Review: 'Wish' is the latest failure from no-luck Disney

December 11, 2023

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | Getty Images

Kevin is an award-winning writer who focuses on long-form literary nonfiction and investigative reporting.

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Disney has had a terrible birthday. To celebrate the mega-corporation's 100-year anniversary, you can buy special-edition beanies and commemorative dollhouses and tiny Disney-character statues at McDonald's. But the fairy tale of Disney is nearing its end. Because Disney is on a hell of a losing streak. By nearly every metric, the company is failing. It’s like watching a gifted athlete pull his hamstring and, when he tries to keep running, you hope he survives the death-rush.

Disney is on a hell of a losing streak.

On a recent earnings call, Disney CEO Bob Iger admitted, “Quantity can be actually a negative when it comes to quality, and I think that's exactly what happened: We lost some focus.”

He has admitted that Disney’s films have become too obsessed with social causes. As he told Aaron Ross Sorkin at the DealBook Summit:

Creators lost sight of what their No. 1 objective needed to be. We have to entertain first. It's not about messages.

The latest example is “Wish,” a movie that was supposed to serve homage to 100 years of Disney magic but that instead reveals the spectacle of activism: a hacky, uninspiring work of political snobbery too neutered to offer us nobodies anything more than a nodding-off or a swipe of the remote.

The failure of “Wish” is emblematic of the ongoing decline of Disney as a monopolistic empire of creativity.

It’s a movie for activists, by activists; for childless Millennials, by childless Millennials. And, to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with being a childless Millennial. But it’s probably not a great idea for Disney, which has succeeded as a result of young families, to pack its staff with people who don’t participate in, or who even oppose, the institution of family.

It’s a movie for activists, by activists; for childless Millennials, by childless Millennials.

Well, no-luck Disney bet on the wrong side, because the childless Millennial demographic isn’t big on spending, or at least not as much as family audiences are. And another question the Activist Class cannot answer: What long-term political benefits are to be had from an entire generation of childless voters?

Culturally, Disney is homeless, rejected by conservatives and ignored by a growing number of liberals (who also don’t buy Bud Light).

So the predictable take here would be for me to call Disney woke and celebrate its collapse, which is an entirely justified stance. My angle, however, is more about hope — my hope that Disney survives its own prolonged tragedy, that it pulls itself together or, at the very least, that there are a few more lovely moments before it croaks.

For me, this is personal: My house is full of Disney princesses.

In fact, one of my toddler’s favorite phrases is “I love all of the princesses!” We have no doubt seen all of the Disney movies — with the exception of “Strange World,” with its awful reputation, and "Bambi 2," because I’m not falling for that again.

My wife and I know literally every word of "Frozen." Few movies are as personal as it has been — my toddler owns an Elsa version of any imaginable household item, and some of our most beautiful moments involve her dancing in sunlight to “Let It Go.”

Our band-aids are Disney, so when one of us is hurt, we say, “Get me a princess!” As I write, at a desk covered with Disney princess stickers, “Ralph Breaks the Internet” is playing behind me.

Culturally, Disney is homeless.

And this has been a fairly normal American -- even global -- relationship to Disney. Acceptance of every kind. The Forrest Gump of brands, unstoppable in its cultural power.

Disney’s mistake, it turns out, was a series of decisions that gutted it of its political neutrality.

Even my toddlers grew bored with "Wish" after two minutes.

“Wish” hasn't landed well with critics or, more importantly, with audiences, for good reason. It’s a truly bad movie. Hokey. Cheesy. Boring. Part of this is the result of what Bloomberg described as Iger’s “princess problem.”

It goes down as one of the worst Disney animated feature debuts. The “Trolls” movie, which is stronger and more musically adventurous, scored about the same numbers despite having been released one week earlier.

It’s a truly bad movie. Hokey. Cheesy. Boring.

My toddlers, who will stop for nothing but Disney, grew bored with the movie after two minutes. This is unprecedented. Only a week earlier, we attended the latest “Paw Patrol” movie — a much greater movie, from Nickelodeon (Paramount) — and they lasted about 45 minutes before reaching the same level of restiveness.

Anecdotal example, yes, but I can’t think of a clearer metaphor to describe the misguidedness of the activist mindset ruining Disney. A fantastic review of "Wish" by Alan Ng for Film Threat led me to the reality that Disney's dysfunction is deep-seated and activist-driven.

