Free money wins elections — and that’s why America’s debt will keep growing



As Republicans head toward what looks like a perilous midterm election, affordability is on everyone’s lips. The Biden administration never convinced voters that it had brought food and housing costs under control. Some Republicans have tried to pretend the problem does not exist; others have acknowledged it without making meaningful progress.

Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump made choices that worsened the pressure, from expanding federal spending to deepening costly foreign commitments. Neither party has a durable solution. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.9 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2026, and debt held by the public now tops 101% of GDP. Spending and inflation are not accidents at the edge of mass democracy. They follow from its incentives, and nothing will change until the incentives do.

In a democracy, giving voters something is the winning strategy, and Trump likes winning.

The affordability crisis has several causes, but much of the immediate pain comes from the cumulative rise in prices. Wages may rise and bank balances may grow, yet each dollar buys less. Inflation is a pernicious tax precisely because it is hidden. Normal taxes must be enacted and collected openly. No one votes directly for inflation, which instead erodes the value of money people have already earned and saved. It punishes careful savers while rewarding borrowers and speculators.

Deficit spending can fuel inflation when government expands demand faster than the economy can supply goods and services. Creating money makes it easier to distribute benefits today, but it can reduce the currency’s purchasing power tomorrow. Inflation also lightens the real burden of government debt by reducing the value of what was borrowed. The average person, however, rarely has early access to new money or the sophisticated financial instruments wealthy investors use to hedge against rising prices. He feels the loss at the grocery store.

The oldest move in politics is to offer people a material reward for their support. Every system does it, but democracy makes the exchange especially powerful because elections confer legitimacy. A politician rarely calls the arrangement a “bribe.” He routes the benefit through a program aimed at groups likely to reward him at the polls. The legal form gives the transaction respectability, but voters still understand the bargain.

Donald Trump recently dispensed with even that pretense. At the Republican midterm convention last week, he promised $5,000 to every adult citizen if Republicans retain the House and Senate. An independent estimate put the cost at more than $1.2 trillion, and Congress would have to approve it. Whether the payments ever materialize is not the point. The offer mocks the fiscal restraint conservatives claim to espouse. Conservative commentators objected, but Trump brushed them aside. He understands the incentives. He promised not to cut Social Security and Medicare because benefits win votes. In a democracy, giving voters something is the winning strategy, and Trump likes winning.

RELATED:The GOP still has a loser mentality

Blaze Media Illustration

Warnings about democracy long predate modern America. Plato and Aristotle distrusted rule by the demos, and the American founders built a constitutional republic with layers of insulation against popular majorities. Their fear was simple: Once voters discover they can use the state to transfer other people’s money to themselves, restraint collapses. A republic may survive only if institutions impose limits that elections alone will not.

Is the $5,000 check good fiscal policy? Of course not. It’s a disaster. A transfer approaching $1.2 trillion would widen the deficit and almost certainly worsen inflation, especially in an economy already near capacity. Pandemic-era fiscal stimulus did not single-handedly cause the 2021-2022 inflation surge; supply shocks and monetary policy mattered too. But New York Federal Reserve research found that fiscal support contributed materially.

Is the check good politics? Yes. In a democracy, vote-buying is an optimal strategy, and anyone who refuses it risks losing to someone who will. Democrats have principles that let them hand out money and receive praise — and votes. Republicans profess principles that should forbid it. Sound economics grants no electoral advantage.

Reckless spending is terrible policy, but it can win elections. Conservatives may campaign on austerity, but austerity rarely inspires voters. If progressives alone use the winning strategy, conservative fiscal theory becomes irrelevant. Losers do not write budgets or exercise executive power. Both parties therefore spend when they hold office, though they direct the money toward different constituencies. The democratic incentive is to distribute everything you can while you can, because the other side may take power tomorrow and spend it instead.

RELATED: We need lawfare for white men

Blaze Media Illustration

The philosopher Nick Land captured the logic in “The Dark Enlightenment”:

As the democratic virus burns through society, painstakingly accumulated habits and attitudes of forward-thinking, prudential, human and industrial investment are replaced by a sterile, orgiastic consumerism, financial incontinence, and a “reality television” political circus. Tomorrow might belong to the other team, so it’s best to eat it all now.

