zero consultants, lightning-fast video production, paid ballot harvesting in South L.A., explosive fraud allegations, and the Hollywood machine that blacklists conservatives while protecting its own.

Mann tells the hosts that unlike the scripted, consultant-heavy world of modern politics, Pratt’s operation ran with zero political advisers.

“I know a lot of people try to portray their campaign as grassroots, but I mean this was legitimately grassroots. ... It was an experiment in completely upending the traditional politico paradigm, so we didn't have any political advisers. It was just me and Spencer,” he tells hosts Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman.

This bare-bones team streamlined the video production process, expediting response ads.

“[Pratt’s opponents] were trying to attack him for not physically living in the Airstream even though that's a sniper's wet dream, so like his security would not let him be on the lot, but people were attacking him saying, ‘Oh, he's bougie. He's living in Santa Barbara,”’ Mann recalls.

“We decided to just immediately attack right back, and so we made this 'Fresh Prince of Bel Air' video ... to turn the energy around because we didn't have any political advisers telling us, ‘Oh, we should focus group this,’ ‘Oh, you shouldn't say that.’ ... ‘Your tone should be like this,”’ he adds. “All we had was Spencer with his instincts and a filmmaker, not a political guy.”

One of the most eye-opening revelations, however, was Mann’s description of how the campaign built its own “ground game” in “hostile territory,” paying approximately $100,000 to Bloods and Crips members to perform ballot harvesting in South L.A. neighborhoods.

He explains that because there is “literally no Republican infrastructure in Los Angeles,” they had to get creative in how they reached voters.

“I'm not joking, like totally above board, totally legal, we paid the Bloods and the Crips to go do ballot harvesting for us in their neighborhoods, and that was the one thing that Spencer did that I think shocked a lot of people,” he tells Rufo and Keeperman.

Mann also pulled back the curtain on Hollywood’s ruthless political machine. While the industry famously protects its own, it blacklists conservatives without mercy. He recounted a crew member being fired on the spot simply for giving Spencer a tour of a "Baywatch" set.

“We’re with Bass. The union is supporting Bass,” was the explanation. Yet behind the scenes, some of the biggest names in entertainment were quietly rooting for Pratt. Mann revealed, “You have no idea how many ... but [they] wouldn’t allow us to trot them out in public.”

Yet perhaps most explosive were the questions surrounding the final vote count itself. On election night, Pratt was neck-and-neck with incumbent Karen Bass and leading democrat socialist Nithya Raman as expected. But in the days that followed, as late mail-in ballots poured in, Raman overcame a roughly 40,000-vote deficit — a stunning net swing of more than 43,000 votes that flipped the race.

“They try to explain it away like, ‘Oh well, Democrats vote late. They vote by mail.’ OK, but just for the one third place candidate? There were two Democrats in the race, so why is it only for the third place candidate, the one person who actually needed the votes?” says Mann, “And the thing is the media will always say that, ‘Oh, there's no evidence of fraud.’ That is evidence.”

“Now evidence is not the same as proof, but a statistical anomaly like that, you ask any forensic auditor they'll tell you yeah that is evidence of fraud, and it needs to be investigated, and so Spencer has been doing this by the books. He's been collecting evidence,” he continues, noting that they’ve built a case with this evidence and have shared it with law enforcement.

For the full, unfiltered conversation and all the behind-the-scenes details, watch the complete episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Christopher Rufo cornered NYT’s Ezra Klein — and got him to admit the quiet part on immigration



For years, the New York Times has taken an openly and aggressively progressive stance on immigration — favoring expanded legal immigration, citizenship for illegal immigrants, and asylum protections, while opposing strict enforcement measures like expanded border walls, mass deportations, or reduced refugee admissions.

Anyone who thought otherwise was labeled racist, xenophobic, or a white nationalist.

But it seems one of the Times’ biggest names has begun to backtrack ever so slightly.

Last week, BlazeTV host Christopher Rufo sat down with opinion columnist and podcaster Ezra Klein for an honest conversation about a number of divisive issues, including immigration.