A common activist blunder: Place activism so far ahead of anything else that the supposed medium gets completely neglected.

"Wish" suffers from muddy plotlines and fear of committing any offense.

“Wish” was co-written by Jennifer Lee, the first female chief creative officer of Walt Disney Company, executive producer of “Raya and the Last Dragon,” as well as head of creative leadership for most of the Disney animated feature hits since 2012. She has shaped the latest generation of Disney.

Disney's dysfunction is deep-seated and activist-driven.

Despite the well-deserved acclaim for her part as director and writer of the "Frozen" films, Lee’s legacy could become linked to the growing trend of her work: muddy plotlines — full of dazzle — that spend so much time on quirks that the story gets rushed.

The film centers on Asha, played by Ariana DeBose, a decorated actress, a breathtaking singer, and a rabid activist whose foundation Unruly Hearts Initiative boasts connections to the Trevor Project, Point Foundation, and Covenant House, where DeBose holds a spot on the board. Which — who cares, but also, if the charities were conservative, Hollywood wouldn’t find DeBose’s efforts so laudatory.

The film was designed to drop Easter eggs like rainfall, but the references were mostly distractions. Asha’s seven sidekicks are a throwback to the dwarfs from “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” Disney’s first animated film. (A much better example of meta-Disney is the middle section of "Ralph Breaks the Internet," which has its own shortcomings, but at least they’re hidden beneath outstanding animation, reliable comedy, and decent storylines.)

The central crisis of the film is the duality of power. On Rosas, the Mediterranean island where Asha lives, each person is allowed to materialize one wish, on his 18th birthday. It’s not clear why the people are only allowed to have one wish, and as other critics have observed, many of these wishes are more “goals,” which any person could accomplish.

Nevertheless, the powerful King Magnifico has total control of the blue orbs that contain the wishes. King Magnifico uses a state of exception (“Is it tyranny if it’s for your safety?”) to convince his citizens that he’s a wise, good-hearted, impeccably handsome ruler.

The central crisis of the film is the duality of power.

It’s not clear what Magnifico is protecting citizens of Rosas from. Why is he so stingy with his wish-granting? He certainly does become frightening. “Wacky” is probably a better word. He builds his power by crushing the wishes of his citizens — each time, it kills a part of them, robs them of their essence, and transforms them into a sad, bare life of the evil sovereign.

(For many reasons, the power-obsessed authoritarian king is actually an apt metaphor for Disney as an artistic institution.)

Who’s the real villain, though? If it’s fear that motivates him, fear that his people will suffer from not having their wishes granted, then we have the kind of padded version of evil mocked in an episode of “It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia,” where the only safe villain is a weather disruption, like climate change.

The power-obsessed authoritarian king is actually an apt metaphor for Disney as an artistic institution.

In other words, the worst-case outcome of Magnifico’s terror is that people feel a tad more bummed out than usual, which has become a reality of modern life.

What is a 17-year-old peasant like Asha to do? Beg for help from the sky. Just like that, a beautiful goofball of a star named Star torpedoes down and starts granting wishes and giving animals the ability to speak. (Symbolically, the star represents the magic of Disney, which has given voice to the voiceless, like animals.)

But “Wish” is terrified of committing an offense. There’s no room for irreverence — and life without irreverence always leads to a weird new kind of profanity. In a neutered world, there’s no room for creation. No room for invention.

"Wish" created a meaningless villain.

Disney can be harsh with its villains, gutting them into nothingness (Gaston, Ursula, Cruella de Vil). But it can also treat them with tremendous compassion — as with Te Kā, the lava monster in “Moana.” “Wish” is so conflicted in its meaningless normative absolutism that it accomplishes neither.

In a song with a beat and hook possibly ripped from the Knife’s brilliant “One Hit,” “Knowing What I Know Now” spells out what exactly makes Magnifico so villainous.

In this truly catchy song, Asha sings that Magnifico is:

More vicious than I could have ever comprehended / When I made a wish and Star came down / This is not what I expected or intended / But now that it's happened I don't regret it / 'Cause now I've seen / Him show his true colors in shades of green / Saying that your wishes aren't safe because of me and / That's a lie, lie, lie, lie.

Beyond the somewhat cringe-inducing lyrics, this song implies that Jiminy Cricket’s entire mission, his wish upon the star, is one of activism.

