In 2016, I got a call from my editor at Simon & Schuster in New York. The company was putting out a new edition of my first novel, "Girl" (1994), and redoing the cover and interior design, in preparation for its re-release.

A new edition is usually a happy occasion for a writer. If your book is still relevant after 20+ years, that’s an accomplishment.

Books have a moral authority that TV, TikTok and YouTube lack. And we all know how leftists crave moral authority.

On the phone, my editor told me that besides a new cover, the company had some young editors look at the text as well.

At first, I didn’t understand. Why would they review the text after 20 years?

She explained that these editors were recent college graduates who had studied racism, sexism, and the latest critical theory. Their job was to ensure that Simon & Schuster didn’t accidentally publish something inappropriate or hurtful to unrepresented minorities or aggrieved groups.

Sense and sensitivity

This definitely sounded unusual to me. But I wasn’t worried. "Girl" had been considered “edgy” in its time, but it had sold well and been made into a movie. It had been translated into several languages.

I assumed whatever controversy it had generated was now deemed to be within the bounds of acceptability.

So I was surprised and alarmed when she told me these new editors had some issues with "Girl."

In this way, I was introduced to the possibility that progressive activists — “sensitivity readers” — could literally edit your book.

Because "Girl" was 20 years old, I was given the option of declining any major changes. Therefore, no real damage was done.

But it was a scary omen for the future. If they were scrutinizing older books in this way, what would they do to books that hadn’t been published yet?

Harold M. Lambert/Getty Images

10 years on

Recently, I came across a new nonfiction work that addresses this trend in publishing: "That Book Is Dangerous! How Moral Panic, Social Media, and the Culture Wars Are Remaking Publishing."

In this compelling book, young literary scholar Adam Szetela goes into great detail about the arrival of “sensitivity readers" and the other forms of Orwellian madness that descended on the publishing industry shortly after Trump took office.

It is quite entertaining to read and gives countless examples of how ridiculous and convoluted leftist ideology has become in the book business.

During this period, writers, editors, fans, and bloggers accused each other of racism, sexism, white supremacy, homophobia, and every other imaginable transgression. Careers were destroyed, people were fired, first-time authors saw their dreams dissolve before their eyes. And this over things like, “Is a white writer allowed to describe a black character?”

It was the ultimate purity spiral. It was a circular firing squad!

The left eats itself

When I first heard about "This Book Is Dangerous," I assumed young Szetela was a conservative. Who else would write such a book?

But no: He has a Ph.D. in English literature from an Ivy League university (Cornell). Which means he’s required to be left of center.

So he’s not writing from the point of view of "look at these crazy cultural Marxists trying to destroy our culture."

No, he’s trying to reel in his leftist peers because he can see how much damage they are doing to their own (and his) cause!

It’s satisfying to read books where leftists tell on themselves, where by some fluke they stumble onto the truth, then are forced to denounce that truth, and then realize they are attacking themselves!

It’s like watching a dog chase its tail. “Hey Fido, that tail you’re biting? That’s you.”

Influencing the youth

Another thing we learn from "That Book Is Dangerous!" is how much of this cultural warfare was waged inside the young adult and children’s genres.

Surprise, surprise, it turns out that socialist/progressive/DSA types really want to control what young people are exposed to.

And one way they do that is through books. Especially books that get read to them by their parents or recommended by their teachers at school.

Books have a moral authority that TV, TikTok and YouTube lack. And we all know how leftists crave moral authority. Even when they have to denounce each other to get it.

Politicized Publishing Inc.

So yeah, I recommend "That Book Is Dangerous!" It’s a good read and a vindicating experience for anyone who has dealt with the now fully politicized publishing industry.

My own relationship with that industry quickly deteriorated in the years that followed this situation. Not that I had any say in the matter. Once Trump was elected, heterosexual white guys were mostly unwelcome in mainstream publishing.

This was the publishing industry’s petty revenge on American men for daring to vote for Trump.

As for myself, I felt lost without my mainstream writing career. But eventually I found new writing opportunities, where I feel much more at home and in sync with my colleagues.

What was the 'alt-right'? 'Whitepill' clears up the media hysteria

I remember back in the early Trump days, I would cruise by the Politics section of my local bookstore to see which celebrity leftist pundit they were promoting this week.

One day, I noticed a small subsection within Politics called the Alt-Right.

The alt-right was like the early punk movement. If you were actually there, it was crazy fun. If you weren’t, everything you heard about it was negative.

I was amazed that a bookstore in my blue city would admit that the “alt-right” existed. But then I saw that all these books were about the evils of the alt-right.

Without exception, these books described a dark and dangerous world of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, fascists, racists, homophobes, and misogynists ... most of whom apparently lived in caves in the darkest reaches of Idaho.

