Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Steven Crowder: Social Media Is the Ultimate Echo Chamber

October 20, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Think you're getting a fair and balanced perspective on your social media accounts? Think again. When you like or follow something, algorithms respond, pushing you more of the stuff you like, creating an echo chamber of singular perspectives. Steven Crowder with LouderWithCrowder.com released a video that addresses this phenomenon --- and it's impact.

"Steven, you did an amazing video this weekend, and I wanted to have you on to explain. You know, we all stand against the media. And the media is corrupt. And the media is biased. But we're creating something even worse, and we don't even know we're doing it," Glenn said.

Crowder explained what's happening.

"Social media and advertisers are beholden to only telling you exactly what you want to hear, otherwise, they don't make it to your feed," he said.

It's happening on both the right and the left, creating its own ecosystem where you may go six months without hearing a single dissenting viewpoint. How does that create an informed citizenry?

Watch the full video from LouderWithCrowder.com below:

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: LouderWithCrowder.com. Steven Crowder is with us. Steven, you did an amazing video this weekend, and I wanted to have you on to explain -- you know, we all stand against the media. And the media is corrupt. And the media is biased. But we're creating something even worse, and we don't even know we're doing it. Will you explain?

STEVEN: Yeah, well, thanks. It's unfortunate. It's one of the ironies here, where I know we've talked about this, working for years. Going, all right, the mainstream is going away. There are no more gatekeepers. Now, you can have TheBlaze. I can have Louder With Crowder, the YouTube channel. Anyone can get a message out, and that's great.

What's changed -- and people don't realize it, in the age of social media, YouTube, Facebook, this sort of algorithm-based feed, they've just become the mainstream media gatekeepers.

Now, it's easy for people to say, "Well, it's really liberal because of Mark Zuckerberg." And it's true. He leans to the left. It's true, most people who run social media lean to the left. However, they are beholden to a profit motive. And in today's age with media, their profit -- they can only generate a profit if they tell you what you want to hear.

Think about this, whenever you like an article. Let's say you're pro-Trump. Let's say you're pro-Hillary. You like Hillary Clinton's Polls Are Doing Well, right? It will then say, "Hey, you may also like" and show you a pro-Hillary Clinton article. It doesn't say, "You may also really need to hear, or you may also really need to get your crap together on this issue." It's, "Oh, you like everything that's anti-Trump. We'll show you everything anti-Trump." And then the pro-Trump people only read everything that's anti-Hillary -- and so we get to a point, Glenn -- you've run into this, where if you merely cite a fact, even if you agree with the Republican Party, even if you agree with this person, for six months they have had a newsfeed where they have heard nothing but exactly what they want to hear. And I don't mean people lean this way. I mean, that social media and advertisers are beholden to only telling you exactly what you want to hear, otherwise, they don't make it to your feed.

You go six months in, and people on both sides of the spectrum now have not heard a single dissenting viewpoint. And this happens on the right and the left, and it's really accelerated to a point where if you just say, "No, you know what, gosh, this new swing state poll from Pennsylvania doesn't look good for Donald Trump," you're working for Hillary! You're a shill!

No, no. This is the poll. You're rigging the polls. Because that's all they've been reading. It's a scary thought.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: I will tell you this, I talked about this. Steven, it was so amazing that you posted this because this weekend, I was looking at my Facebook page, and it's remarkable. My Facebook page, if I post something at all, anti-Hillary, it's huge.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: I put anything, even pro-Trump on my Facebook page, and it gets about 200 likes, which is abysmal for someone who has three and a half million followers. I post -- I post something very, very positive about nothing, and it will -- you know, it will pop up 14,000 likes. And it will happen quickly.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: What I was looking at was, "Wow, I can tell you exactly what my audience wants." And what they don't want from me is anything on Trump. So do I continue to give it?

Well, I happen to believe that we have to be curious. We have to be honest. And we have to know the other side of the argument. We cannot just be feeding the same things that we want to hear, or we disable ourselves.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: But most people in the media are not like that. They only care about the clicks. They only care about the money.