None of this is hopeful. Conservatives have made preserving mass democracy a principle even as the system rewards policies they oppose. A constitutional republic needs constraints on majoritarian appetite, but there is little political will even for modest spending cuts, much less fundamental limits on the franchise. The brutal truth is that both parties will keep spending recklessly while blaming each other for rising debt and prices.

As long as mass democracy reigns, buying votes with public money will remain one of the surest ways to gain and hold power. Every politician wants power.

The continuing diversity obsession



Dozens of “gap” statistics have become so deeply embedded in our political discourse that we hardly question whether unequal outcomes are actually evidence of discrimination. “Women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men.” “Hispanic students make up a disproportionately small percentage of university graduates.” “Black women must work into the following July to catch up to what white men made the previous year.”

In our equity-obsessed age, each one of these “gap stats” has a grimy underbelly, made up of individuals who are unfairly denied the fruits of their talents because institutions have tried to force equal outcomes: men who work longer hours on average; Asians who have higher SAT scores on average; Millennial and Gen Z white applicants who get passed over at work because they don’t add to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Though no example exists anywhere of a world without disparities, it seems that most American institutions — government agencies, universities, and corporate workplaces — cannot tolerate the reality of their existence.

We are living through a decade of wokeism in which racial favoritism has graduated from an ostensibly temporary thumb on the scale for the almost-qualified to the kind of unqualified frenzy that attracts grifters and con artists. And, correspondingly, the discrimination against the disfavored has gone from ambient to so intense as to bar advancement in culturally prestigious industries.

Contra to dismissive talking points from purveyors like AOC, Woke 1 has done real damage to many lives.

Think, for example, of the nameless crowd of people denied the sinecures, positions, and honors bestowed on Cambridge’s former “youngest black professor,” Jason Arday. He was a serial fabulist and plagiarist and tragically died by suicide earlier this month.

In addition to the coveted position from which he resigned, Arday had a lucrative book deal in an industry in which just three of the 70 National Book Awards nominees in the past decade were white men, a shift that happened far too suddenly to have occurred naturally.

The Arday debacle shows that the quest to eliminate disparities has turned hiring into a de facto racial spoils system. Despite every remedy applied against them, disparities persist everywhere — in every profession, school, boardroom, prison, scientific award category, sports field, and socioeconomic tier for reasons that are cultural, political, family-based, genetic, religious, and natural.

RELATED: DEI refuses to die

Love Employee/Getty Images

Sometimes the reasons are even historically arcane. The majority of nail technicians in the United States are Vietnamese, even though they make up just 0.75% of the population. It turns out that this particular disparity can be traced to a single American actress, Tippi Hedren of "The Birds" fame. She visited a refugee camp near Sacramento after the Vietnam War and paid her manicurist to provide training, which then spread like wildfire throughout that community.

Disparities of a thousand hues are the norm. As Thomas Sowell wrote in "Discriminations and Disparities" back in 2018, “Neither in nature nor among human beings are either equal or randomly distributed outcomes automatic. On the contrary, grossly unequal distributions of outcomes are common, both in nature and among people.”

Though no example exists anywhere of a world without disparities, it seems that most American institutions — government agencies, universities, and corporate workplaces — cannot tolerate the reality of their existence, even where there is no evidence that they arise from discriminatory practices.

University of San Diego School of Law professor Gail Heriot, an experienced civil rights lawyer and author of the aptly titled article “Title VII Disparate Impact Liability Makes Almost Everything Presumptively Illegal,” regularly challenges audiences to come up with a single hiring criterion that does not produce disparate outcomes on the basis of some protected characteristic — that is, race, sex, religion, or national origin.

She has never received a satisfactory answer, even after offering a cash reward.

The ubiquity of disparities allows government agencies to choose their victims at will. No government body tasked with enforcing laws against workplace discrimination has ever investigated whether requiring a bachelor’s degree for entry-level office work causes disparities among different demographic groups. Instead, the government seeks to root out all disparities against protected classes.