Klein’s surprising comments may be symptomatic of cracks forming in the progressive consensus that treated any hesitation about mass immigration as inherently bigoted.

Reflecting on the interview, Rufo tells co-host Jonathan Keeperman, “I made the argument that it’s totally legitimate to be concerned about rapid, large-scale immigration change.”

To his surprise, Klein didn’t totally disagree.

“In some versions [of white nationalism], ... if you have too much of a country not sharing a common heritage, you lose solidarity. In some cases, we’re talking about something much darker than that, right?” Klein contrasted. “There are people who just don’t like the way their community is changing, and there’s the KKK.”

“But would you say someone who is, like, for example, hesitant about rapid, large-scale demographic change is just a kind of 1% white nationalist? Because that would be, like, the majority of the country,” Rufo pressed.

“Yes, I don’t think it is a problem or unfair or even wrong to worry about large-scale, rapid demographic change,” Klein conceded.

Rufo believes this response is indicative of a broader shift.

“A couple years ago, you would not hear a prominent New York Times voice saying that it is totally legitimate, reasonable, and understandable to be concerned about large-scale, rapid demographic change,” he says, noting how the left routinely scorned such fears as byproducts of “the Great Replacement theory” and “KKK-style white supremacy.”

“Is this a concession? Is this going to be the ... moderate left’s or the establishment left's new position moving forward?” he asks.

Keeperman doesn’t believe Klein’s rhetorical concession amounts to much.

“It does not surprise me at all to hear him concede rhetorically that these things matter, that it’s OK to be concerned about ... rapid demographic change, to have some concern about national identity,” he tells Rufo. “That is meaningless, however, unless it’s backed up by actual policy preferences that he’s willing to get behind.”

Until the New York Times “[makes] some kind of policy concession that would suggest they are serious about taking this concern to heart,” Keeperman refuses to believe the left is sincerely softening its stance on immigration.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Woke is dead — but what’s rising from its corpse should terrify every American



BlazeTV host Christopher Rufo believes the Democrat Party machine and its woke politics is being replaced by something far more sinister: die-hard socialists and third worldism.

Just last week, three Zohran Mamdani-backed Democratic socialists — Claire Valdez (NY-7), Darializa Avila Chevalier (NY-13), and Brad Lander (NY-10) — won their Democratic congressional primaries, defeating establishment incumbents and candidates, including two sitting representatives.

“The Dem establishment is totally crushed, totally weak, totally ineffective,” says Rufo, “and in New York, we've seen this playing out now for about a year where they tried to run moderate Dem candidates ... trying to stop the DSA candidates from gaining so much power, but the DSA is really running the show.”

“They have control over the municipal government; they have control over the greater New York City congressional delegation; they have a permanent infrastructure,” he continues.

The Democrat establishment, Rufo argues, has virtually become a “misnomer” because the Democratic Socialists of America has really become the establishment power now. They’re the ones with “full-time activists, a full-time messaging apparatus, [and] a full-time get-out-the-vote operation.” They have mastered the art of “out-organizing” their opponents, he says.

Co-host Jonathan Keeperman doesn’t see the Democrat establishment vs. the DSA as a matter of “competing architectures,” however. He believes the left’s “lack of leadership” has allowed the DSA to begin “colonizing the old Democrat machine.”

“The Democrats have nothing even close to ... a singular figure who can point that constituency in a particular electoral direction,” he says, calling the Democrat Party “a totally rudderless ship.”

“[The Democrat Party is] up for contest,” says Rufo, “and it seems clear that the more radical left-wing factions within the Democratic Party feel like they have all of the energy; they have all of the momentum; and that they can ride it to the end point, which is changing the party from within.”

While he acknowledges that DSA power is still relatively confined — pocketed in deep-blue places like New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — its ability to “take a minority faction in a larger political body, capture it, subvert it, bully it, and then get it to submit” is disturbing.

“I think you're going to see a lot of the DSA ideas trickling upward in the party. These activists are going to use their leverage, their star power, their charisma, and it's going to change the Democratic Party,” Rufo predicts.

