“Conspiracy theory” is the go-to smear against those of us who questioned any aspect of the government’s authoritarian response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But as the great Austrian economist Murray Rothbard once observed, the smear serves one purpose: to divert the public’s attention away from the truth.

“An attack on ‘conspiracy theories,’” Rothbard writes in “The Anatomy of the State,” means that the subjects of a regime “will become more gullible in believing the ‘general welfare’ reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions.”

The democratization of information means that censorship just doesn’t work as well as it used to.

“A ‘conspiracy theory,’” he continues, “can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the state’s ideological propaganda.”

The more I dig into the origins of the COVID pandemic, the more “despotic” our state seems to become — and the more “conspiratorial” I get.

Unsettling the system

I am trying to put together the final pieces of the puzzle of what I consider among the greatest public policy scandals of my lifetime — not only who did it, but more importantly, why would they do it?

A few months ago, I spent a day with Matt Taibbi, the iconoclastic muckraker and “Twitter Files” reporter, for the latest episode of my BlazeTV investigative series, “The Coverup.”

As he dug through the trove of emails and texts, Taibbi discovered the conspiracy to blacklist and silence Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the subject of the first episode of “The Coverup” and now the head of the National Institutes of Health. Taibbi soon learned that the same tactics and tools — and even many of the very same deep-state actors — have their fingerprints all over both the Russia collusion hoax and the COVID cover-up.

A precedent for censorship

Recently released documents from Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard reveal that the so-called Russia collusion hoax wasn’t just wrong — it was deliberate. The Obama administration orchestrated the fabrication, pushing U.S. intelligence agencies to leak a report suggesting Vladimir Putin had helped Donald Trump steal the 2016 election.

That leak, repeated endlessly by the press, fueled a national narrative branding Trump’s presidency as illegitimate — despite those same agencies having already dismissed the claim.

This kind of manipulation would be outrageous if it weren’t so familiar.

Five years after the COVID lockdowns stripped millions of Americans of basic liberties, we’re still uncovering how the deep state used propaganda to silence dissent. Throughout the pandemic, scientists and doctors raised alarms about the damage lockdowns would cause — and did cause. Some of the world’s most respected experts signed the Great Barrington Declaration to oppose the government’s heavy-handed response.

But the public never heard from them. Bureaucrats and media allies moved swiftly to smear, suppress, and sideline these voices using one of the oldest authoritarian tactics: control of information.

In fairness, public health agencies didn’t have to twist many arms. The legacy media followed their lead willingly — even when the guidance contradicted itself or defied basic logic.

But unlike the days of Project Mockingbird, when the CIA could shape coverage by nudging the New York Times or CBS, controlling the old guard wasn’t enough. The rise of social media — decentralized, fast-moving, and open to anyone with a computer or phone — posed a new challenge. The administration needed a more aggressive strategy to dominate the narrative.

Strong-arming social media

In episode 5 of “The Coverup,” I ask Taibbi how they pulled it off. As one of the first journalists to dig into the Twitter Files, Taibbi exposed the machinery behind the censorship regime. Americans suspected that platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube were suppressing dissent during COVID. But the Twitter Files confirmed what many feared: They weren’t acting alone. They took orders from the FBI directly.

And these weren’t polite requests, either. When the government “suggested” something, tech companies treated it as a command.

It all traces back to — surprise, surprise — the Russia hoax.

In 2017, Congress hauled tech executives into hearings and accused them of letting Russian disinformation run wild. Essentially, they were given an offer they couldn’t refuse: Allow the government to play a role in content moderation or prepare to be regulated into submission.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Their surrender gave U.S. intelligence agencies de facto control over what Americans could say online. The feds told platforms which posts to delete, which users to silence, and how to suppress the rest. You could post your opinion — as long as no one could see it. “Shadow bans” became the preferred method of censorship: clean, quiet, and deniable.

The silver lining

Thanks to Taibbi — and a handful of journalists who still value truth over access — we now see how the government sold Americans on fiction. Russia hacked the election. COVID came from a bowl of bat soup. Question either and you’d vanish from the digital public square.

Millions believed these lies. And under their influence, they did real damage — locking down schools, closing businesses, and sowing doubt about fair elections.

But truth has a way of leaking out.

It’s taken time, but the lies are unraveling. And that’s the silver lining. In a world where information moves faster than censors can keep up, suppression doesn’t work like it used to. So long as we have truth-tellers willing to dig and defy — like Taibbi — the regime won’t have the last word.

We won’t get fooled again.

Episode 5 of “The Coverup” premieres Thursday, July 31.

Time to redraw America’s borders — cities, counties, and beyond

Maps of the United States haven’t moved much lately. They should.

A cursory glance at historical maps over time — whether in the U.S. or globally — shows the dynamic movement of political boundaries. Since the birth of the United States, new states have been carved out of existing ones, county lines redrawn, and so on. Nowadays, though, aside from the occasional annexation or incorporation, boundaries have become relatively static.

Next time a state like Illinois comes crawling to Congress for a bailout, federal lawmakers should make border reorganization part of the deal.

That’s a sign of stagnation, not dynamism. And it needs to change.

Similar to how failing public schools precipitated the school choice movement, the failure of municipalities is spawning a growing movement for secession, annexation, and political reorganization.

Liberating red America

The municipal secession movement already has its “Lexington and Concord moment” in Baton Rouge and St. George, Louisiana. Fueled by failing schools and rampant crime, a section of East Baton Rouge Parish began its long, litigative battle for secession. In 2024, its work paid off. The parish successfully seceded from the consolidated county government, forging the new city of St. George, Louisiana, which is now the fifth most populous city in the state.

It won’t be the last.

Several local secession movements are emerging in conservative regions across the nation that are under the thumb of Democrat governments, with little hope of initiating regime change at the ballot box due to current districting laws.

The “Greater Idaho” movement, for example, is growing in conservative Eastern Oregon, now encompassing 13 counties that have approved measures to secede from deep-blue Oregon and be annexed by Idaho.

In rural Illinois, 33 counties have passed referenda seeking to leave the state entirely. Some want to form a new state, and others propose annexation by Indiana. Lawmakers in Indiana even established a formal boundary adjustment commission earlier this month to explore the idea.

Northern California’s long-standing movement to form a new “State of Jefferson” could one day merge with similar efforts in Southern Oregon.

Unchaining red municipalities

At the municipal level in large, deep-blue cities, purple-red neighborhoods like Staten Island in New York City or Buckhead in Atlanta could lead the charge for de-annexation.