During the Biden administration, the EEOC sued the grocery store chain Sheetz for screening out potential employees with certain kinds of criminal records. The government admitted that Sheetz had no intention of discriminating against black and Native American job applicants. But because a higher percentage of job-seekers from those backgrounds had criminal records, it had the effect of constituting illegal discrimination.

Welcome to disparate impact liability, a branch of the law now declared dead for the time being — and potentially unconstitutional — by the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel.

RELATED: We need lawfare for white men

Blaze Media Illustration

When the law presumes that these gaps exist because of discrimination, it places defendants in an impossible position: When the inevitable disparities appear in your organization, you can either accept them — and open yourself to litigation — or discriminate against unprotected classes to make the numbers even out — and open yourself to litigation.

As I testified before the House Oversight Committee in July, our universities, corporations, and public institutions have been “at war with the reality of disparities” for decades. In their effort to vanquish them, often under shapeshifting terms, they’ve turned to actual discrimination against “overrepresented” groups in a way that is both deeply unjust and illegal under U.S. law.

For too long, even those on the right were defensive about the existence of these disparities.

They went beyond the laudable goal of reforming the K-12 education system to make it function better for all students to promising that their reforms would “close the gaps” and selling them as a way to render affirmative action at the university level unnecessary.

But the problem with DEI, and before that affirmative action, is simple: It tries to impose a Harrison Bergeron dystopia of equitable outcomes at mass scale. But doing that in a real world full of disparities requires discrimination against individuals.

As a multiethnic republic, we can no longer tolerate a system that institutes a legalized hierarchy of favored and disfavored classes. We can either enforce civil rights laws equally for everyone, which the Trump administration has done an admirable job of pursuing, or we can continue to degenerate into balkanized bloc politics marked by increasing resentment.

For the good of everyone, we must kill the god of the gaps: equality under the law for all, special favor for none, and let the disparities fall where they may.

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

We need lawfare for white men



For decades, American hiring and admissions have been distorted by a legal and bureaucratic regime that promised equal treatment while repeatedly rewarding institutions for sorting people by race and sex. The Civil Rights Act itself does not exclude white men; Title VII protects employees from discrimination because of race and sex regardless of which race or sex they are. But affirmative action rules, consent decrees, diversity mandates, contracting preferences, and institutional risk management created powerful incentives to treat demographic categories differently.

Incentives shape behavior. Universities, Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, and nonprofits learned to fear discrimination claims, bad publicity, activist campaigns, and regulatory scrutiny. Long before “wokeness” became a corporate religion, lawyers and compliance departments were already teaching institutions to think in terms of protected groups, disparate impact, representation targets, and litigation exposure.

The right does not need another conference panel lamenting DEI. It needs lawyers willing to make discrimination expensive. Equal protection will not enforce itself.

The practical question was never simply who had rights on paper. It was whose complaints institutions expected to carry consequences.

For years, conservative media documented the resulting discrimination against white men. DEI programs openly advertised preferences, scholarships excluded applicants by race or sex, and employers sometimes boasted about hiring goals that would have been scandalous if the preferred and disfavored groups were reversed.

Yet a nasty and stupid trend has emerged on the right: The same people who spent a decade describing the system now mock young white men who notice its effects.

They call them losers. They accuse them of victimhood. They insist that any man who works hard enough can simply transcend a system conservatives themselves spent years condemning.

That is politically and morally incoherent.

After Donald Trump’s compelling victory in 2024, Democrats discovered they had a serious problem with male voters, especially white men. It turns out that a political coalition saturated with rhetoric about “whiteness,” “male privilege,” and “toxic masculinity” will eventually alienate some of the people being described as social pathologies. Progressives produced endless postmortems about podcasts, masculinity, and how Democrats might win young men back.

RELATED: This is what existential politics looks like

Blaze Media Illustration

Republicans should have recognized the opening immediately.

The Trump administration deserves credit for taking aggressive action against DEI. But much of the GOP still seems embarrassed by the idea of representing white men as a constituency with legitimate interests. This is bizarre. A party that promises equal protection should have no difficulty saying that discrimination against white men is wrong for exactly the same reason discrimination against anyone else is wrong.

