Steven Crowder discusses dangerous mainstreaming of pedophilia

Glenn had Steven Crowder on his radio program Tuesday to discuss an article on Salon.com by a self described pedophile, who said, "I'm attracted to children, but unwilling to act on it. Before judging me harshly, will you be willing to listen?"

When Glenn first read the article, he said he thought the author must have had a really horrible childhood.

"You have feelings. And now you're not acting on it," Glenn said "As long as you're not acting on it, I'm not going to call you a monster. The minute you act on it, you're a monster."

Crowder, who wrote a rebuttle to the article, put it in a slightly different way.

"I have a steadfast rule. You touch a kid sexually, you deserve a bullet," Crowder said. "If you have sexual thoughts about children, we'll give you a three-second head-start to get out of the building."

Listen to the full dialogue or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Steven Crowder is a good friend of the program. And been with us since really we launched TheBlaze. And has gone off and done his own thing. And is on with Dana an awful lot. He is really funny. Really, really smart. And we're honored to have him on the program with us. Steven Crowder, from LouderWithCrowder.com. Now doing a show in Detroit on WAAM. You don't have to be in Detroit to do that, do you, Steven?

STEVEN: No, thank God, I don't. How dare you with that lofty phrase before bringing me out here. Now people are going to have actual expectations.

GLENN: Right. So, Steven, you read an article on Salon. And I've been fascinated by this because I was fast food by the story on Salon where they have a pedophile who said, "I'm a pedophile, but I'm not a monster," which is interesting. "I'm attracted to children, but unwilling to act on it. Before judging me harshly, will you be willing to listen?" Now, I read the first article. And I should say, I didn't sit down and read it. I read it while I was on the air, so I read it quickly. But what I saw in it was, okay, you've had a really horrible childhood. Really horrible. You have feelings. And now you're not acting on it. As long as you're not acting on it, I'm not going to call you a monster. The minute you act on it, you're a monster.

STEVEN: Yeah, you know, I still think -- you're not quite monster, you're like Alice Cooper transitioning. It's sort of your stage at that point. Because if you're having sexual thoughts about kids and impulses, you know, it becomes incredibly problematic.

So I did write a response. And, listen, Glenn, I won't walk it back at all. Let me give some context to people. I said, I have a steadfast rule. You touch a kid sexually, you deserve a bullet. I'm not going to walk that back. Now, what I did say was if you have sexual thoughts about children, we'll give you a three-second head-start to get out of the building. Now, that's symbolism, Glenn, and I'm a comedian. So you shouldn't take it literally. What I'm saying is, you deserve a mental institution. You need to be locked away. Because for me, my priority is making sure the kids are not sexually molested. Making pedophiles feel good about themselves occurs way down the list, like into the seven digits.

And I wrote a rebuttal at Salon.com. My week in the right-wing hate machine didn't get my name right. So I'm thinking, what kind of a cosmic bunny hole did I fall into that a pedophile gets to call me a right-wing monster without even getting my name right?

He compares me to Nazis, Glenn. And his plight to that of the Jews in Auschwitz. So Salon gave him this platform. Now, you know me -- I'm up there in your wonderful affiliate in Detroit. Of course, I do it remotely. Thank God.

But I will admit, I do not in any way -- I'm not the guy who calls for boycotts. I don't believe in them. But in this case, I'm going, okay, the guy is calling me out. He's comparing me to Hitler. I might do a little bit of digging.

It turns out, this guy has had a lot of information out there for a long time. You know, allegedly, from what he has written, he has groomed children. Now, grooming is a pedophile term used to mean introducing them to sexualization. And he directly contradicts what he wrote in Salon.

GLENN: Okay. How do you say he groomed people? What evidence do you have on that?

STEVEN: From his own user name on a message board where he repeatedly talked about being a pedophile and he referred to one of his companions as Kay. The code name he used was Kay. All available information I have confirms that this is the guy without a doubt.

GLENN: And what did he say about grooming?