Even in ultra-liberal cities like Austin, the de-annexation movement is gaining ground. The Lost Creek neighborhood, forcibly annexed in 2015, had had enough. Higher taxes, dismal city services, and left-wing pathologies drove residents to demand freedom. The Texas legislature intervened, passing a bill that allowed Lost Creek to vote itself out. It did — and won. More neighborhoods may follow.

This is the way it should be done, with the state stepping in to rescue disaffected neighborhoods from mismanaged cities.

Where cities have collapsed — Detroit and Baltimore come to mind — state governments should consider carving up failed urban zones and allowing them to reorganize under fresh charters. Let those areas be resettled under new leadership, new institutions, and new expectations.

In places where Democrat stronghold cities dominate entire counties — often electing radical officials who impose their ideologies on rural areas — states must step in.

In Harris County, Texas, radical leftist Lina Hidalgo runs the show from Houston. In Travis County, home to Austin, Soros-backed District Attorney José Garza applies “justice” as his donors see fit.

County residents who live outside of the big cities calling the shots would be much better served by county officials who reflect their values — not the radicals deeply planted in their city halls. They deserve a way out.

Bankruptcy poses an opportunity

States and municipalities filing for bankruptcy pose a tremendous opportunity to redraw the lines. In 2023, for example, Wisconsin’s GOP-controlled legislature bailed out bankrupt Milwaukee. The legislature could have liberated neighborhoods that never wanted to be annexed by Milwaukee in the first place. They missed the opportunity, however.

Photo by Matt Gush via Getty Images

Next time a state like Illinois comes crawling to Congress for a bailout, federal lawmakers should make border reorganization part of the deal. Downstate counties could be annexed by neighboring red states. Bailout in, blue control out.

During the Civil War, when Virginia seceded from the Union, West Virginia was born — its counties carved out and reorganized under federal protection. Today, as California’s officials promise to defy federal law and actively rebel against national authority, it may be time to ask: If rebellion defines California’s government, why not liberate its non-rebellious counties?

Beyond the US

Even national boundaries are up for reconsideration, too. That may sound radical, but it’s happened before.

Canada’s strange political experiment is showing signs of collapse. The ruling class in Ottawa derides the very existence of their country — obsessed with “stolen land” narratives and hostile to their own national culture. Their last remaining shred of civic unity is anti-Americanism.

But not all Canadians share that view.

The prairie provinces — Alberta and Saskatchewan — stand apart. Their culture, economy, and values are more closely aligned with those of the American Midwest than with those of Toronto or Quebec. Suffocating under anti-energy, anti-farmer policies, Alberta, in particular, is ripe for annexation.

Let’s add another star or two to the flag. The cowboy provinces would be a better fit in the U.S. anyway.

No borders are forever

Existing city, county, state, and national borders are not sacrosanct. If history is any guide, they will eventually change.

The only question is whether we’ll wait until the change is forced upon us — or whether we’ll act while there’s still time to do it peacefully and deliberately.

The map will change. Let’s make sure it changes for the better.

JD Vance: Rekindling statesmanship to secure America’s golden future

California generally and the Claremont Institute in particular have produced some of the most profound and revolutionary conservative thinkers of the last half-century.

And for a great many of them, it’s because they understood what’s at stake if we abandon our American identity.

This country is not a contradiction. It’s a nation of countless, extraordinary people across many generations, a land of profound ingenuity and tradition and beauty. But more importantly, it’s home.

And we’re lucky enough to have a few of them, like Michael Anton, now working in the administration with us.

Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams asked me to speak a little bit about statesmanship and, more to the point, about how to respond to some of the challenges our movement will need to confront in the years to come.

It’s an interesting question. And I think it’s useful to reflect on the state of the left in 2025 America.

Mamdani: A harrowing zeitgeist

On July 1, a 33-year-old communist running an insurgent campaign beat a multimillion-dollar establishment machine in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary.

I don’t want to harp on a municipal election, but there were two interesting threads that I wanted to highlight. The first is that it drives home how much the voters in each party have changed.

If our victory in 2024 was rooted in a broad, working- and middle-class coalition, Zohran Mamdani’s coalition is the inverse.

Look at his electoral performance, which the left is already talking about as a blueprint for future electoral success. The guy won high-income and college-educated New Yorkers — and especially both young and highly educated voters — but was weakest among black voters and those without a college degree. He did better in Bangladeshi areas of New York and worse in Chinese areas.

Mamdani’s strongest vote share was in New York’s gentrifying neighborhoods, like Ridgewood and Bushwick.

His victory was the product of a lot of young people who live reasonably comfortable lives but see that their elite degrees aren’t really delivering what they expected. And so their own prospects, with all the college debt, may not in fact be greater than those of their parents.

And I think in the results, we can start to see the future of the Democrats: as the party not of dispossession, but of elite disaffection.

Photo by Adam Gray/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The party of highly educated but downwardly mobile elites who compose a highly energetic activist base — one, critically, supplemented by carefully selected ethnic blocs carved out of the electorate, using identity politics as the knife.

That, by the way, explains all of Mamdani’s bizarre appeals to foreign politics intended to signal to one diaspora community or another in New York.

Why is a mayoral candidate in our nation’s biggest city whining about banning Bibi Netanyahu from visiting and threatening to arrest him if he tries? Or attacking Narendra Modi as a “war criminal”? Why is he talking about “globalizing the intifada”? What the hell does that even mean in Manhattan?

But what might seem like a contradiction makes sense if you peel back the onion a bit. Consider: a movement that rails against the billionaire class despite the fact that the billionaire class remains firmly in its corner. It idolizes foreign religions even as it rejects the teachings of those faiths. It rails against white people even as many of its funders and grassroots activists are privileged whites.

America in 2025 is more diverse than it has ever been. And yet the institutions that form culture are also weaker.

I was once comforted by these contradictions. How could privileged whites march around decrying white privilege? How could progressives pretend to love Muslims despite their cultural views on gender and sexuality?

But the answer is obvious, isn’t it? The radicals of the far left don’t need a unifying ideology of what they’re for, because they know very well what they’re against.

What unites Islamists, gender studies majors, socially liberal white urbanites, and Big Pharma lobbyists? It isn’t the ideas of Thomas Jefferson or even Karl Marx. It’s hatred. They hate the people in this room, they hate the president of the United States, and most of all, they hate the people who voted for him.

This is the animating principle of the American far left. It isn’t true of most of the people who vote for Democrats, of course. Most of them are good people, even if they’re misguided in their politics. But pay attention to what their leadership says outside glossy campaign ads or general election-tested messaging, and it’s obvious that this is what animates the modern Democratic Party.

FilippoBacci via iStock/Getty Images

Defining the modern left

The far left doesn’t care that Black Lives Matter led to a spike in violent crime in urban black neighborhoods, because it also led to anarchy in middle-class white neighborhoods.