The political failure is glaring because young white men are not asking for a patronage machine. Most want the same things politicians promise everyone else: decent work, affordable homes, marriage, children, and confidence that effort will be rewarded rather than filtered through a demographic spreadsheet.

Conservatives who spent years explaining how DEI distorted institutions cannot suddenly sneer at those consequences when the victims are inconvenient. If the system has been biased, fix it. If the law promises equal treatment, enforce it. And if Republicans refuse to defend a constituency increasingly voting for them, they should not be surprised when those voters conclude that the party likes their ballots more than it likes them. A coalition cannot survive forever on gratitude for being less hostile than the other side.

The law already says so.

In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated federal law or the Constitution. The ruling did not abolish every consideration touching race, and universities quickly looked for ways to preserve diversity goals through essays, recruitment, socioeconomic proxies, and other methods.

That is what institutions do when incentives remain unchanged: They adapt.

Corporations made similar adjustments as legal pressure against DEI increased. Some renamed programs, changed language, or removed explicit demographic preferences. But nobody should expect a half-century of institutional habit to vanish because the Supreme Court issued one opinion or because an executive order changed the mood in Washington.

Law changes behavior when violating it becomes expensive.

That is the lesson the left understood long ago. Civil rights organizations built durable legal institutions capable of finding plaintiffs, financing cases, generating publicity, and making discrimination costly. Lawyers could build careers bringing important cases. Universities and corporations knew that a bad decision could become a lawsuit, a settlement, a headline, or all three.

RELATED: Stop ‘owning the libs’ and start owning institutions

Blaze Media Illustration

The right has built far less comparable infrastructure for people alleging discrimination because they are white or male.

Organizations such as America First Legal have begun bringing these cases, and other public-interest firms challenge race- and sex-based preferences. But the scale remains small compared with the institutional ecosystem that has enforced progressive civil rights priorities for decades. Many potential plaintiffs still assume nobody will take their case, that suing will destroy their career, or that publicly claiming discrimination against white men will make them objects of ridicule.

That social taboo is a powerful enforcement mechanism all by itself.

The answer is not to create special rights for white men. They do not need them. The answer is to enforce the rights they already possess with the same tenacity brought to every other discrimination claim.

That means sustained lawfare.

When a university uses a racial preference that violates the law, sue. When a corporation excludes applicants from a program because they are white or male, sue. When an employer retaliates against a worker for objecting to unlawful discrimination, sue. Find plaintiffs. Fund cases. Build precedent. Publicize victories. Thousands of cases, week after week. Make compliance departments understand that discriminating against white men carries real legal risk.

Not every angry employee has a case. Not every disappointing admission or promotion decision is discrimination. But where unlawful discrimination exists, conservatives should stop treating litigation as somehow beneath them.

Institutions respond to incentives. For decades, the incentives pushed them toward demographic engineering while telling white men that noticing was shameful. If equal protection means anything, those incentives must run in both directions.

The right does not need another conference panel lamenting DEI. It needs lawyers willing to make discrimination expensive. Equal protection will not enforce itself.

Michelle Obama says white men don't feel like frauds. Here's the truth.



Former first lady Michelle Obama recently told SXSW London that imposter syndrome is something she sees in women, minorities, and people who don't think they're supposed to be in positions of power — but not in white men.

And BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock couldn’t disagree more.

“To have sat at every powerful table there is, I have seen it all. Every table. I’ve been at it ... it’s not all that. Because there's so many people like me, like you, women, minorities, folks who aren’t supposed to be at these tables because they are sitting around thinking that they are imposters,” Obama said.

“You know, imposter syndrome. ... I haven’t met one [white man] who has felt it,” she added.


“Obama is describing something real. That ache is real. She just got the diagnosis wrong because imposter syndrome is not a white problem, and it is not a black problem. It’s a God problem,” Whitlock says.

He describes imposter syndrome as the “fear men and women carry when they wear their resume as armor rather than the armor of God.”

“The only people who feel like frauds are the people who forgot whose they are,” he explains.

“The world looks at that feeling and prescribes more affirmation, more representation, more DEI. We’ll fix the fear of not belonging by putting more people in the room. And it never works. The ache gets worse,” he adds.