And that’s a terrifying prospect because these ideas will be rooted not in wokeism, which is bad enough, but in “third worldism” — an even more “serious threat to life, liberty, and property.”

“The left has molted the dead skin of woke,” he says.

The push is no longer “the oppressor-oppressed narrative” that urges redistribution of goods and services to “oppressed groups.” The DSA promotes a far “harder-edged political ideology,” says Rufo. “If you listen to these candidates like Darializa Chevalier, it's seize property, seize housing, seize wealth.”

“It is a third-worldist ideology,” he declares.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Spencer Pratt’s near-perfect campaign in LA mayoral race is still doomed to fail … unless this one thing saves him



According to many critics, former reality TV star and registered Republican Spencer Pratt spanked incumbent Mayor Karen Bass and democratic socialist City Councilmember Nithya Raman in the Los Angeles mayoral debate on Wednesday night, with Fox News rating Pratt’s performance a “10/10 no notes.”

But even though Pratt delivered crisp answers, brought charismatic energy, exceeded expectations as a first-time debate performer, and has even outraised both Bass and Raman, Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman, BlazeTV hosts of “Rufo and Lomez,” aren’t sure it’s enough to bring him to victory.

But there is one faint hope that could push him over the edge.

“A reality television career, a media savvy campaign, an outsider political movement — can you actually bridge that gap and become ... the mayor of Los Angeles?” Rufo asks skeptically.

He admits that the alternatives are bleak: “You have Karen Bass, the sitting mayor of L.A., who was a member of the Venceremos Brigade communist Cuban front group. ... And then the third character is Nithya Raman ... a hard-left democratic socialist in the vein of a Mamdani or a Saikat Chakrabarti, who ran the AOC campaign early on.”

Bass and Raman, Rufo explains, “are fighting over the actual power system in L.A. — who gets the union money, who gets the activist money, who gets the nonprofit money, who gets the public money, meaning who can dominate those institutions and ride them to power.”

Pratt’s “media-centric” campaign, albeit “savvy” and compelling, may not be enough to “overcome those institutions,” he says.

Co-host Jonathan Keeperman agrees: “It’s not even whether or not he runs a good campaign or whether this media strategy is effective or not. ... It’s just a numbers game.”

He explains that the reality is that most of the people who will show up to vote in L.A.’s mayoral election are people who are “dependent on the state and city governance in some capacity for their livelihood.”

“They are working for the state probably and/or working for some kind of NGO that is itself working for the state, and so most of the voters here — and it's largely going to be driven by union turnout — are dependent on precisely the institutions that someone like Karen Bass is promising to sort of keep intact and keep funding,” Keeperman predicts.

Pratt’s “only hope,” he says, is that enough “sideline” voters recognize that the horrific wildfires that destroyed thousands of acres and killed 31 people in January 2025 were due to “the failure of democratic governance.”

“I don’t mean to be a doomer here or sound too pessimistic, but no matter what Pratt does in terms of raising his profile at the national level and getting on social media ... you’re just talking about a very narrow set of voters in the city of L.A., and they’re dependent on the city of L.A. government structure for their livelihood,” he says.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

In the wake of SPLC indictment, Christopher​ Rufo recalls the first time it came after him



Last week, the Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted by a federal grand jury on 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering for allegedly using over $3 million in donor funds to secretly pay informants inside extremist groups like the KKK.

On this episode of “Rufo and Lomez,” Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman, both of whom have been targets of the SPLC, trade stories and discuss the significance of these indictments.

The SPLC, says Rufo, “is this amazing story of the organized left creating this phantasm of the radical right and then fighting that phantasm that they themselves have created.”

The powerful role the SPLC has inhabited on the left, says Keeperman, hinges on telling liberals “who the bad guys are” and thus who they are “allowed to hate.”

But it goes further than just slapping damning labels on conservative individuals and organizations.