The leftists don’t care that Islamism hates gays and subjugates women, because for now, it is a useful tool of death against Americans.

They don’t care that too many pharmaceutical companies are getting rich from experimental hormonal therapies, because it destroys the “gender binary” that has structured social relations between the genders for the whole of Western civilization.

They don’t care that deporting low-wage immigrants will raise the wages of the native-born, because they don’t mean to create higher living standards for those born and raised here — black, white, or any other skin color. They mean to replace them with people who will listen to their increasingly bizarre ethnic and religious appeals.

They are arsonists, and they will make common cause with anyone else willing to light the match. It’s why Mamdani himself is such an appealing instrument to the left. He captures so many of the movement’s apparent contradictions in a single human being: a guy who describes the Palestinian cause as “central” to his identity, yet holds views — abortion on demand and using taxpayer money to fund transgender surgeries for minors, for example — that would be incomprehensible on the streets of Gaza.

This politics doesn’t make sense as a positive political program. But it’s very effective at tearing down the things the left hates.

The right’s answer: Create

One task of statesmanship is to recognize what the left wishes to do to American society. But the most important thing is to be for something. And that’s the second thread I want to touch on today: If the left wishes to destroy, we must create.

The most obvious way to do that is to ensure that the people we serve have a better life in the country their grandparents built. This is why the president cares so much about tariffs — in a globalized economy, we must be willing to penalize those who would build outside our own nation.

And it’s why he worked so hard to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — if tariffs are the stick, then lower taxes and regulations are the carrots. We want to make it easy to save and invest in America, to build a business in America, and most of all to work a dignified job and earn the kind of wage that can support a family in comfort.

But this is not a purely material question, because we are not just producers and consumers. We are human beings, made in the image of God, who love our home not just because we earn a living here but because we discover our purpose and meaning here.

Every Western society has demographic problems. There is something about Western liberalism that is socially suicidal or parasitic — that tends to feed off a healthy host until there’s nothing left.

The radicals of the far left don’t need a unifying ideology of what they’re for, because they know very well what they’re against.

America in 2025 is more diverse than it has ever been. And yet the institutions that form culture are also weaker. We are confronted with a society that has less in common than ever and whose cultural leaders seem totally uninterested in fixing that.

Just four years ago, we had people promoting alternative national anthems at one of the few remaining national pastimes that transcend ethnic and cultural differences. Too many of our current crop of statesmen remain unable to break out of that moment, destined to erode the very thing that makes Americans put on a uniform and sacrifice their lives for something.

Part of the solution — the most important part of the solution — is to stop the bleeding. This is why President Trump’s immigration policies are so important. Social bonds form among people who have something in common. If you stop importing millions of foreigners, you allow social cohesion to form naturally.

But even so: If you were to ask yourself in 2025 what an American is, very few of our leaders would have a good answer. Is it purely agreement with the creedal principles of America?

That definition is overinclusive and underinclusive. It would include hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of foreigners. Must we admit them tomorrow? But at the same time, that answer would also reject a lot of people the Anti-Defamation League would label domestic extremists, even though their own ancestors were here at the time of the Revolutionary War.

welcomia via iStock/Getty Images

What American citizenship means

So perhaps the most pressing thing to build now is the meaning of American citizenship in the 21st century.

The right needs to do a better job of articulating what that means. And while I don’t have a comprehensive answer for you, there are a few things I’d suggest off the top of my head.

For one, it means sovereignty. More precisely, American citizenship must mean belonging to a nation that guards the sovereignty of its people, especially from a modern world that’s hell-bent on dissolving borders and differences in national character.

That means having a government that vigorously defends the basic qualities of sovereignty — that secures the border from foreign invasion; that protects its citizens and their enterprises against unfair foreign tax schemes; that erects tariff walls and similar barriers to protect its people’s industry; that avoids needlessly entangling them in prolonged, distant wars.

It also means preserving the basic legal privileges of citizenship — things like voting, including in state and local elections, or access to public benefits like certain state-run health care programs — for citizens. When states start handing these out to illegal aliens, they cheapen the very meaning of citizenship. And a nation that refuses to make that distinction won’t stay a nation for very long.

I’d also say that citizenship in the 21st century necessarily means building.

America is not just an idea. We’re a particular place, with a particular people and a particular set of beliefs and way of life.

Our ancestors realized that to carve a successful nation from a new land meant creating new, tangible things. New homes, new towns, new infrastructure to tame a wild continent. That attitude enabled us to build the world’s greatest cities, its tallest skyscrapers, the most impressive dams and canals.

Over time, it expanded the horizons of what we even thought possible as human beings, with Americans taking our species into the air and, just a generation later, into Earth’s orbit. Our innovations revolutionized communications, medicine, and agriculture, extending human life spans decades at a time.

None of that would be possible if our citizens believed we lived in a postindustrial era. Or an era when our finest minds just went to what are essentially speculative trades or to writing software that makes us more efficient consumers.

We need to build. We need to make great things here, for the betterment of our fellow Americans but also for our posterity. We need to continue to invent groundbreaking innovations and to leave homes and libraries and factories that our descendants will look at someday and feel awe.

This country is not a contradiction. It’s a nation of countless extraordinary people across many generations, a land of profound ingenuity and tradition and beauty.

And we need to build together. Getting to the moon required a lot of brilliant scientists working on what were effectively pocket calculators. But it also required a national system of education that produced that level of genius and inspired young graduates to want to design new rockets on behalf of their nation. And it required a ton of phenomenally talented engineers and welders and custodians to manufacture cutting-edge engines and keep the facilities that housed them spotless. It was a national project in the truest sense of the phrase.

To be a citizen in the 21st century, I think, should mean seeking out similar projects. Citizenship should mean feeling pride in our heritage, of course. But it should also mean understanding milestones like the moon landings not only as the product of past national greatness but as an achievement we should surpass by aligning the goals and ambitions of Americans at all levels of society.

Lastly, I’d say citizenship must mean recognizing the unique relationship, and especially the unique obligations, you share with your fellow Americans.

You cannot swap 10 million people from anywhere else in the world and expect America to remain unchanged. In the same way, you can’t export our Constitution to a random country and expect it to take hold.

That’s not something to lament but to take pride in. The founders understood that our shared qualities — our heritage, our values, our manners and customs — confer a special and indispensable advantage. A decisive one, even, in rebellion against the world’s greatest military power at the time.

That means something today. Citizenship — true citizenship — is not just about rights. In a world of globalized commerce and communication, it’s also about obligations, including to your countrymen. It’s about recognizing that your fellow citizens are not interchangeable cogs in the global economy, nor, in law or commerce, should they be treated that way.