STEVEN: You're exactly right. You know, we've talked about this. I've never been on the #NeverTrump. Because I always think people can be redeemed. My producer is voting for Trump, albeit begrudgingly -- Jared is. I know plenty of people who are making the lesser of two evils argument. I entirely get that. I think that's a valid position, whether people agree with it or not.

GLENN: I agree with you.

STEVEN: However, people simply lying on either side of the spectrum -- good example, Glenn, I was talking with Stu about this. I saw this trend that Glenn Beck endorses Hillary Clinton.

I was going, oh, wow, that sounds weird. And I go, "Wait. Hold on a second. This hasn't been taken from the Vice interview, is it? Where Glenn personally said he's voting for the Constitutional Party representative. And he said he wasn't -- and, oh, that's the click. But someone runs it with the headline that says Glenn Beck Officially Endorses Hillary Clinton, guess what, the people who maybe don't like you, the people who think you're super anti-Trump, they like it, like it, like it, like it, share it without even reading it.

And all of a sudden, because people are consuming only exactly what they want to hear, people believe you're officially working for the DNC. I know we don't want to laugh on it because it's probably a sore spot. But it shows you absurd it's gotten. I watched the actual video. And in it, you were saying, "I am not endorsing Hillary Clinton." It's mind-boggling.

GLENN: So here's what -- here's where it goes further, Steven, I'd love to hear your comment on this. If you like that -- if you share that, it also pulls things like it -- and that particular story was made particularly famous on the right by being pushed by a guy named Hal Turner.

Hal Turner is a Holocaust denier. Neo-Nazi. Really bad guy. And I went to his website. Because I wanted to find out who this guy was. And I looked at his website. And I saw several stories that he had churned out that are in my Facebook wall, where people are -- well, this, Glenn Beck needs to know, this is going on. And I'm like, "Wow." Because they posted this, it may have sucked into their ecosystem other stories from him. And they have no idea what is now steering their -- their, quote, unquote, newsroom, if you will.

STEVEN: Right. And speaking on that, it's actually kind of funny. But just let me go with it because it's going to start off sounding not really funny. But people send me horrible anti-Semitic stuff. I mean, you know, just like Ben Shapiro. Right? People send me pictures of me in gas chambers or stuff like that.

GLENN: Are you Jewish?

STEVEN: And it was being shared a lot, until these people found out I wasn't Jewish.

GLENN: Okay.

STEVEN: This anti-Semitic stuff I was getting for weeks. And people just shared it because nobody thought like, "Hey, maybe Crowder is not -- maybe he's not Jewish."

But, again, they're in their own ecosystem. So no one even thinks that, "Hey, you know what, I know we're all Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic jackasses, but I don't even think Crowder is Jewish." So this went on for months. And no one actually -- this is what happened with Hollywood, right?

We've always complained about this. And now it's happening to everybody in the age of social media. Again, the parallel there is narcissism. Tom Hanks once came out and said, "World War II was spurred on by fear and racism and xenophobia." And I remember he said it on MSNBC. And the reason he said it is because he's been saying this behind closed door for so long. And nobody, because he's Tom Hanks, is going to say, "What? I beg your pardon." Well, that's what's happening now. Only it's a media feed.

Let me give you a really kind of short example. A mom logs on to Facebook. Signs up for the first time. Okay? She's pro-Trump. A daughter logs on to Facebook, signs up for the first time during this election season. She's pro-Hillary. One likes Trump, one likes Hillary.

Comes up, polls are rigged, the mom likes this. Comes up, the election is rigged. Mom likes this. The daughter sees Hillary Clinton is winning in the polls. She likes it. The daughter sees Trump Foundation. She likes it. The mom sees WikiLeaks. She likes it.

Now, here's the deal: They don't like anything from the other side of the social media spectrum. Six months in -- and I don't misuse the term "literally," it makes me insane when people misuse it -- six months in, you could have two people, mother and daughter, who have literally never seen one post -- never seen one news story that would even expose them to a different opinion. And that's by design because these social media quagmires need to make money. And they only make money by telling you what you want to hear.