Unlike Obama, Whitlock believes that imposter syndrome isn’t defined by the color of your skin.

“Only imposters have imposter syndrome. And I’m not saying that about black people. I’m saying it about secular people, about every person, any color, who built their identity on a foundation that can’t hold the weight,” he says.

The fear is that someone will recognize that you don’t belong in the seat you’re in, which comes from “believing your seat was given to you for a reason that has nothing to do with you.”

“And here’s where we have to be honest. We have to be honest about DEI and affirmative action because this is the uncomfortable part. When you tell an entire generation you’re here to fill a quota, you’re here because of your skin, you’re here to make the numbers look right, you have manufactured imposter syndrome on an industrial scale,” Whitlock explains.

“Of course they feel like frauds,” he says, adding, “You told them they were.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

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

Conservatives are blowing the easiest political win in America



After Donald Trump’s stunning victory in the 2024 election, Democrats had to stop and ask what went wrong. One conclusion from the commentary class was that progressives had a serious man problem, and for once they were right.

Democrats had made contempt for men, especially young white men, central to their message, and that came with a cost. Any white man who remained on the left had to accept that he was either uniquely guilty or expected to participate in his own dispossession. The party even launched a $20 million effort to discover why men were abandoning it, only to arrive at the familiar conclusion that men were simply bad and deserved what they got.

Young men who believe the system is organized against them — and who have substantial evidence for that belief — will organize to defend their interests.

This should have created a golden opportunity for the GOP to secure the loyalty of young men for a generation.

Instead, conservatives are setting that opportunity on fire.

Men’s natural role in society is to protect, provide, and lead. Even when women earn good incomes, the data consistently shows that they still prefer men who are at least as successful as they are. Women generally do not form families with men who cannot find stable work, buy homes, or attain the status markers that signal competence and security.

A society that blocks young men from those roles is choosing dysfunction and decay.

In a recent Fox News interview, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt blamed the rise of democratic socialism on Gen Z. She said young people were “raised with silver spoons in their mouths,” called them lazy, and suggested sending them to Cuba or Iran.

Calling those remarks callous and tone-deaf would be generous.

Leavitt married a millionaire real estate developer more than 30 years her senior. It is unlikely that her “silver spoon” would be adjusted by deployment to a foreign combat zone. The entitlement only became more obvious when she defended the comments after deserved criticism.

The message to young people was unmistakable: Your concerns are not legitimate, and we despise you for expecting us to fix anything.

Of course, some young people are lazy and entitled. Every generation has its share. That does not mean most young men are or that the obstacles they face are imaginary.

Young men, especially young white men, have been systematically excluded from educational institutions, corporate hiring, and promotion. This is not mere resentment or speculation. It is the predictable result of decades of cultural indoctrination and civil-rights enforcement that trained institutions to prefer women, immigrants, and minorities whenever possible.

RELATED: America is squatting in its own ruins

Blaze Media Illustration

That has real consequences. Men who cannot secure education, employment, and status are less likely to marry or form families, no matter how often our culture repeats slogans about equality.

Housing has become another barrier. The average first-time home buyer is now approaching middle age. Young men cannot build wealth as their parents did or provide the stability women often want before marriage.

There are many reasons for this, including mass immigration and corporate speculation in residential real estate. But one factor is simply welfare for seniors. Many older Americans failed to save adequately for retirement and now depend on the inflated value of homes they bought decades ago.

President Trump has said explicitly that he does not want housing prices to fall for this reason. That is a deliberate choice to sacrifice young men’s development and family formation to protect older asset holders.

Young men have also watched their country import foreigners, legally and illegally, to replace them. Immigrants receive special access to education loans, business programs, and hiring preferences unavailable to natives. Mass immigration drives up housing, insurance, medical, and education costs while transforming neighborhoods beyond recognition.

In Minneapolis, the mayor now manages Somali clan politics like a colonial regent simply to maintain control.

The question is not why young white men are radicalized. The question is why it took so long.

On July 4, during America’s 250th anniversary celebration, Patriot Front marched in Washington, D.C. The group consists largely of young white men in quasi-military uniforms carrying American flags.