And I think it’s impossible to feel a sense of obligation to something without having gratitude for it. We should demand that our people, whether first- or 10th-generation Americans, have gratitude for this country. We should be skeptical of anyone who lacks it, especially if they purport to lead it.

And that brings me back to the likely next mayor of New York. Today is July 5, 2025, which means that yesterday we celebrated the 249th anniversary of the birth of our nation.

The person who wishes to lead our largest city had, according to media reports, never once publicly mentioned America’s Independence Day in earnest. But when he did so this year, this is what he said.

America is beautiful, contradictory, unfinished. I am proud of our country even as we constantly strive to make it better.

There is no gratitude here. No sense of owing something to this land and the people who turned its wilderness into the most powerful nation in the world.

Zohran Mamdani’s father fled Uganda when the tyrant Idi Amin decided to ethnically cleanse his nation’s Indian population. Mamdani’s family fled violent racial hatred only for him to come to this country — a country built by people he never knew, overflowing with generosity to his family, offering a haven from the kind of violent ethnic conflict that is commonplace in world history.

And he dares, on its 249th birthday, to congratulate it by paying homage to its incompleteness and to its, as he calls it, “contradiction.” Has he ever read the letters from boy soldiers in the Union Army to parents and sweethearts they’d never see again? Has he ever visited a gravesite of a loved one who gave his life to build the kind of society where his family could escape theft and violence? Has he ever looked in the mirror and recognized that he might not be alive were it not for the generosity of a country he dares to insult on its most sacred day?

Who the hell do these people think they are?

Photo by Unsplash

Make America Great Again

Yesterday, I visited the construction site for the Teddy Roosevelt presidential library. We went hiking in the badlands of North Dakota. My 5-year-old so desperately wanted to see a buffalo, and he saw a dozen of them. My 8-year-old spotted a bald eagle perched on a low cliff. And my 3-year-old brought me a dandelion.

Her little lungs weren’t strong enough to send the dandelion seeds over the hillside, so she asked me to do it. Watching her face light up as she watched those seeds blow over the hills, I felt a profound sense of gratitude for this country. For its natural beauty, the settlers who carved a civilization out of the wilderness. For making the love story of that little girl’s mother and father possible. For the common yet profound joy of watching a 3-year-old’s beautiful eyes light up as she watches a dandelion’s seeds dance in the wind against an ancient rock formation.

This country is not a contradiction. It’s a nation of countless extraordinary people across many generations, a land of profound ingenuity and tradition and beauty. But more importantly, it’s home. For the vast bulk of Americans, it’s where we’re born, it’s where we will raise our children and grandchildren, and it’s where we ourselves will one day be buried. And when that day comes, I hope my kids can take solace in knowing that their inheritance as Americans is not some unfinished or contradictory project, but a home that provided their parents shelter, and sustenance, and endless amounts of love.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Editor’s note: This article was adapted from JD Vance’s address to the Claremont Institute on July 5, 2025, and published originally at the American Mind.

Trump bets big on AI to make America dominant again

The Trump administration is preparing to launch a sweeping series of executive orders aimed at securing America’s position as the world’s leader in artificial intelligence. If carried out properly, these efforts could help spark a new era of economic prosperity and technological dominance.

The forthcoming executive actions would radically streamline federal approvals for AI-related infrastructure, vastly expand energy resources devoted to artificial intelligence development, and prioritize the construction of new transmission and data projects critical to powering America’s AI future.

Artificial intelligence could be the single most important economic engine of the 21st century.

It is a remarkable development — and one desperately needed.

Trump’s AI infrastructure revolution

The expected executive orders outline sweeping changes. One key measure would create a national Clean Water Act permit tailored to speed up environmental approvals for AI-related infrastructure — especially energy and data facilities.

Another directive would push the federal government to prioritize “shovel-ready” transmission projects, helping the electric grid expand quickly enough to meet the demands of AI growth.

The orders would also unlock federally managed land for rapid development of the infrastructure needed to power and support artificial intelligence operations.

Finally, the administration plans to increase dramatically the energy resources dedicated to AI development, treating the technology as a national priority.

These changes aim to eliminate major regulatory and logistical obstacles slowing AI advancement. By streamlining permitting, securing energy access, and opening federal land, the orders would lay the groundwork for building and deploying large-scale AI systems nationwide.

A critical change

Each of these reforms matters. The numbers make that clear.

An article published earlier this year in MIT Technology Review summarized estimates from multiple researchers analyzing AI’s future impact. One study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory projected that by 2028, powering AI in the U.S. could require between 165 and 326 terawatt-hours of electricity annually.

Douglas Rissing via iStock/Getty Images

That would exceed the total power consumption of all U.S. data centers today. It’s enough to supply more than 20% of American households.

Put another way, the article noted that AI’s energy demand could create emissions equivalent to driving 300 billion miles — roughly 1,600 round trips between Earth and the sun.

This isn’t a modest technological shift. It’s an industrial revolution, and it’s already under way.

The global AI race

China’s leaders understand the potential benefits and costs of artificial intelligence, too, which is why they have approved dramatic increases in energy development in recent years.

In May, the Chinese government approved a plan to build 10 new nuclear reactors at a cost of $27.7 billion. If implemented, it would make China the planet’s largest generator of nuclear power by 2030.

China also invested more than $900 billion in renewable energy sources in 2024, nearly matching global investment in fossil fuels.

China is taking its energy needs seriously, and the Trump administration appears committed to ensuring that the United States doesn’t fall behind.

AI’s $13 trillion opportunity

Artificial intelligence is not just a futuristic novelty. It is the key to unlocking one of the greatest economic booms in modern history.

The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that AI could generate as much as $13 trillion in additional global economic productivity by 2030. That is the equivalent of adding three new economies the size of India’s. Nations that lead in AI development will enjoy a productivity surge, revolutionizing manufacturing, logistics, transportation, health care, finance, and nearly every other sector.

For the United States, this means the potential to revitalize American industry, re-shore critical supply chains, and create millions of high-wage jobs. AI could supercharge small business growth, empower entrepreneurs, and streamline government services. It could give America the edge in military technology, scientific research, and global competitiveness.

In short, it could be the single most important economic engine of the 21st century.

But to get there, America needs to act quickly. Building the infrastructure necessary to power AI’s massive growth, both physically and digitally, will require bold and aggressive leadership. That is exactly what Trump’s new executive orders represent.

Protecting liberty

Artificial intelligence will transform nearly every part of American life — our economy, schools, military, and medical system.