The authors of these books often struck a self-congratulatory tone. How brave they were to explore these nefarious netherworlds!

Eggheads unlimited

The truth was that all of these books were incredibly dry and boring. Most were published by university presses and featured dubious statistics, out-of-context quotes, and obvious misrepresentations.

The writers were brain-dead academics. They had no understanding of trends, or vibes, or zeitgeists. They barely knew what a meme was.

And of course, they lacked any sense of humor at all. This made it impossible for them to understand the sarcasm and irony of the quick-witted young bloggers and commentators they were supposedly writing about.

An untold story

I remember wondering if anyone would ever write an honest account of the alt-right. Probably not. It’s fairly common that most vanguard youth cultures are dismissed or misinterpreted.

The alt-right was like the early punk movement. If you were actually there, it was crazy fun. If you weren’t, everything you heard about it was negative.

So you can imagine my surprise when I heard about Scott Greer’s latest book, "Whitepill: The Online Right and the Making of Trump’s America."

Though the official title was relatively innocuous,the word on the street was this is it, this is the first serious history of the alt-right, by a writer who understood it, participated in it, and was very nearly destroyed by its fallout.

Needless to say, I was eager to read it.

How far we’ve come

Greer named his book "Whitepill" because it describes the many advances conservatives have made during the Trump era and celebrates their many victories.

For those of us over 50: To be “white-pilled” about something means to be excited or happy about it.

In the first sections of the book, Greer reminds us of the state of conservatism during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations.

It was “cuckservatism” basically, to borrow an alt-right-ism. The Republicans were so eager to please and so afraid of offending that they came up with catchphrases like “compassionate conservatism” to market themselves.

They promoted same-sex marriage, amnesty for illegal immigrants, affirmative action, and a host of other leftist projects.

We think of our current Republicans as being hypocritical, if not traitorous, for not protecting Americans from voter fraud, violent crime, and open borders.

But they were even worse 20 years ago! Greer gives a good, succinct accounting of this.

A new defiant energy

In response to the extreme wimpiness of 2000s establishment Republicans, a new defiant energy began to appear among young conservatives.

Greer describes an obscure 2008 article by historian Paul Gottfried, who predicted the end of that era’s gutless conservatism:

Beneath that crumbling establishment, [Gottfried] saw the stirrings of a “younger, less inhibited” generation of rightists willing to defy taboos and confront head-on what he described as an “intolerable political situation.” He called this nascent rebellion the Alternative Right.

Most people who read "Whitepill" will have a rough idea of what Gottfried’s alternative right became, but Greer simplifies it for the normies: "[The alt-right] was an online phenomenon, an ideological and aesthetic counter-culture that broke hard from the philosophical premises underpinning the modern [liberal] 'idea' of America."

And more specifically:

Many young white men in particular came to feel alienated by a new liberalism that pathologized their "whiteness" and demanded that they "check their privilege." The Alt-Right explained to them in explicit terms why and how they could reject this new social paradigm."

L-R: The author in East Berlin, 1984. Blake Nelson; Cuba, 2007. Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Youth must be served

From there, Greer takes us through the initial flourishing of alt-right culture. The kids were going to have their say!

But he also points out its obvious limitations, mainly that it was completely online and mostly anonymous. Its growth was therefore random and chaotic. There was no accountability; there were no boundaries.

If it sometimes felt like a “movement” or even a “political party,” in reality, it was a free-floating, spontaneous, cultural phenomenon created in the cartoon world of the internet.

Still, an entire generation came to know its symbols, its humor, its language, its youthful goofiness. It was hopeful and fun, and it pointed toward a way out of the mess we were in.

The end of the beginning

Of course, we all know where the alt-right story ended: in Charlottesville, in the summer of 2017.

The Charlottesville “Unite the Right Rally” was doomed from the beginning. Though I had only just become aware of the alt-right myself, even I could sense the danger inherent in its real-world manifestation.

I remember one blogger I followed begging people to stay away. “IT’S A TRAP!” he kept saying. And he was right. And a lot of people got caught in it.

Life in the swamp

Greer occasionally inserts his own experiences as a writer, editor, and journalist into this narrative. And it’s good that he does. As he describes his early career in Washington, D.C., you get a sense of what a treacherous time it was to work in politics.

Imagine trying to hold down a real-world job as a young conservative in the midst of peak wokeness! At different points, Greer was doxxed, fired, and blacklisted. But he managed to soldier on.

Which is good news for the rest of us. Because he has written an exceptional book about a very important subject.

Perhaps the most notable thing about "Whitepill" is that despite Greer’s obvious right-wing bias, he actually succeeds in producing a balanced and objective account of what happened and why. He is — as best he can — attempting to tell the truth.