If the SPLC targets you, it proceeds to attempt to “ruin your reputation, ruin your ability to earn a living, and then send out [its] goons by proxy and by arms' distance to physically hurt you if you show up anywhere in public,” alleges Rufo, citing the SPLC’s targeting of American political scientist and scholar Charles Murray, who suffered both professionally and personally after the advocacy group labeled him an extremist.

Rufo keenly recalls the first time the SPLC targeted him.

In the early 2020s when he was on his anti-critical race theory campaign, he found himself in the organization’s crosshairs, and it genuinely frightened him.

“I felt the fear,” he admits.

“You have this sense like, OK, I better fight hard because these people are trying to knock me off the board altogether — ruin my reputation, ruin my ability to support my family.”

Rufo’s fight proved successful. “I was able to kind of rebuff those initial challenges and actually kind of boomerang them and turn them into a badge of honor, a fundraising appeal to my supporters. ... I was able to get them to retract certain claims that they were making against me to show in essence that I was able to make them back down,” he recounts.

That was just the first attack though.

Over the last few years, there have been over “a dozen” attacks on Rufo, but they no longer elicit the same fear as the first time.

“You actually develop a kind of immunity through exposure,” he says, calling the recent charges against the SPLC “both shocking and not shocking.”

“It's both a blow to their effectiveness, but it's also just really another nail in the coffin.”

To hear more, watch the full episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The third way: Navigating AI’s knife edge



When it comes to the impending AI takeover, two main camps of belief get the most attention: those who welcome technological singularity, believing it will deliver humanity into a utopia of universal basic income, freedom, and prosperity, and those who deeply oppose it, fearing it will render humanity useless and usher in the apocalypse.

But is there a middle ground — a reasonable center that embraces the good AI offers but opposes the dystopia it threatens?

BlazeTV hosts Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman believe there is.

On a recent episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” the duo spoke with Samuel Hammond, an artificial intelligence researcher at the Foundation for American Innovation, about the “sweet middle ground” of artificial intelligence.

Hammond acknowledges the dual nature of artificial intelligence. “It's the thing that's going to build us all-new efficient defended software, but also in the meantime enable hackers to hack that software; it's a thing that will discover new drugs but also create new viruses. And to be able to hold both those realities in your mind is incredibly taxing.”

In the same way that the Industrial Revolution created both wealth and the administrative and welfare states, so the AI takeover will have both benefits and drawbacks, he says.

Keeperman inquires about the regulatory measures being taken by AI developers to mitigate the potential damage.

Hammond admits that regulation is difficult because of the sheer scope of AI. Like electricity, “it’s this massive umbrella term,” he says.

“The areas where people have legitimate concerns are easier to gerrymander, right? It's things like designing novel bioweapons or very powerful, autonomous malware that could hack into your program and go rogue. These things are difficult to keep in a box,” he explains.

On the upside, however, “getting to advanced AI first will have major national security implications.”

“The fact that we have a friendly U.S.-based company that built a system like Mythos first that could, in principle, hack into all these different critical pieces of infrastructure is an incredible fortune for us, right?” says Hammond, noting that this allows the U.S. to “patch up and harden [its] systems” before other countries reach the same capabilities.

On the other hand, the U.S. government currently has little control over the companies that are leading AI development.

As of now, these companies “are being benevolent with their use of this and certainly have the intentions to try to be sort of trustworthy and good stewards of this technology, but as a matter of state governance, do we actually have any greater control over this technology than, let's say, China?” Keeperman asks.

Hammond admits that we’re on precarious terrain.

“I think of us as sort of on this knife edge between a Chinese-style panopticon or some kind of anarchy where things kind of fall apart,” he says, advocating for a “third way.”

“We need a strong state to enforce property and contract and our rights, but that state can't be completely divorced from rule of law,” he says. At the same time, however, “democracies have committed genocide,” whereas “private corporations just want to maximize shareholder value.”

In the end, Hammond urges us to reject both utopian dreams and apocalyptic fears in favor of a pragmatic middle course: building institutions strong enough to govern AI’s immense power, yet constrained enough to prevent it from becoming a tool of tyranny or disorder.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.