The upside is immense. With the right leadership, AI could spark a new American golden age, driving productivity and innovation beyond anything in living memory. That’s the future President Trump aims to deliver. If his initiative succeeds, it could define America’s 21st-century revival.

But the risks are real.

So far, Congress and most state legislatures have done practically nothing to safeguard Americans’ basic freedoms in the age of AI. No national guardrails exist to stop this technology from being used to suppress free speech, erode religious liberty, or undermine economic independence.

Without decisive action, the very tools that promise prosperity could become the greatest threat to liberty in American history.

That’s why the Trump administration and Congress should tie any pro-AI legislation to strong protections for individual rights. If America plans to lead the world into the AI future, it must lead with freedom front and center.

You were built for meaning, not cheap pleasure

For most of human history, scarcity was the enemy. Territory, calories, energy, and land all had to be fought for, hoarded, and rationed. Wars were waged and innovations forged to survive deprivation. But the material hardship that once united societies in common struggle has largely faded in the affluent world.

Now we face a different enemy: artificial abundance.

The future belongs to those who reject the simulacrum and embrace reality.

In the wealthiest nations, human beings are no longer selected for resilience in the face of scarcity. They’re selected for their ability to resist the seductions of abundance — synthetic food, fake relationships, dopamine on demand. The danger isn’t hunger or want, but the numbing comfort of simulated satisfaction.

Loaded with empty calories

Once, entire civilizations rose or fell depending on their ability to produce and preserve food. Famines routinely devastated societies, and most people spent their lives just trying to eat.

Now, calories come cheap and easy. Factory farming, food science, and global logistics mean even the poorest Americans can gorge on processed junk. A trip to McDonald’s or a few bucks at Walmart buys a week’s worth of empty calories.

But artificial flavorings and chemical fillers are no substitute for real food. They simulate nourishment, but slowly poison the body. Calories are now so available that obesity, not hunger, is the largest threat to the well-being of the poor. The need has been met — and subverted.

Sex and glory, sold cheap

The same dynamic has corrupted sexual desire. Historically, sex drove men to build civilizations, conquer enemies, win wealth, and rise in status. Today, that drive is short-circuited. Men can now simulate conquest and fulfillment without risk, pain, or purpose — through pornography and video games.

Why fight for honor or love when you can get the illusion of both from a screen? Instead of greatness, many young men settle for a life of digital masturbation — and that’s how the system likes it. Young men remain trapped in a kind of eternal adolescence: satisfied just enough to avoid rebellion, addicted just enough to stay quiet.

Fake attention, real loneliness

Social media and dating apps have similarly distorted the lives of young women. Women crave connection, validation, and community — roles they once fulfilled in family, faith, and friendship.

Now they chase attention online, deluding themselves into believing that likes and comments are the same as love and loyalty. Social media simulates female community and male desire, but gives neither. Depression rises. Real-life relationships crumble. Women fear male attention in person but crave it online, where they feel in control.

Blaze Media Illustration

What results is a dysfunctional, hypergamous dating market. Men won’t approach. Women hold out for the fantasy of the “perfect man” who never arrives. Both sexes lose.

Lockdowns revealed the lie

COVID-19 lockdowns showed us the true danger of attempting to simulate every aspect of human experience.

During the lockdowns, social interactions from school, church, work, and even bonding with friends over a meal became impossible. School, church, work, friendship — all of it was forcibly digitized.

The results were catastrophic: soaring depression, stalled childhood development, and broken education.

But the worst part? People stayed in their digital cages even after the doors opened. Simulated connection became easier than real interaction. And easier won.

The real thing is harder — and worth it

Reality demands effort. Family, community, faith, and responsibility are hard. They hurt. They risk rejection. But they matter.

Left alone with simulated choices, most people will pick the path of least resistance. That’s why society must rethink what it rewards. Because the simulations aren’t harmless distractions — they’re traps.

The French philosopher Jean Baudrillard called this phenomenon the “simulacrum” — a copy with no original. A cheeseburger that isn’t food. AI “friends” that aren’t human and virtual “communities” that cannot possibly relieve loneliness. A porn star who looks and behaves nothing like a real woman. Online attention that ruins offline romance. Video game violence that replaces true heroism.

An evolutionary filter

We face an evolutionary bottleneck as serious as any in human history. But instead of favoring the strong, smart, or adaptable, survival now depends on who can say no.

Can you say no to simulated sex? Simulated success? Simulated community? Can you hunger for meaning, not just comfort?

Those who make it through this filter will be the ones who choose austerity over ease — who hunger for the real thing. The future belongs to those who reject the simulacrum and embrace reality.

Artificial intelligence will only make these temptations worse. But those who refuse to be pacified will also be the ones who endure.

Choose meaning. Teach your children to do the same. The future depends on it.

‘How could they be that stupid?’ They aren’t — that’s the problem.

In 2013, I published an article at American Thinker titled “How Detroit Almost Killed My Business.” It drew attention — enough to earn me a spot on Fox News Radio. The theme was simple: Government actions drive up costs until businesses can’t survive. I had to leave Detroit in 1984, along with hundreds of other business owners facing the same pressure.

The title of that article could just as easily have been: “How Could These Government Officials Be So Stupid?”

None of it makes sense — until you realize it isn’t stupidity. It’s sabotage.

Detroit finally declared bankruptcy in 2013. But looking back now, I realize my premise was wrong. The politicians weren’t stupid. They knew exactly what they were doing.

That same year, Diana West released her remarkable book “American Betrayal.” In a book that is part thriller, part tragedy, West exposed the depth of communist infiltration in the U.S. government — a war between those hiding the truth and those trying to expose it. Her research, though controversial, convinced me that America had long been the target of a coordinated effort to destroy it from within.

If America fell, the rest of the free world would follow.

With that lens, I reconsidered Detroit. The people running the city weren’t incompetent. They were executing a plan — to destroy the greatest industrial marketplace the world had ever seen. And they succeeded.

So when I now ask, “How could they be that stupid?” I catch myself.

How could anyone in 2020 vote for a man clearly not in his right mind? How could Americans allow COVID to justify the most extreme restrictions on freedom in modern history?

Masks, social distancing, lockdowns, mandatory shots — all of it was wrong. We know that now. And yet it was pushed with religious fervor.

How could they be that stupid?

How could the government open the borders and let in waves of illegal immigrants — including violent criminals from foreign prisons? Why did we pay to fly migrants in from distant countries, give them EBT cards with monthly refills, and house them in luxury hotels?

How could they cripple energy production, restrict how much water we use to wash dishes, and mandate what kind of car we can drive? What free government tells manufacturers what to build, regardless of market demand?

How could they decide diversity quotas matter more than competence? Why target the military for destruction?