Imagine that. An honest person in politics. That is indeed a white pill.

Young Washington Captures The Spirit Of America

Young Washington emphasizes the uniquely American character of the Father of Our Country, while honoring his 'wild, beautiful, dangerous, but free' life.

'The American Book of Fables': A feast of the imagination and spirit for readers of all ages

In his 1956 essay “Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What's to Be Said,” C.S. Lewis separates the creator of any given imaginative work (novel, poem, etc.) into two distinct identities: the Author and the Man.

The Author, initiator of the creation, is he who first feels the desire to put imagined scenes to form. For him, it’s inspiring, it’s fun. It is the Man, on the other hand, who elevates the work. He supplements it by sprouting meaning within the Author’s vision. The two are essential to any great work, says Lewis, in order to create something that is just as edifying as it is pleasing.

I am there to define, explain, or find out more alongside them. We learn together. Each individual piece in the book acts as a wellspring for more.

It is within Dr. Matthew Mehan's most recent work — a 375-page tome for all ages, which commemorates our nation’s 250th anniversary — that we see Lewis’ united Author-Man theory perfectly executed.

A good, new book

"The American Book of Fables" is, at long last, a good, new book. Not a reprint of a forgotten favorite, not an old “classic" we must dust off and apply new pictures to. But a new classic, which explores both the natural splendor and man-made creations that make up our United States — alongside (or rather, through) beautiful poetry and prose and stunning illustrations by master artist John Folley.

The book is divided into 13 parts. Each one is introduced by a unique portion of text from the Declaration of Independence and focuses on a different ecological region of the country. Within the text, we find poems, rhymes, fables, and true narrations of America’s historical and cultural traditions. Ensuring no one is left out of the book’s offerings, Mehan includes something each for “littles,” “middles,” and “bigs” in every chapter.

On a personal level (I’m a homeschool mom), this setup has been invaluable. I say this because this year, as we lead up to the semiquincentennial, I’ve struggled with exactly where to begin in teaching my small children about the greatness of our nation.

Yes, we’ll be going to the Independence Day parade in our town. We’ll wear red, white, and blue and wave American flags. We’ll see fireworks and eat hot dogs. But I’d be lying if I said I actually thought these activities mean nearly as much as having a true understanding of America — its epic history, its diverse beauty, its superb design.

Bigs and littles

This is what "The American Book of Fables" offers. I’m able to start my eager 4-year old with the rhymes and poetry in the “littles” section. My 6-year-old especially enjoys the fables of the “middles” section. And I myself have learned a great deal from the section for “bigs,” which we will undoubtedly graduate our kids to as they get older.

It was last fall that I had the honor of interviewing Dr. Mehan about his book, which was then still in the works. Talking with him via FaceTime, I had one of those experiences where I was so obviously in over my head in regard to the content of our discussion. I pride myself on being rather well-read and knowledgeable of historical facts and general information. But Dr. Mehan is a walking encyclopedia of the Western canon. His knowledge of the great books, the great thinkers, and all related fields is light-years beyond my own. I won’t fib and say I didn’t sometimes struggle to remember my philosophers and to understand some of the concepts we discussed.

I don’t say this to stir pity, but rather to emphasize a theme that I’ve come to understand in both talking with Dr. Mehan and reading his book. And that is that it’s good to be a bit in over your head. In fact, this is the way the best thinkers learn. It is, for instance, how our founding fathers learned. And somewhere over the last 250 years, we Americans have forgotten that.

Antidote to brain rot

Shining the spotlight on modern-day kids' literature, I hate to be the millionth parent to say it, but much of it is brain rot. If it doesn’t lack a moral center, it lacks plot or meaning entirely. The oversimplified Corporate Memphis illustrations add nothing. Sometimes, the books are actually evil — for example, in those that encourage kids to believe it’s possible to change their sex.

The children of the founding generation dined on far heartier intellectual fare. And this drove the entire educational process from youth through adulthood.

When we talk about the greatness of America, we do ourselves a disservice by only skimming off the top of what the founding fathers created. Dr. Mehan emphasizes that it’s important to go deeper and examine what they themselves read, studied, and mulled over. This is, after all, what created their imaginations. And “it is just that ‘brilliant imagination’ that formed a crucial and prior condition for all of the founders’ deliberations, words, and deeds — the very things that brought about the formation of this great country,” Dr. Mehan explains.

Matt Mehan at work (l, photo by his son) and on a research trip to the Everglades (r). Hulton Archive/Getty Images/mythicalmammal.com

A rich tapestry

In "The American Book of Fables," Dr. Mehan creates a tapestry of Judeo-Christian values, lessons from the "Book of Nature," ancient philosophy, Greek and Roman myths, beast fables, and other imagery that the founding fathers studied. He accomplishes this while weaving within them his own tales and adapting certain works to American soil.