STEVEN: Here's the thing, it's kind of like if you go on to drug message boards, they use the term "swim." I don't know if you know that. Like, someone I know, not me. I don't know what it stands for. So he was saying, you know, I wouldn't quite say I groomed Kay, but I brushed her hair out of her face on occasion.

Now, grooming is a pedophile term that often includes introducing them to pornography, establishing a romantic relationship, giving romantic gifts. And there is him directly saying -- in Salon, he said I would never act on this. That was the linchpin. That was what provided the propriety to post it on Salon. Well, this guy wants pedophiles to get better.

But we found a post from him where he directly said, if we lived in a much more sex friendly society, of course, I would engage in a sexual relationship with a young girl. And he argues that he's more qualified, pedophiles are more qualified to determine consent than parents because they're more in tune with the romantic needs of children. So this is the thing, Glenn.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STEVEN: I want to be really clear. People can go to LouderWithCrowder.com. We're going to set up a website where people can sign a petition. All I'm requesting -- because I'm a web guy. This shouldn't occur on message boards. But I do think it warrants some kind of investigating from the FBI. Because if Salon is giving an actual pedophile a platform and he is saying these things, that goes beyond the realm of friendly combat and politics on blogs. And I think it's something that requires some serious addressing.

GLENN: Wow, I would agree with that. There's no harm, no foul in looking into something.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: You don't think they will actually look into it, do you?

STEVEN: Salon. I don't know.

GLENN: No, I mean the Justice Department. Is this going to the Justice Department?

STEVEN: Well, I know people have been investigated for far less from the FBI regarding child pornography.

GLENN: No, hang on just a second. They will investigate you for far less, but they're not going to investigate Salon for far less.

STEVEN: Well, I want them to investigate this guy, and hopefully Salon can provide some information.

Listen, you're right. You're right. I'll be audited like clockwork. Believe me, I'm expecting it. But maybe Salon didn't know this about this guy that he could be a more active pedophile than they knew.

So the petition is really just to get either Salon to investigate. And if they don't want to do that, get the Justice Department. Hopefully they do. I don't know, Glenn. I could be ignorant. You could be right. Maybe the Justice Department has no interest in finding who is a pedophile, who is not. I could have five on my block, and I would never know. You never know. That's the problem.

And it ruins everything. These people ruin everything. Because you know what the problem is? You and I can't play with like the neighbor's kid anymore. You can't just say hi and make stupid faces. You're worried. You don't know who is a sex offender, and we don't prosecute them.

GLENN: LouderWithCrowder.com is where you'll find this.

STU: You would think with the way it's presented -- let's give Salon the benefit of the doubt, which they do not deserve in any way. But someone comes to them and says, I'm a pedophile. I want to make a case that this should be accepted. And because I'm not acting on it, it's okay. And they don't know about these postings. Maybe they post this as obviously they are the biggest click bait people in the universe. So they are dying for anyone to click on anything. So maybe they post it without checking it out. But when you're giving them the information that this guy has actually admitted this in the past, it's a totally different standard for them. They should look into it themselves. If they don't, what does that say about their organization?

STEVEN: I think you're right. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's say the best scenario. Let's say a pedophile comes to TheBlaze. Glenn, obviously I'm not.

GLENN: Let's use another website. Let's say a pedophile comes to LouderWithCrowder.com.

STEVEN: Okay. And it's much more likely. You should see the private messages I get. I wouldn't put it past some of the people who request to contribute.

So someone comes to LouderWithCrowder.com and says, hey, I'm a pedophile. I say, well, what does that mean? They say, well, I'm sexually attracted to children, but I don't act on it. And I would like to write about it on your site. Okay. Let's assume that's the scenario. I can't imagine any parallel universe in which any answer could possibly be appropriate other than no.

(laughter)

STU: That's a fair point.

PAT: It is. It is when you put it like that. You make it sound bad.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Steven, let's play devil's advocate here. And actually devil's advocate.

STEVEN: Okay.

GLENN: Somebody who says, "I am tortured by this. I had a horrible childhood. I was molested as a kid, and I don't act on it -- I have these feelings. I want them to stop. I want them to stop. And I want people to know what it's like being trapped inside of me."