That's the concern here: Whether right or left, people are beholden to telling a lie if it encourages more clicks. And everyone wants to do well. Everyone wants ratings to do well. That's fine. I understand it. Making a good title. That's been called a lead for decades. We understand that. But lying about something, that's crossing over into new territory, and you are seeing that across the political spectrum right now because of the upheaval. People don't know how to handle this media. And this is how they've figured out how to do it. It's awful.

STU: It's amazing. Because the perfect example I would give -- and I've given many very good ones is the online polls. Now, look, I obviously don't like Donald Trump, and, you know, people know that. So they're looking at me skeptically, if they're Trump fans. And I get that. But it's like, this is not a questionable thing. An online poll means nothing. Zero. And when you're talking about, "Oh, well, he won the Drudge Report poll, how can you deny that one?" These people make that argument with no check on that. This is not a controversial point. It's not a point where I'm like adding in my opinion. "Oh, well, I don't really believe those polls." It literally means nothing.

And so many people, particularly when media personalities come out and tout those types of things, send their own listeners into this abyss, where they -- the listeners look like morons for parroting what the personalities say. And I don't know how you do this. Because in a way -- and I'm sure liberals would point this out, it's essentially the free market run amuck. Like, yes, there's a profit motive here, but it does create a problem. And I wouldn't advocate as a conservative, for everyone to step in and them start controlling the information that you feed. How do you solve this, Steven?

STEVEN: Right. Well, it's kind of like, remember when we would be at CPAC, and all of a sudden, somebody busts in a few college pot party members, and Ron Paul won every single straw poll?

STU: Right.

STEVEN: And we just kind of said, ah, I guess a few people showed up with weed belt buckles and T-shirts. Yeah, that makes sense.

And we moved on down the trail. Only now that's happening on -- and, by the way, I know not all Ron Paul supporters are potheads. I like Ron Paul. I like his son Rand. Just hold your hate tweets before you go off --

GLENN: Just like a Jew to say that.

STEVEN: Yeah. I know. I know. But, I mean, now it's on a national level, like you're talking -- and, again, same thing. You know, we're talking about that. You could host a poll on one of these sites: What do you do with the evil Jew Steven? And you could probably get 20,000 people to vote without even realizing that I'm not Jewish. So this is the nature of online polls: They're not scientific.

I think as it relates to Trump, I tweeted this out this morning, I said, "I think Trump has a far greater chance of winning than the media gives him credit for. And I think he has a far less chance of winning than his hard-core supporters are guaranteeing." I got tweets coming back saying, "You're going to be wrong when he wins in a landslide." And I said, "Well, hold on a second. How does it make my statement wrong? It doesn't make it wrong at all. I'm saying that both sides have completely shut it off, and they're completely glib to the realities of an opposing viewpoint." And it really is a bizarre time because the right didn't use to be this way. And I don't think it's a concerted effort. I think we've all just been tossed into this tumbler of social media, and it's been shaken up. And people are trying to figure out how media works nowadays.

So if people out there want to avoid it, what I do recommend -- and I always say this on my show. I know you, Glenn, you've done this too. I never encourage people to eliminate information. I say, "Listen, set Huffington Post, Salon, Daily Cut -- all the liberal sites, set them to your Favorites and check them every morning and set some conservative sites, check them every morning, in addition to social media, that way you're guaranteed to know what the other side is saying. You have to be proactive, otherwise, it will get the best of you before you even realize.

GLENN: Steven, as always, great talking to you, brother. LouderWithCrowder.com. LouderWithCrowder.com. Steven Crowder. He does an amazing job, and he did this video this weekend on this, and it spelled it out perfectly. I don't know why he was wearing a skin wig and looked like a 50-year-old pot-bellied man while he did it, but he's very, very funny and very, very smart.

Featured Image: Screenshot from LouderWithCrowder.com

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.