As the title implies, fable stories feature prominently in the book. Fables are, to most modern Americans, a type of story for kids. Historically, however, fables were read and appreciated by adults just as much as children. According to Mehan, these tales were fundamental in the teaching of right from wrong but also in the teaching of human passions and self-government.

The more you read fables, the clearer it becomes that individual animals tend to have their own lower order passions they struggle with. Humans share the same struggles. The pig, for example, the gluttonous pig, errs in his gluttony — a sin that is likewise certainly not unheard of in humans. So how do you learn from the pig and govern yourself better? The fables were very much a part of early America’s self-governing spirit and, Mehan says, were mentioned often in the letters and speeches of the founding fathers.

As my family reads "The American Book of Fables" together, my kids are sometimes flummoxed by new words or ideas. They have a lot of questions. What’s a lynx? What was the Navajo Nation? What does “candor” mean?

Literature to last

But again, this is a good thing. And it’s why this is a family book. I am there to define, explain, or find out more alongside them. We learn together. Each individual piece in the book acts as a wellspring for more — to look up pictures of the Rocky Mountains or videos of otters swimming, to discuss what the Independence Bell is and why it’s important, or to talk about the marriage of John and Abigail Adams — or what marriage means, for that matter. Each line of text and each beautiful image provides thread for new stitches in our own imaginative tapestries.

Two-hundred fifty years from now, God-willing new generations of good Americans will be celebrating our nation’s quincentenary, our 500th anniversary. All of us alive today will be gone. But the good literature of our time will live on, as we have seen good literature do for thousands of years before us.

Undoubtedly, "The American Book of Fables" will make it to that time. Its beautiful pages and stories will continue to enlighten the minds of Americans and their children for innumerable generations to come.

'Citizen Vigilante': A cinematic hand grenade lobbed at the cathedral of liberal pieties

There are films you watch, films you forget, and films that perfectly capture the moment. Uwe Boll’s "Citizen Vigilante" belongs firmly in the last category.

It’s provocative, violent, and unafraid to push the audience past their comfort zone. I watched it for free on Rumble and thoroughly enjoyed every chaotic minute — as did Elon Musk, who has been one of the film's most vocal cheerleaders. It’s exactly the kind of cinematic hand grenade a hyper-sanitized culture desperately needs.

Watching a criminal actually face consequences on screen acts as a primal pressure valve, venting a lifetime of stored-up civic frustration.

Boll has spent his career making films that divide audiences. Never one to chase Hollywood approval or fashionable opinion, the German has built his reputation on confronting subjects most directors would rather avoid. His films are designed to provoke rather than comfort, confronting audiences with uncomfortable questions about crime, power, justice, and human nature. With "Citizen Vigilante," he has delivered what may be his most explosive film yet.

Banned in Germany

Unsurprisingly, the film has already been effectively banned in Boll’s homeland. Regulators refused to give it a rating, terrified by how squarely it hits the nail on the head regarding the taboo subject of immigrant crime.

The story plays out like "Taken" on steroids. Armie Hammer stars as a relentless citizen vigilante — a protagonist for the right, an antagonist for the left — who decides that if the system won't protect people from brutal gangs, he will. He hunts down violent criminals, tackles rapists, and cleans house with zero remorse. For the uninitiated, there is a delicious irony in Hammer playing a ruthless meat-grinder of a hero, considering his Hollywood career was spectacularly derailed during #MeToo by the preposterous, headline-grabbing accusation that he was a literal, real-life cannibal.

But the sensational headlines surrounding its star shouldn't distract from what the film actually achieves. "Citizen Vigilante" taps into something many Americans and Europeans have been feeling for years: a growing belief that public safety has been abandoned while the institutions meant to preserve it are busy updating their LinkedIn profiles.

Modest expectation

The average viewers aren't foaming-at-the-mouth psychopaths looking for bloodshed. They’re just exhausted taxpayers who enjoy seeing a little efficient, off-the-books urban renewal. They simply want the radical, avant-garde luxury of a competent government, functioning courts, and streets where a casual evening stroll doesn't require Kevlar.

Today, that modest expectation feels like pure wishful thinking.

Across much of Europe and parts of America, headlines dominate with depressing regularity: violent crime, repeat offenders, and overwhelmed police departments. Social media ensures that every shocking incident reaches millions before breakfast. Whether official crime statistics rise or fall matters less than the overwhelming public perception that governments have completely lost the plot. That perception is powerful, and ignoring it won't make it disappear.