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: I think that is actually an interesting story to read. However, let me just say, if it is happening at theBlaze.com, I do a personal investigation myself. I mean, I have everybody -- we have -- we investigate you inside and out to make sure that you are who you say you are and you haven't been on websites, you know, grooming children or anything else. And we as a company would be very, very clear. We don't endorse him, his activities. We are -- he's approached us with this particular story. And we think this particular part of the story is interesting.

STEVEN: Okay. Well, I don't want to speak for TheBlaze. I'll speak for myself. That situation occurred. The molester said, I think my story is important and I could help people. Speaking on behalf of Louder with Crowder, I would say, have you read the comments section? This is not the place to tell your story. This is not a friendly audience. You better go on a couch with a qualified therapist because my platform is not the one for you.

Now, let me give you another comparison. I hate how people bandy about the Nazi comparison. I think if you're talking about an active pedophile, it's getting into the realm of evil that's comparable to the worst evil.

If Hitler walked in. Let's say he was in the cryogenic freezer. You know, Austin Powers. Came out. And he came to me and he said, "Listen, I screwed up. I was very wrong. I would like to come to your barbecue." I would say, "Hey, listen, Hitler, sorry man. I'm glad -- sounds like you've made some real progress. Let's try to create some momentum with that. But you won't come to my barbecue. It's not the place for you."

(laughter)

PAT: I like that you're going to create some momentum with that though, just to help him out on the side.

(laughter)

GLENN: You are truly a funny guy. You are really funny. It will be too bad when we have to have you destroyed in Detroit.

(laughter)

And left by the side of the road at night. Steven, let me change the subjects with you.

STEVEN: Yes.

GLENN: Let me go to Donald Trump. Where do you stand on Donald Trump?

STEVEN: Are you really going to do this to me right now? You know what you're doing.

STU: Big time conservative, right?

GLENN: Big time conservative, right?

STEVEN: Yeah.

GLENN: I would love to make you even more popular. Pedophiles and Trump people are going to love you.

STEVEN: Yes, exactly. Well, let me tell you this, Glenn. As someone who works at TheBlaze, I'm not a big Trump fan. Here's something that is very interesting to me. And new media is great. And I'll bring it back to Trump really quickly. So new media is great because it gives someone like me the same kind of a platform as, you know, someone like you, someone like Fox News who has been around for a long time. I'm able to reach a lot of people, so I'm grateful. Here's the problem, particularly with Facebook, right? Facebook curates what you like. They go, here's your feed. Social media says you like this. You're sharing this. We'll show you more of this. We'll not show you the stuff you're not engaging with.

GLENN: Yep.

STEVEN: So the problem with Trump. I think there's this myth that Fiorina is the establishment candidate compared to Trump. And for all of her faults compared to Trump, who gave hundreds of thousands to the Clintons, who had the Clintons at the family wedding, who supported her in her Senate race, who got up there and supported liberal policies time and time again. Here's the problem, people are so dead-set on selling Trump because like you used the term earlier, click bait. Right? I know Trump is great for ratings to websites.

So these conservative websites, many of them now, let's be honest, work alongside Trump, have been giving people a steady diet for five, six, seven months of nothing but pro-Trump. And anything even remotely critical of Trump -- here's the thing, Glenn -- doesn't even show up in people's news feed. So you want to talk about an echo chamber. The people who are on board with Trump, I get why he exists. I understand it's backlash to the establishment Republican Party. I get it. That's valid. The problem is they've become like the Obama supporters. It's a cult of personality. And you can't even get any remote criticism no matter how valid of Trump in their news feed.

So there is a group of people for whom nobody but Trump will do. So my problem doesn't rest so much with Trump, but for conservatives and conservative media -- and I know you're not among them, so please don't think I'm lumping this with you, but there are some of them out there that have a vested interest in maintaining clicks. And I know for a fact that some of the top conservative websites out there have policies out to their writers, nothing negative of Trump because they don't want to risk the backslash or the boycotts. And I hate to see ball-less conservatives. I hate to see it.