None of it makes sense — until you realize it isn’t stupidity. It’s sabotage.

And now we have Zohran Mamdani, a self-described Democratic Socialist, poised to become the next mayor of New York City. His platform includes rent control, government housing, social policing, city-owned grocery stores, and free public transit. Every one of these policies has failed before.

Photo by Noam Galai/Getty Images

Under socialism, living standards always fall. It’s never been otherwise.

How could Mamdani be that stupid?

From my vantage point as an exile from Detroit, I know exactly what’s coming. I watched a government plan hollow out a once-thriving city. Now New York, the world’s financial capital, is in the crosshairs.

Businesses are already preparing to leave. Can you blame them?

Shakespeare wrote, “What’s past is prologue.” Twelve years ago, I warned what would happen to America’s industrial heartland. Now the ruling class has trained its sights on its financial one.

The question isn’t whether people like Mamdani are sincere. The question is: How can we be that stupid?

This Yale professor thinks patriotism is some kind of hate crime

Timothy Snyder has built a career trying to convince Americans that Donald Trump is a latter-day Adolf Hitler — a fascist demagogue hell-bent on dismantling America’s institutions to seize power. Last week, the Yale historian and author of the bestselling resistance pamphlet “On Tyranny,” briefly changed course. Now, apparently, Trump is Jefferson Davis.

In a recent Substack post, Snyder claimed Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg amounted to a call for civil war. He argued that the president’s praise for the military and his rejection of the left’s historical revisionism signaled not patriotism but treason — and the rise of a “paramilitary” regime.

Trump doesn’t want a second civil war. He wants the first one to mean something.

No, seriously. That’s what he thinks.

Renaming Fort Bragg

Trump’s first alleged Confederate offense, Snyder said, was to reinstate the military base’s original name: Fort Bragg. The Biden administration had renamed it Fort Liberty, repudiating General Braxton Bragg’s Confederate ties. Trump reversed the change.

The Biden administration had renamed the base Fort Liberty, citing General Braxton Bragg’s service to the Confederacy. Trump reversed the change. But he didn’t do it to honor a Confederate general. He did it to honor World War II paratrooper Roland L. Bragg, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth explained.

Snyder wasn’t buying it. He accused the administration of fabricating a “dishonest pretense” that glorifies “oathbreakers and traitors.”

That charge hits close to home.

My grandfather Martin Spohn was a German Jewish refugee who fled Nazi Berlin in 1936. He proudly served in the U.S. Army. He trained with the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Bragg before deploying to Normandy. Like thousands of others, he saw the base not as a Confederate monument but as a launchpad for defeating actual fascism.

Restoring the name Fort Bragg doesn’t rewrite history. It honors the Americans who made history — men who trained there to liberate Europe from tyranny.

That’s not fascism. That’s victory over it.

Deploying the National Guard

For Snyder, though, Trump’s real crime was calling up the National Guard to restore order in riot-torn Los Angeles. That, he claimed, puts Trump in the same category as Robert E. Lee.

According to Snyder, the president is “preparing American soldiers to see themselves as heroes when they undertake operations inside the United States against unarmed people, including their fellow citizens.”

Let’s set aside the hysteria.

Trump didn’t glorify the Confederacy. He called for law and order in the face of spiraling violence. He pushed back against the left’s crusade to erase American history — not to rewrite it but to preserve its complexity.

He didn’t tell soldiers to defy the Constitution. He reminded them of their oath: to defend the nation, not serve the ideological demands of woke officials.

Snyder’s claims are as reckless as they are false.

He smears anyone who supports border enforcement or takes pride in military service as a threat to democracy. Want secure borders? You’re a fascist. Call out the collapse of Democrat-run cities? You’re a Confederate.

This isn’t analysis. It’s slander masquerading as scholarship.

The real division

But this debate isn’t really about Trump. It’s about power.

The left has spent years reshaping the military into a political project — prioritizing diversity seminars over combat readiness, purging dissenters, and enforcing ideological loyalty. When Trump pushes back, it’s not authoritarianism. It’s restoration.

The left wants a military that fights climate change, checks pronouns, and marches for “equity.” Trump wants a military that defends the nation. That’s the real divide.

Over and over, Snyder accuses Trump of “trivializing” the military by invoking its heroism while discussing immigration enforcement. But what trivializes military service more — linking it to national defense or turning soldiers into props for progressive social experiments?

Photo by Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

And Trump isn’t breaking precedent by deploying the National Guard when local leaders fail. Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson used federal troops during desegregation. Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights marchers. The Guard responded during the 1967 Detroit riots, the 1992 Los Angeles riots, and the Black Lives Matter and Antifa upheavals of 2020.

Trump acted within his authority — and fulfilled his duty — to restore order when Democrat-run cities descended into chaos.

A House divided?

Snyder’s rhetoric about “protecting democracy” rings hollow. Trump won the 2024 election decisively. Voters across party lines gave him a clear mandate: Secure the border and remove violent criminals. Pew Research found that 97% of Americans support more vigorous enforcement of immigration laws.

Yet Snyder, who constantly warns of creeping authoritarianism, closed his post by urging fellow academics to join No Kings protests.

Nobody appointed Timothy Snyder king, either.

If he respected democratic institutions, he’d spend less time fearmongering — and more time listening to the Americans, including many in uniform, who are tired of being demonized for loving their country. They’re tired of being called bigots for wanting secure borders. They’re tired of watching history weaponized to silence dissent.

Snyder invokes Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address to condemn Trump. But it was Lincoln who paraphrased scripture when he said, “A house divided cannot stand.”

Americans united behind Trump in 2024. Snyder’s effort to cast half the country as fascists or Confederates embodies the division Lincoln warned against.

Here’s the truth: Trump doesn’t want a second civil war. He wants the first one to mean something.

He wants a Union preserved in more than name — a Union defined by secure borders, equal justice, and unapologetic national pride.

If that scares Timothy Snyder, maybe the problem isn’t Trump.

Perhaps, the problem lies in the man staring back at him in the mirror.

RFK Jr. torches vaccine panel to make consequences count again

Consequences. The word means little when applied to the failures of America’s so-called expert class. COVID-19 exposed the rot. Officials failed again and again at precisely what they were paid to understand — and escaped unscathed. Lockdowns failed. Masks failed. The mRNA shots failed. Yet, Anthony Fauci walked off the stage wealthier than ever. That’s the problem.

But nearly halfway into year one of Trump 2.0, America finally seems hungry to Make Consequences Great Again.

Choosing a freer, healthier, more dignified path is not just possible — it’s the rightful consequence of reclaiming citizenship in a nation built on liberty and courage.