When citizens watch career criminals coast through the justice system on a judicial subscription plan — while prosecutors decline charges and politicians offer nothing but thoughts, prayers, and early release — frustration ceases to be passive. Eventually, cynicism becomes the prevailing sentiment, and people begin to ask a rather important question: What happens when the people responsible for enforcing justice appear completely incapable of delivering it?

That question sits right at the heart of "Citizen Vigilante."

L-R: ALLISON ROBBERT/AFP/Getty Images; Foc Kan/WireImage/Getty Images

Broken social contract

Hammer’s character, Sanders, is no comic-book superhero in spandex. He's simply a man looking at a broken social contract, watching violent thugs thrive while victims suffer, and decides to roll up his sleeves and fix the sewage himself. You don't have to endorse his butcher-shop methods to appreciate the exact brand of exhaustion driving them.

The enduring appeal of vigilante cinema, from Clint Eastwood classics to "Death Wish," has never reflected a secret public desire for lawlessness. Rather, it exposes a deep craving for consequences, a desperate desire to see the cosmic ledger balanced when the authorities refuse to do it themselves. When official justice goes missing, fictional justice becomes deeply satisfying. Watching a criminal actually face consequences on screen acts as a primal pressure valve, venting a lifetime of stored-up civic frustration.

The film understands this dynamic remarkably well, but it also highlights a dark humor running beneath the entire premise. Governments spend fortunes producing nauseating public relations campaigns celebrating "community resilience" while struggling to deliver the rather unfashionable service of keeping parasitic scum off the streets.

Citizens are treated to endless speeches about values while wondering if they'll get stabbed on the subway ride home. Somewhere along the way, basic competence checked into a witness protection program.

No wonder the film has captured the cultural imagination. Viewers want to see what a world with accountability, no matter how brutal, actually looks like. Many in their 20s and 30s have never known a society where real consequences actually exist. I am one of those people.

"Citizen Vigilante" operates best not as a love letter to anarchy, but as an autopsy of our institutions. After all, the rogue actor only becomes a romantic figure when legitimate authority is revealed to be purely ornamental.

SCOTUS just redefined citizenship — but it’s not the final word

Eleven years ago, after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obergefell redefined marriage, Daniel Horowitz published his book “Stolen Sovereignty," warning that a day was coming soon when the court would redefine what citizenship means — “the ultimate question” of every civilization.

Today, his prediction came true. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of birthright citizenship — determining that any child born in the United States, regardless of the parents’ immigration status, is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.

Now that the gavel has fallen, what is needed, says Horowitz, is not an “analysis of the [majority] opinion,” but a willingness to “[look] forward” to what comes next.

On this episode of “Conservative Review,” Horowitz explains why this SCOTUS ruling is only a travesty if we allow it to be.

“The important thing is not what the court said but what Trump and the Republican Party in control of Congress and, frankly, the red states … will do with this opinion,” he declares.

Calling the ruling “the Waterloo moment of judicial supremacism,” Horowitz argues that the executive and legislative branches have “an obligation to act in concert with what [they] know to be true” — namely, to “say no and not issue it.”

Because the judiciary lacks the power of the purse or the sword, its rulings are not self-executing on the other branches; they depend on the executive and legislative branches choosing to give them effect.

“The action item from here is very simple,” says Horowitz.

“Congress, in budget reconciliation and/or the appropriation bills to fund the government past October 1, [fiscal year] 2027, must prohibit the funding for the issuance of passports and, obviously, birth certificates to people [who] cannot show that one parent is a [legal permanent resident].”

As for the executive branch, it “should just say no,” Horowitz states bluntly.

“This should be Trump’s entire focus — just this,” he says. “All the political capital they're going to expend on holding up the NDAA, holding up the Farm Bill ... — it needs to be for defunding the issuance of … citizenship documents to illegals and tourist visas.”

To accept a ruling from SCOTUS — made up of unelected, life-tenured judges — as unassailable law, Horowitz warns, is like allowing “tyranny worse than King George” to govern our land.

“How fortuitous and tragic that it's on the week of July Fourth 250th celebration … that we are being told that [] the unelected branch, without consent, could engage in social transformation without representation … that they could determine [birthright citizenship] with finality, including allowing the entire world to come in and dilute our citizenship and help vote and determine everything else as well,” he exclaims.

“That is not a thing. That is something that we never adopted, and it cannot and must not go through.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Corporate giants vs. the family farm: New initiative targets the monopolies pillaging rural America

The American family farm is being systematically wiped out as corporate monopolies are taking over our food supply.

That’s why Joe Maxwell of the Farm Action Fund has launched the bipartisan Rural Independence Initiative — to take on what BlazeTV host Daniel Horowitz calls the pillaging of rural America.