A comical number of conservatives rushed online to call them federal agents after Reuters published a photo of one black woman sitting in a subway car full of Patriot Front members. It later appeared that the supposed new Rosa Parks was a homeless drug user with a record of indecent exposure.

She was certainly safer than Iryna Zarutska, who was stabbed in the neck by a mentally ill black man while riding public transportation alone. The Patriot Front members may even have prevented another indecent-exposure incident simply by being present.

RELATED: Iryna Zarutska’s name should shame the woke

Peter Zay/Anadolu/Getty Images

Young white men remain the easiest group in America to attack publicly. The left has demonized them for existing, which should give the GOP an obvious opening.

Instead, conservatives once again take their social cues from progressives. Many still crave left-wing approval and believe belittling young white men proves they are neither sexist nor racist.

I do not think Patriot Front’s tactics are wise, and I have said so repeatedly. Nor is skepticism about the group irrational, given the relationship between the Southern Poverty Law Center, federal law enforcement, and manufactured panic over “white supremacy.”

But dismissing everything as a federal operation is easier than offering serious solutions. Telling ourselves that no legitimate grievances exist and that all unrest is manufactured is foolish and weak. If Patriot Front scares you, good. It should.

Young men who believe the system is organized against them — and who have substantial evidence for that belief — will organize to defend their interests. The answer is not to insult them, mock them, or pretend they are imagining their dispossession.

The answer is to address the problems driving them toward radical groups.

Young men are not asking conservatives to excuse every bad decision or endorse every organization that claims to speak for them. They are asking for a political movement that recognizes their interests, defends their future, and gives them a reason to build.

Conservatives should stop hating the young men they need to inherit the country.

Rep. Ilhan Omar denies remarks about 'white men' despite clear footage



Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) made waves at Tuesday night's State of the Union address, even shouting at President Donald Trump as he gave his speech and refusing to stand in support of American citizens. The controversy continued Wednesday after video emerged of the Democrat denying something she said directly into the camera.

Earlier that day, LindellTV posted to X a short interview between a reporter and Omar.

'I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country.'

The reporter first asked Omar about her financial records and her alleged connection to a winery, both of which have some question marks lingering around them.

Omar snapped at the reporter and said, "Do you just ask silly questions?"

RELATED: 'You should be ashamed': Ilhan Omar melts down when asked to support Americans

Photographer: Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The reporter moved on, asking her, "You recently stated that the American people should be afraid of the white man, that they should be fearful of the white man."

"I never said that," Omar replied.

"Yeah, you're on video saying it," the reporter said in disbelief.

The reporter then appears to have shown Omar video of her saying those words, yet Omar again denied it. She then admonished the reporter, claiming she needs to be more prepared because "what I was quoting was an actual study done by the FBI."

In the video, which appears to come from a 2018 interview, Omar was asked about Islamophobia and its true origin.

The interviewer said, "A lot of conservatives in particular would say that the rise in Islamophobia is a result not of hate, but of fear. A legitimate fear, they say, of 'jihadist terrorism.' ... What do you say to that?"

"I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country," Omar replied.

"And so if fear is the driving force of policies to keep America safe, Americans safe inside of this country, we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men."

Omar did not make any reference to any study or report from the FBI or other intelligence sources in the clip.

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

Don Lemon SLAMS white men, Joy Reid redefines fascism



Don Lemon and Joy Reid appear to be in a competition for who can sound the least intelligent in front of an audience, and BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock isn’t sure who is winning.

“Men who look like you, men who vote like you, and men who sound like you. White men, something is broken. Something is cracked deep inside when so many of you believe the answer to fear, to loss, to change is violence,” Lemon said on “The Don Lemon Show.”

“Are you listening to me? I hope I’m saying it loud enough for the people in the back,” he added.

“Don Lemon has always been difficult for me to understand. This feels almost intentionally stupid so that he can be mocked and ridiculed by people that disagree with him. So that he can spark a conversation,” Whitlock says on “Jason Whitlock Harmony.”


“Have you looked at the statistics on the violence among black men? Did you look at the violence that happened as a result of George Floyd and Jacob Blake and Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and Eric Garner and so on and so forth? Are you kidding? Are you kidding me?” he adds.