GLENN: Steven, great to have you on. We'll talk again. LouderWithCrowder.com. Steven Crowder.

Glenn Beck: Here's what's WRONG with conservatism today

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

What does it mean to be a conservative in 2025? Glenn offers guidance on what conservatives need to do to ensure the conservative movement doesn't fade into oblivion. We have to get back to PRINCIPLES, not policies.

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

  • for Stewardship, protecting the wisdom of our Founders;
  • for Truth, defending objective reality in an age of illusion;
  • for Accountability, living within our means as individuals and as a nation;
  • for Neighborhood, rebuilding family, faith, and local community;
  • and for Duty, carrying freedom forward to the next generation.

A conservative doesn’t cling to the past — he stands guard over the principles that make the future possible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm so tired of being against everything. Saying what we're not.

It's time that we start saying what we are. And it's hard, because we're changing. It's different to be a conservative, today, than it was, you know, years ago.

And part of that is just coming from hard knocks. School of hard knocks. We've learned a lot of lessons on things we thought we were for. No, no, no.

But conservatives. To be a conservative, it shouldn't be about policies. It's really about principles. And that's why we've lost our way. Because we've lost our principles. And it's easy. Because the world got easy. And now the world is changing so rapidly. The boundaries between truth and illusion are blurred second by second. Machines now think. Currencies falter. Families fractured. And nations, all over the world, have forgotten who they are.

So what does it mean to be a conservative now, in 2025, '26. For a lot of people, it means opposing the left. That's -- that's a reaction. That's not renewal.

That's a reaction. It can't mean also worshiping the past, as if the past were perfect. The founders never asked for that.

They asked that we would preserve the principles and perfect their practice. They knew it was imperfect. To make a more perfect nation.

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

2025, '26 being a conservative has to mean stewardship.

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

Of a moral inheritance. That is too precious to abandon.

What does it mean to conserve? To conserve something doesn't mean to stand still.

It means to stand guard. It means to defend what the Founders designed. The separation of powers. The rule of law.

The belief that our rights come not from kings or from Congress, but from the creator himself.
This is a system that was not built for ease. It was built for endurance, and it will endure if we only teach it again!

The problem is, we only teach it like it's a museum piece. You know, it's not a museum piece. It's not an old dusty document. It's a living covenant between the dead, the living and the unborn.

So this chapter of -- of conservatism. Must confront reality. Economic reality.

Global reality.

And moral reality.

It's not enough just to be against something. Or chant tax cuts or free markets.

We have to ask -- we have to start with simple questions like freedom, yes. But freedom for what?

Freedom for economic sovereignty. Your right to produce and to innovate. To build without asking Beijing's permission. That's a moral issue now.

Another moral issue: Debt! It's -- it's generational theft. We're spending money from generations we won't even meet.

And dependence. Another moral issue. It's a national weakness.

People cannot stand up for themselves. They can't make it themselves. And we're encouraging them to sit down, shut up, and don't think.

And the conservative who can't connect with fiscal prudence, and connect fiscal prudence to moral duty, you're not a conservative at all.

Being a conservative today, means you have to rebuild an economy that serves liberty, not one that serves -- survives by debt, and then there's the soul of the nation.

We are living through a time period. An age of dislocation. Where our families are fractured.

Our faith is almost gone.

Meaning is evaporating so fast. Nobody knows what meaning of life is. That's why everybody is killing themselves. They have no meaning in life. And why they don't have any meaning, is truth itself is mocked and blurred and replaced by nothing, but lies and noise.

If you want to be a conservative, then you have to be to become the moral compass that reminds a lost people, liberty cannot survive without virtue.

That freedom untethered from moral order is nothing, but chaos!

And that no app, no algorithm, no ideology is ever going to fill the void, where meaning used to live!

To be a conservative, moving forward, we cannot just be about policies.

We have to defend the sacred, the unseen, the moral architecture, that gives people an identity. So how do you do that? Well, we have to rebuild competence. We have to restore institutions that actually work. Just in the last hour, this monologue on what we're facing now, because we can't open the government.