“We just released a paper along with the launch of the Rural Independence Initiative, a bipartisan, cross-partisan organization, the only political organization that’s pro-healthy food, pro-farmer, pro-rural America,” Maxwell tells Horowitz.

“We want candidates that will fight for markets — fair and free markets — healthy food, and economic independence from monopoly control,” he explains, pointing out that he doesn’t care whether they’re Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.

Maxwell says this is because “both parties are working against the people and for corporate monopoly oligarchy control of our economy.”

“And therefore, what we eat, what we can raise, how we’re going to produce it, and then ultimately control of our government,” he adds.

“Exactly, because if you look at the farm bills, which are always overwhelmingly bipartisan, they’re pushed by both parties, the same monopolization of the land, obsessive support for very specific things, very specific crops, often not even for food,” Horowitz agrees.

“So, they’ll say, ‘I’m for rural America, America’s farms, America’s heartland.’ But the reality is, they’re all on the same side. They’re all against us,” he adds.

And while Maxwell is fighting for rural America, what he’s fighting for isn’t special treatment, but fairness.

“A rural worker will make about $24,000 a year less than the average metropolitan worker. ... Rural grandparents will see more of their grandchildren die before the age of 1 than metropolitan grandparents, and rural grandchildren will lose their grandparents three years earlier than metropolitan,” he explains.

“So, the policy has to begin with a lens towards representing people, individual businesses — whether that’s a meat packer or a light manufacturer in rural America or whether that’s the farmer,” he continues. “We have to break the grip that these companies have on these sectors to restore the wealth and the quality of life for rural Americans.”

D-Day drama ‘Pressure’ celebrates forgotten values

The new movie “I Love Boosters” asks us to root for thieves who steal designer clothes sans regret. Next month’s “Carolina Caroline” follows a pair of adorable, lovestruck thugs who swindle strangers for cash.

Whatever happened to actual “good guys”?

‘When he looked into the eyes of the 101st division, he took the time to ask their names, to shoot the breeze about fly fishing and their girlfriends.’

Look no further than “Pressure,” a new World War II saga based on incredible true events.

Extraordinary heroes

Honor. Loyalty. Courage. Heroism. The ability to make a tough decision and stand by it, no matter what. No victim complexes or complaints about rough childhoods. Just extraordinary heroes taking history into their hands.

It’s one reason we still can’t get enough of World War II films. Those qualities are front and center in this well-told tale. And it helps that the premise behind “Pressure” will strike audiences as unfamiliar, even shocking.

Rain day

The most consequential battle of World War II almost got rained out, a story that proves a snug fit for America’s 250th birthday.

Brendan Fraser stars as Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the supreme commander ready to storm the beaches of Normandy and liberate northwest Europe. That risky plan required an assist from Mother Nature.

Would the forecast allow for a massive amphibious assault? Or should the Allied powers wait a few days, even weeks, jeopardizing the element of surprise in the process?

Andrew Scott of “Fleabag” fame plays James Stagg, the meteorologist brought in to advise Gen. Eisenhower on the best path forward. He predicts that conditions will turn D-Day into a disaster. Is he right, or does the existing weather expert (Chris Messina) have the right forecast?

Earned respect

Fraser, the “Whale” alum who once again changed his physique to play “Ike,” told Align why he admires the man who not only helped win the war but later became a two-term U.S. president.

“He was an excellent communicator; he was a diplomat of sorts,” Fraser said. “He conducted military operations over dinner tables. Apparently he was very funny and charming at them. ... That’s a form of communication too.”

There was a method to his unorthodox ways, the Oscar winner said.

“He did all this because he cared intensely about the troops’ well-being,” Fraser said. That extended to bonding with the men facing daunting odds of survival, especially in the D-Day invasion.

“When he looked into the eyes of the 101st division, he took the time to ask their names, to shoot the breeze about fly fishing and their girlfriends. He was respected because he earned it. ... It was almost like a secret weapon in the operation,” the actor noted. “They wanted to please him, and they knew what they were up against.”

Root/Cause

Historic battle

Director Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” captured the early stages of the Normandy invasion without flinching. It’s one of the goriest war sequences ever shot, showing how soldiers ran toward a wall of bullets that took hundreds of lives in a flash.

“Pressure” doesn’t attempt to out-do Spielberg’s version, but the film shows how the beaches were quickly stained a deep red color.

“It was no secret that they were going into a bare-knuckle fight with a chainsaw,” Fraser said of that historic battle.

The project gave Fraser, now gearing up to shoot another “Mummy” film with co-star Rachel Weisz, an appreciation for Ike’s role in history.

“He was the type of leader who did not want to punish his foe, his enemy. ... He didn’t let him off the hook, either. ... He partnered with them, neutered them that way, and made them accountable,” he said.