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pulled the COVID-19 jab recommendation for healthy children and pregnant women. The move strips the shot of its legal basis for mandates now or in the future. Then, in a sweeping housecleaning, Kennedy announced he would “retire” all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee.

Of those members, 13 were appointed by Joe Biden as recently as 2024. I wonder who was running the autopen to make that happen. Since most of those members have direct ties to pharmaceutical companies, I’ll let your imagination fill in the details.

Children’s Health Defense cites a 2000 U.S. House investigation that found conflict-of-interest rules for the CDC’s vaccine committee went largely unenforced. A 2009 report by the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General reached the same conclusion. Follow-up investigations in 2021 and 2024 showed no improvement, even as the path was cleared for mRNA shots to be hailed as the next biomedical miracle.

How deeply do the vaccine high priests on this committee worship their pharma gods? When RFK Jr. began removing them like Elijah at Mount Carmel, he noted that the committee had never recommended against adopting a vaccine. Not once.

That’s not science. That’s idolatry. That’s how children went from receiving fewer than 20 shots in my generation to more than 70 on today’s schedule. At this point, after so many miraculous infusions of “health care,” shouldn't we all be glowing, levitating, and reading each other’s minds?

Instead, as RFK Jr. keeps pointing out, Americans today suffer from staggering rates of chronic illness, obesity, and mental distress. That’s what happens when the expert class convinces new parents their babies are born defective — ticking time bombs of disease in constant need of pharmaceutical salvation. Go for a run? Nah. Take a pill instead. Live prayerfully? Try pharmaceutically.

This is what you get when a culture forgets it was made in the image and likeness of God.

We may be the most formally educated society in human history, but we’ve been conditioned — psychologically and emotionally — like lab rats. Decades of programming have trained us to fear life itself and trust the experts to manage it. That’s why RFK Jr.’s purge of the vaccine committee goes far beyond health care. It strikes at the heart of the worldview — because worldview shapes everything.

My partner in crime, Todd Erzen, has long said that most young Christian parents would probably vaccinate their children before baptizing them. He’s not wrong. Fear — not faith — drives too many of our most important decisions. And without realizing it, no matter how many comforts we enjoy, we’ve traded a life of color for one in black and white.

Photo illustration by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The vaccine committee had to go. It had morphed into a cult of flat-earthers — deniers of reality in service of profit and power. For too long, Americans wore their chains, obedient to the credentialed class that promised safety while delivering sickness and dependency.

But we don’t have to live that way.

Choosing a freer, healthier, more dignified path is not just possible — it’s the rightful consequence of reclaiming citizenship in a nation built on liberty and courage. That’s the good, the true, and the beautiful.

And for once, we have unlikely allies to thank: Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Both have reminded Americans that the door out of this madness isn’t locked. We just needed the will to kick it open.

The real tyranny? Institutional groupthink disguised as truth

Timothy Snyder’s “On Tyranny” has become a pocket-size gospel for progressives in the age of Trump — a secular catechism of 20 rules to resist looming fascism. It’s pitched not just as a historical analysis but as an urgent survival guide, borrowed from the dark lessons of the 20th century. The message is clear: Authoritarianism is always just one election away, and Donald Trump is its orange-faced harbinger.

Such moral urgency unmoored from historical context tends to collapse into political theater, however. “On Tyranny” is not a serious book. It is an emotive pamphlet that relies less on the actual historical complexities of rising tyranny than on the reader’s willingness to conflate MAGA hats with brownshirts.

Snyder believes a tyrant is always the populist outsider, never the insider who manages democratic decline in a suit and tie.

Such historical flattening is the first and most obvious flaw in Snyder’s argument. He leans heavily on the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia to suggest that Trump’s rise follows the same trajectory. But this is not serious analysis — it’s emotional manipulation. It’s one thing to warn against patterns; it’s another to flatten every populist movement into a prequel to genocide.

Snyder, a Yale historian, surely knows better. But “On Tyranny” depends on your feeling like you're living in 1933 — whether or not such historical parallels are actually true. And they’re not.

A democratic mandate

Snyder warns against the rise of a single leader claiming to represent the will of the people and establishing a one-party state — equating the 2016 Republican sweep of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Hitler’s consolidation of the Third Reich. Such a comparison isn’t just blatantly false; it’s a cruel dismissal of the democratic will of the people for merely voting in Republican candidates.

Surely Snyder didn’t accuse Barack Obama of fascist one-party rule when he and the Democrats swept the White House and Congress in 2008. Such electoral outcomes aren’t a harbinger of fascism. No, no! That was a mandate from the American people, democratically spoken, demanding change from the status quo. Voters sent that message loud and clear in 2008 — as well as in 2016 and 2024.

Snyder’s false equivalency counts on fear rather than critical thinking — any semblance of which would entice Democrats to pause for a moment of self-reflection and listen to what the American people are saying through the electoral process. But Snyder’s one-sided alarmism silences the electoral voice — merely because it rallied behind Trump.

Civic theater

Snyder’s advice to citizens reads like a secular sermon: “Defend institutions.” “Stand out.” “Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.” On the surface, it sounds noble — defiant, even. But strip away the aesthetic of resistance, and what’s left is a deeply superficial understanding of civic virtue.

What exactly are we defending when we’re told to “support the press” or “protect truth”? In practice, Snyder’s rules amount to an uncritical loyalty to legacy institutions that have forfeited public trust — media outlets that gaslight, bureaucracies that bloat, and experts who contradict themselves while silencing dismissive voices.

Snyder dismisses the possibility that institutions can rot from within, that the loudest defenders of “truth” are often its gravest opponents. Instead, he offers something simpler: the feeling of resistance while catering to the institutional elites.

The real culprits

The irony of “On Tyranny” is that the tactics Snyder warns against — censorship, moral panic, political conformity — have not come from MAGA rallies but from the very institutions Snyder holds up as guardians of democracy. It wasn’t Trump who quashed dissenting speech on COVID-19 or colluded with social media companies to throttle viewpoints that didn’t conform with the government’s narrative. It was the political elite and their complicit peddlers in the mainstream media and social media companies.

Unfortunately for Snyder’s brand, tyranny doesn’t always wear a red hat. Sometimes it comes in the name of “safety,” or “science,” or “social justice.” Sometimes it cancels you over a social media post, not because you’re dangerous, but because you’re not sufficiently obedient.

If Snyder were genuinely concerned with authoritarianism in all its forms, he might have warned against this progressive impulse to control thought and punish deviation. Instead, he gives it cover — because the real threat, in his mind, is always the populist outsider, never the insider who manages democratic decline in a suit and tie.

Less performance, more courage

Snyder is right about one thing: democracies don’t die overnight. But they do die when fear replaces thought, when virtue becomes branding, and when citizens outsource their moral judgment to bureaucracies and mainstream news.

