What Is the Alt-right and Has It Made Its Way Into the White House?

March 27, 2017

WRITER

The 2016 U.S. presidential election was unprecedented in many ways. Among these was the emergence of a movement known as the alt-right. What many Americans don't understand is where it came from, who its adherents are and how it is influencing the course of our nation.

What Is the Alt-right?

The Southern Poverty Law Center, an anti-hate organization, provided the following definition of the alt-right.

The Alternative Right, commonly known as the Alt-Right, is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that “white identity” is under attack by multicultural forces using “political correctness” and “social justice” to undermine white people and “their” civilization. Characterized by heavy use of social media and online memes, Alt-Righters eschew “establishment” conservatism, skew young, and embrace white ethno-nationalism as a fundamental value.

The Anti-Defamation League, an international Jewish non-governmental organization, characterized alt-righters as those who "reject modern conservatism explicitly because they believe that mainstream conservatives are not advocating for the interests of white people as a group."

In an interview for the Washington Post, George Hawley, a University of Alabama professor who studied the movement, described typical alt-right followers as white millennial men, either in college or with a college degree who are secular, perhaps atheist, and are not interested in the conservative movement at all.

Where Did It Come From?

The term "alternative right" was coined in 2008 by Richard Bertrand Spencer, head of a white nationalist think tank known as the National Policy Institute. Spencer launched an online publication with the name of "Alternative Right" in 2010.

Other terms used to describe the alt-right include “New Right” and the “Dissident Right,” among many others. While their names are varied and include numerous ideological groups, white identity is a central theme of alt-righters. They also generally reject democracy, egalitarianism, multiculturalism and universalism.

Where Is the Movement Headed?

Before the 2016 presidential election, the term alt-right was relatively unknown, and many who were familiar mostly associated it with internet trolling.

The alt-right captured national attention when Donald Trump appointed Stephen Bannon as CEO of his presidential campaign. Bannon, who was a chairman of Breitbart Media, proudly told investigative reporter Sarah Posner at the Republican National Convention that “We’re the platform for the alt-right.”

In a CNN interview on August 25, 2016, anchor Anderson Cooper grilled Trump on a comment Bannon made about Breitbart being the voice for the alt-right. Trump responded, “I can only speak for myself.”

On November 13, 2016, Trump announced Bannon would serve as chief strategist and senior counselor.

A week later, alt-righter Richard Spencer gathered to celebrate Donald Trump’s victory, in a video published on YouTube by “Red Ice Radio,” Spencer is shown declaring, “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” After which some audience members can be seen raising their right hand in what appears to be a Nazi salute.

In response, Trump told a group of reporters and columnists during a meeting at The New York Times headquarters, “I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group.” He went on to say, “It’s not a group I want to energize, and if they are energized, I want to look into it and find out why.”

When asked about Bannon’s ties to the alt-right, Trump defended Bannon stating, “I’ve known him for a long time and the allegations of antisemitism and connections to the alt-right are not him.” He went on to say, “If I thought he was racist or alt-right . . . I wouldn’t even think about hiring him.”

One member of the alt-right movement who rose to prominence proliferating the ideology is Neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin. In his article, “A Normie’s Guide to the Alt-Right,” he laid out the common themes of the alt-right movement, misogyny, antisemitism, racism, and white nationalism. In discussing the future of the alt-right, Anglin wrote:

To become a real and effective political force, the Alt-Right will need real leaders. Real leaders are not people that stand-up and claim to be leaders, but people that the masses naturally want to follow.

Following Trump’s victory, Anglin declared, “Our Glorious Leader has ascended to God Emperor. Make no mistake about it: we did this.”

After Bannon was appointed as chief strategist and senior counselor, Angler wrote, “I probably would have preferred Bannon as chief-of-staff and Priebus as press secretary.” While neither Trump nor Bannon admitted any direct ties to the alt-right, it's clear the alt-right was nothing but supportive of them.

The alt-right is a determined and energetic group and their popularity continues to grow. In the words of Anglin, "the mob is the movement," and they have their mob.

With Donald Trump in the White House, the mob now has a leader who they believe validates their views and in the form of Stephen Bannon, may even be sympathetic to their ideology. If misogyny, antisemitism, racism and white nationalism are the same beliefs that have historically led to violence and genocides, then the alt-right has the momentum, exposure, and ideology to repeat some of our darkest moments in history.

What Is Glenn's Point of View?

Glenn shared his thoughts on the alt-right movement on his October 28, 2016 radio program, when the movement was just beginning to gain media attention. Below are excerpts from his monologue:

Rising From Chaos

This alt-right is, burn the entire thing down. And out of the ashes of global chaos, we will rise. And the true alt-right, as it is understood in Russia and Europe and more so here in America, not by Trump or Trump supporters, but it is understood by people like Breitbart and Bannon. And I can say that because they've announced it and printed it themselves.

I'm issuing this warning. I'm telling you, this is as important as the warning that I gave before the collapse in '08 and the warning that I gave on the caliphate.

Beyond Generalizations

This is going to require you to see new nuance and to see beyond generalizations. And that's what's going to make the alt-right so dangerous in the future.