Little-known perspective

Fraser’s co-star, Irish actress Kerry Condon, gets a less splashy but still consequential role in the war drama. She plays Captain Kay Summersby, Gen. Eisenhower’s loyal aide.

“She brought the emotional intelligence when the men were struggling,” the actress said of her role, including a critical subplot involving Stagg’s pregnant wife. Summersby would later move to the U.S. and become captain in the Women’s Army Corps.

Many moviegoers may not have realized the role weather played in the D-Day invasion. Count Condon among that group.

“It was shocking to think it was one person who changed the course of history. ... That’s why I wanted to do [the film]. It’s a very interesting perspective on World War II.”

Liberal critics hate 'The Wizard of the Kremlin' — that's how I knew it was worth a watch

Remember around 2018 or so, when reviews on Rotten Tomatoes suddenly became suspicious?

Like movies that hit all the left-wing, DEI talking points would get 98% Fresh ratings from the critics, but then when regular people started weighing in, the audience meter would drop precipitously?

Paul Dano’s Baranov is fascinating. He’s the opposite of a typical Russian movie character. He’s sensitive, intelligent, creative, and socially aristocratic.

Or when a movie like "Sound of Freedom" came out and all the critics panned it because it was produced by a non-Hollywood Christian studio. But then, everyone who saw it loved it?

Generally, I still consult Rotten Tomatoes. But in any situation where a film can be seen as “political” or might touch on a controversial subject, I become skeptical.

Such was the case with "The Wizard of the Kremlin." It was already getting roasted months before its release. Apparently, our brave American critics wanted to virtue signal their personal animosity toward Putin.

Because of this, I became interested in the film. If the critics hate it, it’s probably good.

Getty Images

Vive le cinéma!

Another aspect of the film I was excited about: It was made by French filmmaker Olivier Assayas. Not that the French are so independent-minded, but Hollywood filmmakers are literally incapable of addressing international politics above a sixth-grade level.

The French though. They’ve been through some stuff. They’re not afraid to talk about international affairs in a serious, adult manner.

Another thing that recommended the movie: the casting of Jude Law as Putin and Paul Dano as Baranov, his close personal adviser. (Baranov is a fictional character, almost everyone else is real.)

When I heard this, I thought: “Oh my goodness, this movie is going to be brilliant.”

Another good sign: The film was adapted from an acclaimed French novel by the same name. So the story was already established. The film just had to follow it.

Story of my life

The movie begins in the present, with an American journalist traveling to Russia to interview Baranov (Paul Dano) about his former role in the Putin administration.

Through this interview, Baranov tells the story of his life, which begins in the '80s and moves through the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Putin.

The film’s portrayal of life at the end of the Soviet Union was super interesting, in part because we rarely see this in films.

The avant-garde theater scene in Moscow in the late 1980s? Could you even picture that? I couldn’t. Until I saw it.

All the Russian interiors were super interesting. And the clothes. And the nightclubs. The supporting actors all looked very Russian. The whole thing was fun to look at. This was the end of the dowdy Soviet Union and the beginning of the reign of the gangster oligarchs.

No rush

It took 40 minutes for Putin to appear. This built suspense. You’re sitting there enjoying Paul Dano as Baranov, and then you remember Jude Law is still to come. Jude Law as Putin!

Meanwhile, Paul Dano’s Baranov is already fascinating. He’s the opposite of a typical Russian movie character. He’s sensitive, intelligent, creative, and socially aristocratic (his father and grandfather were high-level Communist Party members).

He speaks in a soft, unhurried voice. But with his big, wide, puffy face, he still looks totally Russian!

The whole “you’re in Russia” conceit was great. I don’t know if this was actually filmed in Russia, but it sure felt like Russia. (I noticed in the credits there were a few mentions of Latvia. So maybe they shot some of it there.)

Putin on the Ritz

So finally, 40 minutes in, we get our first look at Putin. In the beginning, it’s Baranov and his boss (they both work for Russian TV) who are recruiting the reluctant KGB agent.

They think Russia needs a new style of leader, someone young and energetic. They’ll help him. They’ll guide him. They’ll make sure he wins.

But Putin isn’t receptive. He’s happy where he is.

But once he gets a sniff of power, Putin rises quickly. Only Baranov is able to remain in his good graces, due to his low-key, soft-spoken manner.

Jude Law as Putin was hilarious. I laughed to myself when he first appeared. Not that it was intentionally funny. It was just a relief, and a little bit shocking, to finally see him.

It was actually a very good rendition. It was not politicized. Jude Law did the Putin scowl and facial and body expressions. It was really good. I was kind of blown away.