So why is Magnifico “more vicious than [Asha] could have ever comprehended?” Well, for one, he doesn’t grant every single wish, and that’s just not fair. Also, his tone. Very harsh. He’s also quite mansplainey.

Triumphantly, the peasants stomp, chanting: “I don't think he's prepared for what's coming / A revolution hit the ground runnin’.” This “revolution” winds up being the political equivalent of a child shouting “go away, you silly ghost” as a tornado guts a town. Basically: “We have to steal the king’s power. He doesn’t deserve it. So we have to overthrow him.” On a deeper level, what these privileged writers are likely actually saying is, “I want you to believe that capitalism makes me sad!”

One obvious assumption is that every peasant’s wish is kind-hearted. This is a mistake that Karl Marx made about the proletariat. He assumed all the bourgeois were evil and all the peasant class were inherently good. By rebelling against the king — together — the peasants can overthrow him. Because that’s how oppression works in the wishful mind of a professional activist.

One obvious assumption is that every peasant’s wish is kind-hearted. This is a mistake that Karl Marx made about the proletariat.

So King Magnifico is shrunken into a mirror, then thrown into a dungeon — to be fair, this is the exact fate of Bowser in the (far superior) "Super Mario Bros. Movie." But here it just feels so social-justicey, so hypothetical, too ready to fire into a shower curtain after a glass of wine: The peasants incarcerated the man! (Head explodes, launching neon-dyed hair like shrapnel.)

If activism will save Disney, it's activism against its current activist mania.

The problem with this sort of absolutism is that it can easily be flipped against itself. “Zootopia,” for instance, tells the story of a society secretly controlled by sheep, an attack on predators in the name of safety. This (literal) conspiracy is universal enough to affirm the exact racist or misogynistic or anti-Semitic movements the film’s message assumes to confront.

The same goes for “Wish.” Is it really a figuration of egalitarianism, or is it rather a promotion of a kind of freedom that only capitalism can offer?'

The problem with this sort of absolutism is that it can easily be flipped against itself.

“You’re only allowed to have one wish, and it probably won’t come true” doesn’t exactly sound like Adam Smith. It does, however, evoke imagery of a dying Soviet Union where life itself became a whittled-down promise, a call to be sacrificed that people can’t decline.

The film’s attitude clearly sides with the more collectivist ideology, which flexes the undifferentiation of socialist societies, the inevitable decline into sameness. There is, however, a sense of personal responsibility: “Make your own wishes happen; don’t let a king decide.” Which is a fairly conservative stance.

The film’s attitude clearly sides with the more collectivist ideology.

And oddly enough, activism might very well be the force that saves Disney — but an activism against its current activist mania. “Activist investor” Nelson Peltz wants to pull the company back toward the center.

But for now, Cinderella's castle keeps rotting. “Wish” isn’t going to sell T-shirts or Halloween costumes, let alone branded toothbrushes and fruit snacks. So to whoever will follow in Disney’s Goofy-sized footsteps: Keep hacking at that ugly marble.

***

Thank you for reading. Feel free to send corrections, rants, notes, and outpourings to kryan@mercurystudios.com and follow on X

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Review: 'Wish' is the latest failure from no-luck Disney

Disney is on a hell of a losing streak.

It’s a movie for activists, by activists; for childless Millennials, by childless Millennials.

For me, this is personal: My house is full of Disney princesses.

Culturally, Disney is homeless.

Even my toddlers grew bored with "Wish" after two minutes.

It’s a truly bad movie. Hokey. Cheesy. Boring.

"Wish" suffers from muddy plotlines and fear of committing any offense.

Disney's dysfunction is deep-seated and activist-driven.

The central crisis of the film is the duality of power.

The power-obsessed authoritarian king is actually an apt metaphor for Disney as an artistic institution.

"Wish" created a meaningless villain.

One obvious assumption is that every peasant’s wish is kind-hearted. This is a mistake that Karl Marx made about the proletariat.

If activism will save Disney, it's activism against its current activist mania.

The problem with this sort of absolutism is that it can easily be flipped against itself.

The film’s attitude clearly sides with the more collectivist ideology.

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

Transcript

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

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 wins when good people mirror its rage.

Ancient evil, new clothes

A time for choosing

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

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

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

The new currency of power

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

The forgotten way

The only way

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

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.

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

A restoration, not a renovation

The selective guardians of history

The real desecration