But Lemon, of course, isn’t alone in his ridiculous statement, as former MSNBC host Joy Reid had to throw some nonsense out into the universe as well.

“If you go back before the 20th century, there were no income taxes. There were no regulations on business. You could earn as much money as you want, leave 100% of it to your children with no taxes. That’s the world they want back. And to get it back, they need society to change. They need people to be less modern. They need people to want fewer things,” Reid said on BET while attempting to equate the Trump administration to fascism.

“When I heard that I was like, ‘Is she talking about heaven?' No taxes. I get to earn as much as I want. I get to leave it to my family. Man, that sounds awesome. When we say ‘Make America Great Again,’ if that’s what they’re talking about, man, sign me up," Whitlock says.

When deciding who made the “dumber statement,” Whitlock’s panel is having a hard time — but Wilfred Reilly believes it was Reid.

“It’s a tough competition, but I’d probably have to say Joy Reid. You know, Don Lemon, I mean, I think everyone on the panel knows this, but you know, crime is high across the board in the USA, but if you look at murder, black murder rate — seven times the white murder rate,” Reilly says.

“That’s an absurd, racist thing to say,” he says. “But Joy Reid … she doesn’t know what fascism is. I mean, fascism is, you know, it’s the system, business, and government working together.”

“She went through, ‘You’re not going to pay taxes, the government’s not going to be involved in every aspect of life. You can leave 100% of your money to your son or your little girl,'” he continues.

“I would be very comfortable … going back to that world,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

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

Listen to ‘The View’ Crowd Gasp as Whoopi Doubles Down on Extremist Rhetoric
play icon

Listen to ‘The View’ Crowd Gasp as Whoopi Doubles Down on Extremist Rhetoric

Listen to ‘The View’ Crowd Gasp as Whoopi Melts Down Over Mark Cuban’s Mild Criticism of Dems
play icon

Listen to ‘The View’ Crowd Gasp as Whoopi Melts Down Over Mark Cuban’s Mild Criticism of Dems

Netflix’s ‘Adolescence’ and the war on white men



Netflix is up to its old feminist tricks with the new show “Adolescence” — a miniseries that initially appears to be a crime thriller but ultimately unfolds into blatant propaganda that paints white men in a negative light.

The story centers around a young white boy accused of murdering one of his female classmates, who cyberbullied the young boy and called him an “incel.” The term, meaning “involuntary celibate,” orbits around the online “manosphere” and red-pill movements.

“I don’t like the demonization of any group based on skin color, and I don’t like the denial that the demonization of white men and white people and particularly white evangelicals is going on globally, and we can see it right here in this miniseries that Netflix has put on,” Jason Whitlock of “Fearless” comments.


While the entire series is clear in its anti-man message, episode two is where Whitlock says, “They play a big card.”

That is, it brings Andrew Tate into the show by name.

“You’ve got this murder of a young teenage girl by a 13-year-old boy, and the next thing you know, halfway through episode two, they’re basically saying, ‘Well, you know what the motive is? He was radicalized by Andrew Tate,’” Whitlock explains, noting that this is where the show quotes the online red-pill accounts that say 80% of women are attracted to only 20% of men.

While Whitlock abhors much of what Tate has done or said in the past, he’s not on board with a “four-part series that basically says Andrew Tate is the driving force of this.”

“This all connects to the demonization of white men, ‘cause that’s what this miniseries is about, that the patriarchal ways of Western civilization have clearly outlived their usefulness, and that the solution to fixing angry young men is bowing, submitting to female leadership and more female involvement in everything,” Whitlock says.

“They’ve set up Andrew Tate as the scapegoat, as the distraction. The manosphere, the red-pill movement, all these angry men that reject feminism, they’re the problem,” he adds, noting that they’ll never go after the real problems plaguing society.

Which is why Whitlock is taking the conversation to one of the greatest conservative voices out there today on Friday, May 2.

“I just want to set the table for a conversation I’m going to have with Tucker Carlson,” Whitlock says. “Because it’s important. The demonization of white men that’s going on in global culture. Netflix, the U.K., everywhere. Everybody’s doing the Macarena on white men.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

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