Smart art

Honestly, I was blown away by the whole movie. It was funny, moving, smart. It did have moments where plot points had to be explained to the audience, forcing characters to make little speeches of exposition. But that always happens when you adapt from a book.

There were also some historical/political plot points that I would maybe question. But this movie is designed for a European/American audience and has to adhere generally to our Western understanding of Putin and his crew. Because of this, Putin is ultimately “the bad guy.”

But he’s definitely a fully fleshed-out character in the film. When they show him hanging out with his old KGB buddies, you get a sense of the man behind the scenes.

"The Wizard of the Kremlin": Itwas the most intelligent movie I’ve seen in years. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Highly recommend.

A version of this review originally appeared on the Substack Travels to Distant Cities.

The 3 biggest lies justifying massive AI data centers DEBUNKED

Right now, massive AI data centers are gobbling up rural land, uprooting the farms and ranches that could guarantee America’s food sovereignty.

This Big Tech land-grab is often rationalized with a number of defenses: beating China in the AI race, creating rural jobs and economic growth, and advancing technology and national security.

But Daniel Horowitz insists that we’re being lied to.

“We're being told that we need to gobble up all of our land — by the way, often with foreign investors — because somehow that is the only way to excel at artificial intelligence,” he says.

But “the surest way of achieving this dystopian nightmare of this techno-feudalism, where we own nothing, is to take the scarcest and most precious resource of land from its decentralized control of American households, homesteaders, ranchers, farmers, small businesses, and centralizing it behind the global tech moguls.”

On this episode of “Conservative Review,” Horowitz, alongside CEO of Fractal Web and AI software expert Michael Cation, dismantles the AI data center advocates' three biggest arguments.

- YouTube

1. The China argument

According to the data center advocates, America must build massive, hyperscale data centers — and sacrifice rural land and power for them — to achieve AI dominance and beat China in the global race.

But Horowitz calls this a “false choice.”

They argue that this is “the only way of achieving dominance in AI, when in fact, you're actually going to go backwards and misallocate resources away from what is an auspicious use of AI,” he says.

Further, in trying so hard to build these hyperscale data centers to beat China in the AI race, America is rezoning and handing over huge amounts of rural farmland and power infrastructure to massive corporate developers — many of them foreign-owned. Horowitz points to President Trump recently floating the idea of allowing China to invest $1 trillion in U.S. land and factories.

“We need that to beat China, but then somehow we're just going to have China own more American infrastructure and land at a time where I thought we all wanted to ban that,” he says, calling it “hypocrisy.”

2. The rural jobs/economic growth argument

Another argument claims that building giant data centers in rural areas will bring thousands of construction and operational jobs, generate big tax revenue, attract more businesses, and deliver much-needed economic growth and prosperity to struggling small towns.

Horowitz condemns this argument as a scam, claiming that these massive centers will only deliver mostly temporary, low-quality construction work performed by imported or illegal labor, destroy productive farmland, spike local crime, and provide almost no lasting economic benefit to actual residents.

“Laramie County Planning Commission is planning an 800-unit man camp that could house up to 5,600 workers, which is more than most towns in Wyoming, and we all know who monopolizes those jobs: a bunch of illegal aliens,” he says.

Citing an article from Wyoming’s Cowboy State Daily outlet, he reads, “Man camps in similar locations have led to an increase in property crime, DUIs, drug crimes, and violent crimes.”

3. The advancing technology and national security argument

Another argument perpetuated by the data center advocates contends that massive, hyperscale data centers are essential for advancing cutting-edge AI technology and protecting national security because only these giant centralized facilities can provide the enormous computing power, massive data processing, and rapid innovation needed to stay ahead of rivals like China in critical areas like defense, intelligence, and technological superiority.

Again, Horowitz throws the red flag. He and Cation dispute this claim by arguing that giant centralized data centers are actually a national security liability and the wrong path for real technological progress.

“AI is not all about cloud-based LLMs for data centers. … With edge computing, you could actually do so much more on local servers, local devices,” says Horowitz.

He points to Israel’s Iron Dome as an example. It’s a highly effective defense system that relies on localized edge computing — fast, on-site AI processing in distributed batteries — rather than depending on giant, vulnerable centralized data centers.

If it did rely on massive data centers, it would “a huge security” risk, especially in Israel's ongoing war with Iran, he argues.

Cation, an expert in computing infrastructure, drives home the national security point with this powerful rebuttal: “In the defense world … large data centers [are] called high-value targets. … The thing that can’t be destroyed are distributed systems.”

Together, they argue that the real future of secure and effective AI lies in edge computing, narrow AI, and fractal computing — decentralized systems that are faster, cheaper, more resilient, and far less vulnerable than massive, centralized data centers.