Why can't we open the government?

Because government is broken. Why does nobody care? Because education is broken.

We have to reclaim education, not as propaganda, but as the formation of the mind and the soul. Conservatives have to champion innovation.

Not to imitate Silicon Valley's chaos, but to harness technology in defense of human dignity. Don't be afraid of AI.

Know what it is. Know it's a tool. It's a tool to strengthen people. As long as you always remember it's a tool. Otherwise, you will lose your humanity to it!

That's a conservative principle. To be a conservative, we have to restore local strength. Our families are the basic building blocks, our schools, our churches, and our charities. Not some big, distant NGO that was started by the Tides Foundation, but actual local charities, where you see people working. A web of voluntary institutions that held us together at one point. Because when Washington fails, and it will, it already has, the neighborhood has to stand.

Charlie Kirk was doing one thing that people on our side were not doing. Speaking to the young.

But not in nostalgia.

Not in -- you know, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.

In purpose. They don't remember. They don't remember who Dick Cheney was.

I was listening to Fox news this morning, talking about Dick Cheney. And there was somebody there that I know was not even born when Dick Cheney. When the World Trade Center came down.

They weren't even born. They were telling me about Dick Cheney.

And I was like, come on. Come on. Come on.

If you don't remember who Dick Cheney was, how are you going to remember 9/11. How will you remember who Reagan was.

That just says, that's an old man's creed. No, it's not.

It's the ultimate timeless rebellion against tyranny in all of its forms. Yes, and even the tyranny of despair, which is eating people alive!

We need to redefine ourselves. Because we have changed, and that's a good thing. The creed for a generation, that will decide the fate of the republic, is what we need to find.

A conservative in 2025, '26.

Is somebody who protects the enduring principles of American liberty and self-government.

While actively stewarding the institutions. The culture. The economy of this nation!

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

We have to be a group of people that we're not anchored in the past. Or in rage! But in reason. And morality. Realism. And hope for the future.

We're the stewards! We're the ones that have to relight the torch, not just hold it. We didn't -- we didn't build this Torch. We didn't make this Torch. We're the keepers of the flame, but we are honor-bound to pass that forward, and conservatives are viewed as people who just live in the past. We're not here to merely conserve the past, but to renew it. To sort it. What worked, what didn't work. We're the ones to say to the world, there's still such a thing as truth. There's still such a thing as virtue. You can deny it all you want.

But the pain will only get worse. There's still such a thing as America!

And if now is not the time to renew America. When is that time?

If you're not the person. If we're not the generation to actively stand and redefine and defend, then who is that person?

We are -- we are supposed to preserve what works.

That -- you know, I was writing something this morning.

I was making notes on this. A constitutionalist is for restraint. A progressive, if you will, for lack of a better term, is for more power.

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

But the -- for the American eagle to fly, we must have both wings.

And one can't be stronger than the other.

We as a conservative, are supposed to look and say, no. Don't look at that. The past teaches us this, this, and this. So don't do that.

We can't do that. But there are these things that we were doing in the past, that we have to jettison. And maybe the other side has a good idea on what should replace that. But we're the ones who are supposed to say, no, but remember the framework.

They're -- they can dream all they want.
They can come up with all these utopias and everything else, and we can go, "That's a great idea."

But how do we make it work with this framework? Because that's our job. The point of this is, it takes both. It takes both.

We have to have the customs and the moral order. And the practices that have stood the test of time, in trial.

We -- we're in an amazing, amazing time. Amazing time.

We live at a time now, where anything -- literally anything is possible!

I don't want to be against stuff. I want to be for the future. I want to be for a rich, dynamic future. One where we are part of changing the world for the better!

Where more people are lifted out of poverty, more people are given the freedom to choose, whatever it is that they want to choose, as their own government and everything.

I don't want to force it down anybody's throat.

We -- I am so excited to be a shining city on the hill again.

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

But not in we get bogged down in hatred, in division.

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

How America’s elites fell for the same lie that fueled Auschwitz

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.