Over in Europe, there are now Russian operatives that are training those in the alt-right how to fight, how to -- they're even arming them, giving them guns, and training them on how to cause chaos and terror. And you need to understand the role of Vladimir Putin.

I want to give very hasty generalizations. We'll get into this after the election with the chalkboard. I want you to know, this has nothing to do with Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. This would be happening if Ted Cruz were the nominee today. It is vital that you understand this, because this is something that we're going to be battling over the next, I don't know how many years. This is as important as the understanding of the caliphate.

But I want to give you quick generalization on how you know you're in the company of one of these people or one of these people who have been influenced, perhaps without their own knowledge.

One of the things, when you read on Facebook, if you see the word "cuckservative," run. That is an alt-right word. And it is -- it is -- it's everywhere now. And people have adopted it online. Don't adopt it. It is a word that is a tell on who is influencing the mind of these people.

There's also other things that are much less apparent, if you're just wrapped into the world of us and them.

Globalists and Cuckservatives

Globalist is now a term to describe anyone. Notice anyone who is for free trade, is now a globalist. People who were deep -- deeply respected intellectual conservatives. Krauthammer, George Will, they're now cuckservatives and globalists?

Jonah Goldberg is now a globalist. I am now a globalist. That word is being thrown around everywhere. But it's thrown around by people who are in the alt-right. For instance, what's his crazy face? Alex Jones, okay? This was the world -- everybody was, "Globalist. Globalist." But now it's spread. That's from the alt-right. And you need to be careful.

There are many words and ideas and people that are being mainstreamed, quite honestly, by Breitbart. And this is out in the open. They say it.

Platform for the Alt-right

Steve Bannon has said, "We are a platform for the alt-right." They have become a platform.

Richard Spencer. Look him up. That's who Breitbart says is the main thinker for the alt-right. And we are a platform for the alt-right. Steve Bannon, exact quote.

Spencer's wife is the English language translator for Aleksandr Dugin. This is tied directly, in America, to Dugin and Putin.

Origins of the Movement

The movement's origins are traced back to the opposition, and I think some of it justifiable of George W. Bush, especially the invasion of Iraq.

I am a noninterventionist. I don't think we need to be intervening everywhere. There are times that we do. But that's a case-by-case basis. I think many of the problems are because we went in and said, "We'll give you freedom." And so we have become interventionists. We are the world's policemen.

Now, there's a difference between that -- globalist -- and an isolationist. An isolationist is also claiming that everyone who is against them is a globalist.

Deadly Subtleties

Be careful. The subtleties here are deadly. They are suspicious of free markets. They believe that business interests are in conflict to what they view as higher ideals, those of cultural preservation. They use the word "traditionalism, identism." On Breitbart, Milo Yiannopoulos, has issued a manifesto of what sorts of groups he believes are their allies and which ones are not. It's Beltway conservatives. They say hate the alt-right more than Democrats or progressives.

Please do not laugh this off. Please do not dismiss this. I am going to -- after we get past -- hopefully we do -- this election, hopefully we can return to a place to where we can all talk again. But please inform yourself. After the election, I'm going to be doing stuff and chalkboards on this. And even if it's five people that are paying attention to this, those five, you need to strap on the armor. Because it will mean the difference between conservatives surviving or not.

I want you do inform yourself on Neo-Eurasianism. Also, the forth political theory and Aleksandr Dugin.

Deep Roots of Division and Hatred

The campaign season has allowed the alt-right and these operatives to plant deep roots among us because they thrive in division and hatred. But it doesn't matter who would have been the candidate. This is a powerful force. It is an outside force. And it is -- if we remain blind, it will be the winning force. These are not Trump supporters. Some are masquerading as Trump supporters. And they are infecting the entire conservative movement. But they were here long before Trump even thought of running. I don't believe Trump is involved or knows -- is aware of this, would take seriously the roots.

Clinton, I don't believe is aware of this. And here's what's going to happen: The left and the media will eventually lump these people with all conservatives, if we don't self-identify, know who they are, understand their philosophy, their plan, and can articulate it to our friend.

Grave Danger to Freedom

These people are a great, grave danger to the republic and to the freedom of the West. And they have already infiltrated the American right.

In some cases, as we pointed out two years ago, they have already funneled money into the American churches. That began with the gay marriage debate because this is what they do. They find the things where they can join in, but their version of the gay marriage debate is radically different than your version of the gay marriage debate. You might say, "Hey, it's none of the government's business, and I want my church to be able to stand up and say this is wrong." Their version is, "Take away the driver's license of gay people. Gay people should be destroyed."

What's happening in Europe and what is happening mainly in -- in Russia -- and you might say, "We'll never fall for that." But when anger is involved, look at what historically we have fallen for. The rounding up of the Japanese. "We would never do that." We already have.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

What Is the Alt-right and Has It Made Its Way Into the White House?

What Is the Alt-right?

Where Did It Come From?

Where Is the Movement Headed?

What Is Glenn's Point of View?

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Peace through strength

Names matter

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

Narrative engineering from the top

Institutional and media coordination

Surveillance and suppression

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Peace requires concessions

Peace or bloodshed?

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Outsourcing presence

Reclaiming our humanity