“On Tyranny” offers the illusion of courage but none of the substance. It is performance art disguised as resistance. To preserve freedom, we should defend institutions and champion truth. But that requires holding corrupt actors in such institutions accountable, whether it be within the federal government or legacy media. That was the democratic mandate communicated loud and clear in 2024, and if Snyder were genuinely concerned about defending democracy, he would listen.

Dictator, thief, puppet: Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s 3 strikes revealed

The mountain of lies about Ukraine is beginning to crumble under the weight of the truth. The media-crafted façade of Ukraine as a beacon of democracy — and Volodymyr Zelenskyy as the Winston Churchill of our time — is disintegrating. February’s disgraceful Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and the Ukrainian dictator revealed Zelenskyy’s true character.

After Trump made it clear that Ukraine would never join NATO, Zelenskyy responded with open defiance, vowing NATO membership would happen anyway. His message was clear: The war must go on — regardless of the cost to his people. From the beginning, NATO expansion into Ukraine has been the root provocation behind Russia’s so-called "special military operation."

The United States and NATO have waged a proxy war against Russia and for globalism.

This week, Zelenskyy removed any lingering doubt about his intent. He outright rejected President Trump’s peace proposal, effectively sabotaging any meaningful negotiation.

An illegitimate president

Retired Col. Douglas Macgregor recognized Zelenskyy’s role as a puppet early in the war — stunning mainstream media. He sees Zelenskyy as the “globalist enemy within” — undermining any chance for peace. To achieve the most direct path to peace, Macgregor has urged Trump to immediately stop all military and financial aid to Ukraine, dump Zelenskyy, and pull out all American personnel — in or out of uniform.

Zelenskyy’s term expired last May, but he canceled presidential elections to remain in power. Donald Trump has called out Zelenskyy as a “dictator without elections” — and that’s not even the half of it.

Zelenskyy has shut down all nongovernment-controlled media, banned opposition parties, jailed dissidents, and reportedly had critics kidnapped, tortured, or killed. He’s ordered thugs to snatch thousands of men off the streets and shove them into the trenches. He’s outlawed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, jailing its priests. Meanwhile, his government and military remain riddled with neo-Nazis — a fact the media refuses to address.

Zelenskyy also uses Ukrainian lawfare to lock up members of his own party when they speak out against his corruption.

Dissent silenced

Oleksandr Dubinsky was elected to the Ukrainian Parliament as a member of Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People Party. He is the only MP to speak out against the criminal regime. Dubinsky states, “I’m currently fighting a politically motivated case, filed by Zelensky's [sic] regime, to silence my criticism of his corruption, as well as the corruption of Soros-backed NGOs and the Bidens' connections to Burisma.” In November 2023, Dubinsky was arrested, charged with treason, and thrown into prison, where he remains awaiting trial. From his prison cell, Dubinsky has called for Zelenskyy’s impeachment and announced his intention to run for president — assuming elections are ever allowed again.

In a Kyiv courtroom in February, Dubinsky exposed the SBU, Zelenskyy’s secret police, for their brutal arrest, imprisonment, torture, and murder of American independent journalist Gonzalo Lira — whose only crime was criticizing both the Zelenskyy and Biden regimes.

In a remarkable prison interview, Norwegian scholar Glenn Diesen spoke with Dubinsky — who knows Zelenskyy well. In 2019, both men were allies when Zelenskyy ran as a peace candidate promising normalized relations with Russia. But Dubinsky broke ranks once Zelenskyy aligned with globalist interests, collaborated with the neo-Nazis, and embraced full-on corruption and criminality.

Dubinsky provides a deep insight into Zelenskyy’s motives and exactly who is pulling his strings. “Zelenskyy is the product of the efforts of globalist and liberal elites who saw the war in Ukraine as a tool to consolidate their own power,” Dubinsky said. “Ukraine has become the last stronghold of globalism and Zelenskyy is its figurehead.”

This war has never been about Ukraine. The United States and NATO have waged a proxy war against Russia and for globalism. The ultimate objective of the international globalists — and American neoconservatives — is to destroy and break up Russia. Dubinsky contends there is “no goal of securing Ukraine’s victory. The only objective is to prolong the war.” And their immediate goal? To “undermine President Trump’s peace initiatives.”

Thirty years ago, George Soros conjured up the sinister strategy of sacrificing European Slavs to fight a proxy war with Russia. “The combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO,” he wrote, “reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries.” In Ukraine, the globalists found Zelenskyy, who, for 30 pieces of silver, has obliged, filling NATO body bags with his countrymen.

Before entering politics, Zelenskyy’s day job was as a comedic television actor. Dubinsky, well-versed in Zelenskyy’s theatrics, noted that his Oval Office appearance in February — including his costume choice — was “a deliberate performance designed to sabotage negotiations.” Mission accomplished.

A neocon’s dream

The globalists and neocons set a trap. Trump walked into it — and now, he must walk back out.

I still believe Trump sincerely wants to disengage from Ukraine and bring peace. But if he allows American military and financial support of the Zelenskyy dictatorship to continue, any peace will be impossible. Since his inauguration, the president has talked about peace in Ukraine but has maintained the Biden status quo. That’s not going to cut it now.

Trump won because he was the peace candidate with a revolutionary anti-war, anti-globalist pledge: “There must ... be a complete commitment to dismantling the entire globalist neocon establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars.” This was a bombshell. But as the initial shock of Trump’s victory has worn off and the commitment to dismantle the neocon establishment has not been acted upon, the “globalist neocon establishment” has regrouped and is back on the attack.

In Europe, Zelenskyy and his globalist masters in the European Union and NATO openly defy Trump, calling for a prolonged war and NATO membership for Ukraine. Here at home, neoconservatives at all levels of the military-industrial-congressional complex — and their mainstream media — openly undermine him.

In April, Gen. Christopher Cavoli, commander of U.S. European Command and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee to report on the status of the war. In a profoundly dishonest presentation, Cavoli made a case for prolonging the war and avoiding a negotiated settlement.

Cavoli’s remarks were an inspiration to Zelenskyy and a slap in the face to Trump. The fact that he could defy and insult his commander in chief with total impunity reveals just how deeply entrenched the neocon power structure remains.

Dictator, thief, and globalist puppet

To save Ukraine — and his presidency — Trump must break free from the neocons and globalists once and for all and stop all aid to Ukraine.

People are beginning to understand who Zelenskyy really is. My previous essays made clear that he is a dictator and a thief. Now, we know that he is also a globalist puppet sabotaging peace in Ukraine. Three strikes, and you’re out.